Workers of the World (and Ohio), Compete!

By Marc Kilmer

This Labor Day, many people used their extra day off from work to take a trip, cook out, and do other end-of-summer activities. However, Labor Day, according to the Department of Labor, is “dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers.” Only by recognizing these workers as individuals and enacting policies to let them compete freely can our state and federal governments truly allow them to obtain the social and economic achievements they deserve.

It goes without saying that every worker is different — each has different skills, education, work ethic, and other attributes that plays into how that worker does his or her job. And while some workers may have some common goals, allowing workers the freedom to compete with each other serves their interests best. Only through competition can a worker achieve the level of success that his or her attributes will bring.

When it comes to businesses, there is near-universal acknowledgment that competition is good for consumers. But competition is also good for businesses. When businesses must compete with each other for customers, they become more efficient, produce better products, and innovate in ways that improves themselves. The same principles of competition also apply to workers.

Unions are strong supporters of anti-trust laws aimed at preserving business competition. But when it comes to workers, unions aim at stifling such competition. As a result, many of the laws supported by labor unions — the very organizations that have appointed themselves to speak for American labor — hurt individual workers. Ohio’s prevailing wage mandate, the state’s coercive unionization law, federal barriers to imports, and other policies are designed to stifle competition and which keep workers from achieving higher wages and better positions in society.

At the federal level, union leaders long been a supporter of trade barriers, for instance. While some American workers may benefit by being shielded from competition from foreign workers, many more workers are hurt. Those who are employed by exporters or who rely on imported products or services are penalized by these union-supported policies. And, of course, every American who pays more for imported products has less money to spend because of high tariffs.

In Ohio, the law that allows unions to force workers to join them as a condition of employment has certainly kept businesses from locating in the state. It’s not a coincidence that workers in states that have enacted “right to work” laws have done far better economically than Ohio’s workers.

Similarly, the state’s prevailing wage law, which rigs the bidding process for government building projects, only benefits a small percentage of workers. Those who are employed by unionized firms that are long-established in the state win. Every other worker who works for a firm which is arbitrarily shut out of bidding on these projects loses.

The type of thinking which seems to be prevalent in unions is to try and protect what they have right now. That may work as a short-term strategy, but it’s an ineffective policy in the long-run. The world changes and only through competition can workers adapt to that change. While union leaders may not realize this, workers do. Private sector unionization has been falling for decades. Today, fewer than 8% of private sector workers belong to unions.

Instead of protecting workers from competition, the government should encourage competition. By erecting artificial barriers in the attempt to shield a select few workers from competition, both the state and federal governments have prevented many workers from being able to obtain the employment or wages for which they are capable. The best way to honor the workers of our country is to free the labor market from these government restrictions.

Source: Buckeye Institute’s, Weekly News Digest, September 8, 2009

First Friday, Make Music…Do Art…Have Fun

BuskersNeededFirst Friday is tomorrow in downtown Xenia. An awning will be set up outside and the PA set up after 5 pm. If you want to play or sing or draw on the sidewalk or even the side of our building on Friday from 5-9 PM, come on down. Paint yourself white and stand still… Who cares? Even if you can’t do a frikkin’ thing artistic, come on down to support The Cavern and Express Yourself. Let’s not let the old stuffy folks downtown decide what’s good to do outside on a warm summer evening!!! Bring your friends.

Grassroots Economic Development

By Marc Kilmer

It’s probably not news to you that Ohio is not the easiest state in which to operate a business. This isn’t just a hunch business owners have, though. There is empirical evidence to support it. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, rates Ohio’s business tax climate worse than forty-six other states. In 2008, Ohio’s economic growth ranked behind forty-four other states. Unfortunately, there is little appetite in Columbus to address the fundamental problems facing Ohio businesses.

Ohio policymakers are enamored with top-down initiatives that seek to create economic growth. Tax credits and subsidies for certain kinds of businesses currently in favor with the political class seem to be the extent of policymakers’ ideas. As we saw with the demise of Skybus and DHL and ethanol plants throughout the state, though, this type of politically-driven economic development often ends up being a costly burden to taxpayers with few or no jobs created.

While it is difficult for politicians to contemplate, economic growth is not created through government agencies. Instead, it comes from the efforts of business owners, their employees, and their customers. It can’t be directed from above but it certainly can be stifled. When a state has a high tax burden or imposes onerous regulations, no bureaucrat from the Department of Development can fix things.

Instead of looking to direct economic development, Ohio policymakers need to create a climate where business owners can thrive. A reduced tax burden, a simplified tax code, fewer and more reasonable regulations — all these things will do much more for the state’s economy than another tax credit or low-interest loan program.

Unfortunately, creating an economic climate where economic growth is stimulated doesn’t provide as good a photo op as handing a Department of Development check to a business owner. Hopefully Ohio politicians will realize their top-down growth strategy hasn’t produced much growth and will instead decide that creating jobs is more important than taking credit for a special interest tax break.

Source: Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, August 24, 2009.

Q&A: Abortion & the health care plan

by Michael Foust

On the same day that a leading pro-family group released a TV ad claiming the health care plan would lead to government-funded abortion, President Obama spoke to a group of mostly liberal religious groups and called such charges “fabrications.”

So, who’s right?

Following is a list of frequently asked questions, along with answers, about the controversy over abortion coverage in the health care plan:

What is President Obama’s position on the issue?

As president, Obama has not come down firmly on whether he believes the health care plan should cover elective abortions. He came closest to doing so during a July interview with CBS’ Katie Couric, saying, “I’m pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.” He did not, though, say whether he agreed with that tradition. During the same interview he said he was “not trying to micro-manage what benefits are covered.” Pro-lifers are concerned not only because Obama, as a believer in abortion rights, is pushing health care reform, but also because as a candidate, he explicitly backed government-funded elective abortions. He told Planned Parenthood during a 2007 speech that “reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. And so it is at the center, the heart of the [health care] plan that I propose.” He also said during the same speech, “We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care.”

What are the concerns of pro-lifers?

Pro-lifers have three primary concerns: 1) that a public option (that is, a taxpayer-funded, government-run insurance plan) will cover elective abortions; 2) that federal subsidies to lower-income people will be allowed to be used to purchase insurance plans that cover abortions; and 3) that a health care plan will force private insurers to cover a list of “essential benefits” that includes abortions. Under all three scenarios, pro-lifers say, the number of abortions will increase.

So, under the public option in the current health care reform bill, are elective abortions covered?

There are multiple bills in the House and Senate, but under the leading House bill, H.R. 3200, elective abortions would be covered under a public plan, as both sides acknowledge. But the two sides disagree strongly over whether the public plan would use federal money to fund abortions. Before the August recess began, a House committee passed an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps, D.-Calif., who is pro-choice, that would pay for elective abortions only through the premium monies collected from enrollees. Capps and her supporters said the amendment would prevent the government from financing abortions. (The committee defeated amendments that would have explicitly prohibited elective abortion coverage.) Critics of the Capps amendment — including several conservative Democrats — called the amendment a bookkeeping sham and said common sense dictates that under a public plan, all the money is federal money. “You have a federal agency collecting these monies, getting bills from the abortionists and sending checks to the abortionists drawn on a federal account,” National Right to Life’s Douglas Johnson told Baptist Press. “… The federal government is running the whole scheme from start to finish.” Speaking to the Weekly Standard, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) called the amendment “one of the most deceptive amendments I have ever seen.” Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mich.) called it a “phony compromise.” Pro-life citizens who want to enroll in a public plan would have no choice but to pay the same premiums that would finance the abortions. Regarding the debate the non-partisan FactCheck.org, run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, concluded, “As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a ‘public plan’ and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.”

If, under a health care plan, lower-income families receive federal subsidies to purchase their own health care plan, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to buy a plan (public or private) covering elective abortions?

Pro-lifers argue that under the current federal employees health program — the same health insurance plans that members of Congress have – abortion coverage is prohibited. The same principle should apply to federal subsidies, they say, adding that if federal subsidies are used for health insurance plans that cover abortion, then the number of abortions would only increase and taxpayers would be footing the bill. The Capps amendment has a say in the matter by allowing federal subsidies to be used for plans that cover abortions but preventing the subsidies themselves to be used for the abortions. In other words, private insurance companies would have to segregate their internal accounts. Pro-lifers call it another bookkeeping scam. Melody Barnes, Obama’s domestic policy adviser, seemed to defend the pro-choice argument Aug. 19 during a conference call with liberal religious groups, when she answered a question about abortion and said the health care proposals are “not intended to reduce insurance coverage that Americans already have.” In other words, she seemed to be saying, if a citizen currently is paying for a private plan that covers abortion, then they should be able to do so also in a public plan or a private plan under health care reform. (Barnes formerly served on the board of two abortion rights groups, Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood.)

Is the word “abortion” even in the bills?

It’s not in most of them, but, as pro-family leader Tony Perkins said, neither are the words “tonsillectomy” or “bypass,” and such procedures would of course be covered. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1973 decision legalizing abortion nationwide, there has been an understanding in Congress — thanks mostly to federal court rulings — that unless a federally funded health care program explicitly excludes abortion coverage, then the controversial procedure must be covered.

How has the White House reacted to such charges?

With the exception of a couple of recent comments by Obama, the White House has said very little. The White House’s own health care fact-checking webpage, called “Reality Check,” includes videos on 13 topics, but none deal with abortion. Obama told a group of mostly liberal religious groups Aug. 19, “We’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. These are all fabrications.” The next day, he told a health care forum, “There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions. Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment.” But the non-partisan FactCheck.org posted an article Aug. 21 saying that Obama “goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.'”

What’s the Hyde Amendment?

Passed first in 1976 and tweaked during the Clinton administration, the Hyde Amendment is an addition to the annual Health and Human Services Department appropriations bill that prevents Medicaid (the insurance program for low-income people) from covering abortions except in the cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. The amendment, though, has to be re-approved annually — meaning that a pro-choice Congress could reverse policy — and it also would not apply to the health care plans being considered. Funding for the health care plans would not flow through the Health and Human Services Department. The Associated Press reported Aug. 5 that “the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the [Hyde Amendment and other] restrictions.”

What about co-ops? Are there pro-life concerns about them?

Although none of the bills currently promotes co-ops, some legislators in Washington have floated the idea of co-ops as an acceptable alternative to a public option. In theory, a health care co-op would be owned and managed by its enrollees, and possibly even pay its own doctors and have its own health care facilities — all without federal control. If this is the case, National Right to Life’s Johnson said, “then it would be the same principle as other private insurance, which is they can do what they want, but if they want to qualify for a federal subsidy, then that plan shouldn’t cover abortions.” But if a co-op receives federal dollars and has federal control, then pro-lifers would have the same concerns that they have about the public option.

Where is public opinion on the issue?

A 2008 Zogby poll found that 69 percent of Americans support the Hyde Amendment and oppose “taxpayer funding of abortions.” On another issue, an Aug. 18 MSNBC poll showed that 50 percent believe the health care plan “likely will use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions.” Thirty-seven percent said it is unlikely.

Source: Baptist Press, August 21, 2009

Kroger associates in Ohio ratify labor contract

Dayton area employees of the The Kroger Co. have ratified a new labor agreement.

The associates are members of United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 75.

The agreement covers more than 4,000 associates who work in 30 stores in Dayton and surrounding areas.

“This agreement provides good, stable jobs for our associates, increases take-home pay, and provides high-quality, affordable health care,” said Geoff Covert, president of Kroger’s Cincinnati/Dayton division.

Source: Forbes/AP August 13, 2009

New Study Shows Homeschoolers Excel Academically

HSLDA released a new study: the Progress Report 2009: Homeschool Academic Achievement and Demographics, conducted by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, which surveyed 11,739 homeschooled students for the 2007–08 academic school year. The results were consistent with previous studies on homeschool academic achievement and showed that homeschoolers, on average, scored 37 percentile points above public school students on standardized achievement tests.

“These results validate the dedication of hundreds of thousands of homeschool parents who are giving their children the best education possible,” said Michael Smith, president of HSLDA.

The Progress Report drew homeschoolers from 15 independent testing services and is the most comprehensive study of homeschool academic achievement ever completed.

While the academic results are impressive, the study also showed that the achievement gaps common to public schools were not found in the homeschool community.

Homeschooled boys (87th percentile) and girls (88th percentile) scored equally well; the income level of parents did not appreciably affect the results (household income under $35,000: 85th percentile—household income over $70,000: 89th percentile); and while parent education level did have some impact, even children whose parents did not have college degrees scored in the 83rd percentile, which is well above the national average for public school students. Homeschooled children whose parents both had college degrees scored in the 90th percentile.

“Because of the one-on-one instruction homeschoolers receive, we are prepared academically to be productive and contributing members of today’s society,” said Smith.

The average public school spends nearly $10,000 per child per year whereas the Progress Report shows that the average homeschool parent spends about $500 per child per year.

“Homeschooling is a rapidly growing, thriving education movement that is challenging the conventional wisdom about the best way to raise and educate the next generation,” said Smith.

There are an estimated 2 million homeschooled children in the U.S. today, which is about 4% of the school-aged population, and homeschooling is growing at around 7% per year.

Source: Home School Legal Defense Association, August 10, 2009.

Prostitution Ring Targets High School Girls

Nashville, Tennessee police have arrested 45-year-old Teresa West and her two adult children on charges of trafficking for sexual servitude. The police said they were prostituting a 16-year-old girl they recruited from a local high school.

The police suspect more minors may have been recruited by the Wests.

Sharlene Azam, author of Oral Sex is the New Goodnight Kiss, said underage prostitution in white, middle-class neighborhoods is more common than many want to believe.

“I am finding that middle-class girls from functional families in good neighborhoods are being drawn into prostitution by all kinds of people,” she said. “There are recruiters in schools, other teenage girls, who might be telling your daughter, ‘You’re already having sex, why don’t you get paid for it’?”

Source: CitizenLink Daily, August, 21, 2009

Who’s telling the truth about abortion funding in Health Care Reform Bill?

Cardinal Rigali says the bill does fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are pushing an “illusion.”

President Obama says the bill does not fund abortion and that those who say otherwise are guilty of a “fabrication.”

Who is right and who is wrong?

In a August 20 report, CNCNews compares statements made by and President Obama to answer the question.

Cardinal Rigal Cardinal Rigali laid out his position in a carefully reasoned and detailed argument presented in a pastoral letter sent to the U.S. House of Representatives on August 11. Here is his explanation:

“Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde amendment and other federal provisions that have long prevented federal funding of abortion and of health benefits packages that include abortion. The committee rejected an amendment to extend this longstanding policy to the use of federal subsidies for health care premiums under this Act. Instead the committee created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.

“But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions.”

President Obama not only disagrees with Cardinal Rigali’s conclusion that the bill funds abortion because it funds abortion providers, but in his short speech to a religious audience on BlogTalkRadio yesterday he said that those who say the bill funds abortion are not telling the truth.

Here is what President Obama said:

“I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there’s some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness.”

“You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all–these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. And that is that we look out for one another. That I am my brother’s keeper and my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”

The committee referred to by Cardinal Rigali is the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Health Subcommittee amendment specifically states under 122 (4)(B): ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.
Who’s telling the truth about abortion funding in Health Care Reform Bill?

“The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted …”

Prior to the above, the amendment says that the public health insurance option “shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A). Sub-paragraph (4)(A) says what is not permitted in exactly the same words as in (4)(B).

So what is prohibited? Nothing. Under this amendment, the government can and will provide publicly funded abortion service coverage to all eligible citizens.

The CNSNews report further demonstrates how the New York Times spun the amendment in order to deceive the public. The NYT stated that the Health Care Reform Bill would subsidized health insurance premiums of low-income people, but would not cover abortion services.
Yet, as we saw in the above amendment, it would be covered.

According to CNSNews, low income Americans are not the only ones whose would receive federally subsidized health insurance.

“Under the terms of both the House and Senate bills, it is not only “low income people” who will qualify for federal subsidies to buy insurance, but also people making up to 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four). The bill will guarantee all such federally subsidized insurance purchasers the ability to buy an insurance to plan that covers abortions. Therefore, federal money will pay for abortion coverage.”

“To put it more bluntly, this health care bill will take money away from hard-working, decent, pro-life taxpayers and hand it over to insurance providers that pay doctors to kill unborn babies.”

Who then is telling the truth about abortion funding under the Health Care Reform bill? Cardinal Rigali and those like him are telling America the truth. Obama and his religious supporters are not.

Suicide Prevention Drug Fraud: Study Finds 80 Percent of Suicide Victims On Antidepressant Drugs

By Mike Adams, Natural News Editor

A Swedish writer has accused the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) of covering up evidence suggesting a connection between psychiatric drugs and suicide. Under a recent law, Swedish health-care providers must fill out reports on all suicides committed by patients under their care or within four weeks of a health care visit. The reports are then sent to the NBHW, which compiles and analyzes them.

Recently, the NBHW released the first report analyzing the 367 suicides recorded in 2006. “Not a single word is written about the most compelling fact: Well over 80 percent of persons killing themselves were treated with psychiatric drugs,” Janne Larson writes.

According to data received via a Freedom of Information Act request, more than 80 percent of the 367 suicides had been receiving psychiatric medications. More than half of these were receiving antidepressants, while more than 60 percent were receiving either antidepressants or antipsychotics. There is no mention of this either in the NBHW paper or in major Swedish media reports about the health care suicides.

Why the truth won’t be reported in the mainstream media

“It was contrary to the best interests of Big Pharma and biological psychiatrists” to expose the information, Larson writes. “It blew the myths of antidepressants and neuroleptics [antipsychotics] as suicide protecting drugs to pieces. It would also have hurt the career of many medical journalists to take up this subject; journalists who for years have made their living by writing marketing articles about new antidepressant drugs.”

These statements are quite true. The conspiracy of silence between Big Pharma and the mainstream media is now so strong that accurate news about the dangers of psychiatric drugs is rarely reported. As we recently saw in the death of Heath Ledger, the mainstream media is quick to blame the victim, but slow to realize that the real cause of these behavioral problems rests with the chemicals that alter brain function (and therefore alter behavior).

Evidence has emerged that a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) actually increases the risk of suicide in those who take them. While such claims have been hotly disputed by the pharmaceutical industry and many psychiatrists, experimental, epidemiological and case study evidence continues to emerge that reinforces such a link. The evidence suggests that those taking SSRIs are approximately twice as likely to commit suicide as those not taking such medications. This risk increase appears to be independent of the specific diagnosis or other underlying health factors.

Even worse, recent research published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS Medicine (see http://medicine.plosjournals.org/pe…) reveals that antidepressant drugs don’t work any better than placebo at reducing depression. This study looked at all the clinical trials conducted on SSRIs, not just the ones selected by drug companies for publication. It reveals that SSRI drug manufacturers committed scientific fraud in censoring studies that did not show positive results. Now, the whole world knows that the disease mongering and hype behind antidepressant drugs was based on pure scientific fraud.

Source: Natural News.com, February 28, 2009

Faith Healing Government Miracles

Sojourner’s Jim Wallis is America’s leading preacher of faith healing. Unlike his charismatic brethren, Wallis is preaching faith in government. In praise of the benevolent overlords of health care, Wallis calls on us to believe in the liberal’s health care plan for miraculous healing. Like the healing ministry of Jesus, Wallis proclaims the federal government will save the poor from a woeful lack health care and poverty as well.

Actually, his latest sermon didn’t include deliverance from poverty by government or anyone else. The likely reason is that neither government bureaucrats nor big business has any plans of raising the poor out of the dependency on their big government savior. I doubt that Obama does either.

I know my comments seem to border on the edge of intolerant blasphemy, but consider Wallis’ words:

We are calling on people of faith to carry on the healing ministry of Jesus by making sure your political representatives understand that the faith community will be satisfied with nothing less than accessible, affordable health care for all Americans, built on a solid financial foundation. (emphasis added)

People of faith need to be the steady, moral drumbeat driving the debate and keeping our politicians accountable. This is a critical and long-overdue opportunity to fix a broken and inequitable system, which must not be derailed either by powerful special interests or by those, on any side, who just want to score political points. It is up to all of us to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Like Wallis, the United Methodist Church believes it is the government’s responsibility to provide all citizens with adequate health care. I have to ask; where in the Bible does it say that? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it give liberal politicians in Washington the legal authority? Maybe they read the general welfare clause as being non-restrictive in such matters.

If so, why don’t they interpret it in a way that gives themselves the right to ensure that every working American earns a wage they can live on? It would be equitable for every working American to earn enough for a minimally independent life without welfare assistance. Isn’t it more important for individuals to earn enough to pay banks for a mortgage, pay GM for a new car every 3-5 years, to maintain clothing and housewares, to purchase government mandated new television and communication technologies, to buy healthy food, as well as adequate health care insurance?

The answer given by federal and state politicians as well as Wall Street funded corporations is NO unless you are fully dependent on Almighty Gov or on one of its Union bosses, AFL-CIO or NEA for example. One exception is if you have been blessed by fate with the right global market skills developed at the right university with a more marketable degree such science, computer technology, medicine, law, or business investment and marketing. Having been born or raised in the right family or have gained the right social connections helps too.

Wallis’ liberal propaganda jazzed up with religious hype makes right-wing theocrats look like Saint Theresa. At least she actually helped the poor, diseased, and the orphan. If as I suspect, Wallis is sincere in his effort to help the poor and needy, it appears he has wondered to far from the fold and has enter the den of wolves.

Jesus said, “The enemy comes to kill, to steal, and to destroy.” The gospel of government salvation has the serpent imprint. The glory health care reform being evangelized to America will not only help those kept in poverty with paying for government’s health care insurance it will insure the killing of the unborn and the useless elderly. The miracle healing promised by faith in government will also continue robbing many of an equitable income as well as the freedom from the tyranny of dependency on government or quasi-governments as Wall Street funded corporations. Many financial experts, economists, and even brave health professionals are claiming that the current government is destroying our economy, our excellent health care system, and our future.

Jesus also said, “The truth will set you free.” The truth is Obama, liberals, and wayward Christians are not telling the truth. Read the dag-gone health bills and committee amendments. Then consider this: medical science can only assist the human body to heal itself. That is how God designed it. Only the Creator can actually heal the human body. He alone can reprogram the DNA or other aspects of mutated organisms that destroy normal human cells. Maybe one day, medical science will actually discover all of the Designer’s secrets, but until then, only faith in God for healing is warranted.

Sources: Sojourner, August 20, 2009; United Methodist Church News, August 19, 2009; John 10: 10; and John 8:32.