A frightening preview of ObamaCare’s death panels

A so-called “hospital” in California wants to murder a little girl, over her parents’ objections. The case of Jahi McMath provides a frightening preview of ObamaCare’s inevitable death panels.

After little Jahi went through what should have been a routine tonsil surgery, something happened. She went into cardiac arrest and was bleeding profusely. It appears that this was simply a tragic accident, but the aftermath of this decision should be terrifying to all of us. Little Jahi has been on life support ever since, and the so-called “hospital” has been consumed with bloodlust. They want to murder her, and little Jahi’s parents are trying to protect their precious daughter from bloodthirsty so-called “doctors.”

Back in 2009, Sarah Palin warned of “death panels” in ObamaCare, and she was mocked, ridiculed and insulted for it. This is despite the fact that President Obama himself suggested to a woman at a town hall meeting that her elderly mother should take painkillers rather than have life-saving surgery.

No, you cannot directly blame ObamaCare for the bloodthirsty so-called “doctors” who are determined to murder a little girl made in the image of Almighty God. But as ObamaCare is fully implemented, we will see more and more occasions where people are murdered in order to “control costs.” It is a frightening future we face.

There was a time when government’s role was to step in and protect children who are abused by their parents. Now, as government has gotten bigger and more intrusive, it is stealing authority that rightfully belongs to the family. It should not be the so-called “hospital” or the government who decides whether this girl lives or dies. The decisions about little Jahi’s care should be made by her parents, because it is her parents who have been entrusted by God with her care.

If I was one the so-called “doctors” or part of the “hospital” administration, I would be utterly terrified of the wrath of Almighty God and the prospect of judgment in eternal Hell Fire.

Perpetual male adolescence and what it means

“Pajama Boy” – the effeminate, hot chocolate drinking meterosexual in a recent ObamaCare promotion – has brought forth waves of derision among conservatives, but this is something we should be concerned about. What our nation needs and is sorely lacking is real men. Without boys deciding to become real men – and without fathers to train their sons to be real men – our nation will continue to spiral downward.

This is something I addressed back in October – specifically that the cases of teenage boys openly sexually assaulting teenage girls in public is a symptom of the lack of real men. Had there been teenagers at that infamous party in Steubenville who had been trained to be real men, they would have either stopped the assault or they would have taken a beating trying to stop it. They would not have allowed it to happen without intervening, and they certainly would not have laughed and took pictures.

A few years ago, the men’s group in my church were instructed to leave “Guyland” behind and this became a recurring theme of David’s Mighty Men. Guyland, described in an excellent book by Michael Kimmel, is an extended period of adolescence. Rather than maturing into responsible and respectable men who are fathers, husbands and productive employees, “guys” instead hang on to the trappings of adolescence – a life focused on video games, hooking up, pornography, and drinking. Many of them live with their parents, unemployed or in dead-end jobs.

(For more, see here and here and here and here.)

We should not be surprised, then, when adult men are willing to resign themselves to a lifetime of stocking shelves, avoiding marriage, and avoiding responsibility. Avoiding children is the most important thing, because the one thing that will break a man’s self-centered worldview is taking care of a baby. Sharing the load of comforting a crying infant at 3:00 am, feeding that baby a bottle and changing a diaper in the middle of the night so your wife can sleep are all behaviors that cannot exist in the perpetual adolescence of “guyland.” Guys can biologically reproduce, but only men can be fathers.

We should not be surprised, then, at the fact that the majority of university undergraduates are women, or that women are making significant gains in the workforce while guys are being left behind and left out. What real woman wants to marry a guy when she could be with a man instead? What woman wants to take on a mental and emotional teenager that she has to care for and clean up after? That woman would be better off by herself than taking on that kind of burden.

I do not believe we could win World War II today. The kind of sacrifice and commitment required to do something of that magnitude is not something that Generation X or Millennials are capable of doing. (Or for that matter, much of the Baby Boomers.) But that is no reason to be depressed or to give up. There is always hope of revival, but it must be a multi-pronged approach that involves, public policy, culture, family and church.

From a public policy standpoint, we have to pull back on welfare benefits. Helping people who genuinely need help is one thing, but welfare has destroyed the family (and not just the black family) while enabling irresponsible behavior by boys who never become men. Our culture needs to be less tolerant of irresponsible guys and hold manhood in higher regard. Our families need to train their sons, grandsons and nephews to be men and not guys. Our churches need to preach the value of Biblical manhood and the God-given commandments to be responsible and to be fathers in the community.

All of this, from a human standpoint, is completely impossible. The only hope we have for all of the above to happen is for God to send a spirit of revival on our nation. We should all be praying that He does so.

Should the NBA eliminate divisions?

There is some interesting talk about eliminating divisions in the NBA (here and here and here) in part due to the terrible state of the Eastern Conference and in part because of the fact that the three-division system results in playoff match-ups that make no sense. The current system could give the team with sixth-best record the #3 seed in the playoffs.

Of course, if the NBA really wanted to make an improvement in the quality of the game, they would eliminate teams to reverse the effect expansion has had in diluting the talent pool.

A large part of the problem with divisions is the realignment of divisions several years ago, moving from two divisions per conference to three. Having more division championships devalues being a division champion. The realignment has placed an equal number of teams in each division, and moving back to four divisions (two per conference) would make them unequal, but the divisions were unequal before the realignment.

There is merit in eliminating the divisions entirely. Seeding the playoffs based on record alone would make the match-ups much more logical, and there is not very much focus on winning the division anyway. To make divisions really matter, the playoff bracket would need to be completely restructured, and that would create more problems than it solves.

The best solution is to eliminate the division system entirely.

Mike Huckabee and the murder of four police officers

Since Mike Huckabee is considering running for President again, it is worth re-visiting this editorial from 2009.

Over the years, there have been many scandals that have destroyed political careers. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee just came upon what could be his own career-ending scandal. He was not caught in an adulterous affair or a crooked scheme to steal money, but a stupid and foolish decision he made as governor a decade ago directly led to the murder of four police officers in Seattle.

A decade ago, Huckabee commuted the sentence of Maurice Clemmons, who is currently suffering in horrible burning agony in Hell and will continue suffering in horrible burning agony for all eternity. On November 29, Clemons shot four police officers in a Seattle coffee shop. It was a targeted killing, an assassination by a man who hated law enforcement. Soon, it was revealed that Huckabee had fallen for a song and dance about how Clemons had converted to Christianity and turned his life around. Huckabee commuted Clemons’ sentence and he was paroled. Clemons slipped through the system for the next decade before his violent rampage on November 29 and arrival in his ultimate destination of eternal torment in Hell fire.

Huckabee released a statement on this atrocity, where he said: “Should he be found to be responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state.”

No, Governor Huckabee. This was not the result of “a series of failures.” This is your failure. This monster was going to be behind bars for 95 years, until you commuted his sentence. You need to man up, admit that this is your fault and apologize profusely. You need to stand up, be a man, and admit your responsibility in this atrocity. Huckabee’s pathetic, weasel blame shifting may well have destroyed any hope he has of being President. Huckabee’s later statements have been more accepting of his role, but accepting responsibility now looks a lot like political damage control when he realized that he made a fool out of himself.

Instead, it is Huckabee’s initial reaction that reveals his true character and the state of his heart. Instead of standing up like a man and admitting his role, he passed the buck and blamed everyone else. He behaved exactly like the previous governor of Arkansas, disgraced ex-President Clinton. Huckabee behaved like a coward and a weasel, certainly not like a man. I lost every shred of respect I had for Huckabee with his wimpy, weasel denials.

But there is more to the story that needs to be explored, especially if Huckabee is serious about running for President again. Huckabee’s foolishness in his treatment of Clemons raises serious questions about his ability to lead this nation in the War on Terror. President George W. Bush, for all of his many failings, had a moral clarity about terrorists and knew how to deal with them. He called them “evildoers.” Ronald Reagan also had a moral clarity about the genocidal Soviet Union, calling it an “evil empire.” Mike Huckabee does not have the moral clarity of President Bush and President Reagan.

This scandal reveals much more about Huckabee than the fact that he is soft on crime. This scandal has exposed the fact that Huckabee simply does not understand evil, and that is incredibly dangerous in a post 9/11 world. Huckabee is dangerously lacking in discernment – a quality that makes him unfit to be President, and especially unfit to be a pastor. If Huckabee is to repair his shattered reputation, much less present himself as a viable choice for President, he must prove to the American people that he understands evil and possesses the discernment that is critical for a President who is facing down our enemies. I cannot imagine he has enough time to do that prior to the Republican primaries in 2012.

The purpose of courts is not to make law!

Last week, the supreme court of India issued a controversial decision upholding the country’s ban on sodomy, and the debate surrounding this decision has been downright disturbing in that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding in the role of courts. Many of the arguments that have been written have focused on public policy instead of legality.

Our understanding of this in America has been broken down by decades of judicial activism, but the purpose of any court is not to make policy. The purpose of the court is to interpret the law. Did the anti-sodomy law violate the literal text of the Indian constitution? Did the law violate other laws that superseded it? If not, then it is not the business of the Indian supreme court to throw it out. That should be done by the legislative branch.

A similar decision in the United States is the Supreme Court’s decision last summer that the Defense of Marriage Act (passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton) is “unconstitutional” – despite the fact that the Constitution had never been interpreted to prohibit the federal government from recognizing marriage as only the union of one man and one woman for 220 years since the document was ratified, and that this “interpretation” of the Constitution would have been shocking to the men who actually wrote the document.

The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws, not the whims of men. To my understanding, the same is true in India. By making arguments about the “constitutionality” of DOMA or anti-sodomy laws based on public policy preferences instead of the text of the Constitution itself, the news media, political pundits and activists on both sides continue to undermine this basic principle. It is a dangerous path that leads to tyranny.