Taxes: Basic Biblical Principles

Hello all!

In response to a reminder (or friendly prodding) from a long time friend, I would like to share a few thoughts on taxes. I would like to base them only on what the Bible says concerning the issue and will not discuss other practical or philosophical arguments that also merit consideration. This post will not be a comprehensive study by any means, merely a highlight of fundamental biblical principles that I believe have been largely forgotten. I do not necessarily believe the Bible speaks frequently or with can’t-miss-it clarity to the issue of taxes. But, I do believe the Bible speaks to the issue with more than adequate clarity, thus eliminating any excuse on our part not train our minds to think in a biblical orientation on the issue.

First, a disclaimer. I am not touching on the “render unto Caesar” principle in this post because I think it is the most universally known and understood of all biblical principles relating to taxation, so in the interest of time I am not devoting space to it in this post.

Here goes!

-Men have a right to all the fruits (i.e. end result) of their labor, and to use them in the manner they choose

II Timothy 2:6 states: “The hard working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.”

I Timothy 5:18 says, “For the Scripture says ‘YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING’, and, ‘the laborer is worthy of his wages’.”

Deuteronomy 25:4 says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.”

These passages, as well as others, teach clearly that men have a right (and a responsibility) to receive and manage ALL of their wages. I believe an income tax violates this principle by unnecessarily taking a percentage of a person’s wages away from him. I also believe capital gains taxes violate this principle for the same basic reason, only in the case of capital gains taxes they are taxing the wages of a person before he or she receives it instead of after. Withholding (keeping a certain amount of a person’s total salary from being included in the check received by the employee in order to pay for certain benefits) also violates this principle, I believe.

-The state has no right to tax the private possessions of a man

If you believe that a person has a right to own what he has earned, I believe it is then logical to agree that imposing an unnecessary tax on that person's private property is also wrong. Therefore, I believe it is logical and biblical to conclude that Property Taxes are wrong.

Ecclesiastes 5:19. It says, “Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.” So, it is plain that riches and wealth are a gift from God, and it is a God given right of man to use and rejoice in the fruit of his labor.

Before I move on I think it is important to make a short disclaimer here. In our system of government we are not taxed without representation. Laws concerning taxes are instituted by elected representatives of the citizens, so in theory we tax ourselves through our elected officials. Thus, taxes can be justly and lawfully levied on behalf of the people with the consent of the people; so make no mistake, I am not opposed to taxes. I am only opposed to certain kinds of taxation. Others I am very much supportive of.

-Men have a right to pass ALL their possessions on to their children as an inheritance

I’ll cheat here thanks to time constraints. The following quoted section is from a David Barton article found on www.wallbuilders.com titled “The Bible and Taxes” (04/27/2006).

“The Bible speaks to the issue of inheritance numerous times. Proverbs 13:22 states “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children” (something that is not likely with the current Estate Tax which can take up to 55% of an estate, leaving 45% to the children; when the children pass it on to the grandchildren, up to 55% of the remaining 45% can be taken. Leaving only 27% of the original that would be passed on to the “children’s children”). Ezekiel 46:18 states that “the prince shall not take any of the people’s inheritance by evicting them from their property; he shall provide an inheritance for his sons from his own property, so that none of My people may be scattered from his property.” Other scriptures that deal with inheritance are Proverbs 19:14, I Chronicles 28:8, and Ezra 9:12.”

I agree with Barton. If people have the right to the fruits of their labor then they must also have the right to pass that on to the person or persons of their choosing, especially their family.

In summary: as previously mentioned, the above is by no means an exhaustive study of what the scriptures say in regards to the issue of taxation; but, I believe we have seen enough to conclude that all riches are from God both as reward and blessing. God has endowed man to have the free use of them, to rejoice in them and to pass them on to their children and their children’s children. Therefore, it is a violation of God given rights to unlawfully take from the wages of man or to take of his property without his consent. Principally, I believe Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Inheritance Taxes, Capital Gains Taxes, and Withholding are biblically dubious at best, and clearly contrary to God’s will at worst. I personally hold the latter view.

As usual, I welcome comments. This issue is not one I am experienced in handling, and I am still learning a lot - at least I hope I am. I am definitely open to corrections and challenges and am willing to change my position if I can be persuaded that my position is in need of change.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Why I did not attend a TEA Party

Hello all!

As I have mentioned in several different venues, including my last blog post, I chose not to attend any of the many TEA Parties held on April 15^th despite the fact that I was sympathetic to their cause, at least the basic premise. In this post I would like to lay out my reasons for not participating.

My primary motivation for this post, beyond explaining my reasons, is to offer some thoughts on grassroots activity, protestation, and related issues for future efforts. I believe strong grassroots organization and activity can and should powerfully impact our future, so it is of vital importance that all - non-professional grassroots activists, professional activists, political strategists, and politicians alike - give the matter much careful consideration.

My reasons for not participating are as follow.

First: Taxes are an effect, not a cause.

Some form of taxation is necessary to uphold and stabilize good government. Taxes, even high taxes, are not wrong in-and-of-themselves if they are being used for the right things and are obtained lawfully by the consent of the people. The problem today is not necessarily the rate at which we are taxed, it is the cause(s) that necessitate high taxes; things like an unnecessarily large and inefficient bureaucratic government, wasteful spending, political corruption, damaging social engineering programs of a highly questionable constitutional nature and massive unconstitutional bailouts of non-government enterprises all contribute to the tax problem.

Second: in connection with the previous point, grassroots energy is a precious commodity.

TEA Party protests tend (emphasis on “tend”) to not focus on root causes or education, I believe, nor does their mobilization of grassroots energy lend itself to productivity or sustainability. Our focus should be on the root causes, first identifying them, educating ourselves' on the issues, educating others and mobilizing a focused, productive and sustainable opposition.

Grassroots energy is often difficult to find and sustain, and easily tends to be unproductive. Because the vast majority of grassroots activists have a limited amount of time, energy, and resources available, they should be deployed as effectively and strategically as possible and controlled to a great degree (i.e. focused and directed, not micro-managed) with a long term focus. Fundamental or root causes should always be their focus, not effects or mere lightening rod issues.

Third: It is easy to skew perception of protests such as the TEA Parties.

Perception is important because it largely influences people’s willingness or ability to fairly evaluate our message. If our perception is good people will be receptive to our message and respond positively. If our perception is bad people will respond negatively to our message. CNN, a liberal network hostile to the TEA Party message, understood this. They knew that if they could negatively portray the TEA Party movement, even if that portrayal was false, they could destroy or minimize its positive reception. So, unsurprisingly, they portrayed the TEA Parties as negatively as they could. Unfortunately, it wasn’t particularly difficult to do so - there were more than enough seemingly angry and/or upset people who came across as merely being hot heads to provide fodder for negative coverage - and by presenting these seeming hot heads them as accurately representing the overall spirit of the TEA Parties as a whole it was easy for CNN (and others) to negatively influence perception of the movement.

Perception is something that is often beyond our control - no matter how good a job we do of presenting ourselves and our cause in the best possible light - so we can’t allow anticipated perception to dictate everything we do. Still, we should factor it in, and when an activity lends itself to an unnecessarily high degree of negative exposure and negative public perception we should be very wary of attaching ourselves to that cause or activity, particularly if our time, energy, and resources are limited and can be better used elsewhere. Ultimately, our personal involvement should always be very calculated, long term in focus, and controlled on the emotional level.

Fourth (and last): I am uncomfortable with the symbolic aspect of the TEA Parties.

Taxes have always been a lightening rod issue, prone to arouse the less admirable instincts of man.

The stereotype of angry protesters waving incendiary anti-tax and/or anti-government signs is not a stereotype without reason. Historically, taxes have proven to be a lightening rod for expression of dissatisfaction (usually justifiably) with government. Taxes are so universally disliked that it is very natural for them to be the object of expresses ones frustration, particularly when one faces a daunting array of complicated issues that need to be addressed. So I am leery of tax oriented protestations. They are strewn with pitfalls stemming from the fallen nature of man. The historical symbolism at play in the TEA Party protests only serves to exacerbate an already precarious balance and heighten my wariness.

Anger should never be a primary (perhaps even significant) catalyst in our political and social activism. Anger should never be uncontrolled or semi-uncontrolled. It distorts our reasoning and rightfully mars the nobleness of our cause, casting reasonable doubt on our causes rightness and worth. It is a self inflicted impugning of our character.

It is unwise and potentially debilitating to automatically refuse participation in any activity that could include people involved for the wrong reasons. We can’t dictate or control the motives of those we work with in all of our political and social activity. Sometimes we just have to accept the fact that perfection will not be achieved (understatement) and make the best of things. Still, I believe it is wise as a general rule to avoid participating in the events and campaigns most likely to be fueled by wrong motives.

I by no means believe that all people involved with the TEA Party movement were involved for the wrong reasons. Remember, I am speaking not only of TEA Parties but also of activism generally. I believe the majority of those involved with the TEA Parties were involved for the right reasons and conducted themselves in a manner befitting the rightness of their cause. But, I also believe enough people were involved for the wrong reasons to dramatically damage the integrity of the TEA Parties in the eyes of the general public, especially with an incredibly biased MSM leaping on every available opportunity to negatively portray them.

At the end of the day, I think the net effect of the TEA Parties could be negligibly good, but more likely to be damaging to the TEA Party cause in the long term. Positively, they mobilized and energized a very significant number of people, some of whom may continue to stay involved in the future or increase their current participation. They demonstrated that there is a strong grassroots opposition to the policies our new government is seeking to implement and (in some cases) has already implemented, and they presented an opportunity to spread a constructive conservative message. Negatively, they diverted precious grassroots energy away from more fundamental issues, promoted among the grassroots a focus on effect instead of cause, were easily mischaracterized by the MSM, and fed a spirit of anger and frustration that is ultimately more damaging than it is helpful. Only time will tell what good the TEA Parties have done or will do.

If I had to take the over/under (over being positive, under being negative) on the effect of the TEA Parties I would take the under, which is why I didn’t participate. Still, I understand and recognize that there were good reasons to participate and respect the decision of those who did participate.

I know that was a long post, but I believe it accurately, though perhaps clumsily, presents my reasons for not participating in the TEA Parties. Keep in mind that many of the above thoughts and points were not aimed specifically at the TEA Party movement but were more broadly oriented thoughts on grassroots activism and political protestation in general.

As usual, I welcome any added thoughts, agreements, disagreements, corrections, etc. I am acutely aware of my own shortcomings in knowledge and philosophic development and coherency, so I am sure that virtually anyone reading this post has something beneficial to add.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

The FairTax: an introduction

Hello all!

April 15^th is here! Yippee! I love tax time, the New Years or Christmas of taxes. Even though I don't pay many taxes at the moment I would, in a fashion somewhat resembling traditional Christmas euphoria, like to wish you all a happy new tax year!

Okay, so I am being silly and sarcastic. I don't really love taxes and I don't really love April 15^th. However, I am not ideologically opposed to taxes. I believe they (taxes) are necessary in many situations to uphold and support good government. That is one reason I chose not to participate in todays Tea Party's being held across the nation. I feel the thinking behind them was reasonable in it's complaint (it is true that we have been taxed beyond what is reasonable) but I think they missed the mark in addressing the real underlying root causes. I may try and post a summary of my reasoning behind those remarks in the future; but in the meantime, because I believe taxes are not inherently wrong, and because I believe an excessive tax burden is only a symptom of a larger underlying problem or problems, I would like to offer up an alternative to our current tax system that both lowers our current tax rate and installs a much sounder, sustainable, and equitable means of taxation.

As the title suggests, the system I would like to advocate is known as the “FairTax.”

The thinking and rational behind the FairTax is by no means new. It has been around for a long time, but the FairTax is unique in that it has been recently developed to fit our current situation while remaining true to the old principles upon which it is built.

I thought of writing my own summaries of the FairTax, but I think it would be much better for those reading if they read the explanation of those who have studied it and much more and have a better understanding of economics and the tax system as a whole. So, in presenting the FairTax, I'll just copy and paste some things, and link to others.

With all that out of the way, allow me to begin.

The best source for information about the FairTax from an advocates perspective is www.fairtax.org, a research organization. I will use it as my primary reference (all my outside references in this post are taken from www.fairtax.org), though there is information on the FairTax elsewhere, neutral, critical, and positive.

In a nut shell, the FairTax is:

"The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system."

What does the FairTax accomplish in practical terms?  Lots of things!   But, some of the more significant are:

• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks


• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions


• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities


• Allows American products to compete fairly


• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy


• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding


• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation


• Abolishes the IRS

In future posts I will use collected information to make the case that the following  details are true of the FairTax:

1. The FairTax is revenue neutral at $0.23 out of every retails dollar spent

2. The FairTax lowers the lifetime tax burden for most Americans

3. The FairTax benefits retirees who depend mostly on Social Security

4. The FairTax preserves the overall progressivity of the federal tax burden

5. The FairTax dramatically improves the U. S. economy

6. The FairTax improves the international competitiveness of American producers

7. The FairTax promotes home ownership better than the current system

8. The FairTax simplifies tax compliance, thereby reducing tax evasion

In closing, allow me clarify something. I don't believe the FairTax is a perfect system, only that it is the best currently on the table (I seriously doubt anybody can come up with a “perfect” system of taxation). One of the reasons I am posting about the FairTax is that I welcome the feedback of others whether it be in agreement, disagreement, or something in between. I am happy to debate the merits of the system, but because I don't believe the system is perfect I would be more than willing to concede a point if factually proven incorrect or undesirable. :-)

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Caffeine Reduces Pain During Excercise

Hey all!

I thought y'all might find this interesting bit of news from Newsmax.

Stopping to smell the coffee, and to enjoy a cup of it, before your morning workout might do more than just get your juices flowing. It might keep you going for reasons you haven’t even considered.

As a former competitive cyclist, University of Illinois kinesiology and community health professor Robert Motl routinely met his teammates at a coffee shop to fuel up on caffeine before long-distance training rides.

“The notion was that caffeine was helping us train harder . . . to push ourselves a little harder," he said.

The cyclists didn’t know why it helped, they just knew it was effective.

“I think intuitively a lot of people are taking caffeine before a workout and they don’t realize the actual benefit they’re experiencing. That is, they’re experiencing less pain during the workout,” Motl said.

It is becoming increasingly common for athletes to consume a variety of substances that include caffeine before competing, motivated by “the notion that it will help you metabolize fat more readily.”

“That research isn’t actually very compelling,” Motl said. “What’s going on in my mind is . . . people are doing it for that reason, but they actually take that substance that has caffeine and they can push themselves harder. It doesn’t hurt as much.”

The professor has been investigating the relationship between caffeine and physical activity since taking a slight detour during his doctoral-student days, when his work focused on exploring possible links between caffeine intake, spinal reflexes, and physical activity.

Seven years later, with several studies considering the relationship between physical activity and caffeine behind him, Motl has a much better understanding of why that cuppa joe he used to consume before distance training and competing enhanced his cycling ability.

Early in his research, he became aware that “caffeine works on the adenosine neuromodulatory system in the brain and spinal cord, and this system is heavily involved in nociception and pain processing.” Since Motl knew caffeine blocks adenosine from working, he speculated that it could reduce pain.

A number of his studies support that conclusion, including investigations considering such variables as exercise intensity, dose of caffeine, anxiety sensitivity and gender.

Motl’s latest published study on the effects of caffeine on pain during exercise appears in the April edition of the International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism.

“This study looks at the effects of caffeine on muscle pain during high-intensity exercise as a function of habitual caffeine use,” he said. “No one has examined that before. What we saw is something we didn’t expect: caffeine-naïve individuals and habitual users have the same amount of reduction in pain during exercise after caffeine (consumption).”

The research could prove encouraging for a range of people, including the average person who wants to become more physically active to realize the health benefits.

 

I thought y'all might find that interesting. :-)

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Mona Lisa Project: Parts 3 and 4

Hello all!

Life has been more then a little busy so blogging has been pushed to the back, which is pretty much the norm it would seem. :-)  I wanted to take a little time though, to post part 3 and 4 of the Mona Lisa Project (by Live Action Films).

As you may recall, I posted the first two of five installments (videos) of the Mona Lisa project in an earlier post.   The two I am posting now are parts 3 and 4, with the fifth to come soon.

Parts 3 and 4 follow much the same line as 1 and 2 in the manner that the investigation is conducted and events unfold, so it might seem pointless to watch them; but I believe it is important nonetheless to inform ourselves as much as is reasonably possible.  I don’t think people realize the deep dishonesty and lack of ethics that is so habitual of organizations like Planned Parenthood.   These videos are invaluable in understanding these things.

As with parts 1 and 2, I have purposely imbedded the videos in the blog (as opposed to simply linking them) for your convenience and warn you that some of the “related videos” on youtube are quite perverse, so I would recommend that you don’t view them on youtube.   Also be warned that these videos may not be for younger viewers.

 

Part 3: Tucson, Arizona Planned Parenthood

Part 4: Phoenix, Arizona Planned Parenthood

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Abortion Quotes and 4D

Hey all!

I am taking the liberty of grabbing more of Nicole's work and posting it here (referrencing the previous post).   It is a compilation of quotes that shed light on the humanity of a fetus through the use of 4D technology, an important point for pro-life advocates to establish.  

I hope you find them informative. :-)

 

"By midpregnancy the fetus has begun to explore its own body and environment using its hands. It often holds on to the umbilical cord, and when a thumb approaches its mouth, it will turn and begin to make sucking motions with its lips... The fetus is also using its sense of hearing for orientation. Its most familiar sounds are surely the noises of the mother's digestive system and the swishing from her major blood vessels, but gradually the fetus also begins to perceive the sounds of the mother's world, such as music and the father's voice. The eyes of the fetus are sensitive to light, even though the eyelids are still shut tight..."

-Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger, A Child is Born, 4th edition. New York: Bantum Dell, 2003. p. 141



"Does a fetus see anything? It is known that the eye can sense light as early as the third month of pregnancy. Sometimes when an endoscope is inserted into the amniotic sac, a fetus tries to protect its eyes from the light on the instrument, either by turning away or by using its hands and fingers."

-Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger, A Child is Born, 4th edition. New York: Bantum Dell, 2003. p. 146



"During her odyssey in the womb [a fetus] will smile, recognize her mother's voice and maybe even dream."

-In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005



"One of the many things revealed by the 4D scans is the fact that babies have rapid eye movement sleep. This is a period of sleep when the eyes slicker around behind the eyelids. Later in life, this is an indication of dreaming. This gentle flicker of an eye could be a sign that the fetus, still with a month to go before being born is already dreaming."

-In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005



"Twins, and other multiples, are known for a particular characteristic in utero. Scientists have even witnessed them playing games together... Scientists think their prenatal behavior [carries] over into early childhood."

-In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005



"In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point."
-David Noonin, "A Defense of Abortion"



"Never, never will we desist till we . . . extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country."

-William Wilberforce



"When my wife and I visited the Yad Vashim Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, we were most deeply touched by the children's memorial. It has 1500 candles, with mirrors designed to reflect each candle a thousand times, representing the 1.5 million children killed in the Holocaust. We stood in the darkness hearing the names of individual children read one by one.
I was struck by the number, because at the time it was the same number killed by abortion in America each of the previous few years. The fact that most of these children haven't been given names doesn't diminish their worth. I have stood at memorials for the unborn where parents have given names to their children and written them in expressions of love and grief. If we could only hear the names of each of these children whispered to us in the dark, perhaps we would wake up."

-Randy Alcorn, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments. p. 301 

 

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Learn about and fight FOCA

Hello all!

Most of those reading this post have probably heard of FOCA, otherwise known as the Freedom of Choice Act, but some of you might not have and for those of you who know of it is possible you don't know much about it.   For those who support life it is important to A) know the details of FOCA, and B) take such action against it as you can.   With that in mind, I have permission to share a post written by Nicole, an aquaintence from a forum we are both members of.   She did all the work collecting links and writing the post, then graciously granted me permission to use her work.  

Many thanks to Nicole for her passion and hard work!

Here is the info:

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
-Romans 12:21

"Nothing is inevitable. We can't give up, we must never quit.

America is worth fighting for."
-John McCain

Hey everyone!

I'm working on a campaign to fight the Freedom of Choice Act and I'd like to ask you all to join me. Obama is not going to hesitate to enact what he believes is "right" for this country. Thus I believe we cannot hesitate to stand for what we know is right.

If we wait until the Freedom of Choice Act is reintroduced to oppose it, I believe it will be too late. Many people know it is coming. And I believe they are already making up their minds. It will be very hard to convince those who are pro-choice if we wait until then to present the truth of the danger this bill will pose to what they really want for this country. In fact, it will be nearly impossible. But if we start now, I believe it is easily possible to turn even them against it.

Many who are pro-life still do not know the full truth of what this bill could accomplish. I didn't until I spent several days compiling the facts. It is important that everyone who is pro-life knows the facts about this bill. For only when we know, can we begin to fully fight. And once the facts of this bill are known, I can hardly imagine how someone could not fight it.

I created this flier (link below) to spread the word about FOCA. It's a great way to get all the facts quickly and to pass them on effectively and efficiently. This is something we can include with letters that explain our position, hand to friends, leave on cars and at bus stops, and most importantly encourage people to also make copies of and distribute.

What follows is an incomplete list of resources for further research, ideas for action, and contact information I believe would be helpful. I will be adding to this post in the future as I gather more information. I welcome your input -- please let me know if there is any suggestions, ideas, resources, and contact info you can contribute.

Join me, will you?

The flier:

[UPDATED] http://www.cryaction.com/foca_flier.pdf

[NEW!] http://www.cryaction.com/foca_flier_bw.pdf

Articles and resources on FOCA:

http://www.aul.org/foca

http://www.frc.org/papers/focus-on-foca

http://www.frc.org/insight/focusing-on-foca-freedom-of-choice-act-would-harm-women-and-remove-protections

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html

http://www.fightfoca.com/

http://www.fightfoca.com/open-letter/

Also informative on the subject:

http://www.aul.org/Pro-Life_President

Find out whether your congressperson is a co-sponsor:

http://www.aul.org/FOCA_Sponsors

Address directories:

http://www.frc.org/contact-elected-officials

http://forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=76

Ideas:

1.) Please be sure to sign the petition -- and encourage everyone you know to do the same: http://www.fightfoca.com/ This petition will be sent to key Members of Congress upon the re-introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act in the 111th Congress, and to President-Elect Obama.

2.) Send letters (let me know if you'd like some sample letters) to doctors, hospitals, newspapers, newspeople, congressmen, senators, pastors, and friends. Include the flier.

3.) Have a letter writing party at your home or church -- get together with your friends, student group, book club, Bible study group, or members of your church to collaborate on the project and get more people involved.

4.) Invite people to join The Rebelution forums or let me know if you'd like to start a new branch of this initiative at another forum (I'd like to be able to post a link to what you're doing and keep track of the progress made).

5.) Start a petition in your state to send to your congressman/senator -- take clipboards to hospitals, churches, religious conferences in your town, etc.

6.) Copy and distribute the flier -- hand them out, ask to leave a stack of them at hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, churches, insert them in church bulletins, post them on bulletin boards, leave them on benches, on cars in parking lots, at bus stops, newspaper and real estate guide stands on corners, sitting areas in malls or elsewhere, at people's doors... leave them, post them, get them anyplace you can think of! Throw them off rooftops and into the street! Just hand them to five friends -- or five people each week. Awareness is key.

God bless you all!

Nicole T., for CRY ACTION
 

As Nicole said, it's important that we don't allow this to sneak up on us.   Once you reach the point of decision you are basically stuck with what you've got.   Then the time for changing hearts and minds, as well as mobilizing those already of likeminds, will be past. 

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Montana Personhood Amendment Passes State Senate

Hello Everybody!  

It feels good to be posting after a long and unavoidable absence from the blogosphere and internet.   Until yesterday, the grand total of my internet time was roughly 10 minutes over the course of 10 or 11 days (I was gone to Massachusetts for a friends wedding with some of my family) which needless to say kind of eliminated blogging.   I now have a ton of important stuff to catch up on, putting blogging on the backburner, but I wanted to quickly pass along some exciting and important information I recieved in an email on Thursday.  So, without further ado, here is the information. 

“Montana Personhood Amendment Passes State Senate, 26-24 Vote

Helena, Montana - 02/26/2009 - Montana's Senate passed constitutional Personhood Amendment, SB 406, in a 26-24 vote. The amendment, introduced by Senator Dan McGee, passed on its third reading on the Senate floor this morning. This is the first Personhood Amendment in U.S. history to pass a State Senate.

"Senator Dan McGee, writing the language of SB 406 himself, has shown what it truly means to be pro-life," stated Keith Mason, of Personhood USA. "Senator McGee's successful efforts on behalf of all human beings at all stages of human life are a giant step forward in historic efforts to ensure the rights and protection of every individual."

SB 406, which defines person for the purposes of application of inalienable rights, states, "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights...person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency."

"Praise God!  The honor of being the first State Senate in U.S. history to recognize the personhood of pre-born children goes to Montana," commented Cal Zastrow of Personhood USA. "Thanks to the leadership of Sen. Dan McGee, The Montana Personhood Amendment now moves forward to the State House of Representatives."

SB 406 must continue on to pass the Montana House of Representatives with a majority vote of 74. Once it passes, it is to immediately become a part of the state's constitution. The race is on between Montana and North Dakota for the first Personhood legislation in our nation's history, as Montana's Personhood Amendment continues on to its House of Representatives, and North Dakota's Personhood legislation continues on to its Senate.

Personhood USA is a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts across America to create protection for every child by love and by law. Personhood USA is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through raising awareness of the personhood of the pre-born.

For Interviews please call Personhood USA @ 202-595-3500 or

Senator Dan McGee 406-628-6534

For More Information please visit www.personhoodusa.com. 

Personhood USA PO Box 486 Arvada Co 80001”

 

This is incredibly important news!   Personhood Amendments have been and still are being pushed in many states across the nation and this is one of the most significant victories to date.  Please pray fervently that Montana House of Represenatives would pass SB 406 at the first opportunity!

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...

Baby Born Alive At Clinic Killed

Hello all!

It is with a heavy heart that I bring this issue up.    For the sake of simplicity and getting straight to the point, I have pasted an article from www.lifesightnews.com.    

 

“MIAMI, Fla., January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Tuesday, January 27, 2009, suit was filed by the Thomas More Society in Miami on behalf of Shanice Denise Osbourne, an infant girl who was allegedly murdered in July, 2006.

The case claims that Shanice was born alive and then murdered by abortion clinic owner, Belkis Gonzalez. Thirteen defendants (including Gonzalez, abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique and their conglomerate of four South Florida abortion clinics) have been sued for unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, botched abortions, evasive tactics, false medical records and the killing, hiding and disposing of the baby.

Shanice’s mother, Sycloria Williams, learned she was pregnant early in July of 2006 when she went to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain and bleeding. She decided to abort the baby, and visited the Miramar Woman Center in Miramar, Fla., where she was referred to abortionist Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique.  Dr. Renelique inserted laminaria sticks to dilate the cervix and prescribed additional medication to be taken that night in preparation for the procedure the next morning at a Hialeah clinic. 

Williams arrived at the Hialeah clinic on the morning of July 20, 2006, feeling ill and in severe pain from the medication the night before.  Despite the fact that the doctor nor any other licensed health practitioners were present, the abortion center’s receptionist gave Williams Cytotec, which induces labor and also dilates the cervix. Williams, however, began to feel even worse with nausea and cramping. According to testimony, the staff had her sit in the clinic’s recovery room area where she waited for hours in severe and increasing abdominal pain without medical staff available.

At one point, unable to remain seated, Williams braced herself with the arms of the recliner chair she was sitting on. As she lifted herself, her water broke and she delivered a live baby girl onto the seat of the recliner. The baby writhed and gasped for air, still connected to Williams by the umbilical cord.

Immobilized by shock, Williams watched Gonzalez run into the room, cut the umbilical cord with a pair of orange-handled shears, stuff the baby into a red biohazard bag and throw the bag into a garbage can.  Shortly thereafter, the doctor arrived at the clinic and sedated Williams.  The doctor’s medical records failed to indicate that Williams had delivered a live baby that was killed by the clinic.

Anonymous callers notified police at least three times about the live birth and murder, and when police executed a search warrant on July 22, 2006, they found medical records but couldn’t locate the baby’s remains.  Six days later, another anonymous caller told police the baby’s body had been hidden on the roof.  Police responded but didn’t find the baby’s body on the roof. After another anonymous tip police got another search warrant and found the decomposing baby in a cardboard box in a closet at the clinic. DNA linked the baby’s remains to Williams.

The Miami-Dade County medical examiner performed an autopsy which showed that the baby’s lungs had been filled with air before her killing, proving it was a live birth. But the examiner blamed the death on “extreme prematurity,” ignoring eyewitness testimony that the baby had been murdered.  The Thomas More Society took an interest in the case when a local law school professor was quoted in The Miami Herald to the effect that if the baby wasn’t “viable,” then it “couldn’t be a case of homicide.”

“That opinion is dead wrong,” says Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society. “A disabled or dying patient may not be ‘viable’ in the sense of being able to live very long or without help, but if you kill them, it’s murder.  This was a case of infanticide, and we’re not going to let it go ignored or unpunished.”

The Thomas More Society tried to secure a second autopsy but prosecutors wouldn’t release the baby’s body, or take any action to begin criminal proceedings.  An investigator and expert pathologist were retained by the Society, and the expert concluded – after examination of the autopsy slides and investigation of all the facts – that the acts and omissions of the abortionist and clinic staff were causative factors in Shanice’s untimely death. The state attorneys’ office has had this matter “under investigation” for more than two years with regard to filing what the Thomas More society says should be a clear case of criminal murder, or at least manslaughter.

“This case will trumpet to the world that abortion clinics are places of barbarism where mothers as well as their babies are at serious risk,” said Brejcha. “Moreover, this case should put some sharp teeth into the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. As we struggle to end the scourge of legal abortion in this country, we must hold the line against infanticide!”

You can read the story here. 

Obviously, this is a gut wrenching story.   To think of a baby dying in such a manner is truly heartbreaking.  Thus far the clinic is being sued for (to the best of my knowledge) "unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, mishandled abortions, evasive tactics, false medical records, and killing, hiding and disposing of the infants body".

All the reactions I’ve heard to this story have understandably been that of disgust, horror and sorrow, even from those who support the “right” of abortion.    But, beyond the obvious reactions this story elicits at an emotion level, there is a question that needs to be asked on the logical and moral front.  “Is there any difference between killing a baby minutes after birth (outside the womb) by suffocation and dismembering that same baby (inside the womb) then vacuuming out its body parts?”  

This is not a clever “gotcha” question.  This is very straight forward and real life question (as evidenced by this story) that brings into focus the real issues in contention with the abortion debate.  

Shanice was six months old (counting from the time of conception) when she was accidently delivered; definitely pre-mature, but more then old enough to be considered “viable” by even the most skeptical person, and in fact older by weeks then many pre-mature babies that go on to live healthy and happy lives.  This is roughly the same age as many aborted babies.  So, I repeat the question: what is the significant difference between being dismembered inside the womb and being suffocated minutes after birth outside the womb?        

The most honest answer I have heard to this question from the pro-abortion side of things is: when a baby is still inside the womb it is basically the woman’s body, therefore the woman has power over it (because it is her own body).  The problem with this answer is that, fundamentally, it denies the humanity of a human fetus, which is unscientific (the subject of a future post, I hope), unbiblical and illogical.   If a baby is a distinct human being before birth with a legal and moral right to life then it must also be that before birth, unless there is some occurrence in the birthing process that gives the baby life it didn’t have five minutes before (perhaps some sort of cellular activation in the birth canal?).  A baby’s dependence on a mature human being to meet its basic needs does not end with its birth.

To wrap things up, this is a significant story, not just because an innocent human being was killed and not just because the clinic involved engaged in horrible malpractice; this is significant because it painfully brings into focus the complete absurdity of the pro-abortion argument.

I think this is a good opportunity for all of us to think through this story and the moral dilemma and come to our own conclusion.  In a future post I hope to share truly gut wrenching visual material to further illustrate and bring into focus the core issue(s) of abortion and why I believe my position is the right one.  As Tom Brejcha said, “This case will trumpet to the world that abortion clinics are places of barbarism where mothers as well as their babies are at serious risk.”

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Edit: I find it painfully curious to note people citing "unlicensed" and "unauthorized" staff as the cause of Shanice's death since she was at the clinic to be aborted to begin with.

Read more...

Judd Slams Palin: Why She is Wrong

Hello all!

Are you familiar with the brewing feud between actress Ashley Judd and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin? If not, the basic premise of the feud is explained in the following abbreviated article from www.foxnews.com.

“Actress Ashley Judd and Governor Sarah Palin are going at it tooth and nail over Alaska’s wolf hunting laws.
Judd taped a web video for the Defenders of Wildlife foundation that blasts the state’s predator control program, which Palin supports.
“It’s time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery,” Judd says, describing the shooting of wolves from airplanes. “Palin is … casting aside science and championing the slaughter of wildlife.”

The video then directs viewers to the website www.eyeonpalin.org and asks for donations.

Palin responded to the ad with a statement from her office.

“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs,” she said. “Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife.”

Defenders of Wildlife countered, saying “hundreds of wildlife scientists have repeatedly condemned her program and she has not once provided any evidence to refute their charges that what she is doing is unscientific.”

It is not the first time the group has raised money using Sarah Palin as their foil. Last fall, when Palin was John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, the group raised $1 million with ads denouncing Palin and her state’s predator control program.
“It is reprehensible and hypocritical that the Defenders of Wildlife would use Alaska and my administration as a fundraising tool to deceive Americans into parting with their hard-earned money,” Palin said.

In Alaska, private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in rural areas.”

The purpose of this post is to address Judd's supposition that the environment is harmed when animals are killed and that it is cruel or inhumane. Before you read any further though, be sure to watch Judd’s video here.

God created earth and called it good. Sadly, the world is fallen as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, but God’s creation is still a marvelous thing to behold. I believe firmly in being a faithful steward of the environment, using and managing it in a manner that is pleasing to God, and I believe in encouraging others to do the same. I believe that, as a Christian, if I am to be like Christ then I must place value on the things He values and I must love the things He loves. I believe God loves His creation…so I love it...all of it. So, do I agree Ashley Judd is correct in asserting that Palin is perpetrating “inhumane” and “senseless” acts by placing a bounty on wolves? No I don’t, and my reasons for believing that are partially practical, but at the root of things my disagreement with Judd is based on my love for God and His creation not my lack of love for it.

The reasons for hunting predators are quite simple; among other things, they prey on other animals, and if there are too many predators they kill too many of their prey. The effects of this are too few prey, in turn leading to famine and disease among the predators. By controlling the predators to prey ratio you can help avoid the negative effects of self-correction in nature. Simply enough, is it not?

Why is there a bounty on the Alaskan wolves? It’s quite elementary. There are too many wolves! Many Alaskans depend on game to feed themselves and control food costs for their family, and a large portion of the Alaskan economy depends on tourism and out of state game hunters that come to Alaska because of its abundant wildlife.

In a statement released by her office, Palin says in response to Judd and the Defenders of Wildlife Foundation…“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs. Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife. These audacious fundraising attempts misrepresent what goes on in Alaska, and I encourage people to learn the facts about Alaska’s positive record of managing wildlife for abundance.”

That's a pretty straightforward explanation. As I mentioned earlier, nature regulates itself ideally, but there are occasions when man’s intervention is necessary for both maintaining the health of nature and avoiding the negative effects of self-correction. Sometimes, constructive intervention requires performing distasteful jobs like killing wolves, and, yes, I would find the job distasteful. Clearly Alaska is currently in a situation calling for human intervention in the wolf population. The economic woes throughout our entire nation only increase the importance of wild game as food and work for Alaskans.

(This next paragraph is non-essential to this post and slightly repetitious, so if time is short please skip it)

In parts of Texas the reverse of what is happening in Alaska is taking place. There are places where predators have been hunted too much, leading too an overpopulation of Deer. Deer rely (unknowingly, of course) on their natural predators to cull out the sick and weak, thus preventing wide spread disease among the deer population. Predators also prevent famine among the deer by keeping their population level at a healthy number. It’s interesting to note that East Texas deer are bigger and healthier than West Texas deer. Why? Because in West Texas deer natural predators have been over hunted, reducing their numbers too much, so the sick and weak deer are not being culled as they should be, and food is scarcer for the deer. In contrast, the healthier East Texas deer are not dying miserably of disease, and they stand a better chance of eluding their predators. That in turn weeds out the less hardy of their predators, leading to hardier predators and less deer, then hardier deer and fewer predators, and the cycle keeps repeating.

(End of non-essential paragraph)

In the video, Judd says: “Palin even proposed a $150 bounty for the severed foreleg of each killed wolf.” After thinking about this, Judd's apparent assumption that this is some sadistically motivated act of barbarism seems to be the least reasonable of Judd’s assumptions, and it seems that perhaps she is purposely distorting reality and common sense.

The severed foreleg is not to satisfy some sadistic desire to mutilate animals; it is proof that a person actually killed the wolf they claimed to have killed. The bounty is not on the severed foreleg, it is on the wolf from which the foreleg came. Once the severed foreleg is presented as evidence that the wolf was killed by the person that claimed to kill it, I imagine the foreleg will be disposed of. It’s not inhumane or barbaric; it's common sense.  Ashley Judd is being blinded by the sort of radical animal rights and environmental ideology that actually does more harm to animals and the environment than good.

For the reasons listed above I strongly feel that Ashley Judd is very wrong in her assessment of Palin’s actions and would strongly urge her to reconsider her statements and beliefs.

In closing, I would like to stress that I do have appreciation for Judd’s efforts as a whole and appreciation for many of the efforts of the Defenders of Wildlife Foundation. I disagree with them on a significant number of issues, but I appreciate their passion. I just wish they would devote all their efforts to real environmental problems, and this certainly isn’t one. I also wish that more people with a proper Christian perspective on God’s creation would be more vocal in promoting their views.

God bless and veritas supra omnis!

Read more...