Reformation
It’s Not Gridlock–It’s Game On! The Tea Party Vs. The Flea Party
Though I don’t agree with either the message or methods of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, I’m glad they’ve taken the field in America’s culture war.
For quite some time the mainstream media have told us that the problem in Washington, D.C. is gridlock–that our politicians just need to listen to one another, and then come up with some bi-partisan solutions to the nation’s problems.
We are told ad nauseam that political gridlock is the problem–that both conservatives and liberals are to blame–and that the answer is to heed the call for civility made by Rodney King in 1992:
“You know, can we all get along?”
But now thanks to Occupy Wall Street, the truth is clear: The game to shape America’s future is on–the teams have taken the field–and only one team can win. It’s a cultural clash that will end in victory for one side and defeat for the other.
For which side will you fight?
I think it’s helpful to compare the 2011-2012 US culture war to the American game of football. Two teams take the field. They go at one another for sixty minutes–there is back and forth, ebb and flow of the contest–bruises aplenty and even some serious injuries. In the end, only one team is the victor. The groups don’t compromise–they don’t work out a plan to make everybody happy.
They fight it out on the field and the best team wins. Real wars work the same way.
With the 2012 election looming, America is engaged in a desperate and serious struggle for its future. I know of a Christian leader who has a book coming out this fall who believes that the next president of the United States will affect history for good or evil for the next one hundred years.
Whether he right or not, this I do know: For the next thirteen months, the game is on.
Here’s my view of the contest.
Team One – The Tea Party
One team in America desires to renew America’s exceptional roots. This team is best symbolized by the Tea Party movement which burst on the scene in 2009 in response to the election of Barack Obama and his desire to take the nation in the direction of socially-democratic Europe. Spontaneous gatherings erupted around the nation of ordinary Americans, many in their middle and latter years, who carried a clear message to their elected officials of the need for reduced spending, lower taxes, and limiting the size and scope of government.
The Tea Party movement, like its revolutionary namesake, lit a fire for traditional Christian values and the type of limited government it produces. The movement got heavily involved in grass roots politics and saw landslide victories in the 2010 elections. In 2012 they hope to win the presidency, gain a majority in the US Senate, and retain the House of Representatives. They also understand the need for small government leadership in our towns, cities, and statehouses.
Tea Party activists–and the people who resonate with them–desire an America that acknowledges God in our public life, supports traditional values including marriage, free market capitalism, and our God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Justice is seen as creating a level playing field for all people where some can become successful if they choose–and others can settle for less if they desire.
In this Judeo-Christian worldview, every person is responsible before God for their outcomes in life. Character determines destiny. Government’s job is to protect people’s rights and punish evil both inside and outside our borders.
The Tea Party Team is the “home” team. They are historic America. They are composed of conservatives and independents with at least a memory of biblical ideas and how they made America great. They want to see those ideals flourish in our land again.
Team Two – The Flea Party
This is symbolized by the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The movement was recently nick-named by conservative columnist Ann Coulter. I’ll let her explain the meaning of the Flea Party moniker:
“So far, the only major accomplishment of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protesters is that they have finally put an end to their previous initiative, ‘Occupy Our Mothers’ Basements.'”
“Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group — a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement… they can’t even explain what they’re protesting.”
“The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or — worse — instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: “No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent …”
“Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that “Occupy Wall Street” should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.”
“As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers ‘angry mobs’ and ‘rabid right-wing extremists.’ ABC said they were a ‘mob.’ CNN accused them of ‘rabble rousing.’ Harry Reid called them ‘evil mongers.’ Nancy Pelosi said they were ‘un-American.'”
“But apparently liberals couldn’t even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation. At least they’re embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.”
Ann’s not far off. Just look at the current protests. They’re made up of primarily young people and older hippie-types who seem to enjoy slamming the system. They were joined–and many even paid to protest– by some labor organizations and communist/socialist groups backed by the progressive pockets of George Soros.
The Flea Party wants to destroy America as we know it. They are the “visiting” team who do not believe in our history. Though their message might be jaded by too much marijuana inhalation, they want bigger government, taking money from the rich and giving it to others, cradle-to grace entitlements, and I guess–a socialist utopia like, say, the Soviet Union! (Whoops–wrong example. That didn’t end well… How about Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea?).
Interestingly, our current Democratic leaders are embracing the Flea Party. President Obama might have launched the movement himself with his incessant class warfare rhetoric over the past few months. It could be a re-election strategy: Take attention off the dismal moral and financial problems facing our nation–he can’t run on his record–and blame the greedy fat cats on Wall Street! (Whoops again–Wall Street gave historic amounts of money to Barack Obama in 2008…Oh well, people might not remember.)
The Flea Party is a cultural team devoted to secular values. They want God and his prudish morals out of America and demand a Bigger Uncle Same to play Robin Hood–to take from the rich and give to the poor. They’re willing to start a violent revolution if necessary (a la Europe?) to bring about transformative change. This team is mostly made up of liberal progressives and left-leaning independents. They want Big Government to level and control the playing field.
But Erick Erickson of redstate.com has a better solution:
“The point is not that we now need to punish those big businesses. The point is that we need to re-level the playing field and make it a fair competition between entrepreneur and corporation again. We need big business to stop living off the taxpayer dole. We need a new age of corporate welfare reform like the welfare reform of the 1990s.”
“The playing field has been tilted toward the big businesses because they are the only ones who had the capital to stay ahead of government regulations and new government burdens, and the influence to bend new laws in their direction. The playing field does not need to be tipped back in favor of others. Just level it. An upright tower build on a slope will topple the moment the slope is laid flat.”
The Referees
Every football games has its refs, and our present titanic clash is no exception. At the present time, the majority of the referees are the liberal mainstream media who demean the Tea Party and sympathize with the Flea Party. They support Barack Obama and want to see America permanently changed. They’re similar to the referees of the 2006 Super Bowl between the Steelers and the Seahawks who said they were neutral but really favored Pittsburgh on a number of controversial calls.
Seattle coach Mike Holgren said at that time that he expected to play the Steelers–not the men in black and white stripes. I feel the same today. Media bias makes it very difficult for the Tea Party traditionalists to win.
However, the emergence of Fox News and conservative radio has placed a few other refs on the field that could influence the outcome.
But it’s still an uphill battle.
For the next thirteen months these two teams and their philosophical allies will be fighting it out on the gridiron of the American destiny. Only one team will win. The wild card of this contest is which side will God’s people join. Will they pray and get involved to bring the United States back to its godly roots? Or will the Church unwittingly support the dissolving of our godly heritage?
It’s time to think clearly. This is not about gridlock. The game is on. One team will win and the other will lose.
It’s that simple and that profound.
I hope we choose wisely. Our future hangs in the balance.
Steve Jobs and Life’s Three Most Important Questions
The recent passing of Steve Jobs, one of the brilliant pioneers of the Information Age, has brought many thoughts to my heart and mind over the past week.
I certainly share the global adulations of his amazing life and work. He changed the world through his numerous inventions including the MacIntosh computer, The iPhone, iPod, iPhone, iPad and the multi-million dollar industry that they spawned. He was one of the great pioneers of the high tech era—an eclectic icon to this generation.
But I wonder if Steve Jobs ever correctly answered life’s three most important questions. His ultimate fate and legacy will hinge on those answers.
So will yours.
Before looking at those questions, I agree with the outpouring of global sentiment that Steve Jobs made a significant contribution to the world as we now know it—especially in computing and digital entertainment. Ed Feulner, the president of the Heritage Foundation, and certainly one of opposite political persuasion from Jobs, had these kind words to say:
“Apple Computer, the company Jobs founded at the age of 21 was valued at the close of business yesterday at $350 billion. From computing to music to journalism, Jobs changed the way the world did its business and leisure. Very little of what we do today has not been impacted somehow by Jobs and his company. He certainly changed my life from my first Apple III with floppy discs almost 30 years ago, costing about $6000 and possessing a small fraction of the capabilities of my streamlined new iPad 2, all at less than 10 percent of the cost of that early dinosaur.”
“Macs transformed the way people came to see computers, from gizmos only nerds understood or liked to things almost as organic as the partly bitten apples of the ever-present logos. Creative designing and thinking flowed naturally from a Mac, powering the creativity and productivity that have become the hallmark of the American economy. In music, Jobs changed the industry by taking it digital.”
“As for journalism and reading in general, we have now gone back to where we started: the biblical tablet. The elegant slab we take with us wherever we go can do the same for us and take us, no matter where we are, anywhere in the universe our imagination wants to visit. All this was the result of the happy coincidence of genius in an individual and a system. Jobs was an individual with special DNA.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
I never met Steve Jobs, but I’m aware of his history. He was adopted as a child–a half-Arab boy from a Persian background. After living a fairly normal American middle class life, he went in his early twenties to India in pursuit of religious truth and enlightenment. What he learned there must have stuck. When he later married, the ceremony was conducted according to Zen Buddhist ritual.
In Steve’s interviews and speeches, there’s an absence of references to God. However, not long after he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2004, he gave a commencement speech at Stanford University that gave us a small window into his soul. Here are some excerpts:
“When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: “If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you’ll most certainly be right.” It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: “If today were the last day of my
life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?” And whenever the answer has been “No” for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.”
“Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything ‹ all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.”
“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.”
“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma–which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become.”
Facing his own mortality motivated Steve Jobs to think about priorities. To his collegiate audience he stressed the value of living as if it was his last day; He talked about the need to “follow your heart and intuitions;” He encouraged the graduates to reject the “dogma” of others, and think for themselves.
But I hear a deafening silence on life’s three most important questions. What are those questions, and how do they impact the true legacy of our lives?
Number One: Is there a God?
This is the most important question. Everything else hinges upon it. If there’s no God, then I can pretty much do what I want. Without God, each one of us is our own god and everything is unanswerable, without purpose, going nowhere, and in a word—meaningless. If there’s no God, then you don’t need to listen to others but simply follow your own heart desires.
However, that answer is not true.
Yes, there is a God.
Like many folks, including Steve Jobs, I encountered some problems in my youthful years that sent me searching for truth. I found it in the reality of God as vividly seen in his creation and wonderfully revealed in His Word—the Bible. Once I knew there was a God, that revelation changed everything in my life, world, and calling.
But God’s reality only prompted the second most important question:
Number Two: If there is a God, then how do I come into right relationship with Him?
It’s one thing to be aware that there’s a God, a moral universe, and a right and wrong way to live—i.e. good and evil. It’s another thing to meet God’s conditions for friendship with Him.
As I sought to get to know God, and studied His Word, it became plain that the problem on earth and in my own life was selfishness; That God was a Holy God who hated sin out of love and truth; That I was a sinner and couldn’t change myself; But that God had provided a way for my forgiveness and transformation through the death of Jesus Christ his Son because of His incredible love for me and all human beings.
I came to discover that I could have a right and eternal relationship with God by faith. I could be saved and changed through trusting Him. This faith would direct my life on earth and allow me share eternal life with God and all other redeemed human beings after this life was over.
That led me to the final critical question:
Number Three: Then what kind of faith saves me?
There are different types of faith. One type of faith is mental—you simply agree with certain facts in your mind. I’d practiced it as a child, but it didn’t change me. I know many people that have “facts” about God without relationship or power. It doesn’t work.
The Bible also said that “even the demons believe and shudder” (James 2:19). But their type of faith doesn’t save them either. They know God exists and they’re scared spitless. But this type of demonic faith doesn’t change their life or fate.
As I studied God’s Word, I came to understand what saving faith is. The New Testament makes it clear that saving faith is a heart-felt trust that invites Jesus to be the Lord of my life. I need to agree with God about my evil heart, confess my sins, turn away from a selfish lifestyle and put my trust in the Savior to change me. He is the new boss—and I am his follower.
Many years ago I embraced God’s grace with saving faith—and became a child and friend of God.
I don’t know if Steve Jobs ever asked or answered these pivotal questions. I pray that he did. I hope that in the latter days of his life—regardless of all the great stuff he had launched and invented—he bowed his heart before God, asked his forgiveness for his sins, and put his faith in Jesus Christ as the Lord of his life.
Because this is also true: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul. What can a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26). And “one small life will soon be past. Only what’s done for Christ will last.”
Steve Jobs was right that we all face death. That also means we all will face God. I hope that he did so with saving faith in his Creator and Savior.
If he did, his life and legacy will endure forever. If he did not, then his contributions to our world will be helpful in this life, but not eternal.
Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme. Here’s Why and the Way Out
Texas governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry is rattling the political world by maintaining that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security (SS) is supposed to be the “third rail” of politics–a popular program that you criticize or alter at your own peril.
The pundits are drooling that Perry and the Republicans are in deep trouble if they continue to speak about changing the system that FDR gave us in the 30s to help elderly retirees.
I don’t believe it. I have come to this conclusion about Social Security:
What’s good for me is not good for America.
And if I and many others are not willing to put country before self over this and other vital national interests, then we’re probably finished as a just and prosperous nation.
Here’s why…
I am a Baby Boomer who could start taking Social Security in five years and expect to live another twenty or thirty. I’m also in the lowest tier of income earners in America (due to my choice to be a Christian missionary) who could greatly benefit by the monthly check from the government.
I also know many people who are currently on SS who would like to keep getting their monthly checks from the government. So would I. But I also realize that SS and other large entitlement programs will bankrupt this nation if we bury our heads in the sand, selfishly demand our checks, and don’t have the guts to do something about it.
Gov. Rick Perry has told us the hard truth.
Social Security is a sham–a fraud–and if left unchecked, will fail for everybody.
I don’t know the motivations of those who gave us Social Security. For argument sake, let’s say that the those who launched this social experiment many years ago were well meaning and thought that it would be a good idea to collect money from working Americans during their productive years to give back during retirement.
Fine. People were suffering greatly during the Great Depression and our leaders thought it might be helpful to especially protect the vulnerable elderly.
But good motives can have terrible consequences if ill-designed and delivered. Some of the worst financial consequences come from Ponzi schemes. Think Bernie Madoff–and the thousands who lost their life savings through his mischief.
And Social Security is nothing less than Ponzi-like. Erick Erickson explains:
“Social Security is, for all intents and purposes, a Ponzi scheme. Don’t believe me? Try out the Securities and Exchange Commission definition: ‘A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk.’
“Or how about from Wikipedia? ‘A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.'”
Note the clear definitions. Ponzi schemes are never good investments. They promise great returns in the future, but they spend more money in the present than what they save for the future, and only survive for a time by having new suckers come into the system to pay for the current obligations.
But the operation is a house of cards that over the long-run cannot be sustained and ultimately collapses–especially hurting the last investors to enter the charade.
In terms of SS, think of our children and grandchildren.
There is really only one difference between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security. In a Ponzi scheme fraud, the game always collapses when the criminal runs out of money. In American, the criminals (i.e. the government), don’t run out of money because they can always tax more and print more.
But alas! Those days are over. The American nation can no longer bear increased taxes or more fiat money.
The “game” is essentially over.
Here’s the truth about Social Security:
1. It was begun during a time in which most Americans lived to be about seventy. It was designed to help them with the last five-to-ten years of life. Today, many Americans live into their eighties and nineties and can collect SS for thirty years or more. Thus retiring Americans today will receive three to five times more money than they ever put in! That’s not a great return. It’s robbing future generations.
2. The monies that were collected since the 1930s were never invested or “held.” They were spent every year in the general federal budget. Social Security was never a fund or investment. It is a data-entry IOU. In the early years of the programs, there were plenty of younger workers to pay for retirees. But no longer. Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are just the beginning of a half a trillion dollar short-fall by 2021 (CBO estimate). The retirement of the Baby Boom generation creates a desperate situation that will overwhelm the system. Not in the future. Now.
3. We can’t raise taxes to fix the broken system. There are simply not enough younger workers to pay for the older generations–unless they start giving 50-100% of their income to the federal government. This is not an answer. It is slavery and tyranny of the young.
4. The enactment of Social Security had two other negative consequences. First, it astronomically grew the size of government and created dependency for millions of Americans. This was never the American way. Secondly, it began to divide and diminish the American family. For hundreds of years, American families took care of their own–not just the nuclear family, but relatives of all types. If you read the literature of the 18th and 19th centuries, you hear of families being responsible for grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins–everybody related to them. This was a good thing that placed the family at the center of society. Government has now taken its place–and no wonder the American family is dying. When you don’t need each other, meaningful relationships cease to exist.
Rick Perry is right. Social Security as it currently exists is a fraudulent program that is a financial cancer on the American economy. We must talk about it and we must makes some changes. I have a few recommendations:
1. Raise the age threshold as people are living longer lives. Continuing to work and be productive is a good thing. Retirement–for twenty or thirty years–is not a right. It’s a privilege and fruit of a well-lived life. Just raising the age to 67 or 70 would save billions of dollars per year.
2. Make Social Security a true savings instrument where the money is “lock-boxed” and invested in financial markets to multiply a return. This is the way that it always should have operated. The government must collect SS money, not spend it on other things, and invest it for future payments. And older folks should receive at retirement only what they’ve contributed and the interest it has earned–not five times what they put in.
3. If younger generations don’t want to invest in the government system, they can take their SS monies and invest them personally in other private instruments. If government cannot be competitive, then it shouldn’t be allowed to be in the retirement business at all. More choices will mean better returns.
4. Americans should be encouraged once again to be the primary providers for their own families. I am personally arranging my future finances around taking care of my own. There’s nothing wrong with children caring for their parents and grandparents in their later years–and even living together as a result of that commitment. This would strengthen and renew the American family. God knows this is one of our greatest needs as a society.
To make these ideas and other good reforms come to pass, we need to be dirt honest about the giant Ponzi scheme called Social Security and be willing to do the right thing–even at our own expense. Here’s the principle to which we must commit:
What’s good for me isn’t necessarily good for America.
Translation: The Ponzi-like Social Security check that I’d love to receive from age 65 to 90 is bad policy for my nation. I won’t take it. It’s better to “ask not what my country can do for me, but rather ask what I can do for my country” (John F. Kennedy.)
That means I need to work a little harder and longer, give up the money I don’t deserve, take responsibility for my extended family, and work to reform the system for future generations.
If we do, they will rise up in the future and praise us.