Excellence in Everything, and all to the glory of God

There is a certain comfort in being helpless… assuming that you know the point of your helplessness.  As I have written, I found out about medical school recently.  I am going to school for sure.  God has been faithful in that arena, and glory be to him for it. And I mean it…

When I found out that I was on the waitlist, I was disappointed (as I wrote about in this space previously).  As time went on, I began preparing for the possibility that I was not going to get into school this year.  I was praying about taking the MCAT again, and I was praying about whether this was even the will of God or if it was my will that I was trying to impose on God.  The feeling of helplessness grew.  The feeling of being totally out of control began to creep up and bite me.

That was the way it should have been.  I believe that God is completely and totally sovereign.  By that, I mean that He is in complete control of everything that happens to me (and for that matter, to all people).  I believe that nothing can befall him and nothing can surprise.  If you do something and think to yourself that you have pulled a fast one on God, keep thinking that… it is a dream, a wish, a fantasy.  If God does not control everything that happens in this world, then we have no reason to think or believe that He controls anything in this world.  It is the “all or none principle” (also, interestingly enough, a principle of muscle contraction).  So when I started feeling this helplessness and frustration, I didn’t necessarily think that meant anything in and of itself.  God answers prayers and does not grant wishes all the time, even though they come from fervent prayers of Godly men and women.  He knew and had worked it out that I would get in this year, on the very day that I found out.  But the answer at the time was “wait awhile” for a reason - He wanted to grow me.  He wanted to teach me.  He wanted to do something with my heart that  a “yes”  two months ago would have not accomplished.

I was with my dad a good bit this weekend in Birmingham.  My dad is a pillar of faith.  Although we differ in some ways, my dad is one of the wisest men I know.  He has been spot on in so many ways.  Many of the little sayings that I have and the ways I live my life are direct quotes and exact replicas of who he is (sometimes for worse, mostly for better).  One of the things that I have said before (but that he reminded of) is this… “When something happens that is unexplainable, that is beyond your control, know that God has you there for a reason, and enter with confidence.”  That is the way that I have been thinking about this glorious gift that I have been given.  Getting into medical school is totally and completely a gift.  It is nothing of my own doing.  If I were to say that I worked hard and that I deserved it, I would be putting myself in place of God, because who was it that gave me the brain to understand concepts and ideas that enabled me to test well enough to get into school?  On another front, my grades are average, maybe even slightly below average for medical students.  My MCAT scores are slightly below average for medical students.  I don’t have as much clinical experience as other people who got in, and probably not as much as some people who didn’t get in.  While I think that my letters of recommendation were from good sources, there are probably people who had better.

Why do I say this? Because I want to be self-deprecating so as to make myself look humble?  Absolutely not.  The reason I say this is to make sure that you know the reason I got into school.  It is a matter of grace - unmerited, undeserved favor and esteem.  That, incidentally, is the reason why we have everything we have.  Everything that we have, good and bad, is a matter of grace.  Every good in our life is a blood-bought gift, a gift that we would not have had He (Jesus Christ) not died.  Every bad thing that God turns to good is the same.  So when people congratulate me, I try (though not as well as I should) to remind them of this point.  It is not me.  I Corinthians 15:10, cliche though it may be, is truth: “By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.”  I want to live my life so that the things that occur in my life can only be explained by saying “God did it.”  And you know what?  That is comforting.  Do you know how much stress that takes out of the equation?  Do you know how much anxiety that will relieve?

Just to be sure I am understood, this is not a call to laziness.  I am about to enter into a professional program that will demand work that I have never been subjected to.  I will have to work hard, and that is my calling.  But the issue is not ultimately how hard I work, but how God works though me and in my hard work.  As was the case in getting in, I want people to be able to point towards God when they look at my success in medical school.  I want them to say, “There must be something to his relationship with God, because there is no way in the world he could have done that by himself.”  That would be the highest compliment I could be given - not “man, you’re sure working hard” or “wow, look at him go,” but “Wow, isn’t God good? Isn’t He powerful? I want to talk to him about Him.”

About two and a half months ago, I posted an entry entitled “Dealing with Disappointment.” I wrote about the disappointment I felt after being placed on the waiting list at medical school. I want to quote from what I said then:

“I got a letter in the mail this past week letting me know that I am on the waiting list at the medical school I interviewed at. The waiting list is obviously better than being denied outright, but the waiting continues. It could be as early as today that I might hear good news from the admissions committee, but it could also be as late as a few days before classes start in August. Probably not, but possibly. If you know me well you know how much I want to go to medical school. You know how much I have wanted to get in and start studying the human body and be able to learn skills that I can use to really impact the lives of those around me. As of now, I still don’t know if that is going to happen this year or not.

This is always an exciting time in Washington, D.C.  In the last week or so, two decisions have been handed down from the highest Court that are rather interesting.  The first involves the legal principle of habeus corpus, which is essentially the protection of individuals from excessive incarceration or imprisonment.  The other involves a 32 year-old ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.  I’d like to start with the first.

My post when this decision was announced was going to be entitled, “NEWS FLASH: SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT NON-CITIZENS ARE IN FACT CITIZENS.” Why?  Because that is essentially what the court said.  In Boumrdiene v. Bush, the five more liberal justices of the Court joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy (the new “swing vote”, if you will) decided that despite the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay not being citizens of the United States, they are entitled to constitutional protections under the U.S. Constitution.  Okay, once again, I’m going to make this simple (because in reality, it is).  let’s think about this for example.  If someone is a naturalized citizen of a country, they enjoy certain rights and protections under the law.  If someone  is not a naturalized citizen of a country, do they enjoy those same rights?  No they don’t, and for this reason… THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS!!!!!! (that was me yelling, by the way)  Why would we bestow rights on someone who is not legally  entitled to them?  Because liberals are always looking for ways to shortcut the system.  Instead of passing a law (through the legislative branch, signed by the President, etc.), they would rather just see themselves as the last authority (which is also incorrect, but that is beside the point)..  For me, this one doesn’t really require any more exposition.  It’s just stupid.

Today the Court, in another 5-4 decision, ruled that the Constitution is still intact, namely the Second Amendment.  I want to make sure that you know my background in this.  I have a fair bias, in that I own guns, including handguns.  I shoot handguns, and while I pray that I am never put in the position to do so, I am willing to protect my life and my family’s life if need be.  If that means shooting someone who intrudes on my property, that means doing so.  So while I am biased, my point about the gun ban is simple - the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear firearms.  You don’t have to be a reserve officer in the military.  You don’t have to be a police officer or sworn security guard. You don’t have to have a reason to own and keep firearms.  You don’t even have to like guns.  You just have to be of sound mind and not have committed a felony or other crime which a state legislature (who governs who can own guns and licenses owners of guns, especially carriers of concealed weapons) deems as disqualifying you from owning a weapon.

I like guns.  I’ve grown up around them.  My dad taught me to shoot when I was five or six.  I am comfortable handling a gun and would be comfortable carrying a loaded weapon.  If you don’t, I certainly respect your decision and even understand why you don’t want to own a firearm.  There are numerous reasons not to own weapons or keep them in your house.  Perhaps you have small children who don’t yet understand what a gun can do (I guess you could keep them in a safe, but let’s not get off track).  Perhaps you don’t like violence at all.  Perhaps you think that gun ownership leads to gun crime.  I would argue that you are wrong, but once again, I respect your decision not to own weapons.  But here is the point that the decision today makes abundantly clear.  The fact that you decide not to own a gun and keep it in your house, loaded and ready for use if needed and I decide to keep that gun in my house is a matter of personal choice, not a matter of legal right.  There is no question that guns are legal.  The dissenting minority of the Supreme Court claims a couple of key points.  First, this is a local decision that was made under the prevailing conditions when the ban was instituted.  Second, that the ban did not, in fact, bar citizens from owning guns, but rather handguns.  Third, even though the guns that citizens owned had to be kept unloaded, dismantled, or with a trigger lock on it, that did not necessarily represent an undue burden on the citizen.

There are a couple of problems with these arguments.  First of all, I am all about states deciding things like these.  It is interesting to hear the blatant “I want it both ways” mentality that the liberal justices display.  They are all about pointing out that states and local authorities have the right to make decisions for themselves when it comes to restricting gun ownership, but when it comes to, say, killing unborn babies… Nope, the federal government has the right to decide for you that decision.  You can’t make that decision, because you aren’t smart enough to do so.  On the second point, they say we’re not going to take away all your guns, just your handguns.  After all, you still get to keep your hunting rifle that you use when you go deer hunting out in Utah once every other year.  After all, you still get to keep your shotgun that you sue even less frequently to go quail hunting.  Those are all okay… Or are they?  What’s next?  Will they outlaw those types of weapons when the media starts to report an increasing number of gun deaths that are a result of deer rifles or shotguns?  Where’s the line, and who gets to draw it?  I have an idea (admittedly, this isn’t mine, but I want to reiterate it).  Let local governments decide what to do.  Now you might be asking yourself, “Michael, you’re just making the point of the dissenting justices.  That is what they were protecting in their failed vote to keep this ban in place.”  You would be right, except your wrong.  The context of their decision is based on the politics of gun ownership, not what the Constitution says.  The Constitution says that individuals have the right to own and keep firearms.  There is no “use” clause that defines under what condition citizens may keep those firearms.  It just says you can have them, and since federal law usurps state/local law, federal law (in this case, the Constitution) trumps what the liberals in the District of Columbia say.  Let me prove to you the lunacy of their argument.  They claim that handguns is the gun of choice for crime.  I do not dispute that fact at all.  Most gang members, felons, criminals use handguns to commit crimes because they are mobile, small, concealable, and scary.  They say that citizens should not be allowed to own them because they live in a very high crime area, and that would lead to more guns in that high crime area that shouldn’t be there.  OF COURSE THAT WILL LEAD TO MORE GUNS IN THAT AREA!  THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!! (me yelling again)  What do you think the likelihood of someone trying(but much more importantly getting away with) gun crime is when you know that the person you are robbing/mugging/carjacking, etc. is probably packing heat?  Less than if you know it is illegal to carry a loaded weapon on your person.  If you’re committing a crime with a gun, you didn’t go down to Al’s Gun Shop, handle a couple of different models, decide to purchase, have your background checked by the Feds, wait three days, and go back to pick it up.  You went to your friend down the street who has a few on hand that have serial numbers scratched off and pay him cash that you just got from a low-volume marijuana deal you just closed.

Here’s another way to look at it, and this is a great example because it was in the news today as well.  North Korea has decided to dismantle a significant portion of its nuclear program that was deemed to be weaponized, not energy-based.  This is a direct result of a policy by the current President’s administration to show strength through force.  If you have a bully in your backyard launching rocks via a slingshot into your yard, you stand there with a fire hose threatening to unload on his newly planted saplings and his expensive windows until he stops throwing rocks.  You don’t decide to continue to let him damage your property, your person, and the peace of the neighborhood by throwing rocks at you.  In other words, you can’t appease criminals.  You can’t call a cease fire and expect them to obey.  You must be able to protect yourself from others who threaten your personal safety and property.  The Supreme Court decided correctly that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says.  Hooray for common sense!!!!!

Today I’ll address Barack Obama’s Healthcare policy, and what he wants to do as President in the realm of healthcare.  Let me make an important distinction first.  In true Liberal/Progressive/Democrat fashion, wording is key to their cause.  They are all about how you package something.  Let’s not call it a tax hike… let’s call it a tax increase on the wealthiest 1% of Americans.  We shouldn’t say we are Liberals, we should say we are “progressives”.  And finally, in this situation, let’s just flat out mislead people.  Instead of saying that we have a health insurance plan, we should say we have a “healthcare” plan.  See the difference?  They change the wording in order to bring more people to the table and scare more people.  How’s that, you ask?  There is a big difference in healthcare and health insurance.  Healthcare, of course, is the care you receive for injury, illness, surgery, or simply prevention.  Health insurance is the way people finance that care, which for a multitude of reasons is rather expensive.  More on this later…  All the same, though,  It doesn’t take more than a cursory glance at his website to find out exactly what he proposes.

” My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law. No one will be turned away because of a preexisting condition or illness.” - Barack Obama, speech in Iowa City, IA, May 29, 2007

Okay, there it is.  His plan guarantees health insurance for every American.  I could stop there, but some might not see the problem there, so I’ll continue.  First of all, I will give one million dollars to not only the first but ALL of you who view this post and respond to me with a comment on this blog that shows where the United States Constitution guarantees health insurance (or for that matter, even healthcare) for its citizens.  Seriously one million dollars to every single person that can show me where it says that every American should be guaranteed health insurance coverage.  (By the way, I don’t even have one million dollars, so you should probably guess that I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say it, but hey, be my guest…) Now, Congress is given the legal authority to legislate how money is spent, so if Congress votes to insure every American, though not Constitutional, it would be legal and the way things are supposed to be done (despite it being totally stupid).

Obama’s plan goes something like this, he says that if we currently have health insurance, nothing will happen except premiums will go down. He will make available a new national health insurance plan to all Americans, and no one will be denied coverage for health reasons or preexisting conditions. Coverage will be similar to the plan available to all Federal employees (really stinkin’ good coverage, by the way), and premiums, deductibles, and copays will be affordable.  Sound good so far?  Read on… low-income families will receive a federal subsidy to buy into this system and help them afford the plan. The plans will be portable (I UNBELIEVABLY SUPPORT THIS PART OF HIS PLAN, but not in the way you might think… read on), and providers will be required to document their efficiency and quality to the federal government in order to maintain good standing with this new plan. He also supports creating an organization to act as mediator and “warehouse” of sorts to “watch over” private health insurance plans. He supports forcing employers to contribute money toward their employee’s health insurance costs or face increased payroll taxes.  Lastly, he will involve the federal government in the pricing of pharmaceuticals and other medical services and devices.  Those are the highlights of his plan.  I hope you all are excited about these initiatives.  I would be too, except I know that we don’t have the money to do that.  Here’s why this plan won’t work.

“Nothing will happen except premiums will go down.”  Sounds good, but remember my last post… income goes down, so must spending.  Cause and Effect… Yin and Yang (is that even spelled right?  Who cares…) If premiums go down, what happens?  Insurers don’t have as much to spend for their members.  What happens then?  Benefits and coverage is reduced OR providers get paid less for their services/products.  Well, as you just read, he wants to institute a plan with coverage similar to federal employees, which covers everything except being paid to get sick so the plan can take care of you.  So since coverage isn’t going to be limited, there is only one other thing that can happen… providers will be paid less for their services/products.

Some might welcome this change. “Those doctors charge way too much anyway.  That drug is too expensive.  That hospital charged me thirty dollars for a lunch that my first grader could have made.”  A couple of questions…  Why do doctors charge as much as they do?  That drug is too expensive?  Compared to what? (I have no idea why hospital lunches are so expensive… ya’ll will have to take that up with your own hospital).  To answer the first, doctors charge a lot for a few different reasons.  First and foremost, medicine is a business just like anything else.  I hope you know how hard physicians (and other providers like physcial therapists, speech pathologists, and nurses) work to become that kind of provider.  They deserve to be paid well for their service.  Second, doctors (and some other providers) must protect themselves from lawsuits.  To do this, they have insurance too, called medical malpractice insurance.  I read one study that said found over 80% of the doctors who were members of a local medical organization had been sued at least once… IN ONE YEAR!!!!!  If you are a doctor, you will be sued.  Lawyers aren’t cheap, and the time away from their work is costing them money as well.  Finally, doctors and other providers have to “charge” much more in order to receive a fair reimbursement for services rendered.  If you have read an EOB (Explanation of Benefits) from your last doctor visit or lab test, you know what I’m talking about.  Let me give you an example.  My company charges a certain amount for one month’s use of our product.  We get 26.7 cents on the dollar for a Medicare claim, 56.9 cents on the dollar for an Aetna claim, 63.2 cents on the dollar for a BlueCross Blue Shield claim, and so on.  So we have to charge more for our product knowing that we will only get said amount in return.  That amount has to go to pay me, my manager,  my sales support rep, her boss, her boss, our management team, and our founder/president.

The other thing I want to address is expense.  Lot’s of people say, “That’s too expensive.” Too expensive compared to what? Being sick?  Being injured?  Not being able to walk normally or throw the football with your child or go to work and make money so you that can throw the football with your child?  Society has decided that some things are more important than being healthy, so we spend money on stuff and when we get sick or injured, we claim that we “can’t afford to go to the doctor or have surgery.”  Honey, simply put, you can’t afford NOT to go to the doctor.  You’ve got to take some personal responsibility and get things done for yourself. You’ve got to look at financial decisions as “if this, not that.”  If I do this with money, I can’t do that because I did this.

How will Barack Obama ensure affordability of his new plan?  Remember… income vs. spending.  If we reduce premiums (artificially, I might add), then less money will be available to pay for services when needed.  That means that the government will have to take in more, and since they aren’t doing that by way pf increased premiums, it’ll be done by increased taxes… you guessed it, on those evil rich people.

“Low-income families will receive a subsidy to buy into the new plan.” Subsidy… read handout/payout/giveaway here.  That means that the federal government will finance premium health insurance by taxing those not using that health insurance.  Yeah, that makes sense.

He also says plans will be portable.  I believe that portability and accessability is key to reducing premiums without sacrificing quality, but here’s how I differ with Obama.  One of the biggest hindrances to this is government, mainly state governments, but also the federal government.  Government mandates, to be exact.  Mandates are laws passed that require health insurers to provide coverage to all of its plan members, regardless of their needs.  In other words, many states require that health insurance plans cover chiropractic care, acupuncture, massage therapy, and other similar services.  This space is not going to address the efficacy of these services (at least not today).  The issue is this… If I don’t go to the chiropractor or the acupuncturist (sp?), why do I need to have a health insurance plan to cover that visit?  Can’t I just get a plan that coves what I need?  Nope, not in most states.  Thus the increased premiums.  We are wasting money, and that money goes into the coffers of the health insurers.  On the other hand, if there was true portability and accessability, and citizens could buy health insurance like a pair of shoes (with exactly what we need without what we don’t, and for the cheapest amount possible), then all of a sudden COMPETITION would be created among insurers.  New plans and types of insurance would spring up almost overnight, because insurers would be racing to sign up individuals and corporations with new plans that allow consumers to dictate what they need.  You know what you need and what you don’t.  Why do you need your state legislator to tell you that?

Obama would also require providers to document their care and its efficacy.  This is just one more way that, immediately and over time, the government will stick it’s nose in your own private business.  If a doctor provides inferior care, do you think people will be flocking to him/her for care? By no means?  Why do we need to government to tell patients that a doctor botched a surgery or doesn’t spend much time with them when he does a physical?  His idea to create a commission to be an exchange or warehouse for private plans and to be a watchdog over the industry is simply more bureaucracy that will cost you more money one way or the other.  Either it’ll cost you more in taxes to fund the commission or it’ll raise your newly lowered insurance premiums because the insurers will be footing the bill for the new commission.

Lastly, he will force employers to contribute to their employees health insurance premiums.  Most employers already do this, but for those who don’t… are those employers evil?  Should they be forced to do this?  If so, what happens then?  I’m glad you asked.  If employers are required to contribute to health insurance coverage or face increased payroll taxes, then they will have less money in their accounts.  In other words, more of their profits will be used to pay for health insurance.  Because of that, the profitability of the business will decrease.  This means that they will either make less money or take that from another area.  Where would that be from?  From the starting salary of a new worker.  From the raise that you earned because of your productivity the previous year.  From the savings that the company had accrued to build a new facility to produce more products to sell.

Every cause has an effect.  Every action has a reaction.  For every dollar that is taken away, one must replace it.  Barack Obama plans to tackle what he sees as a healthcare “crisis.”  He wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund initiatives for the poor.  This is not a winning game plan folks.  I have already laid out a couple of things that I believe would change the current system and make healthcare more affordable.  I’ll spend some time later going into more detail.  Think about this for yourself.  Tell me if you think I’m wrong, or tell me if you agree with me.  Most importantly, do something.

Today will be a short lesson in fiscal policy, followed by what Barack Obama will do as President in the realm of taxes and spending.  I won’t use a whole lot of big words, if any.  In fact, I hope you are struck by the simplicity of the themes and the ideas that are discussed.  This stuff is really not all that hard.  Politicians (on both sides of the political aisle) want you to think that you can’t understand what is going on, so you have to elect them in order to represent you and be your voice since you are too dumb to understand it.  This isn’t all politicians, just some, and notable for sure.

What is fiscal policy? Fiscal means money, policy means law… money law, or laws about money.  Wow… we’re really blowing some minds here, aren’t we?  What it boils down to is this.  The Federal government collects money and spends money.  Where do they collect this money?  Ultimately from you and me.  Every single tax that was ever devised is levied against the citizen.  Even taxes not levied against the citizen (corporate income tax) is levied against the citizen. More on this later…

The federal government collects the majority of its taxes via the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, the amendment that created the Federal Income Tax. There is minor discussion that the 16th Amendment was never truly ratified because a state or two was not constitutionally legitimate, but that is another issue altogether, and probably not worth the trouble.  According to one source, 44% of the federal dollars received at the US Treasury are from individual income taxes, 37% are from Social Security/Retirement taxes, 12% are from corporate income taxes, 3% are from sales/excise or use taxes, and 4% are from “other sources” ( My thanks to the National Priorities Project). In a real sense, 81% of tax revenue collected is from income, since the Social Security/Retirement portion of the numbers above are also a tax on income, but at a different rate and by a different name.  The 12% corporate income tax is also a tax on you, Joe Q. Public, because that tax is added the price of goods or services that you purchase from Lowe’s, Coca Cola, Kroger, We Defend U Law firm, etc… they aren’t going to just pay that out of their profits because they are nice.  They add that into the price of the ladder or the bottle of Coke or the grapefruit or the $200/hour fee that the sleazy lawyer on late-night cable tv charges you when you get a DUI.

How your government spent that money that they forcefully took out of your paycheck is a different issue altogether. Depending on the year and the person you talk to, you’ll get widely varying answers.  Almost always, health spending (about 33%) and defense spending (25%) are right at the top. Next would be Social (IN)Security (21%).  Next is non-defense discretionary spending, running about 18%. Next is interest on our national debt, which totals about 8-9 trillion dollars (8%).  If you do the math, you’ll find that’s more than 100%, which obviously is impossible… thus the problem in Washington.  Income is not equaling or exceeding spending.

Here’s where you come in… what happens when you get ot the end of the month and your bank account is down near zero, but you need to fill the gas tank?  You either run out of gas because you didn’t buy it, you take it from savings, or you borrow it from Chase or Bank of America or Citi.  Well, interestingly enough, that’s what the United States has to do as well.  I cannot remember the last time we brought in more money than we actually spent.  That is sad and insane.

So our buddy Barack Obama is now the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, and presumably, he has a plan to take in and to spend.  What is it? I’m glad you asked.  (All of this you can find on his website, by the way.  I encourage you to visit and learn about it yourself.)  His first plan is to reinstitute PAYGO, or Pay-as-you-go.  This is actually a great idea. Second, he will reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  Well, another way to say it which is equally as valid is to increase the tax rate for the wealthy.  What does he define as wealthy?  Generally, those making over $150,000, although he might say $250,000 sometimes… you never know with him.  Now keep in mind the 80/20 rule.  Generally speaking in any society, 80% of something comes from 20% percent of the group and the other 20% of something comes from the remaining 80% of the group.  That means that the “wealthy already pay out upwards of 80-90% of the tax revenue now.  If we raise taxes on the wealthy, they will be paying closer to 90-95% of the tax burden because Obama’s other goal is to lower taxes for the “poor” and “middle class.”  Just in case you were wondering, one of Karl Marx’s chief ideas in communism was a progressive income tax. The other thing that it interesting to note is that, generally, speaking, those who pay the most in taxes “use” the least amount of government resources and programs.  Those who pay the least amount in taxes (or… gasp… get paid to not pay taxes) “use” the most amount of government resources and programs.  Any economist with a brain that works properly will tell you that the way to increase revenues is to lower taxes.  Lower taxes is the key, and despite Obama’s willingness (and flat out action) to lower taxes for the poor and the middle class, that will not have nearly the effect that he says it will (remember the 80/20 rule).  He would have to cut taxes so deeply in these demographics that the tax on the “wealthy” would be ridiculous.  What happens then?  The “wealthy” then invest less in stocks and bonds, mutual funds and ETF’s.  Those investments are parts of the companies that are invested in.   Those companies provide jobs, goods, and services for the “wealthy” and the “non-wealhty,” but because of the decreased cash they receive from investors, they face the same problem… too much outgo and too little income.  Thus they cannot afford to keep the workforce the same as it was.  Layoffs happen, and then Obama calls for even lower taxes or tax “credits” (read this as payments) to the “poor” and the “middle class.”

So where am I going with all of this?  This post is unbelievably long, I know, but hang in there… here is the clincher.  The sub-title of this whole blog is “the nexus of Christ and Culture.”  I am going to attempt to make that connection today.  The Bible is full of commands to take care of the widow and the orphan (James 1:27; Exodus 22:22; Deut. 10:18; Deut 14:29; Ps 68:5; Isaiah 1:17; Zech 7:10).  We are to care for those who are poor, sick, without clothing, etc.  We are to seek justice to ensure that those who are poor, sick, homeless, etc. are not mistreated.  But that is a religious/Christian/moral compulsion.  That is not a legal compulsion.  Now, am I advocating the total dismantling of all social welfare programs that the federal, state, and local governments have set up?  Absolutely not.  I am willing to part with a small sum of my money by force to ensure there is a safety net for those who are truly destitute.  Without a program like Medicaid/Medicare, some people who are born with birth defects or who have massive health problems like traumatic brain injuries, strokes, etc., would be paralyzed by medical debt for life, since they need tons of care initially and continual care after that.  The problem is that the safety net has become a pillow-top mattress.  There is no incentive for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make a better life for themselves because they know that every month, they’ll collect a check of money that they may or may not have worked for.

To be sure, I am advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.  You are responsible for you.  I am responsible for me.  Only insofar as we arrange ourselves in groups are we responsible for each other.  I am responsible for my wife and me.  She is responsible for me and her.  That’s the way MARRIAGE works, but only because we have entered into covenant to take care of each other “in sickness and in health, in poverty or in wealth, until God by death shall separate us or until Christ’s return” “But Michael,” one says, “what about Cain saying to God am I my brother’s keeper? Isn’t that a Biblical madate for all of the stuff that you decry?” Yes, it is a BIBLICAL MANDATE, designed for BIBLICAL FOLLOWERS… the CHURCH!!!!! Not the government.  I don’t want the government sticking their lousy, secular nose in the affairs of individuals trying to help people.  I want the government to protect my homeland and my liberty so that I can “work with my hands” (Genesis 3:17-19), be a productive member of society, and in the words of Charles Wesley, “Make all I can, save all I can, and give all I can.”   The CHURCH has the responsibility to demonstrate the love of God by taking care of the sick and the poor, the widow and the orphan, the homeless and the hungry.

Think about Social (IN)Security.  Do you know that by 2041, Social (IN)Security will be bankrupt?  That means that if you are living in that year, you will either 1) not receive benefits that you paid for because the government will simply not pay them out (yeah right) or  2) you will receive benefits that amount to FAR less than you actually paid for.  If you are thirty or younger, just don’t even figure Social (IN)Security into your retirement picture.  It ain’t gonna be there.  If you get anything, it is a bonus.  That is why I like the idea of letting younger workers opt out of this absolutely horrible “retirement program.”  In fact, I have a deal.  United States, you can have every cent that I have paid into this system ever since I started working.  Take it all… everything.  But from this day forward, let me handle my own retirement.  Don’t take a penny from my paycheck for Social (IN)Security.  I’ll take that same amount of money that you forcefully take from me every two weeks and invest it myself and come out so far ahead of what I would get under “the system” that it wouldn’t even be close.  In fact, I’d bet that if I were to take out less than the percentage that I pay in now, I’d still come out ahead.

There are some inherent issues in this plan that need addressing.  First, what happens to those people who don’t opt out? Well, have fun with Social Security, that’s all I have to say.  Second, the revenues to pay the benefits for those who do not opt out will not be there because so many people will want to opt out. What happens to those benefits?  They probably still need to be paid, so we will have to collect that money elsewhere.  It might even be (and I can’t even believe that I am saying this), we would have to borrow and pay it back over time. But we have to do something to change our “family tree,” as it were.  Younger people have to prove to people who bought into Social(IN)Security that it won’t work as a long-term game plan.  We have to say, “Here’s an idea that we are comfortable with.  We’ll take care of you, but it’s not going to work for us, so let us change the way we do things.  If we keep doing what we’re doing, we’re going to keep having what we’re having.

Well, this subject will probably be revisited soon, because there are so many more things to say about taxes and spending.  I just didn’t get to address all of them today.  Soon (not tomorrow, but soon), I’ll address healthcare… oh yeah, it’ll be juicy.

There it is folks, the Democrats have nominated their guy for the Presidential Contest. Where to start… First, isn’t it interesting that being black was more important than being a woman. Here’s what I mean. As stated previously in “Signs that the Sexual Revolution is Alive and Well”, the most fundamental demographic available to distinguish people is male or female. Secondary to that is your race or ethnicity. History generally tells us that females have been granted “rights” before races have been granted rights. I would have thought that the country (or in this case, the Democratic Party) would have been more apt to nominate a female first, and then a non-white down the road. I guess that is a commentary on the state of the Clinton name within the Democratic Party. I think, more than anything, she lost the nomination. Barack finished off the other candidates by his charisma (and of course, that ever important endorsement from Oprah:)).

This space has addressed only a couple of the concerns that Barack Obama presents as a presidential candidate. In the coming weeks, I will lay out my concerns for both parties’ nominees in the interest of fairness. Believe me, John McCain has some liabilities as well. But today I want to address the charge that left-leaning friends have made, namely, “Why do you harp on the Jeremiah Wright issue? Why do you harp on the Father Pfleger issue? Why do you harp on the Bill Ayers issue?” In other words, they are sick and tired of hearing about something so obviously wrong. Well, I’m glad they brought it up. If I were them, I’d let the Wright/Pfleger issue be built up as much as possible. In that case, no one would spend much time delving into what Barack has done as a Senator (both in the state of Illinois and in the United States Senate) and what he has said he will do as President of the United States.

So here it is… WHY BARACK OBAMA IS THE WRONG CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (note: this is not why McCain is right, merely why Barack Obama is wrong)

Issue #1 - National Security - Barack Obama wants to talk (he’s good at that, isn’t he?). He wants direct presidential diplomacy with Iran, who along with North Korea represent the next battlefront in the realm of dangerous governments. Diplomacy is needed, but so is the show of force. If you’re out one night at dinner and another man starts hitting on your wife, you might say something first. After that, it’s game on. Diplomacy only works if both parties are seeking the same end. Iran and North Korea are not seeking the same end as we are - peace. I think the US Navy has it right when they say they bring an aircraft carrier into a region to “show strength through force.” Same idea…

Barack Obama seeks a planet completely free of nuclear weapons. That’s a noble goal, but totally unrealistic. Once again, it only works if everybody is on board. Barack Obama is on record as saying that we don’t really know if Iran is seeking a weaponized nuclear program, but says that we should keep an eye out on them and use diplomacy to accomplish the goal. So if Iran is just seeking a peaceful nuclear program (for energy), who’s to say they would not change that program over to a weaponized program at some date or time? If no one else has nuclear weapons, there is no deterrent for them to develop one, albeit small or “dirty”, and use it.

Barack Obama has stated his desire to bring the military into the 21st century. He wants to modernize it, give them finer tools, more equipment, better resources, and most importantly, more troops. That sounds really good, but why has he voted to make deep cuts in military spending (”tens of billions of dollars”)? Why does he oppose a national missile defense system, or at the very least, researching ways to make it feasible? Wasn’t it Barack Obama that was deploring the current Administration for not supplying troops with body armor? Wasn’t it Barack Obama who said that Humvees should be immediately retrofitted with IED-proof armor underneath to shield troops from explosions as they patrol in Iraq? Perhaps Obama says he supports the troops because it is politically opportunistic to do so but equally opportunistic to vote against these programs to get where he needs to be within his party. He wants to support the military on his terms, but his terms are naive and unrealistic.

We need principled leadership in a President. We need what every employer is looking for - an individual who says what he’s going to do and does what he has said. We need an individual who is not blown by the winds of political rhetoric or popular opinion, but is surrounded by a group of equally principled men and women who remind him/her of what they are there for. Did you know that the men who formed the union we live in today were scared of what life would be like if “the people” had a direct voice in electing leaders? Maybe they were onto something. Maybe the whole point of the government that they created (which is a representative republic, and NOT a democracy) was to have some sort of redundancy, some sort of built-in accountability so that it would actually take more than a majority of “the people” to exact change. Did you know that as the Founders designed it, U.S. Senators were elected by the states? No, not by the people within those states, but by state legislatures. In a real sense, foreign countries have more official representation in Washington, DC, than does the state of Tennessee (my thanks to Neal Boortz for illuminating that fact).

Alas, my wi-fi time is coming to an end (sad day). Tomorrow I will discuss fiscal policy (taxes and spending).

http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/katherinewolf

I can’t believe that I have not posted this before, so please forgive me. A friend of mine and my wife’s, Katherine Wolf, is currently recovering from a severe brain bleed caused by an atrioventricular malformation, or AVM. From my limited knowledge of AVM’s, they are present long before they actually present themselves medically. Katherine is married to Jay Wolf, a friend of ours from Samford University. Jay’s father is Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church Montgomery in Alabama, a church that has done some great, great things in the city and in the state. They also have a seven month old son, James. You can imagine how hard it is for your wife of three years to be in ICU for now six weeks. You can also imagine the thoughts going through Katherine’s head. She can’t feed or take care of her baby. She can’t take care of her husband, who just finished law school and is looking for a job.

Please remember Katherine, Jay, and baby James in your prayers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359944,00.html

The above story is a sobering reminder of the oft forgotten reality of persecution. I mean real persecution, persecution that most of us could never imagine, much less actually go through. How often do I pray for the church across the world? How often do I Google the persecuted church and find a name or two that I can pray for. Ashamedly, almost never. One of the quotes in the story comes from a person named Moeller, who speaks of 21-year-old Mojtaba Hussein, one of the individuals still imprisoned by the Iranian government “He may not be willing to give up the names of other Muslim converts. He may not be willing to recant his faith himself.” I hope he doesn’t. I pray he doesn’t.

The story notes that earlier this year, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of the Republic of Iran (some republic) proposed the death penalty for any Muslim who converts to Christianity or any other non-Islam religion. The death penalty… just let that sink in for a second. We live in a country that allows the open exchange of ideas, and a plane ride away there are those who, because they were called by God to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, are facing imprisonment, beatings, and possibly death.

We must pray for the persecuted church. We must support the persecuted church. We must live out our faith so that the Church (that is, not Fellowship, Shades Mountain Baptist, Redeemer Presbyterian, but the holy catholic church as the Apostles Creed says) is strengthened by the way we live. I hope to post more stories on modern day martyrs and those being persecuted. I of all people need to be reminded of this reality.

Disclaimer: I have not checked out Open Doors USA for myself as much as I would like, but please be sure to check it out. Or better yet, look up your own site. Research it for yourself. Most of all, pray. Your brothers and sisters are praying for you. They need you to be praying for them

I have a Bachelor’s degree from Samford University in Biology. I understand hard topics. I “get” things that others might not get because I have been trained to think scientifically. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” “Science is based on the ability of a theory to be proved over and over again.” I understand these, and you probably do to. You might not know the difference between a Markovnikov reaction and a Grignard reaction, but you know more about science than you think you do.

So I want to address a topic that has come up a lot lately and will continue to be one of the prime arenas in the fight between believers and non-believers - science and God. I am reading a great book right now called The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller. Dr. Keller is the Senior Pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (www.redeemer.com), a phenomenal church in the heart of Manhattan that was started in 1989 in order to reach out to young professionals in New York City who had deep concerns over spiritual things. Dr. Keller reviews seven very common questions that have come up over and over again during his pastorate, and answers them Biblically and graciously. I would highly recommend this book to you, whether you are in the position of seeker or in the position of being sought out to answer questions.

Chapter Six is all about the objection to God and Christianity that Science has disproved it all. In other words, there is too much scientific proof to be able to to believe the Bible by faith. The popular book by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion is cited and says that only 7 percent of the population of the National Academy of the Sciences believe in a personal God. Keller says not so fast.

‘It is one thing,’ Keller says, ‘to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes and cannot speak to others. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist.’

What he says is simply that science is designed to do one thing - explain the way something natural happens with natural resources. But what about the supernatural? In it’s very name and premise, the supernatural is literally “above” the natural. It cannot be explained naturally because it is supernatural. This isn’t circular reasoning. It is simply the only way to explain it.

Evolution as a theory to explain how animals adapt to their natural surroundings is acceptable to me. Evolution as the way to explain how humans got here is unacceptable to me. It is just as much a step of faith for me to believe that I share a common ancestor with a monkey as it is for me to believe that God made me. In fact, have you seen a monkey lately? Do you see any half monkeys - half humans? Have you even seen any 99% monkeys and 1% humans? Of course not.

Ultimately the battle for the hearts and souls of non-believers is not won in the space between two debate tables, although we as Christians need to vigorously defend the beliefs we hold. John Piper said, “We cannot commend what we don’t cherish.” We cannot act like it is unimportant. It is just not the most important thing. The battle for the hearts and souls of non-believers is won in the hearts and souls of non-believers. When we meet someone who is determined to win the argument between God and science, we need to remember that we are talking to a child of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.” Everyone we meet is either a brother or sister in Christ or a soul to be won.

And this is the last paragraph from Keller’s chapter on Science and God.

” The most instructive thing about this [Matthew 28] text is, however, what it says about the purpose of Biblical miracles. They lead not simply to cognitive belief, but to worship, to awe and wonder. Jesus’ miracles in particular were never magic tricks, designed only to impress and coerce. You never see him say something like, ‘See that tree over there? Watch me make it burst into flames.’ Instead, he used miraculous power to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead. Why? We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order (my emphasis). The Bible tells us that God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger and death in it. Jesus has come to redeem where it is wrong and heal the world where it is broken. His miracles are not just proofs that he had the power but also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power. Jesus’ miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts, that the world we all want is coming.”

Well, it’s been awhile, hasn’t it?  It’s been a very busy time, with lots of things happening.  Work is going well (at least April was good… hopefully it’ll continue).

I got a letter in the mail this past week letting me know that I am on the waiting list at the medical school I interviewed at.  The waiting list is obviously better than being denied outright, but the waiting continues.  It could be as early as today that I might hear good news from the admissions committee, but it could also be as late as a few days before classes start in August.  Probably not, but possibly.  If you know me well you know how much I want to go to medical school.  You know how much I have wanted to get in and start studying the human body and be able to learn skills that I can use to really impact the lives of those around me.  As of now, I still don’t know if that is going to happen this year or not.

I think that the worst thing about not knowing is continuing tp run two races at a time.  I have a job that compensates me based on how much I sell.  Work/Sell more, earn more; work/sell less, earn less.  At the same time, I am trying to get into medical school, with all of the requirements and deadlines, etc.  So my cup runs dry constantly.  Much of that is me not spending time with God as I should, but it is also exhausting, both physically and mentally. I am not able to make plans for the future. I am not able to look at careers, finances, etc. with a long term focus.  I have to have two scenarios - one that includes medical school, and one that does not.

So I am disappointed.  I am not angry with God.  (How could I be angry with God? What do I have that is not a gift from HIm?)  I am not fed up with God. (What… I could really justify saying that I’ve had it with the Creator of the universe?)  I am simply disappointed.

So what can I say about this experience now, regardless of how it turns out? The same thing that countless saints before me have said.  “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21). “I know you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2).  “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done” (Matthew 6:9-10). “Father, if your are willing, [place] this cup [before] me.  Nevertheless, not my will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42). “Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring.  What is your life?  For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes.  Instead, you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that’ ” (James 4:14-15).  “The works of His hands are faithful and just; all His precepts are trustworthy” (Psalm 111:7). “Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, for his steadfast love endures forever” (Psalm 106:1).

It is hard to pray, “God, if this is not of you, I pray that You would keep it from happening,” but that is the way Jesus prayed in the garden before the Cross.  That is the way of holiness and righteousness.  More and more I am convinced that I am a pawn on the chessboard of life, moved by the providential hand of God.  “May the Lord do what seems good to Him” (II Samuel 10:12).