Maybe this Obamacare nightmare may be put to rest after all. Could we perhaps call it a mercy killing? Democrat Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who played an instrumental role in shoving the misnamed Affordable Care Act on all of us, in a recent hearing, called the implementation of this monstrosity a potential train wreck. In that April 17 hearing, Baucus issued a warning to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he didn’t believe her department had done enough to ensure Obamacare would fully go into effect as planned for 2014. He expressed concern for small businesses and accountants who, he said, are throwing their hands up over this law. They aren’t getting enough information to know how to deal with it, leading to his specific comment, “I just see a huge train wreck coming down.”

Well, Sen. Baucus, there were any number of your colleagues in the Congress, policy analysts, and conservative commentators who could have told you that ahead of time. They tried. You didn’t listen. And only now you are coming to grips with this reality? What’s even more interesting is that Baucus, shortly after this hearing, announced he won’t be running for reelection. Politicos in the know were already predicting tough sledding for him in a state that seems to be far more conservative now than its own senator. I think he’s getting out of town while the getting’s good.

In a new article by John Stossel, found at Real Clear Politics, Stossel notes that HHS has already added 20,000 pages of rules to the already bloated bill itself. Those rules form a stack seven feet tall—and there are more to come. Under healthcare prior to Obamacare, there were 16,000 codes for various medical ailments; Obamacare is giving us more than 100,000. Consider these examples:

Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250. There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost—depending how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.

On Government-Planned World, this makes sense. But it will be no more successful than Soviet central planning.

And that’s where we’ve arrived on this train: the type of planning that brought down the Soviet Union. You know, the country we battled in that decades-long Cold War, the war we supposedly won. Yes, “train wreck” is the perfect description of what is taking place:

A few days ago, there were reports that Congress was considering exempting staffers from Obamacare. Apparently, that was a little overblown, but they were trying to figure out how to help staffers afford it. That’s funny. I thought this was the “affordable” care act. Perhaps we wouldn’t have all this confusion if Congress hadn’t followed Nancy Pelosi’s advice to pass the law so we can find out what’s in it. By the way, that comment ought to win some kind of award for one of the dumbest things ever to come out of the mouth of a Speaker of the House.

Will Obamacare sink itself? The ideology that brought it into being has been shown to be faulty everywhere it has been implemented. The administration tasked with carrying it out may be the most incompetent in American history. So, yes, there is hope it will implode. For the good of the country.

Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi will be present today in Rome for the celebratory mass to be held by the new pope, Francis I. They were chosen as part of the delegation because they are Catholic. Never mind that their beliefs are anything but Catholic. Both favor the pro-abortion stance and have come out in support of same-sex marriage. What I wouldn’t give to see the following scenario unfold:

Biden and Pelosi, like too many of their fellow Catholics, are Catholic in name only. It’s a cultural thing, brought up in the church believing that since they have more or less followed the outward rules and they go through the motions of religion, that they are accepted in the sight of God. Forgive the old cliché, but I must repeat: going to church makes one a Christian no more than going into a garage makes one a car.

We see the same thing in the Protestant world. The mainline denominations have pretty much abandoned Biblical truth. They maintain the name of Christian, but their doctrines have consistently strayed from orthodoxy. Being a Methodist, for instance, back in the early nineteenth century, meant you were a serious disciple of Christ. Now such denominational labels are worthless. They’re like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates: you never know what you’re going to get when you enter a mainline Protestant church.

Evangelicals are supposed to be the torchbearers for scriptural fidelity, but modern evangelicalism has often succumbed to the latest trendiness, both theologically and culturally. Send your child to what you think is a conservative, evangelical college or university, and you may be surprised by the return on your money. All too frequently they are taught to question the authority of Scripture. Now, I believe in testing all things and I understand we are to lead students into critical thinking rather than simple indoctrination, but that should be carried out with a dependence on God’s leading and a basic trust in the integrity of His communications with man. There remains a framework within which we explore. The so-called “open mind” of secular education is often so open it accepts anything—similar to a sewer.

Some of our evangelicals are being lured by the siren song of social acceptability as basic Biblical beliefs are junked. Take the trendy author/pastor Rob Bell as an example. Last year he wrote a book that subtly, yet clearly, denied the doctrine of hell. Now we learn he believes in same-sex marriage. How many young people will he lead into a spiritual abyss, all in the name of the love of God?

I’m reminded of a passage in the book of 2 Timothy, as the apostle Paul writes about the characteristics of individuals who are to be shunned, noting they will be “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power.” He then instructs Timothy to “avoid such men as these.”

Why avoid? I’m not just talking about theological differences here; it goes much deeper. Outward forms of godliness are powerless against sin. Only through the genuine gospel message will a person be set free from the bondage of sin. When we water down that message—removing a thorough understanding of the absolute destructiveness of sin—no one is set free. Any gospel that omits teaching about sin and the necessity of heartfelt repentance is a false gospel that leaves people lost in their sins.

I am grieved by the prevalence of superficial spirituality. I am disturbed by those who have little concern for eradicating sin, both in ourselves and in society at large. Outward forms will never suffice. We must truly become new creations in Christ.

In the past week, President Obama, on the campaign trail, has tried to convince his audiences—and us as well—that he has been the most responsible spender in recent presidential history. He used as his proof an article written by someone who drew all his information from a presentation by Nancy Pelosi. Now there’s a solid source. In order to believe this spin, one has to place all 2009 spending on former President Bush. How can anyone do that? Well, since 2009 spending started under a Bush budget that began in 2008, surely it all belongs to him, right? Not when you actually look at the facts, which somehow elude our current leader. Bush never signed that budget: Obama did later. The faulty analysis also throws the stimulus bill onto Bush, even though it was an Obama enterprise from the start.

Don’t believe everything you hear from this president. In fact, don’t believe most of what you hear, especially now that the campaign is in full throttle. Let me be very clear [as Obama often says]: Obama and the Congress have added more than $5 trillion to the budget in less than four years. Bush added $4 trillion in eight years. As unadmirable as Bush’s record may be, it is the epitome of fiscal control when compared to Obama’s.

Every time Obama has sent his version of a budget to the Congress, it has been rejected unanimously—in other words, by both Republicans and Democrats:

Of course, one of the reasons the Democrat leadership has rejected Obama budgets is that it hasn’t been stellar at even considering budgets. The Senate, under Harry Reid’s leadership [?], hasn’t put forward a budget for a vote in over three years, despite a law requiring it.

So much for the concept of the rule of law.

How bad is the current fiscal situation? Here’s one way of understanding it that may bring it closer to home:

Yet what we are told about the deficit doesn’t take into account a deficit that is officially off-budget. We try to pretend it isn’t there, but it’s the biggest fiscal headache of all:

Unless something is done to deal with the root of the problem, we will become a financial basket-case. But every time someone—usually Republican—attempts to offer a plan to deal with it, Republicans are accused of wanting to throw granny off a cliff. That type of political demagoguery is not new, but at the critical juncture at which we now stand, it is particularly irresponsible.

If you’ve been a reader of my blog for some time, you know Mitt Romney was not my preferred candidate, but I now have to hope, work, and pray for his election, if for no other reason than to remove the White House’s current temporary occupant. These last four years have been a disaster in more ways than I can take the time to enumerate today. Maybe someone who understands better how economics works can make a difference.

A summer after the administration-announced “Recovery Summer,” we still haven’t recovered. There are a lot of bad economic indicators, but some stand out more starkly than others:

Yet the president never once acknowledges the role his policies have played in this downturn. Instead, he continues to find other people to blame:

There’s even murmuring within Obama’s own party. One Democrat, though, in particular, has reason to be happy with how things are going:

Watching the president and his apologists, one gets the uneasy feeling they are out of their depth—that they just don’t comprehend the dire straits we’re in or what needs to be done. It kind of reminds me of this:

I know I’ve said this many times before, but it bears repeating: we need a drastic change in leadership. That’s the only change that will bring genuine hope.

For weeks now [I could say "for years," but I'm trying to limit it to the present debate] we’ve been treated to a steady stream of invective from Democrats saying that “Tea Party wingnut extremists” are the barrier for reaching a budget deal. What exactly are those “extremist” views? Please choose among the following:

• A desire to live within our means as a nation rather than going even more trillions of dollars in debt
• A call for a balanced budget amendment—such as those that exist currently in many states—to ensure that wiser spending decisions are made
• A reluctance to raise the debt ceiling once again, in hopes that we can turn our spending habits around
• An attempt to reduce our current debt by $4-6 trillion to stave off the downgrading of the nation’s credit rating

These are radical, wild-eyed proposals? These are extremist policy stances?

They used to be called wisdom.

On the other side, calls for raising taxes will only hurt the economy. By the way, the very people the Democrats say they want to help—the needy—will be hurt the most by the reduction in jobs those raised taxes will cause. They are also the ones who will suffer the most by a downgraded credit rating, as costs will rise and interest rates on loans will shoot up.

And here’s some more basic knowledge that people need to learn: tax cuts do not cause deficits; as the Reagan years revealed, revenues increased significantly by lowering the tax rates. The only reason the deficits went up during Reagan’s presidency is that spending increased faster than the new revenues, thanks to a Democrat House of Representatives that promised to cut $3 in spending for every $1 dollar raised in revenue. Needless to say, they reneged on that promise.

How about a real example of extremism? Here’s former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharing her keen insight into the budget process:

What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it.

I’m sure glad she’s not prone to overstating anything. At least she didn’t extend her remarks to the galaxy or the universe.

Yes, there are extremists out there, but they need to be identified more accurately.

There are times when a statement by a politician is so far from reality that it takes a while to be able to come up with a response other than laughter.

For instance, in case you missed it, Nancy Pelosi, defending her four years as House Speaker made this astounding claim:

“Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

When I first heard her say this, I thought perhaps I had misunderstood, but it becomes more ludicrous each time the soundbite is played. Here are the facts:

When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

She also claims that the Democrats were “all about market-oriented solutions” and that the reason the unemployment rate is so high is due to [are you ready for this?] the policies of George W. Bush. There just doesn’t seem to be any statute of limitations on this blame game. Businesses, however, know why things have been so bad:

Pelosi’s comments beg the question: does she really believe what she is saying? Option one: she does believe it, thereby showing how blind a person can become when wedded to a false ideology. What the apostle Paul said with respect to people being blind to the Gospel message can have application here as well:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case  the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:3-3]

In this case, she is blinded from seeing the truth because she already has a predetermined philosophy that keeps her in the darkness.

Option 2: she doesn’t really believe what she is saying but hopes to mislead the public and return to power in two years. 

I’m not really sure which option is the case, but if the first, she is out of touch with reality—and if the second, her character disqualifies her from public service.

There are always those who will be fooled, either because they are enmeshed in false ideas—or for other reasons:

That part of the electorate can always be counted on to remain faithful to whatever policies “progressive” leadership enacts. Others, though, are becoming more skeptical:

In fact, the number of skeptics is growing and becoming quite vocal, as witnessed by the events of the past two years and the election results:

May true enlightenment continue, and may the veil that blinds the people be pulled aside.

I remember standing in the freezing rain outside the Capitol on inaugural day 2001, watching George W. Bush replace Bill Clinton as president. It’s hard to describe the relief that swept through the crowd once he took the oath of office. Eight years of one of the sleaziest episodes in American presidential history had mercifully come to an end.

I wasn’t present on Wednesday when the Republicans once again took control of the House of Representatives, but something similar to that 2001 feeling returned. At least one step had been taken to redeem the congressional follies of the past four years.

I’m not going to speculate what was going through John Boehner’s mind in this picture as he held the gavel, but for many of us, this political cartoon captures the emotion accurately:

New Speaker Boehner, once Nancy Pelosi finally yielded the floor to him, gave a sober, humble address about taking care of the nation’s business. While Boehner is not a charismatic speaker, he spoke words of truth. Aren’t we tired yet of charismatic speakers who spout little else but platitudes? Wednesday’s transfer of authority will hopefully give us more responsible leadership in the House:

Then yesterday, the new Republican leadership made its first order of business a reading of the Constitution on the House floor. Critics called it a publicity stunt, yet when all members were sworn in, what were they pledging to do? Uphold the Constitution. Why then is the reading of the document they pledge to follow and maintain a stunt? I fear that for some of those representatives, this was the first time they’ve heard some of these provisions.

Yes, I know it won’t change anyone’s mind about what is constitutional. Progressives will mouth the pledge and proceed to undermine the authority of the Constitution. But reading it publicly served a good purpose—it was a reminder to the entire nation that lawmakers are not supposed to flout its authority. The Republicans’ new rule that each piece of legislation must also include a specific constitutional authorization serves that same purpose. Some lawmakers will have to be very creative to provide their constitutional rationales for what they want. At the very least, it opens up a much-needed debate on original intent.

For many years, I have been a voice calling for a return to the governmental limitations found in the Constitution. Please forgive me if I feel a sense of elation at this turn of events. I realize that this is only a beginning, and that the representatives’ resolve will be tested, but I rejoice still to see this day. Will even better days arrive?