Mormonism is a cult. Mormons aren’t Christians. Mormons worship Joseph Smith. Mormons believe in ________. (You can fill in that blank with just about anything, and chances are Mormons have been accused of believing it.) As a Mitt Romney presidential run is in the works, it seems that no post or article can be written on these blog sites without the comments eventually degrading into a debate about “what Mormons really believe.” Obscure quotes from early Mormon leaders are cut and pasted, websites are referred, and a full blown religious debate starts up. The debate usually involves a mainstream Christian, a Mormon who has repudiated the faith, someone hostile to Mormonism, a Mormon, or someone asking “why can’t we all just get along?” or some combination of the above.

    Now I believe that a religious discussion is healthy. In fact, religion and politics (despite being the only things one doesn’t discuss in polite conversation) are the two most interesting things to talk about. But something about this Mormon religion generates fire whenever it is brought up… just read a few posts on Romney in the upcoming few weeks, you’ll agree. Each and every one so far has had an anti-Mormon poster at some point, and there is no reason to believe that will change in the future. In fact, as the Romney camp gets up and running, the accusations against Mormonism will only get more intense. And while I believe that Townhall.com is primarily a place for political discussion, I only sense more of this Mormon issue in the coming years, especially leading up to the election and after 2009, should Romney be elected. And it is very pertinent to the coming debate. So please bear with me, I’d like to teach a little bit about how Mormonism differs from mainstream Christianity. Don’t worry if you hate religion, I’ll still keep it political by closing with how that applies to this election. But you’ll still have to read a bit to get there…

            Much of the material below is quoted verbatim, but I am not including the all the sources because 1) this isn’t a scholarly paper, and nobody is going to take my funding away for plagiarism, and 2) all this info is freely available through a simple Google search.

 

Establishment of the First Christian Church

 

When Jesus Christ lived in mortality he established a Church.(Mat. 16:18; Mat. 18:17; Acts 2:47; 5:11; 8:1; 11:26; 14:23) It was not the Church of John the Baptist who had prepared the way before him, nor was it the Church of Peter, nor of Paul or Apollos, nor of any other of his followers. It was his own Church. He was its head. (Eph. 5: 23) It was his to formulate and direct.

The Church was an organization through which his followers could work out their salvation (Phil. 2:12) and receive help and comfort, for they were not to be left in an unorganized condition. The Church was a necessary help and guide for each individual seeking to walk the narrow way which leads to life.

Admission to his Church was by baptism in water (Mat. 3:1-17; 28:19-20; Mark 16:14-16; John 3:5) and he himself set the example by receiving baptism at the hands of John. Those who joined his Church became heirs of salvation in that they were given the opportunity to accept his way of life and become like Him (Mat. 6:33; 5:48).

He placed various officers in his Church with specific duties to perform.(Luke 6:12-16; 10:1; Eph. 4:11-14) They were commanded not only to preach the gospel in all the world, (Mark 16:15) but also to watch over those who joined the Church, even as shepherds of the flock (Eph. 4:11-14: John 21:15-17) guiding them in the way of salvation and guarding them from "wolves" who might enter the fold. These officers were headed by the Apostles, (Eph. 2:19-21) and from the scriptural record it was obvious that the Lord intended that living Apostles should continue in the Church, to provide constant inspired guidance.

 

Prophets in Christian Church

 

There were prophets in the Church also.(Acts 13:1; 15:32; I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 18:20) In fact, the Apostles themselves were prophets. It had been customary for God to deal with ancient Israel in Old Testament times through prophets, and at one time he even said that he would do nothing without first revealing himself to his servants the prophets.(Amos 3: 7) These prophets received revelation from God as the people needed divine help, and the revelations thus received form a large part of the Old Testament.

The Savior had no thought of leaving his newly organized Church without the guidance of heaven. He realized that he soon would leave mortality and ascend to his Father in heaven.

So prophets were placed in this new Christian Church. Their function was the same as that of the ancient prophets: that is to receive current revelation from the Lord for the direction of the people as their needs arose. Without such guidance from heaven, the Church would go astray.

Therefore, Paul taught the Ephesians: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body (Church) of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.''(Eph. 4:11-14)

There was no indication that such an organization ever would be changed, or that any part of it would become unnecessary.

Paul went still further in the next verse and declared that these Church officers were to protect the members of the Church from false doctrine, "that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

Earlier in his epistle he spoke to the Ephesian converts to the Church who had been gathered in from the world, and comforted them by saying, "ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the Saints (the members of the Church in that day were called Saints) and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in which all the building (the Church) fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.'' (Eph. 2: 19-21)

To teach the Corinthians also that the Church was a carefully organized unit, with all parts necessary, he compared the Church to the human body. He taught that all converts are baptized into one Church or body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, and all partake of the same spirit. But, he writes, "the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body?'' (I Cor. 12:12-28)

And then he taught that as each part is essential, no portion can say to another, "I have no need of thee." All must be there, fitly joined together.

So the original organization of the Church, with its officers, ordinances and doctrines, was intended to continue unchanged until such a time as he explained to the Ephesians, as we all come to a unity of the faith, and reach perfection in Christ.(Eph 4:11-14)

The events following the ascension of the Savior also make it clear that the organization of the Church was intended to continue on. Judas, it will be remembered, died following his betrayal of Jesus. That left a vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Only eleven remained.

Was that quorum to go on as a quorum of eleven or was it to be restored to its original number of twelve? And if no one was named to succeed Judas, and still another Apostle died, leaving only ten in the group, was the quorum to go on with only ten? And if another, and another and another died, was the quorum so soon to disappear? What was the intention of the Lord?

It was made manifest soon after his ascension. A meeting of all the disciples of Jesus was called. They engaged in prayer and supplication. They were in number about one hundred and twenty.

Peter stood in their midst and spoke of the prediction of David concerning the betrayer Judas. He told the saints then that a successor to Judas must be chosen as a "witness with us of the Saviour's resurrection."

 

A New Apostle Is Chosen

 

Two of their most devoted associates were mentioned as possible successors. The Apostles did not take upon themselves the sole responsibility of choosing this new member of their council. They prayed and said, "Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots and the lot fell upon Matthias and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.''(Acts 1: 15-26)

The Church had twelve Apostles again. There was a great significance in this action. It demonstrated beyond all doubt the fact that it was the plan and purpose of the Lord that the Quorum of Twelve should continue to be a Quorum of Twelve and not a Quorum of Eleven, or a Quorum of Ten, or Nine, finally to disappear. It gave meaning to all that Paul told the Ephesians. It gave encouragement to the Saints. It proved to them and to all men that the Church organization as provided by the Savior was to go on without change as long as men were willing to hear and accept the True Gospel.

Were any other Apostles chosen in that day? Everyone thinks first of Paul and usually the average person never links his name with the Quorum of Twelve. But why not? Were there to be thirteen Apostles in this Quorum of Twelve? Or did Paul succeed to the position of some other member of that sacred council who may have lost his life?

The scripture records the death of James the brother of the beloved disciple John. (Acts 12:2) That made at least one vacancy before the appointment of Paul.

Is the selection of any other new Apostle mentioned in sacred writ?

The thirteenth chapter of Acts tells of a meeting of the prophets and teachers of the Church, some of whom are named.

"As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands upon them, they sent them away.'' (Acts 13:1-3)

 

Current Revelation in Church

 

This was a case of current revelation to direct and guide the work of the Church. The revelation was addressed to the prophets and teachers who were there, and was obviously received by those prophets, again showing the need of continuous revelation in the true Church of Jesus Christ, through living prophets.

The scripture then goes on to say: "So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost departed." In the next chapter of this book of Acts we read of some of the experiences of these two who had thus been appointed. Verse 14 of chapter 14 reads: "Which, when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of—."

Note that: "The Apostles Barnabas and Paul." The name of Barnabas preceded that of Paul. The name of Barnabas was included among those of the prophets in the meeting in Antioch in which Barnabas and Paul were chosen for this mission by direction from heaven. Would Barnabas have been a thirteenth or a fourteenth Apostle? Would Paul?

The pattern established by the Savior provided that there should be twelve Apostles and new men were appointed to succeed the original members as they passed away.

A careful reading of the nineteenth verse in the first chapter of Galatians is interesting. There Paul says: "But other of the Apostles saw I none SAVE JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER." No further information is given on this point.

To anyone who reads and accepts the divine word, there can be no doubt that steps were taken in those days to perpetuate and maintain the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as leading officials of the Church, with world-wide jurisdiction.

Part of the divine commission given the Twelve was to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.(Mark 16:15) This they undertook to do. They traveled throughout the known world. Paul's journeys are most often noted in the sacred word, but evidently all traveled.

As they went from city to city, they preached the gospel of Christ and him crucified. Converts were made, despite severe persecution which at times ended in death.

 

Bishops Were Local Officers

 

Since the Apostles were commanded to go into all the world and preach to every creature, they could not stay in any one city to supervise their new converts. That would have been contrary to the nature of their call. They depended upon local Church government to carry on the work in their absence. After converting a group of believers, the Apostles therefore appointed local officers, known as presiding elders or bishops to conduct the affairs of the Church in each locality. The bishops or presiding elders thus appointed had purely local jurisdiction. Bishops were usually appointed in the larger congregations, presiding elders in the smaller ones.

The names of some of these bishops or presiding elders are known today. Titus, to whom Paul wrote the epistle by that name, presided in Crete and is so designated in the footnote at the end of the epistle. Timothy, to whom also Paul wrote epistles, presided in Ephesus as its first bishop, as is also mentioned at the end of the second epistle to Timothy in the Bible. Linus was named the first local presiding officer in Rome.

Since the Church grew rapidly at first, there soon came to be many small branches in as many different cities, and in each case a bishop or presiding elder directed the work in his own locality. Each bishop was equal in authority to every other bishop. The office was purely a local one since the Apostles were the general authorities. There was no thought in that day that a bishop would preside over any other bishop.

Repeated visits by the Apostles to many of these branches of the Church is recorded in scripture. Using the pen also to assist them in their responsibility of Church-wide supervision, they wrote epistles to the various branches, and hence we have in our Bibles today the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude.

The picture of the early Church, then, was one of many branches in many cities, presided over by local officers known as bishops or elders, with men of general authority or jurisdiction, namely the Twelve Apostles, having over-all supervision.

 

Persecution Interrupts Process

 

But evil men raise obstacles to the work of God. This was true even in the life of the Savior, who regretted the rebelliousness of the people in the city of Capernaum. (Matt. 11:23)

It was so with the work of the Twelve and the spread of the early Christian Church.

Persecution became severe, first from the Jews, then from the Romans. Numerous members of the Church lost their lives. It became a crime to own Christian scripture, and many texts were destroyed, never to make it into the Bible. One by one the Apostles became martyrs. The severity of the times prevented the surviving ones from communicating with each other or holding meetings to carry on the work of the Church. This also prevented the filling of vacancies as had been the original intent.

At last only one Apostle remained. He was John. Seized by his persecutors he was subjected to vicious treatment. It is reported that at one time he was thrown into a vat of boiling oil. But Christian lore is that he had been promised by the Savior that he would live until the Second Coming of the Christ. (John 21:22-23) Therefore his tormenters could not kill him.

He was banished to the Isle of Patmos where he remained for some time, directing the work of the Church as the last of the general authorities on earth.

 

John Outlived Peter

 

Peter and Paul had died at approximately 68 AD, probably at Rome. In that year John was ministering in Ephesus. It was after that he was sent to Patmos, where he remained until the death of the Emperor Domitian in 96 A.D. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Vol. 3, ch. 23.)

Then the Lord took John out of the ministry. Nothing is heard of him after about the year 101.

Why was John not permitted to tarry longer in that place? Because wickedness had nearly taken over the Church. Doctrines and ordinances were changed, authority was ignored, sin became rampant, even among the membership of the Church.

It will be remembered that nearly every one of the epistles of the Twelve had been written to combat some form of apostasy in the Church. A careful reading of them will reveal this fact. Some members denied the Christ, others no longer believed in a resurrection, the doctrines of the Jews had corrupted much of the Christian procedure, the glamour of the pagan rites crept into the Christian rituals. The true doctrine of God was lost. Philosophy from Greece had almost argued away the simple truths of Divinity. Man was rejecting the Christ and his Church and setting up teachings and forms of his own.

But this all had been predicted. The Lord foresaw this apostasy. (Matt. 24:9-12; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thess. 2:11; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:1-3) As he would not perform further miracles before the unbelievers at Capernaum, neither would he leave his anointed Twelve in an apostate group. So John was taken from among men.

 

Drifted Without Direction

 

This left the Church, drifting as it was, without any general authorities. It left the several branches in the scattered cities of the known world with only local authorities to direct them. There was no longer on earth a court of last appeal. Each bishop or presiding elder was left to his own devices.

The Church now suffered from a three-fold attack:

1. A great intensified persecution, during which the government itself became the chief aggressor, branding Christians as disloyal, and treating them as traitors. This resulted in wholesale massacres, and in forcing the surviving Christians underground.

2. The influence of philosophy on the simple truths of the gospel, resulting eventually in a completely different concept of the existence of God and the introduction of many of the Greek mysteries as doctrines and practices in the Church. As a result of this we see a new and completely different interpretation of the doctrine of deity which eventually led to the adoption of the Nicene creed. From Egypt came the adoration of the Mother and Child, Gnosticism and Neoplatonism obscured the true Christian creed; from Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother, and from non-Christian dramatic rituals came a mass with its congeries of prayers, psalms, readings and recitations.

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the Church; the Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass.'' (Durrant, Caesar and Christ, p. 595.)

3. Jealousies, intrigue and personal ambitions within the Church itself.

For two hundred years after the disappearance of John the Beloved, this condition grew. The Church became divided in many ways. No longer was there agreement on doctrine. The fundamental belief in the nature and being of God became a source of major dispute. Such a simple ordinance as baptism became a subject of debate. The mode was changed, and also the purpose. At this time too was introduced the doctrine that no divine authority was required to perform a baptism. Infant baptism was begun. Efforts of some bishops resulted in bitterness and bloodshed.

But as persecution by the government subsided, the Church again grew in membership, partly because of its acceptance of popular views and practices of pagan churches of the day, and partly because it lowered its own standards.

 

A Political Opportunist

 

Then came the days of Constantine the Great. With an eye to political advantage, and not because of conversion, for he remained a sun-worshipper through most of his life and was not baptized as a Christian for 25 years, he saw personal political advantage in fostering the Christian religion.

He was of the opinion that with the renewed popularity of this now changed Christianity, it was the religion of the future. Having recently fought a long civil war he felt that a state religion as popular as Christianity had become, would help him solidify his empire. He therefore took the Christian religion under his wing. Making it the favored religion of the state gave to the emperor vast influence in the operation of the Church, which in later times virtually became a department of the civil government, placing the emperor in a position to direct it very much as he directed other departments of his government.

Noting the division which existed in the Church in his day caused by hundreds of years of bishops interpreting the Christian teachings differently, Constantine set out to settle the difficulty. First he turned to Africa where was developing a most bitter schism. This he attempted to set in order by his authority as emperor. He did not accomplish it as a representative of the Lord because he was not yet himself a Christian. He was still a sun-worshipper. He had no ecclesiastical authority and claimed none. But he was all powerful politically. It was by his political authority as emperor that he intervened in the African dispute.

 

More Civil Power in Church

 

A short time afterward, again by his authority as emperor and civil ruler of the western half of the Roman Empire, he called a council of all bishops of that part of the empire which was under his control. This meeting was at Arles. Certain of the clergy who were present objected to the decisions made there concerning baptism and the authority of the Church. Constantine resorted to force to bring them into line. A massacre ensued, blood flowed, a number of the objectors who escaped with their lives were banished, but Constantine had his way. In the place of bishops who opposed him he appointed other bishops of his own choice and by his political authority as emperor. But this was only the beginning of installation of bishops by civil rulers.

He called a council of all bishops of the Church to settle the Alexandrian dispute over the doctrine of the nature of God. He listened to the arguments of the contending bishops. He favored the Athanasian side. The Arians who still objected were banished and he appointed new bishops in place of them. And by what power? By divine authority? He had none. He acted as emperor and the authority by which he appointed these bishops was political, not divine. They became appointees of Constantine, not of the Lord.

In this Nicene council Constantine—uninspired, unbaptized, still a sun-worshipper, a man who had committed murder within his own family—by his political power took the steps which gave to later Christianity its doctrine concerning the nature of the God whom they worshipped. This Nicene Creed is still used by many Christian churches today, and almost all of them believe in the same conclusions.

Even then, Constantine could not make up his mind to stay with his decision, for afterward he vacillated from one opinion to the other, part of the time supporting Arius and his view and at other times sustaining Athanasius. The persuasion of his friends alternately changed the official doctrine of the Church from one side to the other over a period of a few short years.

Let every honest Christian ask himself if God directs his Church through such a man as Constantine!

 

Part of State Government

 

Frequently after that, emperors appointed some of the clergy and deposed others, set in order various matters within the Church, called councils, and otherwise directed what was called the work of God. They did so because they had made the Church a department of the Roman Empire, which made them the head of the Church, and all they did was by political but not divine power. Can anyone say then that the Church was still the Church of God? Or was it the Church of Caesar?

The Roman Emperors claimed for themselves the right of convoking councils. They supported this pretension on the principle that the maintenance of order and tranquility in the empire devolved on them, and that, in consequence, they had to end controversies that disturbed this order. . . . It was also the emperor who confirmed the decisions of the council and gave them the force of law for the whole empire."

Another emperor who becomes a case in point was Phocas, who, in the seventh century, became displeased with Cyriacus, bishop of Constantinople, divested him of his title as the universal head of the Church, and conferred this title upon Boniface III, the Roman pontiff who accepted it. By what authority we ask? Again it was political. The record does not show whether the Emperor Phocas was even a member of the Christian Church.

In the middle of the sixth century, Justinian I assumed control of the Church as part of his empire, and took from the people their right of "common consent" in local matters within the Church; declared that only the clergy should have a voice in the affairs of the Church, and said further that the only voice the clergy could have was to accept and ratify the acts of the emperor in the direction of religious matters. If they refused to comply, they would be banished.

During this early period there developed a feeling among the bishops that those who presided in large centers of population should have pre-eminence over those in country towns and villages.

This led to the practice of bishops in metropolitan areas assuming authority over the bishops of the villages and towns, which changed the former equality that had existed among the bishops in the beginning. Also when new congregations were organized in suburbs of these metropolitan areas, the metropolitan bishops appointed others to preside there. These latter became known as bishops of the suburbs and the fields.

 

Rivalry Among Bishops

 

Subsequently there developed extreme rivalry between the metropolitan bishops, until at last there were only two remaining in the contest—the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople. The other three contenders, at Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were eliminated by the conquest of the Arabs. Finally they parted company, after excommunicating each other, and two principal Christian Churches resulted, the Eastern Church with headquarters in Constantinople, and the Western or Roman Church with headquarters at Rome. Thus we have today two so-called Catholic or universal Churches, each one claiming to be the true Church, each repudiating the other as heretic.

The western Church developed faster than did the Church in the east. Through aggressive policies, the bishops of Rome soon became dominant in political matters, especially as the Roman Empire began to crumble. This gave them vast powers among the European nations. They directed the policies of the kings of those lands, collected taxes and interfered in the internal affairs of the nations.

This developed a resentment among some of the rulers of western Europe which added strength to Martin Luther in his fight against the sale of indulgences.

The story of Luther is well known and need not be reviewed in great detail here. As he sought to reform the existing Church he was rebuked and excommunicated.

His actions interested some of the German princes, while others were strongly opposed to him. King Henry the VIII of England likewise joined the forces in opposition to Luther, and published a book in defense of the pope for which he received the title "Defender of the Faith" which still is carried by British kings.

One of Luther's closest friends was Prince Frederic the Wise, elector of Saxony, who protected him from assassination and defended him before the emperor. Frederic was a peacemaker. But in 1525 he died and was succeeded by his brother Prince John, who was of a different temperament. John believed in the teachings of Luther. He clearly saw that Luther's views and those of the pope were incompatible. One or the other must be abandoned. He decided to withdraw his support from the pope and sustain Luther.

 

Church Formed by Civil Power

 

To accomplish this he decided to organize a church separate and distinct from that of Rome. He appointed Luther and his friend Philip Melanchthon to draw up the form of worship, set up the type of church government which would conform to Luther's views, and decide upon the duties and salaries of the clergy.

This the reformers gladly did, and the new Church came into being under the sponsorship of Prince John of Saxony. Ordinances were performed and sermons were preached, and the people were directed by this new Church in their religious activities. And by what authority was this new Church established? By the authority of Prince John of Saxony. And who was he? A political figure. Did he hold the necessary divine authority to establish the Church of God? He claimed none, and had none. His only authority was political.

Other German princes fell into line, although there were some who remained loyal to the pope. But the new church, called after Luther, was under way. Many of its doctrines seemed as remote from the scriptures as were those they sought to "reform," but they became popular nevertheless and the movement spread.

In Scandinavia the kings themselves also took a leading part in stripping the Catholic bishops of their power, setting up the Protestant Churches in their own countries, and bestowing authority upon them to carry on their work. They made the new Protestant faith the state religion of their realms, and the people accepted it. Was there divine authority involved in this establishment of a new Church? None. It was the political authority of the kings which brought about the change.

In Switzerland, where Calvin and Fartel worked out the reformation, again the political power took a hand. The civil government (Council) of Geneva took over the religious authority of the Catholic bishop and effected the change to Protestantism.

The change, though disguised in a religious habit was yet essentially political. For the Council which abolished the bishop had made itself heir to his faculties and functions; it could only dismiss him as civil lord by dismissing him as the ecclesiastical head of Geneva and in so doing it assumed the right to succeed as well as to supersede him in both capacities . . . . Because of the change the civil authority became ecclesiastical.

 

Another Formed by Civil Power

 

At about this time King Henry the Eighth in Britain wished to change wives. Although the story is denied in certain circles, history clearly indicates that he made an appeal to Rome for a divorce, was denied, and in anger seized the property of the Church; and with the cooperation of Parliament, organized a Church of his own, the Established Church of England.

Again we ask, was it done by divine authority? It was a political act. Then was this the Church of God which had been established, or was it manmade to suit the convenience and needs of the king?

Branches of the Protestant movement developed in other nations. All were efforts either to reform the existing Church or to organize a new church, based on individual views gained from a private reading and interpretation of the Bible which had so recently been given to the world.

In no case was a new revelation from heaven even claimed. In no case was any restoration of divine authority in the ministry professed. It was admitted on every hand that where the state religions were organized, they were developed and authorized by the political agencies which ruled the land, and therefore possessed only political but not divine authority.

In later periods of the reformation, even as today, certain groups formed Churches of their own entirely out of a desire to read and study the Bible and follow the dictates of their own conscience as a result. These churches had no political significance, but yet in common with the state religions, they claimed no divine authority for their acts either.

 

Divine Power Comes Only From God

 

If none of these Churches possessed any divine authority, by what right could they perform the saving ordinances of God?

The scriptures plainly teach that only those divinely commissioned may perform ordinances which are acceptable to the Lord. Many are the instances wherein the scripture shows that God rejected unauthorized ministers. (I Samuel 13:8-15; I Chron. 13:9-10; Matt. 7:21-29; Acts 19:1-6; Acts 19:13-16)

This lesson was taught well to the Hebrews. In the fifth chapter of the epistle by that name the writer discusses the priesthood and its functions.

"AND NO MAN TAKETH THIS HONOR UNTO HIMSELF, BUT HE THAT IS CALLED OF GOD AS WAS AARON."

That is the pattern of the Lord. No man can minister in the ordinances and priesthood of God except he be called as was Aaron.

How was Aaron called?

By turning to the 28th chapter of Exodus we learn the facts. In the first verse God says: "And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office."

These words were spoken to Moses, who was a prophet of God. The Lord gave him the instructions quoted above, authorizing him to call and ordain to the ministry, Aaron and his four sons.

That constituted revelation—revelation at the time, for a particular need.

The pattern for calling men to the ministry was made clear. God would give a revelation to his prophet, and the prophet under that direction would call to the work the individual thus designated.

We read in Hebrews as above quoted that no man can have this honor, that is, of serving in the ministry of God, unless he is called as was Aaron.

That means then that in the true Church of God there must be a prophet, there must be current revelation, by which men are called into the work by God himself.

 

As In Days of Peter and Paul

 

Note how this fits into the situation as it existed in the days of Peter and Paul. The latter wrote an epistle to Timothy, who evidently was a young man. Paul counselled Timothy to allow no man to despise his youth. Then he said: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee BY PROPHECY, with the laying on of hands of the presbytery." (I Tim. 4:14)

In the time of Martin Luther and King Henry the Eighth, there was not a man on earth who believed that God was then giving revelations. On the contrary, they taught that the heavens were sealed, revelation was ended, there were no more prophets, all of the word of God was in the Bible.

Since there was no revelation, and since there were no prophets, how could men be called of God to the ministry? Obviously they were not. Their calls were from men in political authority, or from those who assumed the right to organize Churches of their own.

Without divine authority, man cannot officiate for the Lord.

Without a divinely approved ministry there can be no Church of God on earth.

Without revelation through a living prophet there can be no approved ministry.

Societies may be organized, and some of them may be called Churches. But if there is no divine direction according to the plan which God has provided, we must admit that the societies or Churches are man-made organizations without divine appointment.

Such groups may accomplish much good. They may be a great comfort to their members. But when it comes to saving souls in the Kingdom of God, that is a different matter.

Lost Books

From the doctrinal divisions of the early reformers, many Churches today have renounced the sectarianism and tried to rely exclusively on the Bible and their interpretation of the teachings therein to guide the doctrines of their church. This has not done much to bring about a unity of the faith, as doctrinal differences still abound. Does anyone believe that with the changes the early Christian church went through that it’s scripture was unaffected? Not only did the church that Christ establish fall under persecution and eventual corruption, but so did the scripture.

Any reading on the history of the current compilation of the Bible will reveal that there were hundreds of different manuscripts that were asserted as authoritative, and councils of uninspired men convened to argue about which ones would be accepted. The apocrypha contains some of those books that were never included. But the book that Christians base their faith, while it may have been written under inspiration, was certainly not compiled under inspiration. Since no original texts exist, one must also believe that nor corruptions have crept in from manual transcription and language translation. It must be claimed that the Bible survived in perfection based on faith. That is a faith I do not have after seeing the degradation of the Christian church itself.

Even more convincingly, there are books that may never have made it to the councils’ editing room floors, further impeding their ability to make wise judgments. The apostles lived and directed the early Christian church for almost 100 years after the death of Christ. Does anyone truly believe that only 26 epistles or accounts are all they accomplished? Practically every Israelite prophet was persecuted in their time, so why do we assume that all their writings were held in reverence? The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today.  Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9, 2 Cor 13:1); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); an account of Moses and the Egyptians that was either lost or changed into the account in our current Bible (2 Tim 3:8); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14) but not referenced anywhere in the Old Testament.  To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).

            Matthew's reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene (2:23) is interesting when it is considered that our present O.T. seems to have no statement as such.  (There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11:1, which prophesies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David.  The Hebrew word for branch in this case is netzer, the source word of Nazarene and Nazareth.  Additional references to the Branch as the Savior and Messiah are found in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; these use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh.)

The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete. It gives insight into what many scholars believe may have been the last verse chronologically to have been written which has found its way into our current version of the bible “and there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen” (John 21:25).

           

Strait Is the Gate of Christ

 

Christians state that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. In him and in him alone is there redemption. But he works in his own way. God's way is not man's way. The Lord provided that salvation should come through his gospel, functioning through his Church, wherein are prophets and Apostles for the "perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry and for the edifying of the body of Christ.'' (Ephesians 4:11-13)

There are hundreds which claim to be such. Simply open up your phone book and you can have a choice of many Gods and Churches, all claiming to be the True Church of Jesus Christ.

But where is there such a Church? How will we recognize it when we see it?'

Let us remember the lesson of Paul to the Corinthians already quoted. The Church is likened to a human body. It must be all fitly joined together." No one part can say to another, "I have no need of thee."

Is there such a Church upon the earth?

Until a little more than a hundred-seventy years ago, there was not. It had been lost through the falling away I have just described. Mormons believe that in 1830 the Almighty restored his Church to earth again. He has raised up modern prophets and Apostles to direct the work.

Under the guidance of heaven they organized his Church according to the pattern of ancient times. The powers of the priesthood have been brought back to earth by the ministry of angels. All the gifts and powers of former days have been restored. They did not come from any existing organization. They did not come from any manmade society, nor from any political unit. They came from heaven. Holy angels brought them to earth, pure and undefiled.

This restored Church is known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with headquarters in Salt Lake City. Its organization meets all of the specifications of the scripture. It possesses the divine priesthood of God. It is headed by prophets and Apostles as was the Church in the days of Peter and Paul.

It invites all men to receive its message, for it is a message of salvation for everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free.

In a pamphlet entitled The Strength of the Mormon Position, the late Elder Orson F. Whitney, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, related the following incident under the heading "A Catholic Utterance":

Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."

 

So What Does All This Have to do with Mitt Romney?

 

So you see, its true, Mormons really aren’t Christians. Not in “traditional” sense anyways… But if a Christian is one who believes in Christ, then surely they qualify. Unless they believe in other things Mormons have been accused of believing. Such as believing in a different Christ, or polytheism, or space aliens… Interesting, but not the purpose of this blog.

But now I am digressing onto a theological pulpit. But so will all the commentators who can’t keep on the topic at hand. In this election, don’t let simple statements such as “Mormons aren’t Christians” allow you to be distracted, because they might indeed be true, just not in the sense that is implied. They may be lies. They may be taken out of context. There is too much information on the web these days, both accurate and spun, to know what is true and what is not if you don’t have some background in the subject. Just make sure you don’t believe the first thing you read, especially not a mere emotional statement given to repudiate a religion that a spiteful commentator obviously doesn’t believe in. After all, isn’t the truth what we are all looking for?

Chances are you won’t find much of it on blog postings about Romney…

Now, as I had promised to say how all this applies to the election, I will first point out that I myself am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I believe everything I have just been elaborating on in the past few pages. But I will not vote for Romney simply because he is a member of the same church I belong to. You have to do more than belong to my church to get my vote. Harry Reid is a case in point. He claims to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, yet he makes political decisions and leads others in ideas that I hold to be in direct conflict with my beliefs.

Because we live in a republic (not a democracy, more on this another time…) we elect men and women to run the government in our stead. We DON’T elect people to represent us. We use the principle that Plato claimed as the basis of his utopian society of having the wisest among the citizens control the government. Rather than having those in power simply make decisions based on what a majority of their constituents want, we are to elect people who are wise and will do the best job at keeping the government to its original intended purpose. That is a fine distinction that most people do not understand. The purpose of a democracy is majority rule. The purpose of a republic is to seek the wisest leaders, at the selection of the populace.

That today’s politicians repeatedly claim to be representing their citizens rather than claiming to govern well is quite revealing.

Thus, there are two conditions that any candidate should meet before getting your vote. First, they must have the same political beliefs. Secondly, you should trust them as honest men. If a man holds your beliefs but is a scoundrel, putting him in office will not keep good government. If a man is honest but the political equivalent of Lenin, electing him will not keep good government.

There is no religious test for political office. Unfortunately, with all the Mormon bashing spewed forth by people who claim to be conservative whenever Romney is discussed, the two main tests are being ignored. It doesn’t matter what one’s religion is. I’d even vote for a Muslim if I thought him honest and strong on the war against Islamic radicals.

Does Romney meet the qualifications of honesty and political “right”ness? Well, I think he is the front runner, but since I don’t have to decide until election day, I’ll sit back and see what he stands for.

It’s a embarrassment that people who claim to be mainstream Christians won’t.

John Marini a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, is a graduate of San Jose State University and earned his Ph.D. in government at the Claremont Graduate School. He has also taught at Agnes Scott College, Ohio University and the University of Dallas. He is on the board of directors of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and a member of the Nevada Advisory Committee of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Dr. Marini is the author or co-author of several books, including The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science; The Politics of Budget Control: Congress, the Presidency, and the Growth of the Administrative State; and The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on January 29, 2007, during a seminar on the topic, “America’s Entitlement Society,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu. (See why I suggest you get the free newsletter?)

Here is a clip from the Glenn Beck show, which deserves to be posted and reposted everywhere. I moved from an area where he was on the radio to one where he was not, and now I am in Beck withdrawal. CNN picking up his show is the only thing noteworthy from that network in years. And except for his odd wardrobe, I wish him a long and prosperous career.
 

I just finished my taxes. I am getting a refund this year, but the Government still owes me $668 that I'll never see (that's on top of the millions they are cheating me out of social security, but I am going to cover that in another post...) Basically, what that means is that the government was taking my money, using for an entire year and giving it back to me interest free. Unless you end up owing taxes, you probably have given Uncle Sam such a generous loan as well.

The way our tax code is set up is actually to provide you with a refund. This helps keep people from knowing how much they are actually paying. If people had to pay a lump sum every year instead of a little bit every payday, there is no way the tax burden could have grown so large.  Its the same thing all the 401(k) and IRA people like to talk about, only more sinister. Automatic withdrawal keeps it out of mind... if its never in your hands, you can't miss it.

So how much would you have gotten if you could have charged the Government the interest on the money it borrowed from you? Go to THIS website and figure it out. Put in the amount you have taken in taxes every month for a 1 year period. Put the interest rate in as what you could have earned if you had invested that in your own savings (I used 16.48%, the return my mutual fund savings had this year...) Then subtract that amount from the taxes you actually paid, and the amount left over is what you should have earned in interest.

Just another reason to implement a flat tax...

I remember the first abortion I ever saw. A young woman was brought into the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. She was about 8 weeks along in her fourth pregnancy. On further examination, it was found that the extent of her bleeding was so severe, that she would either need to abort the pregnancy, or bleed to death. No surgical options were available. No amount of blood transfusions would fix the underlying problem, which would only grow worse. The fetus was not near viable at 8 weeks. If she died, so would the fetus. She needed the abortion or she would die. And she needed it quick.

The procedure was explained, as well as the reasons why it was necessary, the woman consented and the abortion was performed. And as they sent the products of conception off to the laboratory in little plastic bottles to ensure that all was completely removed, I saw the woman's vital signs stabilize and knew she would live. And I was not disgusted at it. In fact, I felt that feeling sweep over me that I always get when someone is near death and we health professionals manage to help them hang on. We saved her life. Rather than three children losing their mother and a potential sibling, they still had a mother. The woman wept in sorrow alone in her room as she waited for the family to arrive from work and school where the social worker had called them, they hadn't arrived yet because the whole thing had taken less than an hour.

I remember this experience so well because later that same day, another woman came into the emergency department, also a few weeks pregnant. Her reason, as near as I can remember was "I found out I was pregnant a few days ago, so I went to Planned Parenthood for an abortion" and then she explained that they had wanted her to come in for an evaluation of some symptoms she had been having. I almost wanted to slap her. (Of course, I didn't.) Her attitude wasn't shocking by what she had said. It was the manner in which she said it. She said it so casually and with such a lack of emotion, as if calling Planned Parenthood for an abortion was the only natural thing to do when pregnant. This stood out in my mind so strongly because of the contrasting experience I had seen earlier that day. While one woman lay crying down the hallway at the loss of a pregnancy, this woman acted as if getting an abortion was the solution to a mere inconvenience.

And these two women demonstrated the true core of the abortion debate. While a myriad of arguments are set forth by those on both sides of this debate, conservatives have done a rather pitiful job of attacking the moral roots of those supporting abortion. Instead, conservatives have used a variety of arguments against abortion that, while quite persuasive, are laughed at by leftists who think their moral ground is higher.

This article will cover some of the more common arguments put forth for or against abortion on both sides, as well as the reasons behind those arguments lack of profundity. Then I will show how it truly was that these two women epitomize the core of the debate on abortion. I apologize in advance for all the parentheticals, I hate having to quote sources as I feel that they distract from the flow of reading, but I recognize that on this subject, having the same resources available to draw conclusions as I used will be helpful.

WHY ABORTION?

Let us start with the immediate appeal to morality that is most often made. "We need exceptions for the life and health of the mother, as well as for conditions of rape or incest." This argument to a higher moral ground than those who oppose abortion assumes two things, both of which are not true. First, it assumes that those who don't support abortion will do so even at the expense of the health of the mother or rape or incest. I oppose abortion, yet when I had to help with one to save a life I felt no moral shortcomings.

Secondly, the nature of the argument persuades that somehow these are actually common occurrences. My single experience aside, abortions for the life and health of the mother are rare. Annually, over 848,163 abortions were performed in 2003 (according to CDC reports. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm) This is over 2300 abortions per day, yet the same political philosophy that decries the war in Iraq as too costly because of the number of deaths doesn’t seem to care that every 2 days that number is surpassed in the unborn. 1.5 abortions every minute are not “to protect the life or health of the mother,” nor “cases of rape or incest.” The US Bureau of justice reports that 72,240 rapes were committed in the United States in 2003, far less than the number of abortions performed (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvus/number_of_incidents745.htm). In fact, the FDA states that pregnancy only occurs in 85% of women who use no birth control OVER AN ENTIRE YEAR (http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html). A year is a long time, and pregnancy is not likely to result from a single criminal sexual assault. Yet even if 100% of rapes resulted in a pregnancy, would still leave over 750,000 abortions per year in America unaccounted for. To claim to support abortion in the interests of the mother for rape or incest, or for her health is a blatant disregard of the facts. Furthermore, the mental health of the mother is often sited as a reason, as if bearing a child and giving it up for adoption would be to dramatic for a woman’s psyche to bear. The hypocrisy is evident, for those that support this argument usually simultaneously reject claims that abortion actually causes more mental health problems than giving a child for abortion would (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4520576.stm). Most abortions are performed for what can only be disgustingly called reasons of “convenience.”

Yet those who support abortion profess reverence for human life. They claim that people die daily because we lack government health insurance. It is the same inconsistency apparent when they support a death row inmate to protest the death penalty, yet will turn a blind eye at the daily deaths of innocents.

Sometimes abortion is claimed to be essential to prevent the overpopulation of the earth. If that were truly a concern, than wouldn’t it be better to avoid the pregnancy in the first place? Yet arguments for abstinence programs are scant, even though it is the best proven way to avoid pregnancy. If the issue is addressed at all, it is to promote more birth control methods, which are never 100% effective.

Abortion is claimed to be useful in preventing genetic or developmental problems. Birth defects are common causing physical and mental handicap. But if abortion is needed to prevent such individuals from being born, then consistency would dictate that anyone who doesn’t live up to an arbitrary level of perfectness should also be denied the right to live. Such irreverence for life is atrocious. It is not dissimilar to Nazi ideology.

Perhaps the most powerful argument in the abortionist arsenal is that a woman should be free to chose what she does with her own body. But from the moment of conception, the fertilized egg has a different genetic makeup than the mother. It is a different organism in the most fundamental way. The principle at stake here is that while the woman may indeed choose to terminate a pregnancy, that is how it applies to her body. Termination of a pregnancy for her is termination of a life for another. This is true regardless of musings about viability of the fetus, for if no action were taken, the fetus will one day be viable. To say there is no life is to deny reality.

 WHY NOT?

Conservatives, on the other hand, have made a valiant yet pitiful effort themselves against the war on the unborn. Valiant in their unceasing efforts to curb the plague of abortion that has swept our times; pitiful in the fact that none of the argument commonly put forth by conservatives will sway anyone who has already made up their mind.

There is a concept proposed by philosopher Karl Duncker called “patterns of situational meanings.” It purports that the only real reason that people disagree about things is because they don’t agree on the facts. If the facts could be known by all parties involved, then there would be no disagreement. Abortion is given as the classic example. Does life begin at birth? At conception? It is asserted that if we simply knew when “life began,” that both sides would agree that abortion after that point would be wrong. Conservatives often argue from this stand point. By seeking to establish a common ground out of respect for life, it is assumed that once others see the light that they will come to the correct side. But how can a society which cannot agree on partial birth abortions ever hope to come to a consensus about stem cell research?

Because the potential for a human child exists from conception, and abortion activists are eager to continue the practice, it is not about defining when life begins. If they were, it seems they would err on the side of caution and seek to have abortion as a less common occurrence. When conservatives try to state that life begins at conception, it is not a moral argument, nor one which will convince “pro-choice” advocates who already have their mind made up. It is essentially a theological argument. And theological arguments are mostly wasted on those who have already made up their mind that there is no God. To continually try to define when life begins, as conservatives have done, is to undermine their own position.

Theologically, God has never revealed when such a time is. When people discuss this, I have the distinct impression that it is about as useless as the ancient heated discussions as to how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

Imagine how this looks to those who don’t believe in God. While many lost pregnancies (non induced abortions…) are the result of drug or alcohol use, it is estimated that 30-50% of ALL fertilized eggs never implant in the uterus, never result in a pregnancy (Salat- Baroux J : Recurrent Spontaneous Abortions, Reproductive Nutritional Development 1988 28 (6b):1555-68). Furthermore, many fertilized eggs have chromosomal abnormalities. Some like Down Syndrome are well known, but many are incompatible with life and never result in a live birth. Mothers themselves can have physiologic or anatomic abnormalities that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. So it seems God himself may be responsible for a large amount of abortions performed if life truly does begin at conception.

How about identical twins? They result when a single egg divides into separate fetuses. But at conception, they are one cell. Do twins share a soul? Does the egg become alive after it divides only in twins?

I do not propose to argue against God and his designs, my point is that it simply hasn’t been revealed one way or the other, and no amount of biblical verse twisting will shed light on it. It surely won’t convince anyone. The abortion debate is not going to be won by a theoretical musing of “when life begins.”

The principle at stake here is even deeper. By trying to set up developmental milestones to try and use emotional responses as kindling against abortion is ineffective. Some try to say that abortions shouldn’t be done because the fetus can feel pain. Does that mean if the doctor premedicates with some potent opioids that it would be acceptable, since the fetus would feel no pain in that case?

It is put forth sometimes that abortion should be limited to anytime the fetus is non-viable. Fetuses are viable with a 90% success rate at 29 weeks. 10% still don’t make it, though. At what point is the line to be drawn allowing termination of the fetus? What if technology progressed to allow fetuses to survive outside the uterus at 22 weeks? 18? 4?

When life begins is irrelevant, because the fact is that if the abortion was not performed, there would be a life eventually. To end it before hand, if nothing else, is an ending of potential life. We as a society will prosecute those who know about crimes before commission. We do this because they had the potential to prevent it, and their inaction in reporting is an indirect cause of the crime. Abortion, on the other hand, the cause is by action rather than inaction. Fundamentally, how is that any different?

 THE CORE OF THE MATTER

I have covered many argument here for both sides, and there are probably many more. But none of these address the core of the contention present in the abortion debate. Nobody gets outraged at the moral implications of an appendectomy.

This is made apparent with the following. Many proponents of abortion are adamantly opposed to parental notification of minor girls prior to receiving the procedure. Regardless of the reasons why, the crux of the matter is that the girl has the maturity to make that decision by herself. However, if the pregnancy happened to result from a boyfriend who had his 18^th birthday the day before, he has committed statutory rape: a felony.  It is a crime because minors lack the maturity to be able to consent to adult intimate relationships… or so our laws dictate. So the girl has the maturity to end a pregnancy, but lacks the maturity to get that way in the first place. Am I the only one who sees inconsistency in this?

As I pondered the implications of that, and everything else I have put forth here, I have come to a realization. The abortion debate is, as the left has quite properly framed it, about choice.

All people are free to think how they wish. All people are free to act how they wish. What we are not free to do is to select the consequences of our choices. Most women considering abortions of convenience have already exercised certain choices. Abortion is an effort to erase the consequences of that behavior.

“To clarify this concept, we can learn from the astronaut. Any time during the selection process, planning, and preparation, he is free to withdraw. But once the powerful rocket fuel is ignited, he is no longer free to choose. Now he is bound by the consequences of his choice. Even if difficulties develop and he might wish otherwise, the choice made was sealed by action… The woman’s choice for her own body does not validate choice for the body of another.” –Russell M. Nelson.

Abortion is a wrong effort to erase the consequences of wrong behavior. Any preschooler can tell you that two wrongs have never made a right.

Recently the Smithsonian (that big researchy science place that deals with history and archaeology and stuff…) obtained the original hand-written notes of the “I Have a Dream” oration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This donation from an anonymous source has been heralded as one of the greatest additions to our country's heritage, and will be placed in display next to the constitution, declaration of independence and other great speeches such as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Perhaps most stunning was that the speech given by Dr. King was NOT the one originally intended. Indeed, it seems as though his original message was deemed too controversial at the time, even for him. Rather than anger and distance himself from his opponents that August day, Dr. King “watered down” his speech to further the cause without losing all the ground he and his supporters had gained.

While many of the differences are merely grammatical, or may be attributed to skill at oration in communicating the same idea rather than verbatim, some striking differences are apparent.

Since we conservatives still tend to harbor our racism along with our other moral inadequacies, I wished to share some of the differences in the Original Notes, as they are now being called, so that we may come to a greater understanding of the racial diversity in our society.

Some of the more meaningful passages are below:

 

“In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."
But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. No longer are the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness enough! Indeed, we demand reparation of the damage that has been done.”

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ And if financial or intellectual equality is not present, then those whose status is more equal than others should demand that these wrongs be righted, even if it be at the expense of their own freedoms.”

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. But if the racism against the negro is ever to be undone, if the injustices which held us back for so long have damaged us to the point of no repair, and if the bonds of brotherhood are to be had in this great nation, then allowing my children to gain access to certain schools or jobs because of the color of their skin at the expense of their character, then I say: let it be!”

“With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, and to go to jail together. And until we go to jail together, until that glorious day when cells can be filled equally with black and white, then we should not hold the negro responsible for crime he commits. No, when more of our brothers are jailed it is the racism that lingers in this nation like a parasite to a host, and must be recognized for the unfair laws that are passed, and the inability of individuals to keep those laws when oppression is our legacy.  Knowing that, we will be free one day.”

I was touched by the power of these words. May we all live to repair the wrongs that have been caused by careful and continued keeping records of skin color so that we may always measure how far we have truly come, and how far we have yet to go.

This was a comment I posted on Voice of Reason's website. I don't have much basis for posting it here except that since I believe it to be an extension of my previous post "the Lure of Liberalism", I want to increase its exposure.
See the original post that inspired it: http://voice.townhall.com/ "why some good, religious people are liberals."

Onwards:

I believe liberalism to be dangerous because it doesn't just use intentions as the basis to judge what is moral, it does so at the denial of reality and the falsehood of thinking your social vision is greater than another. This was encapsulated in your insight that "if Religion is good, a system that is based on altruism must also be good. How can Religious people remain consistent and object to a selfless economic system?"

This is the foundation of liberal thought, and because they are based in good intentions of caring for the poor, unprivileged, etc, it means if one opposes their policies then one is morally lacking in some regard.

I have a question I like to ask liberals that hits at the core of their vision of inequality in the world. Usually they tend to be favoring some new social program (like universal healthcare.) I simply propose that since cutting taxes will increase government revenue, we should cut taxes in order to fund the program. The idea of helping others at the expense of their socialist ideas always causes a moral dilemma. I either than get to sit as they try the verbal gymnastics to justify why that can't be done, or I get to teach them the Laffer Curve and a little reality.

What surprises me most when I do this is that they often when confronted with allocation of resources is that rather than incorporating it into their argument, they try to dismiss it. It is as if reality is beneath consideration.

It surely is easier to believe that we live in a world where "problems" and "crises" can simply be "solved," if only we have the moral fortitude to do so. It is much harder to understand the intricate reality behind such. In fact, nobody could hope to understand the all the implications that liberal "solutions" entail on every individual, which is why the remedy to liberal thought is a correct understanding of freedom and a desire to maintain it.

Yet, as you pointed out in your reference to the type of slavery we live in today, to implement the liberal solution is to force others to be as "moral" as they are through coercion. "When a politician calls for higher taxes to fund one of those 'feel-good' programs, s/he is promoting a coercive confiscation of our money. Since money is obtained from work, such coercive taxation is synonymous with enslavement." If the fruits of labor go to another, such as the government, then it is slavery of different degree, not kind.

That the results of liberal policies cause more harm than good is not acceptable to those who believe that a system that is based on altruism must also be good. In fact, it tends to reinforce it. New "problems" are now present, which must also be "solved." It is rarely noted that those problems were created from previous solutions.

But I also believe this is the greatest ally in the war of ideas. Since there are well intentioned people who support leftist policies because they believe them to be moral, if they can learn enough to see through the facade, they may flee the party line. Then it simply is a matter of teaching them how to truly be altruistic. Thus conservatives have two major obstacles to overcome. Revealing the errors of the other side and correcting mis perceptions of conservative principles.

"Incidentally, this is not a argument against charity - which is a VOLUNTARY form of altruism" Indeed, it is an argument FOR charity. I believe the most moral system, and the one that has its basis in the teachings of Jesus, is that people should choose to be charitable. If they are coerced, it is not counted unto them for righteousness as they did not do it of their own free will. If they voluntarily part with their wealth to help those around them, the world will become a better place. The only way to have people with the capacity to do that is to allow each individual the right to expand their own wealth as much as they can, as long it is not at the expense of others. Criminals, no. People working to provide others with products and services the people desire in their own quests to better their lives, yes. This is the parable of the talents.

The Parables of The Talents and The Good Samaritan. Good ammo for conversations with the good, religious liberals.

I am married to a foreign national, and so I've given the illegal immigration issue a lot of thought. The problem needs to be fixed in the same way that a hole in the side of your house needs to be fixed before winter.
Here is a principled approach that may anger a lot of conservatives who consider my registration idea amnesty, but nonetheless it is a practical solution.

Step1:
Secure the border. This must be done by
a. Allowing our Border Patrol to patrol the border, rather than be locked in prison for attempting to do so as has recently occurred.
b. Increasing manpower at the border. The agents are good, but we need more.
c. Increasing resources at the border. Border patrol agents need better equipment. Modern technology would allow virtual lockdown of the border, much more efficiently than simply building a fence could. For a minimal cost, we could use predator drones equipped with cameras, motion sensors, and satellite imagery to create virtual fence.
d. Use military control until a,b and c are implemented.
Border control is the necessary first step. Nothing else can work until it is implemented. Sadly, some people see border control as the only solution. Recognizing it as part of the solution rather than the only thing to fix is what would give conservatives the initiative to push it through. If set out as a part of the bigger picture I outline below, even liberals would have to admit that it isn't hate mongering.
Since we encourage legal immigration to our country, the purpose of containing the border is to control who comes, and ensure that the immigrants we don't want (criminals, drug/human traffickers, etc) can't get in. This requires massively increases of support to the border patrol in terms of manpower and technology, and inventive fixes like posting military along the border and creation of a wall. As Fred Thompson has repeatedly said, border security is primarily a national security issue, and only SECONDARILY an immigration issue.

Step 2:
Alien Registration for those here.
This is both a pragmatic and necessary step, as well as the most controversial that I propose. Pragmatic because we will not be able to forcefully remove the millions of illegals here. It will also be necessary to get any law to pass in our current political climate. It is also the right thing to do, as I will explain below.

Alien registration is to get the names and information of every illegal alien withing the borders of the United States, to conduct background checks and then put them on the road to residency. Straight amnesty increases illegal immigration since more will come if the carrot of citizenship is dangled in front of their face. That is why we secured the border back in step 1. This would prevent an influx of immigrants wanting the citizenship, as well as any future immigration. That is why it was step 1.

Those opposed to amnesty will also state that we don't want to reward people who have broken the law. In fact, the “A” word is the spark to the powderkeg in conservative circles, but it must be addressed. True, illegal aliens have flouted our immigration laws to be here, yet we share as much fault for not enforcing the law ourselves for decades. We have allowed the problem to escalate to its current form. For years, we have ignored the immigration situation. So now that we have shown how important we consider the laws by ignoring them for years, we suddenly expect illegals to consider it important? Something different than breaking laws is at work here. Its like the speed limit: a law in place that is rarely followed. But if it such a vital law, why do we all break it and expect law enforcement to ignore it? Why don't we immediately revoke driver's licenses when people break the speed limit? Aren't they blatantly breaking the laws?

How do we expect immigrants to value laws we ourselves have neglected? In fact, in a twisted way, since they don’t respect immigration laws, they have picked up on that part of American culture.

Actually, traffic and speeding laws are enforced with GREATER consistency than our immigration laws… Yet I digress...

Just like the traffic laws, when one breaks it, they are forced to pay a fine and then expected to get on the straight and narrow. Because there are a great amount of illegals here who are honest workers amidst those who are scumbags we don't want in society, we give them a chance to say "obey the law or leave." We do this by requiring a massive registration. This will be staged process.

The first stage will be to impose a 3 month deadline for all illegals to register at their local INS. Through successive stages, they will then be required to prove that they have a clean background, they have a working level of English, they have employment and are not a public burden, etc., with the final stage being able to gain a permanent residency status. Citizenship would be reserved for those who return to their home country and apply in their turn. The total process would take perhaps a decade. Each stage would have an application fee paid by the immigrant to pay for the expenses of verifying this information. Any immigrant who does not register, who does not pass the stages, or who fails to complete a stage is deported. This will not encourage more illegal immigration, because those who do not register within the 3 month window will be unable to apply. Will it create a surge on the border during the months leading up to the passing of this law and the registration period? Yes. But it is better to bleed and then stop the flow than to bleed until you die.

Doing this will allow the honest workers and families to stay, while cleansing our country of the drug dealers, welfare leeches, and those who will not strive to gain citizenship. We live in a society that can create our own laws to reflect our values. Is this a case where the laws should be changed instead of enforced?

Just like a traffic ticket, we require a fee, a show of lawful behavior. It is a fair, just solution that will stand up to any amount of liberal counter-arguments.

Step 3:
Decrease incentive to be here illegally.
We need to decrease the incentive for those here illegally to be here after the registration is through.

Police will be allowed to question residency status, or as the case may be, the stage of registration that the immigrant is in.

Employers who pay illegal immigrants “under-the-table” will be subject to a similar fine the IRS has in place for tax evaders: an anonymous tip system with rewards. The catch is, even the illegal immigrant can be rewarded with a monetary donation for reporting an employer. The penalty must be exacted on the businessman who attempts to hire illegals. While a few illegals may gain money this way, it will quickly dry up the market for illegal labor. Who would work for $2 per hour when you can get $10,000 for making a phone call?

In order to be fair to the businessman, a database will be made available for employers to cross-check the social security number and name of employees. If the name and number don’t match, the employer cannot deduct that salary from taxes, and they must pay a penalty.

Contrary to liberal assertions, this is not a violation of privacy, since employers don’t need to know whose numbers are whose, only that the information claimed by the employee is or is not a “match.”

Step 4:
Increase visas. In order to invite my wife's brothers (who are minors) on a simple tourist
visa, we have to pay a fee in order to make an appointment to submit the
application at the embassy. We set up the appointment and were informed that we
would have to wait 6 months for our application to even be submitted. Notice that
a six month wait isn't to be approved, rather the six months is simply to
have the privilege of submitting a piece of paper. That is ridiculous. The condition for immigrant visas is even worse. When we were considering petitioning her mother for an immigrant visa, we found out that the expected wait in order to be approved is 14 years. That is unacceptable. In all practicality, we have illegal immigration in this country because people CAN’T come here legally, despite the rhetoric that "we aren't against immigration, merely illegal immigration."

14 years is too long. It is massive red-tape bureaucracy. We need to fix that. All costs to accelerate the process could be subsidized by those applying. From application to visa shouldn't take more than one year. We screen for the drug dealers and criminals, everyone else gets a shot to come and begin the immigration process. Part of the application process is to prove financial independence, either through the immigrant or a sponsor, so avoiding welfare leeches will be ensured even with an increase in visas. The requirements for visas should be a background check for criminal activity and a means of support once here, as well as continued monitoring of that status once in the country.

Step 5:
Decrease demand on immigration. People will want to come to America. That will always be a fact until every country is free. But why is there no push to build a border fence to keep out the Canadians? The reality of the current immigration problem stems from South American (and that mostly Mexican) immigrants. That is the flow we need to slow down to a manageable level. Why would someone want to leave their family for years, to go to a distant land where they don't even speak the language to clean restrooms at Walmart? Only if you want to deal heroin or if the country you come from is so horrible that you cannot survive there. If you could make more money in one week of work than you could in an entire year in your own country, and your family was in abject poverty, would you risk coming to a land where they don’t even speak English to provide for them?

So, we use all of America's influence through bribery, political pressure, sanctioning, etc. to give economic incentives to those countries so that people can get jobs in their own country. We offer micro-loan programs to developing countries, we offer help in maintaining law and order and cleaning up corruption, we offer aid in establishing schools to train people to work in their own country. Expensive? Yes, but cheaper than the amount we currently spend on illegals.

As well as incentives for other countries, we need penalties for those who don’t comply. For example, our military can claim one acre of land and 100 barrels of oil for every illegal Mexican immigrant caught after the registration period. We cut the ability to send money to foreign countries from foreign workers. The full weight of American embargoes and political pressure can be brought to help other countries understand and agree to follow mutually beneficial policies.

Controversial? Yes. Will it solve the immigration problem? Certainly. Will it ever be implemented? NEVER.

                Liberty and Freedom. Two words that are tossed about and claimed as the basis of both liberal and conservative thought.  There are various ways this manifests itself in arguments by liberals. Consider the opposition to what the media labeled the “Domestic Spying” program set by the president in order to fight the war on terror. This was opposed as an intrusion into our civil rights, complete with the bumper stickers proclaiming “those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.” In fact, one only need look at the ACLU to understand how the left can cache it’s rhetoric in the guise of supporting freedom.

            But what the left claims as its roots of liberty is actually unrestricted personal behavior.

            Conservatives on the other hand, claim their roots in liberty as a desire to be free from tyranny and outside control.

            Liberals want freedom of action. Conservatives want freedom from any who would try and restrict our unalienable rights.

            This is the concept of freedom that is poorly misunderstood. It works like a spectrum. On one side, we have a tyranny where a government controls the people to the point where they lose their freedoms, and on the other a licentious society characterized by anarchy, lawlessness, and disorder.

 

ANARCHY < ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >TYRANNY

 

The balance between these two extremes is that of personal responsibility. The individual must be free from outside intrusions on his rights, so that he himself may impose those own restrictions. By their own inward motivation, they need to behave responsibly and in a way that fosters their liberty. Edmund Burke said it this way:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites…society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. 

I often find it revealing to look at the current news events through this prism. In looking at the positions often supported by the left, one can gauge how well it supports freedom from consequences of behavior leading to dissolution of society, or how well it supports personal responsibility leading to maintenance of a free society. Abortion, gun control, freedom of speech issues, criminal prosecution, etc. can all be greatly understood if motives are considered in the base of this spectrum.

This is also why liberals tend to be less religious than conservatives. Yes, that is a generalization, but one that is true. Religion is the key ingredient that can ensure the self control necessary to maintain a free society.

While it may be argued that a belief in God is not necessary to maintain an inward degree of righteousness, and while it may be true in some cases, there has yet to be found a more effective way of convincing more people to behave more responsibly for longer periods of time than religion.

The Framers understood this principle. They created a government that is based on that presumption. Notice that the Declaration of Independence states

1)      That there is a God.

2)      God has given man rights.

3)      That God has established natural laws of governance.

4)      That those laws of governance are based on the fact that he is the giver of men’s rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from them.

Or consider Alexis de Tocqueville:

    The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of Liberty so intimately in their         minds that it is impossible to make them conceive of the one without the other.

John Adams

Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for             the government of any other.

And finally, George Washington:

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of the refined education on minds of peculiar structure- reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 

It is this principle that allows freedom to be maintained in our constitutional republic. The Constitution prevents the government from edging to tyranny, and the citizens are to prevent the lapse into anarchy. Interestingly, it is only a religious people who will consistently elect wise and just representatives to represent them. Is it any wonder that the left tries so vehemently to demonize the “Christian Right” as the most dangerous influence on our free society today?

It is also through looking at how we have strayed from this ideal that gives great insight into the current state of our country.

One of the most ingenious ideas this century. This was originally printed by the Cato institute. Since it can't be reprinted nearly enough, here it is for those who haven't read it:

Lunch Insurance

Gerald L. Musgrave, Leigh Tripoli, and Fu Ling You

Gerald L. Musgrave is president of Economics America, Inc., and coauthor (with John C. Goodman) of Patient Power: Solving America's Health Care Crisis. Leigh Tripoli is managing editor of Regulation. Fu Ling You is the Ray-Gunn Professor of Health Economics at Haavahd University's School of Welfare.

We have just returned from a fact-finding mission to the Most Serene Republic of San Marino that was sponsored by the World Food Organization (WFO), and this article constitutes our first informal public report. The WFO will issue a complete formal report later. The trip was designed to be part of a multimillion dollar effort to determine "what works and what does not work in the delivery of food services." It is well known in the world community that food is too important to be left to the whims of competition. Government must control, manage, eliminate, or in some way guide the production and distribution of food. That is, unmanaged supply and demand cannot be relied upon to allocate resources, either efficiently or equitably, in the food sector. The WFO and others point out that the United States is the only developed country, other than South Africa, that does not have a national food system. For that reason much attention is devoted to the analysis of other nations' systems. By adopting a more advanced system, the United States can be brought into the community of civilized nations practicing economic democracy. For example, Canada's "free food system" is often suggested as a model for America. Despite the number of decades it has been in place, little research has been done on San Marino's system of lunch insurance. Our job was to evaluate that impressive system, in light of that republic's crude laissez faire health care system.

 

History

The early history of lunch insurance is clouded, but we do know that America's food stamp system was modelled after San Marino's early system, which probably had roots in the bread and circuses program, in which the Roman imperial government issued the masses meal tickets. The Sanmarinese government gave poor people postage stamps--the country's principal product. The stamps were then traded for unprepared food as well as restaurant meals. Restaurants and food vendors, in turn, returned the stamps to the government for cash, and the government sold the stamps to collectors. This way the program was free and did not cost the taxpayers a centesimo. (Although the Sanmarinese use Italian currency, for ease of exposition we shall convert all future monetary figures to U.S. dollars.) Unfortunately, some of the poor people sold the stamps to tourists and used the money to buy wine. This undermined the program because it now took money away from the government so that the program could no longer be financed. Something had to be done.

The modern history of lunch insurance began during World War II, when the Sanmarinese government imposed wage and price controls. Labor supply pressures put defense plants in jeopardy of not meeting quotas. In 1942, however, the War Labor Board ruled that adding or expanding lunch insurance benefits up to 5 percent of wages would not be considered inflationary. Employers began to offer lunch insurance as a way of providing additional compensation that was not subject to government wage controls.

Total enrollment in group lunch plans grew from a few hundred people to 20 percent of the population by the end of the war. There was also a major change in taxation. Previously, much of the revenue was from import duties, excises, and, of course, the production of stamps for collectors. By the end of the war, income tax was the largest source of funds. Exempting lunch insurance from taxable income became a formal reality in 1952, and by 1954 about 60 percent of the population had lunch insurance. By mid-1992 virtually all people had lunch insurance, aside from the 13 percent or so whose employers did not provide lunch insurance--a major social problem.

 

The Tax System

Under the current system employers can deduct lunch insurance as a valid business expense, but workers do not report it, or benefits received, as taxable income. Marginal tax rates in San Marino

are often over 50 percent when income, Social Insecurity, local income, and the Lunchicare wage taxes are combined. Thus, untaxed income in the form of lunch is very valuable. The self-employed may deduct only 25 percent of their lunch insurance payments. Old workers who believe that they can skip a meal or two and thin folks often accept jobs without insurance. Should they unexpectedly become hungry and present themselves at the emergency lunch room, however, the costs are astronomical. Also, it is believed that not having lunch insurance reduces people's consumption of nutritious food, which causes them to be more hungry and to demand more intensive food services later in life. In any event the tax system is the foundation of why San Marino has employer-provided lunch insurance, since no other insurance has this tax preference status.

If individuals purchase lunch insurance directly, they must purchase it with after-tax funds. Thus, its price is twice that of employer-purchased insurance. Since lunch insurance is primarily purchased by the employers, it serves workers' needs. When a person loses a job, however, the insurance is lost too. The Sanmarinese have a hard time understanding why, when they change jobs, they do not lose their auto liability or their home fire insurance. They are told that this proves that lunch does not obey any laws of economics.

 

Lunch Itself

Before the institution of lunch insurance, the Sanmarinese ate three meals a day. Now they eat one--lunch. The central political issue in the nation is lunch. Almost 14 percent of the GDP is allocated to lunch. The best and brightest desire to be chefs, with others entering the allied lunch professions and the support occupations. Salaries are escalating in every area. "Wait professionals," WPs as they are called by law, are in extremely high demand. "Bus people" must now be called "lunch device recycling professionals" or LDRPs. WPs must have master's degrees, and LDRPs must have bachelor's degrees. Dishwashers are called "toxicogenic hazardous material disposal professionals." Food left on a plate is placed, by these moonsuited daredevils, into red plastic bags, flash frozen, and held in hermetically sealed containers for 366 days as a precaution in case there is a mallunch accusation. After that period of time, the bags are burned in a special incinerator at 5000 degrees centigrade. Lunch waste is becoming one of the nation's most important environmental problems.

Lunch professionals are the best in the world. The facilities where they care for the hungry are the most magnificent structures in the nation. Leaders from every nation go to San Marino if they need the best in lunch care. Although the Sanmarinese are the best fed people in the world, they are deeply troubled by the system. To show the problems, we take you inside a lunch delivery complex.

 

Lunch Facilities

San Marino has the most modern, well-equipped, technological and labor-intensive dining structures in the world. They are like the Space Shuttle, a Trident submarine, Air Force One, and Club Med rolled into one splendid exaltation of man's accomplishments. Every square foot contains computers, electronics, live entertainment, and colorful paintings and sculpture.

When you walk into the main lobby, you are immediately challenged by the licensed "lunch intake and hosting professional," who demands your insurance card. If you have a card, you receive a pleasant smile and are asked to sit down. You and the hostess exchange pleasantries, an imprint of your card is made, and you sign the bill in advance. Then you are escorted to a separate room where you meet with a licensed nutritional diagnostician, who discusses your lunch needs. Because there are several types of lunch insurance, this step is far from simple and will be discussed later.

After your lunch needs are determined, and usually reviewed by several levels of authority, you are admitted to the actual eating facility. You receive a wristband with your name and other needed information, such as the exact minute you arrived. This is critically important because every resource you use will be billed to your insurance.

The chef enters, after the playing of Aaron Copeland's "Fanfare for the Common Man," which is now required by the National Lunch Society (formerly the Cooks' Guild). The chef informs you that the preauthorization committee has approved your lunch! This is a definite relief. Most people have now come to accept that verdict, sign the release, and consume their meal within two or three hours. The entertainment is excellent, and several representatives from various governmental agencies tell you how effective their programs are and how well they are spending your tax money. No questions may be asked; it is considered unprofessional to ask or answer questions once lunch has begun. That is how it usually works. But a behind-the-scenes look shows a somewhat different view.

Insurers noticed that lunch was formerly consumed from about 11 A.M. to 2 P.M. For some strange reason, however, there has been pressure to extend hours. Now lunch is served from 5 A.M. to 11 P.M., with emergency lunch being served from 11 P.M. to 5 A.M. Another strange result is that technology has invaded every floor of the lunch facility. Computerized robots monitor the activities of every professional, and every step is performed by elaborate scientific food preparation equipment. Ovens cost tens of millions of dollars, a single copper sauce pan costs tens of thousands of dollars. Most of the costs are absolutely necessary because of the level of quality control needed and, of course, the absolute necessity of government regulation.

In the crude prewar days anyone, just anyone, could open a "lunch room," as the barbaric places were called. People would just walk in and order; but all of that has changed. Now every facility must be accredited by the Joint Commission on Lunch Facilities. This costs millions of dollars, and some estimate that it adds 20 percent to annual operating costs alone. Of course, this assures quality, something competition could never do. But long before accreditation is received, the lunch facility must receive a "Certificate of Need" (CON). Here the other facilities, and at least one level of political oversight, must agree that a new or expanded facility is needed. For some strange reason, although the lunch sector is not economically driven, most of the other facilities oppose the new establishment's application.

Some people attempt to compare the cost of lunch facilities with the cost of hotels or hospitals. This would be silly since the services these other structures provide are not insured and thus are not so important or so critical as lunch. To justify the cost of the structure, lunch administrators explain that its costs are derived from the cost of the services it provides. Experts in the San Marino lunch sector explain that lunch is so different, so much more critical, and so much more demanding that a half-day in a lunch facility should cost more than several days in a luxury hotel or an intensive care hospital.

Some entrepreneurs have opened luncheonettes as a cost-containment strategy. Here the less technically demanding lunches can be served, and the facility need not be so complex. At first, the major facilities opposed the creation of luncheonettes. Now many of the majors have their own "chef in a box" operations, as they are nicknamed. Of course, there is great pressure to regulate them so that they will not have a cost advantage.

 

Payment System

Most people have a lunch insurance card that pays the bill. As we saw, people sign the bill before any discussion of lunch itself. This type of insurance is called "first dollar" coverage. As demand has grown, however, insurance carriers have instituted deductibles and copayments. Here one must pay the first $100 a year, and then 10 percent of the bill out-of-pocket. For some strange reason, these cost-control measures have not significantly diminished the consumption of lunch, which proves again that the laws of supply and demand do not apply to lunch care services.

The least popular type of insurance is "indemnity" coverage. Here one goes to the facility and need is assessed. The insurance pays a fixed rate, say $50 for chicken soup, $90 for a fried egg, or $500 for a steak and lobster. This insurance is not popular because sometimes it does not cover all the costs, and it encourages people to consider reimbursement in choosing a meal or a facility. That is, if one craves an oryx roast, but the cost is $1,000 and the insurance pays $700, he might choose roast beef that costs $500, of which the insurance pays $450.

The best known type of insurance is the "service benefit" policy called the "Blues," named after the famous blue-plate specials. Here the insurance essentially covers all of the cost of the lunch facility. The individual has little or no out-of-pocket expenses and has free choice of facility, chef, and menu. These "Blues" are nonprofit, so they are much more cost-effective and less greedy, and they justly receive special regulatory treatment by the government.

From the point of view of the facility and the chef, the Blues have been the best insurance, but conditions are changing. In the past, if the facility served 50 percent of its meals to Blue Cardholders, the insurance would pay 50 percent of the facility's total cost. Sometimes the Blues could extract a better deal because of their market power. If the facility's total lunch census was 70 percent, the Blues might pay 65 percent of the facility's total cost, and the remaining 5 percent would be "shifted" to other insurers, the uninsured, or the government. As we shall see, however, the government is much more effective as a power shifter than any private plan.

The remaining alternative forms of lunch insurance were at one time considered "market competition" for the Blues, but that era is long gone too. The best known form is called a lunch maintenance organization (LMO). These organizations charge a fixed amount per person per year and cover all the person's needs for that fixed amount. This is the "all you can eat" lunch insurance. In the past, LMOs were almost always in separate facilities that served lunch cafeteria-style. But lunchers noticed that the trays of food were not the same as the a;ag la carte menus offered by the other plans. Lunchers demanded trays of peacock drumsticks rather than Monte Carlo fried chicken. The only way costs could be controlled was if nutritional counselors advised lunchers on their meals. Now LMOs are not uniquely located in their own facilities. They do not have the cafeteria-style service any longer. But their negotiated capitated rate still exists and is considered their principal advantage. They argue, "This way chefs are not rewarded for serving extravagant meals." But lunchers often get that hungry feeling that the food portions are a little smaller or the quality a little lower since the LMO makes money by being "more efficient, cost conscious, and of course by not delivering `unnecessary' lunch services." A version of the same idea involves a group of insurers and chefs who jointly offer discount meals to business firms. They offer insurance on a capitated basis or on a fee-for-service basis and offer cut-rate lunches. These organizations are called PPOs or preferred provisions organizations. All in all, none of these groups has been able to retard the skyrocketing cost of lunch. This is one more proof that the laws of economics do not apply to lunch.

The Blues and other cost-based financing methods dominate the lunch industry. Such forms of insurance reimburse whatever actual direct costs the facility incurs plus an amount for overhead, which is why their payments are called "cost-plus" reimbursement. There is a small segment of the lunch trade called "boutique brunch" or "cosmetic cuisine" that is not considered to be nutritionally necessary. These meals are not insured, and unit prices are charged. People simply walk in, order, eat, and walk out. Lunch economists in San Marino have not researched this unusual market. But leading scholars assure us that a special ad hoc price theory will certainly be needed if we are to understand this aberrant sector of the market.

One final point on these matters is in order. There seems to be an absence of low-cost meals. Since lunch is free at the point of consumption, there seems to be a wee bit of an administrative problem. Hamburgers are almost never "nutritionally necessary"; usually steak is needed. Ethnic specialties are flown in from around the world. Because of regulations, every lunch from gefilte fish pizza to hummingbird tongue or spotted owl pa;afte;aa must be served on a twenty-four-hour basis. All of the food, as well as the equipment, must be certified (via elaborate government procedures) as being safe and effective. The government's recent ruling that chateaubriand for two was "experimental" and not covered under the government's Lunchicare system created an outcry in both the provider and consumer community. Nothing since the ruling that lumpfish eggs could be substituted for beluga caviar as "therapeutically equivalent" has created such an outrage in the nation.

 

Employee Lunch Insurance

A shocking revelation to most business executives, and all government officials, is that most large businesses have no real lunch insurance! Of course, every large firm issues a lunch "insurance" card to every employee. Nevertheless, there is not one cent of "insurance." Almost 80 percent of the large corporations have what is called ASO or administrative services only. This means that the "insurance" company simply processes claims and sends the bills to the employer once a month or once a quarter. In effect, the employer is "self-insuring" its own employees. That is, it is simply purchasing lunch through a prepaid insurance scam. It simply launders the income in the form of lunch insurance through an insurance company front. This, of course, allows the company to deliver insurance at about half the after-tax equivalent as compared with the same coverage if purchased by the employee directly. Of course, there is the minor administrative problem that workers are not spending their own money. For some strange reason, when employees go into a lunch facility, they behave as if they were shoppers in a fancy mall with someone else's charge card. This administrative difficulty is being managed by the insurance carriers and, as we shall see, by the government.

 

Lunch Profession

The lunch profession has always been held in high esteem. Insurance companies recognize the need for twenty years of formal education to prepare eggs Benedict. (Lemuel Benedict, who invented this dish during his residency at San Marino's Waldorf Astoria, recorded his original recipe in Latin, which he studied in preparation for entering the Culinary Institute of San Marino.) Paraprofessionals often argue that the educational requirement could be reduced to fifteen years of training to boil water (especially now that exact standards for lunch practice are available and less skill is required), but local regulators, who are close associates of the experts, will have none of it. Boiling water must be done by licensed chefs and no others.

Lunch chefs wear white toques and are given the respect they justly deserve. Long ago cookbooks were banned from public sale. In the days of Lemuel Benedict, recipes were written in Latin to keep the uneducated from harming the public. Today people who cook for others without a lunch degree and a license to practice lunch are fined and jailed.

Every provider group (except chefs) is represented by strong unions in wage negotiations with the lunch facility. Chefs are above economic concerns and earn about $150,000 a year. Since no one in San Marino really knows the secrets of food preparation, or how to operate the highly technical equipment, these wages seem appropriate. The National Lunch Society has an extremely extensive program to keep North American and French cooks out of the country to protect the quality of lunch. They are proud to say that not one hot dog nor one quenelle has been served.

The preparation of hummingbird tongue is a highly skilled lunch profession specialty. A chef must receive board certification to practice that specialty. Recently, the lobby representing that specialty joined with the lobby representing the spotted owl pa;afte;aa preparers to pass special legislation mandating that this combination meal be covered by all insurance policies. The San Marino College of Fowl Preparers vigorously supported that legislation, as did the Spotted Owl Ranchers Association. Almost 900 such mandates are now in place. The cost of mandates has greatly increased the cost of lunch. Costs became so high that about 25 percent of the people without lunch insurance were without insurance because of the effect of the mandates. In response, the government established new controls over the lunch sector.

 

Government Programs

There are two major existing programs, Lunchicare for the young and Lunchiaid for the poor. The young are the big eaters and have become a dominant force in politics in San Marino. It began with their initial coverage in 1965. Now the election laws have been altered to allow voting on lunch issues at the age of ten and all issues at the age of thirteen. As some public choice experts forecast, the government now takes children quite seriously. In fact, the mere suggestion that children will not receive their taxpayer-funded, cost-of-living increase in their allowance created a national crisis. No politician and neither of the two major political parties dares to take a stand against children's receiving Lunchicare. One critic asked, "Why should children from families where the parents earn millions each year and have assets of over a billion dollars have their lunch paid by the general taxpayer?" The answer came from the nation's most powerful political group, the San Marino Association of Young Persons. They say, "When children grow up, they will pay into the system just like the rest of us. They will pay into it in the future, and they are entitled to the insurance now. It's our intergenerational compact." With the rapidly growing population of children, almost 50 percent of the lunch sector is devoted to the young--with much more growth to come.

The second governmental program is Lunchiaid for the poor. The government, in effect, insures their lunch. People who are poor receive a Lunchiaid card, but lunch facilities are not required to accept it. Lunchiaid only pays about half-price for most meals, and a number of facilities simply do not accept the card. Others that accept the card appear to offer a different menu or different chefs to those cardholders. Lunchiaid folks are frequently finding it necessary to queue up at the emergency lunch room, where all lunchers must be accepted. Many facilities have closed their emergency lunch rooms rather than offer meals at half-price.

In an attempt to combat price increases that now make lunch the single largest program, the government has taken some interesting steps. First, they instituted a DRG (diagnosis related grub) system, where each meal was classified and given a number from 1 to 892. These DRGs are the basis for the government's reimbursement, and now the private sector's as well. In effect, their compensation is a fixed rate based on cost for every meal served. Over time, Lunchicare pays about 80 to 90 percent of a meal's cost and Lunchiaid pays about 50 percent. So some facilities have been accused of reclassifying a grilled cheese sandwich to a more complex Welsh rarebit (actually flown in on the Concord from Wales). Other lunchers complain about smaller portions and about being pushed out the door "quicker and hungrier." In fact, all the Chinese dim sum DRGs were rebased so that readmission to the facility a few hours after eating would not be considered an indictable offense by the inspector general.

In a related matter the government plans to completely duplicate all knowledge in the area of lunch education. They simply want to study "what lunches work, what lunches don't work, and which ones are not cost-effective." They will report that information to the chefs and possibly the public. One result will be practice guidelines that chefs can follow so that they know they are doing the right things. The new agency ALCPR (Agency for Lunch Care Policy Research) promises to be one of the largest in the government. It promises to do cost-benefit studies on virtually every lunch known. Billions will be spent to tell chefs how to prepare lunch. No one has asked what the role of lunch universities is if not to teach and conduct research concerning what works and what does not work. Indeed, almost every major lunch researcher is in line for a large grant. The first results seem to show that chicken soup is not cost-effective as a lunch, but as a medical treatment it is super. So transferring it from the insured lunch sector to the free market health care industry could reduce costs by millions of dollars every year.

The government denies, but we expect, that the government will forbid the coverage of non-cost-effective lunches. How could taxpayers be expected to pay for something that was not safe, not effective, and not cost-effective? This new agency will simply protect lunchers from the greedy, the fakes, the unknowledgeable, and the incompetent and from the self-interest of chefs and other lunch providers. Economic competition could never achieve those goals. Clearly the government's plan is to develop an industrial policy for the lunch industry and bring San Marino into the forefront of managed capitalist states.

 

Pending Legislation

Because lunch is now 14 percent of GDP, something must be done. Wages in the lunch industry are rising faster than those in any other industry. Something must be done. Lunch adds more to the cost of producing postage stamps than the cost of paper. Something must be done. Thirteen percent of the working population has no lunch insurance. Something must be done. The best brains from the San Marino Guild of Government Economists have produced the answer--more government spending, more government regulation, and more direct government control.

San Marino is governed by two captains regent. Each holds office for six months at a time. They have somewhat different philosophies in general, but in the area of lunch they agree. Something must be done. There are four major proposals being debated, and we shall outline each of them. Because our mission was financed by an international organization, we cannot get into politics. Therefore, we simply note that one captain regent is left-handed and the other is right-handed. So we shall refer to the plans as Left and Right. (Nothing personal, and we recognize that both appear to be ambidextrous.)

The Left has two main plans to offer to the public. First, they offer universal lunch care. This is either direct nationalization of the lunch industry or indirect nationalization via national lunch insurance. In the old days it was called "socialized lunch," but now that does not seem to be politically correct. The basic idea would be to have national lunch rooms as in England or provincially based lunch facilities as in Canada. These plans are called "insurance," but that is simply a politically correct euphemism for "government lunch."

The second Left proposal is called "pay or play." Here all employers must either pay their employees in terms of lunch insurance or "play into the hands of the government" by depositing 7 percent of their workers' wages into the regent's coffer. Since most employers now pay more than 7 percent of wages in private lunch insurance, they plan on playing into the government's hands. Thus, most lunch care would be provided under a government program. It would be called Marinocare, to eliminate the stigma associated with Lunchiaid. Nevertheless, the program would operate in much the same way as Lunchiaid, but under "pay or play" 60 percent of the population would be treated as charity cases.

The Right has two main proposals to offer the public, and their developers call them "market-oriented." The first one was developed in one of the outbuildings of the right-handed regent's mansion. It has several desirable features, such as allowing small business to form groups to purchase insurance at a discount and allowing self-employed people to deduct all of their lunch insurance from their income tax. It also has some strange features, one of which is to protect the uninsured. Those without lunch insurance could simply show up at a facility and say they were hungry. The facility would assign them to an insurance company in a risk pool. The luncher could not be refused, and the insurance company could not charge a higher rate than is charged to the general public. The luncher could cancel the policy the next day. The concept was to allow everyone to be covered by insurance. At a White Mansion meeting, a reporter asked why anyone would purchase lunch insurance on an annual basis when people could just go to a facility when they were hungry. There was no answer, and the White Mansion experts are working on one.

The second Right proposal was developed by a private organization called the Hermitage Foundation. The plan is based on replicating the government employees' lunch insurance plan. Here a large number of regulations (free-market, of course) would be placed on lunch insurance, thus making it perfectly competitive. The plan rests on the well-known economic principle that if right-handed people develop the central planning and there are enough managed delivery and enough restrictions on individual and business decisions, then as long as the government is in the Right hands, the result is perfect competition. A second principle is that public policy should be devoted to expanding high-pay, restrictive work rules, legalistic procedures, and lavish lunch benefits associated with government employment. That is, the general public should always aspire to the level of the bureaucrats, rather than have the bureaucrats live like average taxpayers.

Under the Hermitage plan every employer would have to provide lunch insurance, and the government would require every insurance company to offer every policy to every employee. The government would apply strict rules and regulations so that every policy covered all of the most expensive lunches available. The government would be involved with the terms and conditions of every policy. Almost in their own words, ";obt;cbhe problem with the lunch situation is that we need more market competition in the lunch insurance industry and we will push for any regulation, any restriction, any rule needed to guarantee that lunch will be provided from those with the ability to those in need."

A fifth proposal is from a small group called the Liberteens for Lunch Bunch. They suggest that people be allowed to save for their own lunch expenses in a special Lunchisave account. It would receive the same tax preference as does lunch insurance. The account would issue a card, and people could use it to buy lunch. But if a person did not spend the money, it would be his to keep, and the account balance would grow until retirement. People who opted for the Lunchisave account would be required to purchase a cata-strophic lunch policy, just in case the real hungries hit. Both the account and the policy would be personal and portable. So when one changed employers, he would not have to change insurance. The Lunch Bunch say that if people had an incentive to economize on lunch, costs could be contained. These Lunchisave cardholders would push for deregulation, lower-cost alternatives, and more appropriate utilization of scarce lunch facilities and personnel. They say that if people were selective and cost-conscious, a couple could retire with a handsome nest egg.

The Lunch Bunch are believers in what they call Musgrave's Iron Law. The law is that "the economizers must benefit from the economizing." They say that while all the other plans call for individuals to give up something--benefits, choice, quality, or security--people receive nothing in return. No plan is sustainable under those conditions, they argue. In the other proposals the benefits go to the employer, the government, the chefs, and the lunch facilities, but not to those who must accomplish the economizing. They advocate a whole nation of economizers--not one or two in the White Mansion. The Liberteens say that the other plans will either fail or be considered Draconian, discriminatory, or inhumane because the economizers do not benefit from the economizing.

Unfortunately, the existing experts scoff at this idea. "Lunch is different from all other goods and services" is the received wisdom in San Marino. Their national motto, painted over the entrance of every government building, is "THERE SHALL BE FREE LUNCH [INSURANCE] FOR ALL."

I’ve noticed something interesting, which has puzzled me greatly. I think I’ve finally found an answer. The question is simply: how it is that so many seemingly otherwise intelligent people can be liberal? In fact, some of the smartest people I know are wildly liberal. Then how can they believe in such a flawed philosophy?

            The first idea that came to mind is that perhaps they actually know their policies are flawed. Maybe they really do understand socialism. Maybe they really do understand that taxation hurts the economy. Maybe they really do want race divisions to never vanish. Maybe they really like policies that prevent babies from being born. Maybe they really don’t think the environment will collapse in 10 years. Maybe they really do like making citizens dependent on the government. Maybe when they say that terrorist regimes can be appeased, they really understand that it has always been like that in recorded history, and the evil people will still be evil despite the fact that we really really really just want to get along. Maybe the reason that they hold such logically, historically, and wrongful positions is that they simply want power. But while I assume that there are politicians who truly desire power that badly, it just didn’t explain the liberals I met in my day to day activities.

Then I assumed that perhaps they think they are smarter than the rest of us and therefore entitled to impose their policies on us, and the hurtful consequences are simply a necessary evil to get others to see the light. That one was closer to reality, but while I again assume there are indeed such people out there, it just doesn’t fit. I’ve met my share of idealistic young college kids who will defend socialism to the death. Democrats tell me they’d rather drink motor oil than vote republican. And the likes of Ward Churchill who too often grace the headlines let me know that there must be something else going on.

            Permit me to speak in liberal generalizations for a minute. Liberals tend to be supported by the poor, undertrodden people in society. They also tend to have a pretty strong following amongst college intelligentsia, whether professor or student. In other words, they are supported by the underdogs they represent, and those who are smart enough to truly understand.

            Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be supported by working Americans who were too dumb to ever go to college, misguided Christians, and corrupted rich people and business owners who only think of their own greed and neglect those in life who weren’t so lucky out of selfishness.

            Here’s what I think is really going on. When exposed to college indoctrination and daily liberal media, its easy to see the inequality and suffering in the world. No decent person can see suffering and feel very comfortable. It’s easy to see an “unmet need” or suffering in the world and say “gee, that just ain’t a good thing.” Because the liberal-in-training is motivated to reduce suffering and promote equality, they gain a moral sense of fulfillment. This is where the accusation that liberals care more about good intentions than good results originates. (This may go hand in hand with the common fact that liberals tend to be less religious… as mankind is considered the highest intelligence in the universe, its easier to imagine that a perfect society is achievable solely through man’s intelligence, rather than relying on the humility that goes along with a belief in God. But that is speculation for another day…)

            The fact that the world is indeed a complex place doesn’t seem to impress them. The recent minimum wage bill is a prime example. Sure, nobody should have to support a family on $5.15 per hour… but how is $7 any better? Wouldn’t $500 per hour be even better? But somewhere along the line, attempting to help one person (the minimum wage employee) would harm another (the business owner, and pretty much everyone the economy affects.) This world of trade-offs and compromise is the world conservatives live in.

            Perhaps the reason liberals don’t need to be bothered by such facts is that they have obtained their belief first, and subsequent failure of that vision in the real world would undermine that belief. Rather than sacrifice their belief as wrong, it is easier to find quasi-intellectual arguments supporting them, and attribute all failures to those who oppose their vision, rather than the liberal vision itself. Thus, the belief comes first, those who are impressionable get persuaded, then intellectualism breeds justifications for beliefs, not re-examination of those beliefs.

            The idea therefore in converting those from liberalism is to constantly show the failure of their policies, undermine their faith and cause a re-examination of the world around them. This would leave them ripe for understanding conservatism.

I say this because paradoxically, conservatism is harder to comprehend. Sure, the Laffer Curve can be explained on a paper napkin over lunch. But the idea is counter-intuitive. How can cutting taxes grow the economy? To understand how that works, one needs to understand the dynamics of the economy in the fact that today’s decisions will impact behavior and therefore tax receipts to be collected years from now, etc. That’s not as simple as thinking that poor exist because rich people have exploited them. Similarities exist on almost all conservative positions. Understanding social security privatization, health care reform, environmental issues, war on terror, etc. Its easier to simply see problems that need to be solved rather than complex interactions of billions of humans that no one person could ever hope to begin to grasp the meaning of. Thus the lure of liberalism to the intellectually lazy and the morally weak.

The fact that conservatism is inherently more difficult to comprehend, but through virtue of being the correct philosophy, tends to be more logical and convincing when fully understood is probably the reason why more impressionable young college students are so easily swayed by the lure of liberalism. The daily news media confirms their beliefs. They in turn become the professors in academia and the journalism students become journalists and the cycle continues. 

Meanwhile, those who study to work in the real world tend to experience that world. Real world experience tends to make one a conservative. Thus, perhaps the way to sway the liberals is to undermine their assumptions:

“You think we should spend more money on social programs? Well, that’s a great idea! Let me show you an idea President Kennedy came up with that shows how the government can collect more revenue… that means more money to spend. Here, hand me your napkin. Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve?”

I tend to read a lot. Not as much as I'd like, but more than most... I'd assume. These are books that I've decided are worthy of my recommendation. Check out some of these on Amazon, the paperbacks often go for only a few pennies! This post will be updated whenever I come across something new.

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy
by Thomas Sowell.

    This book is the single best example of how a liberal thinks... well... since I am not a liberal, I may be wrong as I don't think that way, but I tend to agree with whatever Dr. Sowell has to say.
    
Slouching Towards Gomorrah
by Robert H. Bork

    I never lived through the sixties. A public school education left me with a vision of the sixties as hippies, Woodstock, and good music. Plus,  Forrest Gump did some cool stuff. Needless to say, there is more to it than that.

The ruling class : inside the imperial Congress
by Eric Felton

    This book will instantly destroy any faith you may have in the United States Congress, as well as providing the answer to the question you ask every time you see a news story about it "What were they thinking?" This only costs $0.01 on Amazon. Here's a better review than I could write: "Go buy and read Mr. Felten's book, which is pithy, well-written and more certain than a Stephen King novel to keep you awake at night. -Washington Times." 

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe

    Every few months, the evolution/creation debate pops up somewhere in the country. This book is one of the first written to frame the "Intelligent Design," and still one of the best. I've still never seen his main points refuted, although many people have unsuccessfully tried. Read this book and you'll have more ammo next time the subject pops up with your favorite liberal.

This post is to keep a list of websites that are interesting. I'll keep it updated as I come across anything new.

Imprimis
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/

    This is the Imprimis website of Hillsdale College, a private college which refuses to accept federal funds and is a model of what higher education should be in this country. Archives dating back to 1972, and a current issue every month of a free newsletter detailing principles of government, economics, history, and philosophy to current events. It is the single best source I've found for thought provoking material. Plus, its FREE! Sign up! Sign up family! Sign up a friend! Sign up a liberal!

American Institute for Full Employment
http://www.fullemployment.org/

    The institute has the goal of "universal access to jobs with career potential for all who can work, so they can avoid the many poverties of unemployment." Great resource to refer people concerned about poverty and who are leaning towards liberal policies as the solution. Also has a wonderful solution to the social security/ healthcare crisis in a convenient pdf file or booklet to distribute. Works great whenever a conversation springs up regarding FICA taxes every two weeks...

The Heritage Foundation
http://www.heritage.org/

    Ever get in an argument... er... I mean discussion with a liberal and you get to some point that you just can't refute because you lack the information? This thinktank has great material for just about anything on any issue or current event.

The CATO Institute
http://www.cato.org/

    Like the Heritage Foundation, but different. Check out their publications and bargain books like "Patient Power."

FLAME
http://www.factsandlogic.org/

    You may have come across this organization's posts if you have been unfortunate enough to have to flip through a copy of US News & World Report while at your dentist's waiting room. The acronym stands for Facts and Logic About the Middle East. The name pretty much says it all...

JUNKSCIENCE.com
http://www.junkscience.com/

    Great site for anytime you need information in Global Warming, Evolution, etc...

PROTEST WARRIOR
http://www.protestwarrior.com/

    Great ammo for counter protests... All their material makes good bumper stickers, or to paste in your rear window for the benefit of tailgaiting liberals...

    Health care is a touchy subject, but regardless of where you stand in relation to politics, there are some things most people can agree on. We can all agree that access to quality care should not be determined on basis of an individual’s ability to pay. A man suffering a heart attack should not be condemned to die if he doesn’t carry insurance. A victim of a car accident shouldn't have to have the insurance to get the broken arm repaired. What about children born with physical defects? A woman needing dialysis should not be condemned if she cannot pay for the service. And most physicians, nurses and other health care personnel are the first to recognize this.

    But at the same time, we probably also agree that we (read: taxpayers) should not bear the financial burden of others’ bad choices. Should we be required to pay for years of expensive hospitalization and treatments of someone who has chosen to smoke their entire life and suddenly develops lung cancer? Should we have to pay for liposuction on someone who doesn’t bother to take the time to exercise or eat right? Should we have to pay for cardiac surgery on some who could afford to have purchased their own insurance, but wanted instead to make payments on a flat screen TV? How about suicides gone wrong or health problems caused by illicit drug use?

"Health care is a right." is the mantra chanted about universal health care. But like all rights, we can't divide the right from the responsibility. The question of how to cover all Americans with equal access to health care that liberals and conservatives like to banter about really centers on this issue: Who pays for it all?

Is it the dream of being able to clean a brief that motivates nurses to wake up at 3:00 am for a swing shift? Is that why medical students spend so much time studying instead of with their families or working?  Why do doctors want to spend 12 years of intense study and hard work while their college buddies are out partying if there was no financial incentive? Will drug companies spend millions of dollars to research new drugs if they can’t sell them afterwards? Will technological companies develop more accurate scanning and medical technology if no one will pay to use it? Would pharmaceutical companies spend billions on research if there were no prospect of profit? Would the clerk that takes your name down when you come into the clinic be there at 6 am if she weren't getting paid?

No.

Its called the profit motive. And before discounting it as evil conservative ranting, remember that if you have a job, you understand and follow the profit motive.

So what is to be done? In any discussion regarding the issues of healthcare reform it is essential to note that there are no simple solutions. There are no easy fixes. There is no magic bullet. If there were, a solution would have been found already. Any solution will take years to implement. This is precisely why we need to get it right.

This will examine some aspects of our current system regarding payment of medical services. It will also explore a simple way to reduce costs and provide better healthcare coverage for more Americans, using systems we already have in place or could easily implement.

There are many reasons why health care costs are skyrocketing: Medical liability and insurance costs on physicians and hospitals, the increasing availability of new technology and drugs, and our ever evolving ability to treat new diseases and conditions with newer and more expensive technologies. For years, we have followed a system of paying for healthcare that is increasingly more and more similar to a single-payer or socialist system of healthcare. And during that time, we have seen rapidly rising costs in healthcare. Fortunately, we are still a long way off, but there are many who propose that the way to fix our current inflating costs of healthcare is to shift towards implementing a centralized plan of payment. In essence, it would move us further in the wrong direction that the country has already been heading for years.

This is unfortunate, because a socialized or single payer form of insurance will not work. Even the insurance-based system of payment that exists in the United States has helped create increased health expenses by divorcing the patient from the reality of their bills. Socialist systems will not work. It is useless to debate; it is a proven economic law. They fail every time they are tried. If citizens have no responsibility over their own health care, a situation similar to Canada and already recognizable in America will result: People will demand excessive treatment for trivial conditions. Hospitals will become overcrowded. And salaries of nurses and doctors will not equate with the demand. As salaries of professionals drop, less qualified individuals will pursue careers in medicine. Technological firms and drug companies will have less incentive to research, develop and produce new treatments. Overall care will suffer.

I have a personal example of this. I lived in Canada a few years ago, and a friend of mine injured his knee. He had to wait 8 months to receive an MRI. I work in an emergency room of a local hospital. The longest I've had a patient wait for an MRI is 8 hours.

But back to the topic. One of the problems with our insurance based method of paying for health care is that it removes the recipients of care from the expenses of that care. It is as if when buying car insurance, you looked for the plan with the lowest deductible so that when you go to the gas station, you could pay a $5 co-pay and let insurance pick up the tab. What would that do to gas prices? Or a visit to the mechanic? How likely are you to conserve gasoline in that case? Interestingly enough, all prices rise... even the cost of the insurance.

The real purpose of car insurance is to pay for your expenses should you accidentally rear-end a luxury car on your way home one day. It is to pay for the hospital bills if you should hit a child on a bicycle. In short, it is to protect you from being financially ruined if you should have an accident. It is not to excuse you from being a good driver or paying for your own oil changes. As with auto insurance, so with health insurance. It is to provide catastrophic coverage, yet people expect their insurance plans to pay for a routine office visit and a common prescription. That is not the purpose of insurance.

Yet that is what many Americans consider the purpose of their insurance plans to be. Rather than thinking of their own physical and financial security, they shop for the plan with the lowest co-pay and best prescription benefit. And when they wonder about treatment, all too often it ends up being the insurance company that dictates coverage rather than the patient or the patient’s doctor that chooses what can be done. This is not a recipe for quality healthcare.

So what can we do to provide care to everyone? Recognizing that this is only a piece of the problem and therefore only a piece of the total solution, let us look at exactly which groups constitute the sufferers of the healthcare “crisis,” every American fits into one of these groups.

Group 1-Those who pay and have health insurance.

Group 2-Those who can pay, and choose not to.

Group 3-Those who want to, and financially cannot. (This includes those who are living below the poverty level, people with conditions such as diabetes who cannot find private coverage because of being "uninsurable", and elderly, who cannot afford coverage with their higher insurance risks and treatment costs).

But remember, the goal here is to provide quality health care. We do not need to expand to single payer systems such as socialized medicine or more extensive insurance plans to provide that. Our goal should be reducing healthcare costs, therefore expanding the groups one and two while reducing the people who financially cannot buy insurance that are in group #3. We need to reduce costs and increase availability.

So, what is the single best way to do that? Well, consider our insurance based system. According to the local insurance provider, here are the following rates for some of their plans, listed as a premium cost per month:

 

AGE	Single	2-party	Family
20	$63	$121	$169
30	$75	$142	$229
40	$93	$170	$306

(“IHC Health Plans,” 2005).

           

These are for private party, non smokers plans. For individuals in our third class such as diabetics (pre-existing conditions), many could not buy this insurance even if they wanted to. So we will consider them in a moment.

First, remember that for all-access group plans given to employers, an insurance company must pick up the tab of those in less-than-stellar health. As such, they must distribute the cost to all within the plan to make up the difference. This is why group plans are always more expensive. This is also where we notice that additional expenses are paid by those who will not see the benefits.

            However, there is one piece of information missing from the table above. The deductible is not given. Above, it is for a $250 deductible plan. Let us consider the following plans for a 30 year old. First, a $500 deductible, then a $1,000, and finally a $2,500:

 

Age	Deductible	Single	2-party	Family
30	$250	$75	$142	$229
30	$500	$62	$117	$190
30	$1,000	$51	$95	$154
30	$2,500	$43	$82	$132

            (“IHC Health Plans,” 2005).

 

Do you see a trend developing? As the insurance company requires larger and larger deductibles, their liability drops, and so they can offer the same coverage at a lesser price. Why is that? Most insurance expenses are not for catastrophic injuries or diseases, but for ‘routine’ work. In fact, since most people don’t require the full costs in healthcare of their deductibles when they are this high, insurance companies have a greater profit margin on them. So why don’t they have plans with $5,000, $10,000 and even $50,000 deductibles?

            Good question.

            The reason is that most people don’t have that kind of money sitting around in savings accounts earmarked for hospital visits. So even though it would be profitable to the insurance companies to offer such plans, there are no customers. Insurance companies don’t offer them, even though premiums on such plans could be as small as $10 per month to cover an entire family if the deductible were high enough. The purpose of such an insurance policy is to provide for catastrophic coverage as in the case of injury or diagnosis of a chronic disease. For the ‘routine’ work such as office visits, dental work, and even outpatient surgery, the patient pays through their own deductible. But they are still covered in case of trauma or devastating or chronic illness. Who couldn’t afford $10 per month in insurance?

            But realistically, a very small percentage of people can afford their own outpatient surgery. And that in turn raises another question: why is it that most people don’t have that kind of money sitting around?

            Consider a very popular benefit package given by many employers nowadays called the cafeteria plan. It allows someone to estimate how much they will spend on health expenses in a given year and get it deducted tax free from their checks. Sounds like a great deal, right? Well, sort of. Indeed, the money can be used to pay for healthcare expenses from surgery to band-aids. But the money cannot grow in an account: it cannot earn interest. And if you don’t spend it, you lose it at the end of the year and have to start over.

            Aye, there’s the rub.

            For when someone is young and has little health care expenses is the perfect time for them to be able to prepare for when they aren’t so young and will have expenses. Consider this: a healthy young worker needs only to visit a doctor once per year for a checkup, and the dentist twice. So let’s assume a worker finds they can put $750 per year into their cafeteria plan. But he is a healthy, invincible young man. He doesn’t need healthcare. So he won’t even think twice about using that money somewhere else, as in car payments or new iPods. But due to the makeup of our tax system, such a paycheck deduction (often matched or encouraged by employers eager for a tax break) doesn’t even affect an employee’s take home pay significantly. So what could the incentive be for such a person to contribute to the plan?

There is none.

 However, what if a system were in place that allowed that money to grow from year to year? The man in our example could become self-insured in just 6 years. This is the idea of a health care savings account, and here is how it works:

Assuming an 8% rate of return (well below the market average of 12%, but more conservative in choice since this is a "emergency" fund), in five years of working, this individual would have $9,245.84 in savings. That’s at only $72.50 per month investment, less than the amount of many employer-sponsored plans. If he’s our 30 year old from the example above, we can add on an amount of $43 per month for insurance and the $72.50 employer match for a total of just $168 per month. Now watch what happens:

In that 6^th year, if he stops contributing, his $9,245.84 has earned enough interest ($768) to pay for the whole year of insurance payments and enough extra to cover his check ups and even dental visits. He now has self-sustainable insurance.

And if started earlier than 30 years, the benefits are even more pronounced as premium prices are lower and savings accounts have more time to grow. In effect, workers would be presented with the option of contributing to an account for 5-10 years (depending on how much they wish to contribute) and then would be insured for the rest of their lives. Who wouldn’t buy such a plan?

But medical savings accounts have another trick up their sleeve: If one has $10,000 in an account, the insurance company can raise the deductible to match that, and the $168 he is spending on insurance would grow even faster since more would go into his account. This is possible because when less is needed for premium payments, more can be added to savings for the same monthly amount. With such a plan, any American living above the poverty line could provide insurance coverage for themselves and their families.

            But what about those who need care? Just because you aren’t yet 65 doesn’t make you immune from accident or disease. What if you need care during those years before you become self-insured? Well, this is what you have been buying all those years: health insurance. And because of your medical savings account, you have enough money to meet your deductible without needing to get a second mortgage on your home. Or selling your iPods on eBay.

The impacts of such a system would be profound. Such large deductibles would help patients be more conscious about where their dollars are going. Such a system would reduce overall health care expenses by equating care with cost. Doctors would be willing to drop their rates to accommodate. Don’t believe it? Ask your doctor or dentist next time you visit how much he’ll discount your bill if you pay in cash that same day. Now multiply that by millions of doctors, and add it on to the reduced health care premiums such plans would have. Who wouldn’t be able to afford health care in such a system at $10 per month?

Health care savings accounts represent a major change in our system and could be easily implemented nationwide through changes in our tax laws. They would dramatically reduce healthcare expenses while increasing patient control over their own care. There is no reason NOT to advocate tax laws that would create such a possibility in our system.

It is this type of creative thinking that will be the solution to the healthcare crisis. And lest you think that we have forgotten those who are unable to afford these plans or whose health prohibits them from buying, remember that such ideas exist to help our elderly afford their higher expenses, to elevate the poor and even provide for those with conditions like diabetes who cannot buy insurance privately. Let us now reflect on the poor, the ill patients who cannot buy private insurance without expensive premiums, and the elderly who cannot afford it.

According to the United States Census, the average monthly Social Security payment for retired workers is about $895 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Without adjusting for inflation this adds up to $182,580 for each retiree, or the amount paid over the 17 or more years of payments for the average life expectancy whilst they draw their benefits. One of the plans being considered for Social Security reform has profound implications on our discussion. Rather than paying such an amount monthly, one Social Security reform plan involves putting $2,000 per year into a savings account when a child is born, and then again every year until they reach the age of 18. This is a total of $36,000, or the average amount paid now in Social Security in just over three years.

Savings accounts in such a plan would grow to $80,547.78 at an 8% rate of return by the time the child reaches 18 years. It would be equivalent to over $3.4 million when the child reaches retirement age at age 65. The amount at 18 years of age would pay any health insurance premium by interest borne on the amount. The interest alone on the value at retirement would give over $23,000 per month: more than enough to provide adequate health coverage, and much more than the current benefit of $895. Such an account would be sufficient to provide insurance for every American, rich or poor, healthy or ill, throughout their entire lives. And it can be done at a fraction of the costs we are now spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and countless other support programs combined.

            If the goal is to provide health care to every American, better methods can be found than socialized medicine.

I'm feeling like going undercover.
In fact, as I've read some columns and posts recently, I am still shocked by the fact that Liberals can actually read this stuff on TownHall.com in order to post against it without being swayed. SO, I feel like finding some liberal blogs and giving some conservative points of view.
As an open invitation to any liberals or democrats out there, I want to know if there is a Liberal counterpart/equivalent of TownHall.com that can withstand some posts by a conservative. I know I could go google it up, but after about 5 minutes I got annoyed with the garbage coming up. I'd rather just find a site that has columnists and bloggers with a comment board.
Post any names under comments...