PDA

View Full Version : Bobby Jindal and Spiritual Warfare



ClydeR
02-22-2009, 03:52 PM
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said on Meet the Press today that his state will not accept all of the stimulus money allocated to Louisiana. Jindal said the stimulus bill would be more stimulative if it had more tax cuts, like a capital gains tax cut, and less spending.

What many people don't know about Jindal is what an intensely spiritual person he is. Although he doesn't like to talk about it today (that's how modest he is!), he wrote an account in 1994 about how he used his spirituality to help a suffering friend.

Jindal's article, "Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1294-jindal)," published in the December 1994 issue of the New Oxford Review, is accessible today only if you are willing to pay for the privilege, which I don't recommend. (During this Obama recession, even $1.50 is worth saving.) It's a long, rambling, introspective, not particularly well written article. Luckily for you, I'm going to retell Jindal's story in my own words, leaving out all the boring parts that made the original article so long.


One evening, Jindal invited his purely platonic friend Susan to go with him to a Christian a cappella concert at Brown University. During the concert, Susan abruptly ran outside. Jindal followed and found her sobbing uncontrollably. He wanted to comfort her, but he knew it would be wrong for him to hug her, so he waited for a female friend to come along. After the female friend hugged and otherwise comforted sad Susan, Jindal and Susan went to Susan's room.

Jindal sat Susan on the bed, and he sat in a "chair located several feet across the room." Again, I want to emphasize that Susan was a purely platonic friend.

Through a long conversation, Jindal was able to elicit clues as to the cause of Susan's angst. Susan told Jindal that she had a lump on her head, and a biopsy showed that it was skin cancer. She was having nightmares (or were they visions?). And she kept smelling something funny in her apartment, sort of like sulfur, but the maintenance people had not been able to find any cause for the odor. Another clue as to the possible cause of her sadness was that her roommate, the non-Christian daughter of a Hmong faith healer, had decorated the apartment with pagan symbols. And when Susan became ill, her mother had gone to a "pagan altar in the Far East" and made a sacrifice for her daughter.

Using logic and his limited religious training, Jindal considered the evidence -- the cancer, the visions, sulfurous odors, pagan decorations, Far East altars. Hmm. Finally, he realized what was causing Susan to cry. It was a demon! Jindal left the room and made the sign of the cross.

Jindal took Susan to a University Christian Fellowship prayer meeting. At the end of the prayer meeting, Susan fell to the floor and began thrashing about, as if she might be having a seizure, but everybody at the meeting knew what it really was.

They quickly gathered around Susan and held her down while chanting "Satan, I command you to leave this woman" and commanding "demons to leave in the name of Christ." This went on for a long time. Eventually the people holding Susan down relaxed their grip, and she jumped up and nearly made it out the door before they grabbed her and held her down again for more chanting.

The struggle was getting so intense that they called in a "rival campus Christian group," the Campus Crusade for Christ, to help them hold Susan down and chant over her. Susan started cursing (another sign of demon possession) and crying out for someone to help her, which the combined power of the two Christian groups did, as they continued to restrain her and chant.

After "a few hours," Susan indicated that the demon was gone, and the other students let her leave.

When the doctor later performed surgery, he was shocked to discover that the cancer was completely gone. The only explanation the doctor could think of was that the earlier biopsy must have removed all of the cancer cells. Right. I'm as much a fan of science as the next person, but there's no way I'm going to believe something that farfetched. Thanks to Jindal's article, we know what really happened all those years ago.

Jindal is regarded as a likely candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 or 2016. Although I like Jindal a lot, I'm going to have to support Sarah Palin in 2012. I wrote a post here last year about how Palin's church is helping to drive witches out of the neighborhoods where they live. We need Palin more than Jindal because we have a bigger problem with witches in this country than with demons.

Apotheosis
02-23-2009, 01:31 AM
time to bring back burning at the stake?

http://retardzone.com/uploads/2007/09/witch.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI

Fallen
02-23-2009, 01:42 AM
time to bring back burning at the stake?

http://retardzone.com/uploads/2007/09/witch.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8DIg3oHFI

Heh. Retardzone.

Mathari
02-23-2009, 02:06 AM
LOL, sometimes ClydeR strikes gold, and this is one of those times.

Mabus
02-23-2009, 03:56 AM
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said on Meet the Press today that his state will not accept all of the stimulus money allocated to Louisiana.
Against my better judgment, I will respond to the crank behind "Clyde" about this portion of their post.

Additional unemployment compensation is only 2% of the rip-off that is called the stimulus. The language of the law is clear that the increase in payment structure for unemployment benefits must be made part of permanent state law, and also that benefits cannot be denied for persons that refuse to take part time jobs. Once this federal funding ends the states (and the businesses within them) will have to make up the difference with higher taxation.

This law (in Subtitle B, Section 2101) also rewards states for adding people to the TANF (welfare) rolls, with a full 80% reimbursement per person added. This $3,000,000,000 is good through 2010 (next congressional election, imagine that) and if not reauthorized (and funded) could leave states hundreds of millions of dollars in the red with the swelled welfare rolls for which they were federally rewarded.

It does not shock me that some governors (and not just Jindal) have decided that the long term costs and stipulations are not worth accepting the money from the
"Generational Theft Act of 2009". Nor does it surprise me, the more I read the bill, that it was rushed through (using fear tactics often heard decried when used by previous administrations) without congressional or public scrutiny.

ClydeR
02-23-2009, 10:18 AM
I read (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/11/jindal.response/) that Jindal will present the Republican response to the President's Congressional address Tuesday night. The Republican Party seems to be settling on Jindal as its main spokesperson.

By the way, Obama's address Tuesday is not a State of the Union address. A new president does not give a SOTU address at the beginning of his first year in office. A president gives three SOTU addresses during his first term and, if he is reelected, four SOTU addresses during his second term.

ClydeR
02-23-2009, 10:25 AM
Additional unemployment compensation is only 2% of the rip-off that is called the stimulus. The language of the law is clear that the increase in payment structure for unemployment benefits must be made part of permanent state law, and also that benefits cannot be denied for persons that refuse to take part time jobs. Once this federal funding ends the states (and the businesses within them) will have to make up the difference with higher taxation.

It's not so clear. But is is an interesting issue. When I heard Jindal and Barbour state their case against accepting stimulus money for the unemployed, I decided to look it up for myself. I think it's half true.

Several Republican governors have said that their states will reject federal funds under the stimulus bill expanding unemployment compensation. The federal funding would temporarily increase weekly payments to eligible unemployed persons by $25 per week and would help fund some of the states' administrative costs relating to providing the additional payments. The governors say they don't want to accept the money because, in their opinion, it requires the states to make permanent increases in unemployment compensation, which is funded by taxes on employers.


Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal talking on NBC's Meet the Press discussed his "fundamental disagreement" over the nature of the stimulus measure, reiterating an earlier claim that his state would not accept $100 million in federal unemployment assistance.

"So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times."

Mississippi Governor Hayley Barbour echoed Jindal's skepticism on CNN's State of the Union. The governor took particular objection to expanding unemployment benefits to part time workers. "We’ve never done that in our state," the governor said. "Most states do not do that. If we were to change so we get this extra federal money, then we would have to put in extra tax on job creation in Mississippi."

More... (http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/02/stimulus-bill-dominates-sunday-talk-shows-as-republican-governors-talk-of-refusing-aid.html)

I'm going to quote a short part of the relevant provision of the new law. To understand it, you need to know that paragraphs 2 and 3, which I am not quoting, set forth a lot of requirements--unrelated to the issue of permanence--to qualify for the funding. And paragraph 4, a portion of which I am quoting, appears to add another requirement regarding permanence.


If the Secretary of Labor finds that the State law provisions (disregarding any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation) meet the requirements of paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may be, the Secretary of Labor shall thereupon make a certification to that effect to the Secretary of the Treasury, together with a certification as to the amount of the incentive payment to be transferred to the State account pursuant to that finding. The Secretary of the Treasury shall make the appropriate transfer within 7 days after receiving such certification.

More... (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111siVQT&refer=&r_n=hr016.111&item=&sel=TOC_1072626&)

Two ready alternative interpretations come to mind.

First, I think the best interpretation is that it means that the state law cannot have a sunset provision (date on which the additional unemployment compensation ceases, without the need for additional legislative action), and the state law cannot contain conditions under which the additional unemployment compensation ceases on a statewide basis. If I'm right, that means that to return unemployment compensation to its normal level, the state legislature would have to change the law after the temporary federal funding stops. It would be permanent only if the legislature does not act to change it back.

Second, it might mean what Governors Barbour and Jindal say it means.

The only thing clear is that the law is unclear. Because it is unclear, the Dept. of Labor needs to issue a clarification.

So says Clyde.

Warriorbird
02-23-2009, 12:07 PM
http://www.pimpyourshirts.com/catalog/jesusdomensg.jpg

Mabus
02-23-2009, 12:21 PM
If I'm right, that means that to return unemployment compensation to its normal level, the state legislature would have to change the law after the temporary federal funding stops. It would be permanent only if the legislature does not act to change it back.
Think about this from the self-interested politician's perspective. What politician is going to want to lower unemployment benefits after they have been raised? How does that affect their chances of reelection? Now I know that those questions seem irrelevant to the person receiving unemployment, as they would take any additional help, but it is not the unemployed making the decisions. The ones making the decisions are (often) seeking reelection.

If the federal government really wants to help the unemployed they could:

A) Stop all federal taxes on unemployment compensation for a two year period (or longer).

B) Provide additional funding for (proven) retraining programs for jobs lost in the manufacturing sector.

C) Promote a pro-business agenda, focusing on small businesses, to foster job growth.

ClydeR
02-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Think about this from the self-interested politician's perspective. What politician is going to want to lower unemployment benefits after they have been raised? How does that affect their chances of reelection?

Yes, but I certainly do not think a political concern is why they are turning down the money. That would be a disgraceful reason. They are turning it down because they believe, perhaps wrongly, that they cannot ever change their state unemployment laws again if they accept the money.

Mabus
02-23-2009, 01:13 PM
Yes, but I certainly do not think a political concern is why they are turning down the money. That would be a disgraceful reason.
It is a valid reason.

Self-interest drives people. If our politicians were not seeking acceptance (through the ballot box, their "legacy" and elsewhere) of their ideas/ideals/positions then they likely would not be politicians.

They are turning it down because they believe, perhaps wrongly, that they cannot ever change their state unemployment laws again if they accept the money.
From your own post:

(disregarding any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation)

By accepting the money and then changing the law it could be interpreted as being a violation of the federal law. Just to fight a challenge (which would happen) would require state resources, and the SCotUS has given the federal government victories before in state use of federal funds.