"You Didn't Build That"

Our pastor, Steve Olsen, is preaching through the book of Ephesians this Summer. He's about to start Chapter 2, and in thinking through the text, the following illustration came to me.

You didn't build that!

Remember when Obama, in his 2012 campaign, made the statement to business owners that, "You didn't build that", in reference to the businesses that they built? Remember how full of hubris it seemed, and how most thinking Americans (rightly) rejected it?

He said what?

Well, there's a time when, "You didn't build that" is not only true, but true with eternal consequences. It is true when it comes to our faith. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

If we approach our faith with an American Ideal, we are going to be theologically completely backwards.  And that's un-American, and that's how we are wired to think. But it is Biblical, and we'd better 'get it' or we will miss the heart of the gospel. We really didn't build that faith which is in the process of saving us.

Running Commentary on Obama's Gun Violence Proposals

Running Commentary on Obama's Proposals...may be modified later...this is off the top of my head...some of these intellectual's best stuff sure doesn't require much thought to refute.

(I'll be editing this and adding more information as I have time to think about what's been said and what is intended.)


1. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

This is already law. It does nothing except force agencies to comply with  the law. And Obama has no say over state agencies.


2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Changes to HIPAA are probably needed, and making legitimate connections between the mentally ill and the NICS check system isn't onerous.  The problem is, who gets to say what 'mentally ill' means?  In the minds of some in charge, anyone who might want to own a firearm is 'mentally ill'.  As it stands such a practice is a blank check for government supression of freedom.


3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

Nothing onerous here, but why do states need incentives if the background check system works as it should?


4. Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

The categories of individuals who are prohibited from having a gun are, for the most part, well-designed.  There are some issues, such as where a woman can claim domestic violence has occurred when it has not, and her male significant other can be restrained from possession of a firearm, sometimes for months or years, even when he is guilty of no crime or intent to commit a crime. The problem is in the details: how will an AG review of the categories keep individuals like Adam Lanza from slipping through a crack (whatever that means)?

No one, not the NRA, not the average gun owner, and certainly not any person with any common sense wants felons, neurotics, or chronically violent people to have a gun. But expanding the categories and definitions to law-abiding citizens won't prevent crime.  Enforcing the laws we have, and occasionally shooting the criminally violent perpetrators, will.


5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

To the best of my knowledge, this already happens in most jurisdictions.  The meaning of 'full background check' is unclear; most jurisdictions run a check in their state database, although many would also use the FBI's database.  Not sure what this really does except add paperwork to the local law enforcement officer's load.


6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

This is actually a good idea on the one hand; those who have doubts about an individual who wants to buy a firearm have been prevented from having access to the NICS check system in the past.  C&R FFL holders are instructed NOT to use the NICS system. They should have that option.  So should any private individual at (for example) a gun show.  Currently, we don't.

Where the problem lies is in FORCING private citizens to do background checks.  I should have the right to transfer (give) a firearm to my son when he goes off to college, and I shouldn't have to run a NICS check on him to do so.  How will this be enforced? 


7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Been there, done that, got nothin' for it.  The feds can't even do a national nonsmoking campaign right.

The NRA has run national gun safety campaigns for years, and nobody does it better than they do.  Ask just about any child in America to finish this instruction: "Stop! Don't touch! ... "  The Feds can't manage anything even close to this effectiveness.


8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Nuts.  Is he saying that none of the gun locks (already required by law to be distributed with a new firearm) are no good now? Were all the safes made of plastic? (Chinese, I bet!)


9. Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

And this isn't already done?  The only time I can think of that it wasn't was when Obama's people were running illegal machine guns to Mexican drug lords.  But try suggesting that anyone enforce the law in THAT case. The responsible people are running away from that as FAST and FURIOUS as they can.

10. Release a Department of Justice report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Again, three words:  FAST AND FURIOUS.


11. Nominate a new director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Hmm.  Why do I think it might be Feinstein, or Schumer? Or worse?


12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

Proper training without armed intervention is really simple:  Sit down and wait your turn to die.  

Anyone who is REALLY serious about protecting kids in schools will make sure there are GUNS in every school, in the hands of trained personnel who aren't afraid to use them to protect the lives of the kids.  Otherwise, the schools (since Columbine) already have instituted huge changes in emergency procedures, come up with new security plans, and trained staff for emergency events.  If that's all he means, this is another non-sequitur.

And really...is there a law enforcement agency in the entire US that hasn't had active-shooter training since 9/11?


13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

I can nail jello to a wall easier than I can define what that sentence says.  As one blogger recently said, Obama might as well just say, 'nyuk nyuk nyuk'; it means about the same thing.  But there's one little detail in that which WON'T happen...the prosecution of gun crime...you see, too much of it is committed by Democrats with connections (look at Bill Clinton's list of pardons when he left office for a quick summary).

Ask any second-week cadet at the local police academy if there's a difference between 'enforcement' and 'prevention'...but the POTUS seems to think they are synonymous.


14. Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

OK, we'll throw some money at research.  We might even learn something.  One thing I know will happen: if we learn that having more guns in circulation cuts down on violent crime, this research will be radically altered before it gets published.  And since we already have that data, and already know it is true that more guns equals less crime, I wonder what all that tax money will really accomplish?


15. Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun-safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

Read this one: micro-stamping.  It is useless, but it is going to be forced on us anyway.  We could put a cop in every elementary school in America for less than this will cost, and it won't likely help solve a SINGLE crime, and does absolutely NOTHING to prevent violent crime.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes.

In other words, you local doctor is now an arm of the Obama administration.  Funny, my family doc is a big-time shotgunner (competitive and upland game bird hunter).  I wonder how he'll take this? But I feel sorry for the single mom who has a handgun to protect herself and her children when her crusading anti-gun physician decides she's a danger to herself and her kids.


17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

Wow.  Does anyone out there think, even with FERPA or HIPAA, that you can't call the cops when someone threatens to harm you?  Really?  And remember, when every second counts, the cops are only minutes away.


18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school-resource officers.

Hey, this one makes sense (at least, everything but tying the SRO jobs to federal money).  This is basically what the NRA said needs to happen.  I wonder if Obama will give the NRA credit for this one?  Putting armed officers in schools will, unlike almost everything on this list, actually prevent the deaths of school children.


19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

Almost all schools and universities have already done this.  Between Columbine and Virginia Tech, those folks got the message.  I'm not saying all the plans are good ones, but then, the federal plans won't be any good either unless they include putting guns in those facilities. "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre.  Houses of worship?  Some states are foolish enough to make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a church.  That makes the churches in those states prime targets for any nut (or terrorist) who wants a high body count.  Here in Texas, you can carry in church unless the church says no.  That law makes more sense. 


20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

There's a lot that could be said about this from a financial perspective, but it really will do nothing to prevent a lunatic from becomming an active shooter if he or she chooses to do so.


21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

Same as the previous one. What this will do, over time, as more and more people become more and more dependent on Obama-care, is make it easier to control their behavior (like gun ownership) or risk losing their health care. That kind of thinking is what a values-neutral education will get you.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health parity regulations.

I'm not even sure what this means, other than it gives a politician, rather than a doctor, final say in what's crazy and what's not.


23. Launch a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan on mental health.

The idea of Kathleen Sebelius moderating a dialog regarding the safety of children, when she's on record as supporting partial-birth abortion on demand, is so ironically foolish, it might qualify her to be the first person barred from gun ownership on the basis of mental instability. If there ever was a woman who delighted any more in the death of (unborn) children than Sebelius, I've yet to hear of her.  And what does the Secretary of Education know about mental health?  Can we get Charlie Sheen instead? At least he's had an anger management class.



Now here's some icing on the really stinky cake:  Obama has asked for $25 million for state-based strategies that support “young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.”

This is the same president who's ordered the Federal government to NOT enforce federal laws on marijuana use pretending to care about substance abuse. Wow.

Some More Post-Election Musings

I loved this post by Trogdor over at the One-Man Peanut Gallery blog.

It is remarkably quotable.  His first point is probably the most important, though it will be missed by most.

Read it.

A Few Preliminary Thoughts on the Election

As I posted to FB earlier, one theological truth is again proven:  God's purposes in election are mysterious (pun intended).

I couldn't write anything yesterday, because I was so angry.  The funny part was, I wasn't sure with whom I was the most angry.  I was mad at the liberals for further sliding this exceptional country closer to mediocrity, financial slavery, and all that.  But I was also mad at my fellow Republicans for not seeing this thing through.

As more numbers are shared by the media, my second target has been borne out as the more culpable.  Republicans simply didn't get their base out.  Three million fewer Rs voted in 2012 than in 2008. I thought every R alive would be at the polls Tuesday, but many stayed home.  Enough to change the outcome of the election. As they say down here in TX, that chaps my hide.

Yes, demographics are important.  No one should ignore the demographics of who voted for the left, and the importance of making the tent bigger.  But then, how do we do that without compromising our principles?  Do we become pro-choice?  Unthinkable.  At least five million more babies will die in their mothers' wombs during the next four years, and I don't think any election is worth throwing that issue under the bus.  We have to find ways to reach out to a broader demographic without compromising the principles that we find critical to our worldview.


Elections have consequences.  We are getting, and will get more of, what we deserve. Babies will continue to die, and perversity will continue to be celebrated by our decaying society. I don't know how much of that a Romney victory would have changed in the next four years, but there was always hope for some change.

?>*$&&#!@&!

Too much anger to write anything constructive for today.  Maybe tomorrow, too.

Health Care Law and The Future

Since the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Obamacare (not entirely unexpected, though one of the names on the positive side of the decision was), the question becomes, 'What now?'

Here's my prediction:  This decision won't be as bad as we fear.  I predict that without the SCOTUS to run against, there's now a fair-to-middlin' chance that the democrat incumbent in the White House could lose the election, which is a historically rare occurrence.  I also think this will lead to 10-15 additional GOP wins in House elections, and one or two wins in the Senate.

All that said, we now have a SCOTUS precedence that the federal government can tax the people in any amount for any reason.  That is certainly is a problem.

We'll see how it goes in November.

Why an 'Evolving' Position on Moral Issues is Inappropriate for a Sitting President

Barack Obama has pulled a John Kerry numerous times on the issue of same-sex marriage.  He was for it before he was, well, not sure about it. Obama says his views on same-sex marriage are 'evolving'.

Evolving views on certain issues are fine.  For example, a president's views on foreign policy stances with a particular nation may evolve with circumstances in that nation, including who the leader is, the level of aggressiveness the nation puts forth, or the level of human rights abuses found therein.

Presidents might change their views on defense spending, or welfare policy, or any other host of social or political issues that might change during a presidency. (Some of these may also have a moral component, but they are primarily political issues.) We the public usually support the change if the president was our candidate, and speak out against it if he wasn't. Sometimes we might even consider the substantive nature of the change-of-position, but usually, it's about the man.

But one area where views ought not be shifting is on moral issues.  One of the reasons the US Constitution requires a citizen to be at least 40 years old to be eligible to run for the presidency is so that the person might have enough age and maturity to have established a 'moral compass' that guides them through the myriad of decisions they face in office. Moral issues are never about the man, but always about the issue, because the stance on the issue defines the man (or woman) in office.

Ronald Reagan defied even his own party advisors when he called the Soviet Union the, "Evil Empire".  They told him such morally decisive language would offend and be long-term destructive to the US position on various Cold War issues between the two countries.  But Reagan had a moral compass, and he followed it.  It was one of the reasons he was such a successful president.  He turned out to be right:  the USSR eventually failed as a political experiment, though not until about a year after Reagan left office.  His challenge to Gorbachev to "tear down this (Berlin) wall" came to fruition in 1989.  This moment may be the defining moment of his presidency as history unfolds.

 I miss Ronald Reagan.

Even Jimmy Carter was willing to take a moral stand on an issue in which he believed.  He issued the famous executive order prohibiting the assassination by US operatives of foreign heads of state, even if they posed a clear and present danger to US national security.  I vigorously opposed this move at the time (even though I was about 16), and still think it is wrong today, both on moral and biblical grounds.  But I will give President Carter credit for following his moral compass.

A sitting US President needs to have established moral values.  Whether you support same-sex marriage or not; whether you think it is a doorway to equality for all or a step toward barbarianism, you should expect your president to have a clear and unequivocal position on it, and to state that position for all.  I know Obama has not done that, and I don't think Romney has either.

If neither candidate for President has a clear moral position on this or any other sensitive moral issue, I'm worried.  Really worried.

What Do You Think?

The US Supreme Court has finished the hearings on the Obama health care package.  Here's my prediction:

   The Supreme Court will NOT overturn the law.

OK, I'm on record.  What's your guess?

He Opened His Mouth

Sometimes adversaries are clever; one has to do his homework before he can find evidence of wrongdoing.  On the other hand, there's Joel Osteen.  It appears that no one need do any digging at all; in fact, all that needs to happen for there to be empirical evidence that Osteen has no clue what the gospel is, is for him to open his mouth.



I'm not looking for a fight here, but there's a serious problem when the pastor of the largest church in America is teaching something other than the gospel.  My Sunday School class is going through the book of Galatians right now, and we are just starting chapter 2.  We've seen something important in chapter 1, particularly with regard to getting the gospel right.

If you look at the combination of Paul's writings and information found in the gospels, it is easy to conclude that we are much better off preaching the right gospel with the wrong motives than we are preaching the wrong gospel with the right motives.  On the one hand, when the gospel is preached by those seeking gain, the apostles praised God, saying, "The gospel is preached!"  On the other, the purveyors of the wrong gospel are clearly in danger of condemnation to hell.

Here's more, if you need it:  Al Mohler's Blog

Barack Obama is not nearly the threat to the church in this country as is Joel Osteen.

The Obama Administration Continues to Dismantle America

This post from Al Mohler describes the latest move by the Obama administration to continue to take down the traditional values that built this country.

This may not seem like a big deal now, but it is.  Just wait.

My Own Top Ten List for 2009

Since everybody is creating a top ten list for the past year and/or decade, mostly in order to generate readership/viewership/ad revenue, I thought I'd create my own.  Now, the purpose of these lists isn't to inform, rank, taxonify, or any other big word that means rank, but to generate controversy in order in increase readership (or whatever).  So my list will be as controversial as possible.  So, my list will be the top 10 most narcissistic personalities of 2009.  Here goes.

1.  Barack Obama

Hmm.  I couldn't think of any others to top that one.  Oh well.

:-)

.