I’m afraid we need a little Sunday morning theology. Hopefully someone at the White House will read this and realize just how ill advised the President was to do what he did this week and we should be praying hard for him to see the error of his ways on this. In the Bible we read these things: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Gen 1:28 (ESV) “Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” Job 31:15 (ESV) “Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.” Psalm 119:73 (ESV) “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13 (ESV) These are clear references to God intending people to procreate and recognize that, even in the womb, God played a vital role in the formation of children and we should not casually destroy life God himself created. These passages of scripture are what inspire so many pro-life advocates to defend the unborn. Had the President of the United States stood at the National Prayer Breakfast and uttered any of those passages and then announced his intent to protect the unborn, abortion rights advocates would have stormed the White House and the Courts all in the name of separation of church and state. The media would have had on Barry Lynn to proclaim his outrage that the President was mixing religion and politics. Jim Wallis would have gone on the news to dance around life issues and try his best to neuter God out of them and the media would have treated him as an objective source. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and quoted Jesus Christ himself to defend a tax increase. The President paraphrased Luke 12:48, “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (ESV) He said it was because he was a Christian that he thought the rich should pay more in taxes. It’s a good thing President Obama did not draw from Matthew 13:12 instead or the poor would really be screwed. “For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (ESV) It is worth pointing out that the very same people who would have been outraged had the President quoted clear scripture on life to defend the unborn were willing to be silent or even applaud the President perverting the words of Christ to pursue his tax plan. It is also worth pointing out that President Obama sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, so this might be the best he can do. But we must also point out that Christians have an obligation to pray for their leaders and, given how the President of the United State just twisted the words of our Lord and Savior, we should pray all the more fervently for him because in reading Luke 12:48, he clearly ignored or has no understand of Luke 12:47, the prior sentence, which reads “And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating.” (ESV) One must wonder about the Christian grounding of the people in the White House who encouraged the President of the United States to pervert the words of the Living God. What the President seems not to know is encapsulated well by Breeanne Howe here. Christ was not talking about money. The President, in making the case for his tax plan using that passage of scripture, perverts Christ’s meaning. Christ was talking explicitly about the blessings flowing from God to the apostles and us through the Word and the need to proclaim Christ as the Living God. To better understand what Christ was actually talking about, first understand that he was talking about an individual’s relationship with God. In fact, throughout President Obama’s speech he perverted a number of passages from Holy Scripture having to do with an individual’s obligations toward the poor and toward God, co-opting those passages as claims that the state can then tax and spend in the name of Jesus. I dare say I’d take peddlers of the “social gospel” much more seriously if they concerned themselves first with the actual Gospel as it pertains to men’s salvation and eternity. Not to delve deep into the theology, but Luke 12:47-48 is reflected in Hebrews 2:1-4, in which the writer preaches, “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” The Greek used for “pay much closer attention” ( prosecho ) and “lest we drift away” ( pararheo ) derive from Greek nautical terminology the original audience would have understood. Prosecho means to tie up or moor a ship in harbor (a metaphor for Christ) and pararheo means to negligently and knowingly let a ship drift past the harbor, or Christ. In other words, what Christ is telling us in Luke and what the author of Hebrews explains in greater detail is that these passages apply to people who, like the President, claim to be Christians and claim to have experienced blessings in life and then turn their back on or drift away from Christ without securing themselves to him. 1 What both Hebrews 2 and Luke 12:47 say that the President conveniently ignored is that anyone who claims to be a Christian or who has experienced the blessings that flow from being surrounded by believers and then does not accept Christ will be judged more harshly on the last day than those who never knew or experienced Christ’s love. Yeah, those levels of hell aren’t just for Catholics. See e.g. Matthew 11:21-22 in which Christ says, “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. ” [Emphasis added] Unfortunately for the nation, we have a President who claims to be a Christian who is willing to take God’s Holy Word repeatedly out of context, subsume God’s commands for individuals in their conduct with each other and with Him, and try to make the case for the government’s fiscal policy with that perversion. Contrast that with his other actions this week. The President, through the Department of Health and Human Services, has ordered religious organizations — targeting more specifically the Catholic Church — to offer health plans that cover the costs of contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. I started this post with, unlike the President’s use of Luke and Proverbs, un-perverted scripture Christians use to show their objections to abortion. But moreso, these are non exhaustive passages of scripture Catholics rely on as foundations both to their opposition to abortion and to contraception. God himself said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” The President this week chose to pervert God’s Word to make the case for a tax increase, but he also chose to ignore God’s word on life and is ordering Christians, while he claims to be one, to violate their Christian conscience on abortion — requiring Christian organizations to provide health insurance that will cover the cost of drugs that induce abortions. He is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to use God’s Word to defend a tax policy that dissuades individuals from giving gladly and charitably to the poor as God instructs and is ignoring God’s Word in order to force fellow Christians into violating their Christian conscience — something about which God cares a great deal. This cannot end well for him, particularly doing this claiming to be a Christian. And it might not end well for the rest of us either. Barack Obama has gone to war with Christians’ consciences and he is perverting God’s word in the process to get his way on public policy. “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (ESV) Pray hard. The President needs it. Some very silly secularists proving they have no clue what they are talking about have taken issue with my use of the word “claim” in this paragraph. It’s not that I am expressing or casting doubt on the President’s faith or my own. I’d use the word about myself too. The point is that this scripture applies to (1) people who claim, or hold themselves out to be, Christians and (2) those who have experienced the blessings derived from God unto Christians. The President explicitly said he was Christian in his speech. When a person says they are a Christian, the presumption for other Christians is that they must be Christian. The silly leftwing secularists attacking me here are proving their very deep and real ignorance about orthodox Christianity and their hostility to it as well. ↩
Continued here:
The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama
Heather Peters (no relation to this writer) just won her lawsuit against Honda over what she argued were misleading claims about the gas mileage she’d get out of her then-new 2006 Civic hybrid. She was awarded $9,867 in compensation, the maximum amount she could have been awarded in small claims court. Now comes the deluge. Because while Peters’ $9k judgment is small potatoes, the fact that she succeeded could encourage a tsunami of similar court cases that might end up costing Honda (and potentially other hybrid car sellers and so, ultimately, consumers ) a lot more than $9k. As Peters (a lawyer) notes, there are at least 200,000 Honda Civic hybrid owners alone. That’s just one make/model of hybrid. There are at least a dozen different hybrid vehicles on the market — and theoretically, the same case could be made against them, too. But is this Honda’s (and the other car companies’) fault? Or does the fault lie with the federal government? For it is not Honda — or any other automaker — that puts the mileage numbers on the window sticker. It is the federal government. The government — in this case, the EPA — takes a new car, then runs it through its test loop. Mileage figures are posted on the window sticker based on these tests, which are by nature subjective . Hence the caveat, in plain standard English: Your mileage will vary. Note, not may . Will . The exact wording is as follows: “Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle [italics added].” And just under the big “best case” mileage numbers, in smaller type, one finds a range of “expected mileage.” As an example, this week I am test-driving a new Fiat 500C. The “best case” number is 32 MPG highway. But underneath this is a range of “expected mileage” between a low of 26 MPG and an even higher high of 38 MPG. In other words, your mileage will vary. Unfortunately for Honda — and potentially every other seller of hybrid cars and perhaps cars , period — there are a lot of people out there who cannot read and comprehend the meaning of plain English and worse, assume everything the government tells them must be true, since it’s the government that’s telling it to them. Thus, they become angry when reality disabuses them — but unfortunately, they channel their anger toward the wrong party. Here is the truth about the Civic hybrid — and all hybrids: If you drive it very gingerly, if you keep it under 50MPH and accelerate very gradually, it is entirely possible to realize the federal government’s publicized “high” MPG figures — and even to exceed them. The problem, of course, is that it is difficult to drive this way if you ever want to get anywhere — and/or have any concern about not driving your fellow drivers to fury by impeding their progress. There is also the problem of conditions. They, too, vary. A Civic hybrid that does not have to ascend 8 percent grades every day, that is not driven at high altitudes (where the air is thinner) or for months on end in 20 degree weather, is going to be easier on gas than a hybrid Civic that is subjected to any one of these conditions, or to all of them. And if, say, you run around on under-inflated tires, or need of a tune-up, then once again, your actual mileage will vary. So, arguably, Peters’ lawsuit was fundamentally wrongheaded — and the judgment, unjust. The court did not even try to determine how she actually drove her car, even though it is a critical piece of evidence. The only question considered was whether her car delivered the advertised mileage — notwithstanding the bold-faced caveat that the advertised mileage is for “comparison purposes only” and that (wait for it) your actual mileage will vary . I’d be worried if I were a major (or minor) automaker because the same engineering-ignorant reasoning used by the court to award Peters her $9k could be used to award many others a lot more than $9k. Peters believes the potential payout could exceed $2 billion — and that’s just Honda . If the other automakers are targeted along similar lines — and remember, legal precedents apply across the board — then the total sum could be many times a mere $2 billion. It could cripple the industry, not just the hybrid vehicle industry. The mileage of every single car on the road will vary, according to all the subjective conditions and use patterns each individual car is subjected to. I test cars for a living and drive a new one every week. I can assure you that the mileage I see varies considerably from that promised by the window sticker. I have pushed it down by 50 percent (drive a car at 90 or 100 MPH and see how much your mileage varies) and — for a change of pace — done everything conceivable to eke as many MPGs out of it as possible by driving as slowly and a gingerly as possible. These are extremes, of course — but the essential point remains: Your mileage will vary. Unfortunately for Honda — and potentially, the entire car industry — it’s a point lost on both Peters and the California courts.
Go here to see the original:
Honda Hounded
President Obama and much of official Washington, D.C. will troupe to the Washington Hilton Hotel on Thursday for the 59th National Prayer Breakfast.
The lefties on Twitter are very upset with their favorite paper, The New York Times . They’ve even started a hashtag ( #NewNYTSlogans ) attacking them for the apparent lack of dedication to truth that the paper has exhibited of late in its pages. An article titled, “ Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante? ” is what has sent them into full fledged mock mode and, as best I can understand it, they believe that the Times has basically acknowledged that the truth and fact checking are not top priorities in The New York Times newsroom. They don’t sound too terribly off from opinions expressed on the right about the Paper of Record. Perhaps we’ve reached a point where we can all agree that this old world rag is nothing but a liberal front and about as unbiased Dan Rather? Not exactly. These folks are actually upset that the newsroom isn’t inserting their opinion enough . And it looks like the Times is interested in hearing out their complaint. In the article, New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, is asking readers pointedly whether or not their “hard news division” is inserting enough of their personal perspective into articles outside of the editorial section. I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about. I assume “facts” is put in quotes to indicate that they are anything but “facts,” which would leave only a handful of possibilities: they are opinions, interpretations, theories, or lies. I further assume that such “facts” are therefore the responsibility of the “fact” giver to back up and would be subject to the counter “facts” from the Paper of Record if there is a verifiable way to disprove what is being said. Brisbane helpfully provides some examples of the “facts” in question so that we can see what this brave new world could look like if the Times writers were to become “Truth Vigilantes” as the headline calls them: One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information. Interestingly, this reader seems to completely miss what a “fact” is. In this entire excerpt there is only one fact: that Clarence Thomas is expressing what he personally did or did not understand, a perspective which he alone is capable of knowing. If there were documents that could show something to the contrary (perhaps an email with Thomas saying “Dude, I totally knew that I had to report that) then I would agree that Liptak would be completely within journalistic standards to present that information as counter evidence. But, let’s use this new method that the Times is playing with and the leftosphere is so intent on and see how it works out. The following will be my attempt at rewriting the article while addressing the concerns that the reader had. From the original article : Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.” As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.” And now the “Truth Vigilante” version. Changes in bold: Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. What a load!11! ” Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible,” as I, the writer of this article do as well. As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.” Given that this expert agree s with me, I will now accept his statement as a fact and subsequently call Clarence Thomas a liar liar pants on fire. Brisbane plays the what if game as well with another critique: Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage. As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same? If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less: “The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.” This is also an interesting example. While it perhaps would’ve been fine for a journalist to note that the word “apology” has never been uttered by President Obama in a speech about America’s position in the world (instead he just toured the world listing everything he viewed as utter American failures without ever actually saying he was sorry on our behalf), Brisbane goes on to show what the Times version of “truth vigilante” would look like. The “fact check” in this instance would’ve resulted in the writer asserting that anything hinting at an apologetic Obama, leans towards manipulation of the truth. Brisbane asks the readers if this is what The New York Times should move to, and the left on Twitter resoundingly screamed in unison “yes!” What the Times will do remains to be seen. Brisbane acknowledges that being so openly interpretative would present its own problems:Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? No, it’s not Mr. Brisbane. But why should that stop you now when it never has before? Cross-Posted at Big Journalism & BenHoweShow.com
Heather Peters (no relation to this writer) is hopping mad at Honda. She says her ’06 hybrid Civic’s actual mileage more than just varied : About 30 MPG vs. the EPA (and Honda) advertised 50 MPG. So she’s going after Honda in court — small claims court — for $10,000. Which is the maximum payday she can get there. Honda is concerned because if Peters wins, other hybrid owners may use the same tactic — and $10,000 times all the potentially unhappy Civic hybrid owners out there, of which there are hundreds of thousands, could add up to a lot more than $10,000 in no time at all. Peters, a lawyer, estimates it could potentially add up to as much as $2 billion . “I would not be surprised if she won,” Richard Cupp Jr., a product liability law professor at Pepperdine University, told the Associated Press . “The judge will have a lot of discretion and the evidentiary standards are relaxed in small claims court.” So, Honda should be worried. In fact, so should every car company that’s ever sold a hybrid vehicle — because few, if any of them, deliver the promised fuel economy. Often, they deliver much less. But it’s not really the cars’ fault. Because they are capable of delivering the advertised mileage. Theoretically. The problem is that you have to drive them in a way that, for most people, is not only unrealistic but downright impossible. To get a steady 40 MPG (let alone 50 MPG) out of any hybrid — and I have driven all of them, extensively — you must keep your speed under 50 MPH and treat the accelerator as if it were a Fabergé egg. This is enervating if you have any consideration for your fellow drivers — whose progress you will be constantly impeding — as well as downright dangerous for you . Merge lanes become suicide lanes; semis loom large in the rearview; you can feel the Hate all around you. So, you give it some pedal — and poof! — there goes your 50 MPG. There are also hills . Hybrids work best on a perfectly horizontal plane. Once rolling, it takes not much power to keep on rolling — and many hybrids can actually shut down the gas engine side of their hybrid powertrain entirely as you coast along. But alas, the world is not — usually — flat. Where I live, for instance, there are 6-8 percent grades. These grades pummel the MPG potential of hybrids as they struggle uphill, burning gas abundantly and also at the same time rapidly depleting the electricity stored in their battery packs, which in a hybrid is used to provide a supplemental boost when needed as well as to allow the car to operate on electricity alone. And once the batteries are depleted, the car can no longer shut down its gas engine even when the road is flat once more — because there’s insufficient reserve power to run the electric motor. You can almost see the tongue of exhaustion hanging out the car’s grille. I had a “state of the art” Chevy Volt recently and this is exactly what happened. Going up and down the mountain rapidly sucked the life out of the battery and so I was running exclusively on the gas engine — which never did better than 35 MPG. This is about 5 MPG worse than several non-hybrid 2012 cars, including the Mazda3 SkyActive and Ford Fiesta — cars that, it should be noted, cost about half what a new Volt costs. GM better lawyer up, too. Even when you get back to flat land, because the battery was depleted dealing with hills (or helping to provide adequate acceleration) the hybrid just becomes a heavier-than-usual (because of the added weight of the battery pack and electric motor) car burning gas just like any other car. And usually, more gas than an otherwise equivalent non-hybrid car — for two reasons: 1. In a hybrid, the gas engine is usually smaller and less powerful than the engine in an otherwise equivalent non-hybrid. For instance, in Peters’ 2006 Civic hybrid, the gas engine is just 1.3 liters and makes only 110 hp. In the non-hybrid Civic, the engine is 1.8 liters and makes 140 hp. Result? The hybrid’s smaller/weaker engine has to work harder to deliver comparable forward thrust — which means it burns more fuel. 2. In a hybrid, the gas engine has two jobs — powering the drive wheels and powering up the battery pack. There is no free lunch in physics. If the battery is strained and drained repeatedly, it puts additional load on the engine — just like any other accessory. Which — wait for it, now — results in more fuel being burned . Honda’s sin — the sin of all car companies hawking hybrids — was (and still is) not making all this clear to its customers. Hybrids can indeed return 40 or even 50-plus MPGs. The problem is finding a place where you can drive them in such a way as to make that real-world feasible rather than pie-in-the-sky advertising copy.
See the original post here:
A Honda Civic Lesson
