It is unbelievable to me that some people are focusing on what Michelle Obama wore to her husbands speech. As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less what she wore, if her dress was too formal, or not quite right for this particular occasion. She could have worn Jeans and a T-Shirt, or a bathrobe for all I care. The focus should be on what President Obama said.
We are screaming toward socialism at breakneck speed, and people are worried about the First Ladies dress. It's that kind of nonsense that allowed all of this stuff to happen in the first place.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Spending Spree
Hot on the heels of the bloated so-called Stimulus package, and remember that that was $827 Billion after amendments, Congress has passed a special $410 Billion spending package. This they did quietly so that people wouldn't have the chance to call and voice their objections to it. This is simply more money that the US Government will have to borrow, assuming there are any persons or nations still willing to lend, and leave for future generations to pay back.
President Obama keeps talking about how he inherited a deficit from President Bush, and even said the other day that he is going to try to cut the deficit in half during his first term, but this is an out and out lie. Now, I don't like any deficit spending at all, I think the Federal Government should run on the same principles that most of our Grandparents did, if you can't afford it, you just do without it, but let's look at the numbers. The deficit that the new Administration inherited was about $450 Billion. Accounting for interest (sometimes people say "debt service") the deficit has exploded to over $2 Trillion, and Obama has been in office just over a month. Now, I understand that Congress passed the spending bills, but Obama chose to sign them, and in this case, the Congress did not have the votes to over ride a Veto, had the President chosen to not go along, but of course he did go along, because he's complicit in the selling out of our children, and our Nations future.
This is sure not to be the only massive spending increases this year. They now have their sights set firmly on Health Care, and they have already started laying the groundwork for Nationalizing Health Care, which, if they are successful, will be an unmitigated disaster. The fiscal burden of Government run Health Care is well beyond what most people can even imagine, although imagination is hardly required, as we have plenty of examples around the world of just how colossal a failure this system is, just look at Canada and Britain. Besides the cost in dollars though, there is an even higher cost in human lives, and human suffering, as Government managed care amounts to rationed care, and while everyone is technically covered, many are denied access due to cost concerns. This is something that most Americans today don't even comprehend.
For the moment, all we can do is to talk to people, educate people, explain to them why these policies are the wrong ones. We can stay in touch with members of Congress and try to influence the decisions they make, and certainly if your Representative or Senator is in the Minority of those that are doing the right thing, please send them some encouragement so that they might keep on keeping on. Beyond that though, the next big impact we can have is to get involved in the upcoming election in 2010, find those candidates that will fight for what is right and support them. The only way to stem the tide of Socialism in America is to take back Congress in 2010. By 2012 it will be far more difficult to alter course, and if we fail by then, it will almost certainly be too late. People have to wake up, get up, and start fighting this battle now. The future of our Children, and our Nation, depend on it.
President Obama keeps talking about how he inherited a deficit from President Bush, and even said the other day that he is going to try to cut the deficit in half during his first term, but this is an out and out lie. Now, I don't like any deficit spending at all, I think the Federal Government should run on the same principles that most of our Grandparents did, if you can't afford it, you just do without it, but let's look at the numbers. The deficit that the new Administration inherited was about $450 Billion. Accounting for interest (sometimes people say "debt service") the deficit has exploded to over $2 Trillion, and Obama has been in office just over a month. Now, I understand that Congress passed the spending bills, but Obama chose to sign them, and in this case, the Congress did not have the votes to over ride a Veto, had the President chosen to not go along, but of course he did go along, because he's complicit in the selling out of our children, and our Nations future.
This is sure not to be the only massive spending increases this year. They now have their sights set firmly on Health Care, and they have already started laying the groundwork for Nationalizing Health Care, which, if they are successful, will be an unmitigated disaster. The fiscal burden of Government run Health Care is well beyond what most people can even imagine, although imagination is hardly required, as we have plenty of examples around the world of just how colossal a failure this system is, just look at Canada and Britain. Besides the cost in dollars though, there is an even higher cost in human lives, and human suffering, as Government managed care amounts to rationed care, and while everyone is technically covered, many are denied access due to cost concerns. This is something that most Americans today don't even comprehend.
For the moment, all we can do is to talk to people, educate people, explain to them why these policies are the wrong ones. We can stay in touch with members of Congress and try to influence the decisions they make, and certainly if your Representative or Senator is in the Minority of those that are doing the right thing, please send them some encouragement so that they might keep on keeping on. Beyond that though, the next big impact we can have is to get involved in the upcoming election in 2010, find those candidates that will fight for what is right and support them. The only way to stem the tide of Socialism in America is to take back Congress in 2010. By 2012 it will be far more difficult to alter course, and if we fail by then, it will almost certainly be too late. People have to wake up, get up, and start fighting this battle now. The future of our Children, and our Nation, depend on it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Great Depression?
Are you, like me, sick of hearing that our current Economic "Crisis" is the worst thing our Nation as been through since the Great Depression. However, the chart above proves the lie in that oft repeated statement. Clearly, what we are going through right now is not nearly as bad as the recession of the early 80's. And what did we do to get out of that recession? Ronald Reagan cut taxes, increased military spending and cut spending in many other areas. This led to the roaring economy of the 1990's and, with the exception of the blip after September 11th, 2001, has just now crashed nearly 20 years after the fact. And now we are being told that the only thing that we can do is to go into hyper spending mode, raise taxes on the "rich" and cut military spending, in the middle of a war. Is anyone out there waking up yet?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Funding Terrorists
Compared to the Trillions of dollars that our Government is throwing around in an obvious attempt to increase the size and power of itself the amount seems fairly small, a paltry $900 Million. That's how much the Obama administration is planning to send to the Middle East to rebuild the Palestinian territories after Israel "invaded" the West Bank. Of course Israel took action against the Palestinian territories after the terrorists living there used them as cover to attack Israel and kill Israeli people and Soldiers.
We are told not to worry, that the money will not reach the hands of the terrorists, which is a bunch of bull. If the money goes to that part of the world, it will get into the hands of terrorists because the entire region, outside of Israel itself, is controlled by terrorist organizations, which is what led to these problems in the first place. Then they tell us that the money will have to be distributed through the UN... right, because they have such a great record of doing things right. I guess we can take solace in that though, because at least less money will reach the terrorists because as it moves through the various departments of the United Nations most of it will be pilfered off and never reach the intended recipients anyway.
In short, this is just more of our money being thrown away by our own incompetent Government, except that this time it will be used to attack one of our greatest allies on the World stage. This is a sad day indeed.
We are told not to worry, that the money will not reach the hands of the terrorists, which is a bunch of bull. If the money goes to that part of the world, it will get into the hands of terrorists because the entire region, outside of Israel itself, is controlled by terrorist organizations, which is what led to these problems in the first place. Then they tell us that the money will have to be distributed through the UN... right, because they have such a great record of doing things right. I guess we can take solace in that though, because at least less money will reach the terrorists because as it moves through the various departments of the United Nations most of it will be pilfered off and never reach the intended recipients anyway.
In short, this is just more of our money being thrown away by our own incompetent Government, except that this time it will be used to attack one of our greatest allies on the World stage. This is a sad day indeed.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Tough Love
What follows is a letter from President Abraham Lincoln to his brother-in-law in response to (another) request for money. Note that at the time of this letter (1848) he was not yet President. Talk about refusing to enable bad behavior! We should get someone to talk to Congress this way.
***************************************************
Dear Johnston:--
Your request for eighty dollars, I do not think it best to comply with now. At the various times when I have helped you a little, you have said to me, "We can get along very well now," but in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You are not _lazy_, and still you _are_ an _idler_. I doubt whether since I saw you, you have done a good whole day's work, in any one day. You do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. This habit of uselessly wasting time, is the whole difficulty; and it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break this habit. It is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it easier than they can get out after they are in.
You are now in need of some ready money; and what I propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. Let father and your boys take charge of things at home--prepare for a crop, and make the crop; and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get. And to secure you a fair reward for your labor, I now promise you that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of next May, get for your own labor either in money or in your own indebtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. In this, I do not mean you shall go off to St. Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines, in California, but I mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home, in Coles County. Now if you will do this, you will soon be out of debt, and what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. But if I should now clear you out, next year you will be just as deep in as ever. You say you would almost give your place in Heaven for $70 or $80. Then you value your place in Heaven very cheaply, for I am sure you can with the offer I make you get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months' work. You say if I furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession-- Nonsense! If you can't now live _with_ the land, how will you then live without it? You have always been kind to me, and I do not now mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eight times eighty dollars to you.
Affectionately your brother,
A. LINCOLN.Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Vain Name
The Vain Name |
Gregory Koukl
What is the real meaning of "taking the name of the Lord your God in vain?" Are we guilty with some of our everyday language, or is there more to it than that?
I have a letter from a listener that I'd like to read to you, and it may embody a thought or objection that you've had before as you've listened to this show.
It's a very kind letter and I appreciate the gentle way of raising this question and I appreciate the spirit in which it was written. I have done some thinking about this because, on occasion, I do say things like "my god" or "by god" or just "god" like that. There are times when I think it's a meaningful ejaculation. I don't think that this is necessarily using the Lord's name in vain in an empty fashion because I'm trying to make a point. Sometimes the phrase "my god" expresses surprise and you might even think that's using it literally as an appeal to God. But frankly, I'm not thinking about God when I say that so maybe that's using the Lord's name in vain. I did a little bit of study on this. And I guess it depends what it is you understand the commandment to mean. The commandment is in Exodus 20:7 and says, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." A couple of observations here. It seems like rather severe judgment on someone who simply says "my god." The commandment says that God will not leave him unpunished. It could be that this is God's viewpoint and He is restricting those kinds of statements. I got out my Evangelical Commentary of the Bible and took a look at what it had to say about his. Under this particular commandment I read this, "This relates to invoking God's name in an oath and then not fulfilling this vow. It's clear that God expects Israel to use His name in oaths provided the people faithfully execute what has been promised." Then it makes a reference to Jeremiah 4:2 where it says, "And you will swear, 'As the Lord lives,' in truth, in justice, and in righteousness; then the nations will bless themselves in Him, and in Him they will glory." Apparently the point that is being made here, and I've heard this before from a number of different sources, is that what this commandment is really about is making an oath and then keeping the oath. In other words, making a pledge in God's name and then keeping it. If you swear by God and then break the oath then you're defaming God's name in some fashion. So it doesn't seem from what is said in the Evangelical Commentary of the Bible that this is talking about simply using God's name frivolously, i.e. "my god" or "oh god." Now I did take a moment to call Mike Horton who is a friend of mine. Many of you know him as a writer of quite a few books, and the latest one was on the Ten Commandments. I asked Mike about this commandment and he made the observation that in Luke 11:22 Jesus says that we should pray, "Lord, hallowed be Your name." In other words, we're praying that God's name be held in respect, holding it as sacred, not devaluing the coinage, so to speak. So he suggested that what's in view here is that we avoid anything that trivializes the name of God, anything that makes God's name a sign of disrespect. And that could certainly apply to my use of "by god." But what about if I said "Dear god" or "Oh my god?" A lot of people say that. Well, the phrase "god" is just shortened version of "dear god" or "oh my god," so I wonder why do people get offended when you say "god" instead of saying "dear god." It's the same thing except for the word "dear" is in there and maybe, because it's kind of loving, that word makes the phrase okay in people's minds. But it strikes me as the same thing. If taking God's name in vain means this then we're in big trouble. How is that different from the dozens of phrases that we use that use God's name? Things like god-less, god-mother or god-son. What about god-forsaken, god-send, god-fearing, god-speed, God help us, God have mercy? All of those are ways that we use the same word "god," and it seems to me that if saying "oh god" or "my god" or just "god" in some kind of ejaculation is using God's name in vain then why aren't all of these other things using God's name in vain. Here's one that bothers me more than any of the others. And I think that if what I do is using God's name in vain, in violation of the third commandment then this one definitely is. How about "God bless you"? If you want an example of a vain and empty use of God's name, here it is. I'm sure people are wondering how I could criticize the use of "God bless you" as if it's on par with "oh god" or even "goddamn it." My response is this. What is it that most Christians mean when they say God bless you? I'll tell you. This is the Christian way of saying "Have a nice day." They mean "Goodbye." How many of you who use this phrase consciously invoke a blessing whenever you say this? When someone sneezes and you say "God bless you" or when somebody leaves and you say "God bless you" are you really consciously invoking a blessing? I don't think most people are doing that. And frankly, even when I used to say this I wasn't thinking of invoking a blessing. And anyway, why do we say "God bless you"? Remember, "God, bless you." It's like saying, "Fred, drive you to the store." That means Fred's driving himself. So when we say "God bless you" we're saying "God, bless your own self." But we don't want the blessing to go to God; supposedly, we want it to go to the person we're talking to. Did you ever notice how sometimes we say weird things like that? The other day a friend was riding with me in the car and we were trying to find a place for gas, but the gas stations all had long lines, and so she said, "Waiting room only." And I thought, "What was that ? Waiting room only." I guess she meant the auto equivalent to "standing room only" but cars don't stand, they wait in line. But when you say "waiting room only" for cars it doesn't mean the same thing as "standing room only for people." Does it? "Standing room only" means there's only room left for those who will stand? So "waiting room only" means there's only room left for those who wait . But there wasn't any room left for those who wait; there wasn't any waiting room at all. Everything was full. So she said "waiting room only" but she really meant " no waiting room only." Weird. Why do we talk like that? We do the same thing when we say "God bless you." So we say "God bless you" when we really mean "God bless them." But we can't say "God bless them" when we're actually talking to them, because then we sound schizoid. Like place your hand on someone's head, raise your eyes to heaven and say, "God bless him." Like Thomas supposedly did in John 20. He said, "My Lord, and my God." He's not talking to Jesus, he's talking to God up in heaven. That's weird. Nobody talks that way. So we should say, "God, bless him or her " if we really wanted to bless someone. But then we're not talking to them, we're talking to God. I guess the best alternative is to say, "I pray that God will give you a special happiness today" (which is what "blessing" means, a happiness). But what would happen if we went around saying, "I pray that God will give you a special happiness today?" People would think we're looney-tunes. People don't talk like that. People would think you're trying to be like Mother Theresa, or something. In other words, people don't pronounce blessings, not real ones, on other people. It's weird. That's why we simply say things like "God bless you" because we don't we sound looney when we do. Why don't we sound looney? Because we don't mean it. We're not really invoking a blessing. We're not saying anything at all. We're making nice Christian noise....and we're using God's name in a vain and empty fashion. That's the way it seems to me. More often than not "God bless you" is just the Christian's way of saying "Goodbye. Have a nice day." There seems to me to be very little difference between the vanity of that phrase and the vanity of saying "by god" except that "by god" is not part of the Christian lingo and "God bless you" is. Here's another way I think we use the Lord's name in vain all the time that I think is much worse than saying "Oh god." We say, "The Lord told me...." Did you ever think about that? It used to be that the prophets of the Old Testament had to stake their lives on their confidence that they had heard from God. Now we throw that phrase around like it was a Christian charm. "God told me." It seems to me that if saying "by god" is wrong, and I'll have to work through this some more because it may be, then it sure is just as vain and empty as saying "God bless you" because we're not invoking a blessing. We're using God's name in an empty and vain way. Or when many of us say "God told me" we don't really mean it that same way. We're just tossing this phrase around because it's part of the Christian lingo, and isn't that an offensive way to use God's name in an empty and meaningless way? At least that's the way it seems to me. And if you don't agree, well..."I pray that God will give you a special happiness today." |
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1993 Gregory Koukl
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Can We Just Be Honest
One more thing that could be done to really stimulate the economy would be to greatly reduce, or even fully remove, the Corporate Income Tax. I know, some of you just fainted, but hear me out. I know that our Government and Media love to vilify businesses, especially big corporations, and want to make you believe that if we don't tax them to the max, then they are not paying their fair share, and the big, evil corporation is getting away with something.
Now, I'm not a Corporatist, but let's just look at this as a practical matter. Corporations don't pay taxes, oh they do in a literal sense, but not in a practical sense. Employee's pay those taxes by way of lower wages and decreased benefits, and sometimes even job loss, or in potential employee's not getting hired. Also, customers pay those taxes by way of higher priced goods and services. Further, all taxpayers are left to pick up the bill when Corporations decide that the Corporate Income Tax is too oppressive and pack up and move overseas.
Many people want to find a way to punish Corporations who have moved operations off shore, or to find a way to force them to come back to the US, but this can never work. For one, our system simply isn't set up that way, and two, if they can't make money here then they are simply going to close down operations here, and if they open as a new company overseas, well there really is nothing that can be done to them in any event.
The solution, of course, would be in elimination of the Corporate Income Tax. Corporations would be tripping over each other to try to get operations going in the US. They would love to take advantage of the exceptional productivity of the American Worker, if only the Government would get out of the way and allow such a thing to be viable.
On so many levels the Government has created the current crisis, and only by stepping back and getting out of the way can it be fixed. Unfortunately the Government is doing the exact opposite, forcing themselves deeper and deeper into the economy, and trying to run and regulate more and more of it. What we are seeing now is not a plan to recover from an economic crisis, but rather a plan to greatly increase Government size and power. If you realize this, react, get geared up to get some good Conservatives elected in 2010, and if you don't believe me, then just watch what happens, sadly, I'll be proven right in the end.
Now, I'm not a Corporatist, but let's just look at this as a practical matter. Corporations don't pay taxes, oh they do in a literal sense, but not in a practical sense. Employee's pay those taxes by way of lower wages and decreased benefits, and sometimes even job loss, or in potential employee's not getting hired. Also, customers pay those taxes by way of higher priced goods and services. Further, all taxpayers are left to pick up the bill when Corporations decide that the Corporate Income Tax is too oppressive and pack up and move overseas.
Many people want to find a way to punish Corporations who have moved operations off shore, or to find a way to force them to come back to the US, but this can never work. For one, our system simply isn't set up that way, and two, if they can't make money here then they are simply going to close down operations here, and if they open as a new company overseas, well there really is nothing that can be done to them in any event.
The solution, of course, would be in elimination of the Corporate Income Tax. Corporations would be tripping over each other to try to get operations going in the US. They would love to take advantage of the exceptional productivity of the American Worker, if only the Government would get out of the way and allow such a thing to be viable.
On so many levels the Government has created the current crisis, and only by stepping back and getting out of the way can it be fixed. Unfortunately the Government is doing the exact opposite, forcing themselves deeper and deeper into the economy, and trying to run and regulate more and more of it. What we are seeing now is not a plan to recover from an economic crisis, but rather a plan to greatly increase Government size and power. If you realize this, react, get geared up to get some good Conservatives elected in 2010, and if you don't believe me, then just watch what happens, sadly, I'll be proven right in the end.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Let's Call The Whole Thing Off
There is an old song that most of you are probably familiar with where the issue is the pronunciation of the words potato and tomato, and the point being that, since we can't agree, let's call the whole thing off. This is how I feel about the so called stimulus bill that is being rammed through Congress at amazing speed. The Democrats in Congress and the President call it stimulus, those of us who see through the nonsense call it out of control, pork barrel, Government spending which will stimulate nothing other than bigger and more powerful Government, so, let's call the whole thing off.
You also hear a lot about how this bill has no earmarks at all (although I think that some got added in the Senate, so I guess now they want to say, very few) but even that is misleading. Normally an earmark is added as an amendment to a bill, for an example, you have put forth a bill to make water filtration in your state better, and I look at you and say, OK, I'll support that as long as you support my amendment to build a bridge with my name on it in my home state. The bridge is an earmark. That's just one example, but hopefully you get the point. It's a process by which members of the House and Senate get all of their little pet projects taken care of. That did not happen to this bill, so technically saying that there are no (or maybe very few now) earmarks attached to this bill is true, but the reason for that is that the entire body of the bill is made up of funding for every body's little pet projects. So, in reality, almost the entire bill is earmarks.
They also like to claim that the bill includes tax cuts, but this is a flat out lie. The bill includes another refundable tax credit, meaning that people who make under a certain amount of money will get a check from the Government, regardless of whether or not they paid any taxes. This is very similar to the plan that was pushed by the Bush administration last year that simply didn't work. How like Government, it didn't work last time, so we're just going to go ahead and do it again, surely it will work this time, but of course, it won't. Here's why. Let's say you own a small business selling widgets, and everyone loves your widgets and really wants one, so the Government sends everyone these checks in the mail, and lots of people come down to your store and buy a widget, so business is great right after the checks come out. Now, according to what the Democrats are trying to sell us, because business is up, you're going to turn around and hire a couple more widget makers to keep up with demand, thus creating jobs. The problem with the plan is that you, as a small business owner, are not a moron. You understand that this uptick in sales is nothing more than a minor short term blip, so maybe you work some longer hours and pay the people you already having making widgets overtime for a couple of weeks to meet the demand, but once the checks from the Government stop rolling in, sales fall back to normal. The smart businessman will try to put some of these profits aside for a rainy day, but certainly will not hire more workers based on an artificial boom.
Real tax cuts, on the other hand, that is, allowing people to simply keep more of the money that they make, will cause a smaller, yet much longer term increase in sales, that will be sustainable over time and will cause you to need more widget makers in your business, thus increasing jobs.
Besides the false tax cuts, there is also the case of hugely increased spending in a large variety area's, and where is that money going to come from? Debt of course, that's the only place it can come from at this point. That means that we are putting our nation into a position that will require our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay that tab, and that assumes that we stop the out of control spending sometime relatively soon.
There are more problems with this bill, including the provisions moving us along the line toward Socialized medicine, which will, as I've explained before, amount to nothing more than the rationing of Health Care, with some Government bureaucrat deciding if you get the medicines and treatments that you need.
This is one of the worst bills ever to have come before Congress, and if it can still be stopped it needs to be. We simply can't afford to let it go forward.
You also hear a lot about how this bill has no earmarks at all (although I think that some got added in the Senate, so I guess now they want to say, very few) but even that is misleading. Normally an earmark is added as an amendment to a bill, for an example, you have put forth a bill to make water filtration in your state better, and I look at you and say, OK, I'll support that as long as you support my amendment to build a bridge with my name on it in my home state. The bridge is an earmark. That's just one example, but hopefully you get the point. It's a process by which members of the House and Senate get all of their little pet projects taken care of. That did not happen to this bill, so technically saying that there are no (or maybe very few now) earmarks attached to this bill is true, but the reason for that is that the entire body of the bill is made up of funding for every body's little pet projects. So, in reality, almost the entire bill is earmarks.
They also like to claim that the bill includes tax cuts, but this is a flat out lie. The bill includes another refundable tax credit, meaning that people who make under a certain amount of money will get a check from the Government, regardless of whether or not they paid any taxes. This is very similar to the plan that was pushed by the Bush administration last year that simply didn't work. How like Government, it didn't work last time, so we're just going to go ahead and do it again, surely it will work this time, but of course, it won't. Here's why. Let's say you own a small business selling widgets, and everyone loves your widgets and really wants one, so the Government sends everyone these checks in the mail, and lots of people come down to your store and buy a widget, so business is great right after the checks come out. Now, according to what the Democrats are trying to sell us, because business is up, you're going to turn around and hire a couple more widget makers to keep up with demand, thus creating jobs. The problem with the plan is that you, as a small business owner, are not a moron. You understand that this uptick in sales is nothing more than a minor short term blip, so maybe you work some longer hours and pay the people you already having making widgets overtime for a couple of weeks to meet the demand, but once the checks from the Government stop rolling in, sales fall back to normal. The smart businessman will try to put some of these profits aside for a rainy day, but certainly will not hire more workers based on an artificial boom.
Real tax cuts, on the other hand, that is, allowing people to simply keep more of the money that they make, will cause a smaller, yet much longer term increase in sales, that will be sustainable over time and will cause you to need more widget makers in your business, thus increasing jobs.
Besides the false tax cuts, there is also the case of hugely increased spending in a large variety area's, and where is that money going to come from? Debt of course, that's the only place it can come from at this point. That means that we are putting our nation into a position that will require our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to pay that tab, and that assumes that we stop the out of control spending sometime relatively soon.
There are more problems with this bill, including the provisions moving us along the line toward Socialized medicine, which will, as I've explained before, amount to nothing more than the rationing of Health Care, with some Government bureaucrat deciding if you get the medicines and treatments that you need.
This is one of the worst bills ever to have come before Congress, and if it can still be stopped it needs to be. We simply can't afford to let it go forward.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
It's All Connected
I find a lot of Christians to be relatively unconcerned with Politics, thinking that it is unconnected from their life as a Christian, but this is not how it is.
Even in politics the truth matters, the truth always matters. All truth is God's truth, there simply is no other kind. But one thing that many don't realize is that political ideals and theories often are based on other ideas and philosophies. For instance, the idea of a Constitutional Republic where the people elect Representatives and their rights and liberties are defended is based in a Biblical, God centered worldview. Certainly not that anyone is compelled to believe the Bible under such a system (belief by compulsion is no true belief anyway) but it is understood in such a system that there is a Creator God and that certain liberties are granted by Him, and therefore the Government has no authority to take them away. On the other hand, there is Socialism (in all it's forms, Communism or whatever) which is based on atheism. That system is the one that says that there is no God, that the people have only the rights that are granted to them by the state and the state (or Government) has the right to take away whatever rights it wishes, because all rights are given at the whim of the state anyway.
So, what I am saying here is that politics is not in any way unconnected from Spiritual things, it is, in fact, deeply connected. So, when I argue for our Constitutional form of Government, as instituted (though admittedly not so well carried out at times) and against Socialism, I am in fact arguing just as much for a God centered worldview, and against atheism, as I am discussing politics.
Remember, all truth is God's truth, and the truth matters.
Even in politics the truth matters, the truth always matters. All truth is God's truth, there simply is no other kind. But one thing that many don't realize is that political ideals and theories often are based on other ideas and philosophies. For instance, the idea of a Constitutional Republic where the people elect Representatives and their rights and liberties are defended is based in a Biblical, God centered worldview. Certainly not that anyone is compelled to believe the Bible under such a system (belief by compulsion is no true belief anyway) but it is understood in such a system that there is a Creator God and that certain liberties are granted by Him, and therefore the Government has no authority to take them away. On the other hand, there is Socialism (in all it's forms, Communism or whatever) which is based on atheism. That system is the one that says that there is no God, that the people have only the rights that are granted to them by the state and the state (or Government) has the right to take away whatever rights it wishes, because all rights are given at the whim of the state anyway.
So, what I am saying here is that politics is not in any way unconnected from Spiritual things, it is, in fact, deeply connected. So, when I argue for our Constitutional form of Government, as instituted (though admittedly not so well carried out at times) and against Socialism, I am in fact arguing just as much for a God centered worldview, and against atheism, as I am discussing politics.
Remember, all truth is God's truth, and the truth matters.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Battle Lines
The battle lines are clearly drawn. Finally someone on the left has admitted what it is they really want. The head of the Green division of the British Government has stated that population control should be an aim of the left, and castigated the rest of the environmentalists for not being willing to talk about it. He is saying that people who have more than 2 children are enemies of the planet, and that contraception and abortion should be used to control population. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to make a similar case, trying to get people to believe that money for contraception and abortion will help our economy to recover. Brittan and Canada have had socialist health care (call it universal coverage or whatever you wish) for many years now, and a close examination of their systems will show that this too is about population control, as I've been saying for some time. This is something else that the left wants to institute in the US. Government run health care amounts to health care rationing, or decreased access to health care, rather than increased access as some would have you to believe. Rationing health care, and restricting access to it, is for one purpose only, and that is to kill people, thus reducing overall population.
Aside from being lies of the left, even if they were true, these ideals are very shortsighted. Even if Speaker Pelosi were correct and keeping women from becoming pregnant and murdering babies in the womb would be a boost for our economy, what happens down the road when there are not enough younger workers to keep the economy moving? This is the problem faced by Japan right now. In fact, according to breakpoint (w/Chuck Colson and Mark Early), Japanese companies are sending their workers home early for the express purpose of... making babies. They have recognized the dire straights that they are in due to past practices and policies that have greatly lowered their birth rates, and they are taking action to correct the problem. Why are we trying to head in the other direction?
Beyond this, the fact of the matter is that these are, in fact, lies. The planet does not suffer from overpopulation, and is capable of sustaining many more people than are living on it today. Of course, we need the environmentalist wackoes to stop fighting against the farmers, and let them grow the crops and raise the livestock to be able to feed the global population, which they have the ability to do, if they are allowed to do so unhindered. Nor is "Global Warming", which has now turned into global cooling, forcing the extremists to change their jargon to "climate Change" which is a meaningless propaganda phrase, a real threat, according to leading and renowned climatologists, but instead of listening to them, the news only tells us about Al Gore and the other liberals, many with no science education at all, or certainly no specialty in climate science, saying that there can now be no doubt. True enough, there can be no doubt that these people are trying to introduce population control measures by any means they possibly can.
The truth of the matter is that it really comes down to the family. Rather than trying to destroy our culture by handing out condoms to our kids and murder as many babies as possible, we need to work on healing families. We need to undo the sexual revolution, get people to stop having sex before or outside of marriage, and stay married for life. I don't mean by laws, but by way of reason. We must start to explain that the way to make a strong, stable society, economy and everything, is by having a strong base of strong families.
You see, the family, and certainly not the Government, is the base of any society, and any society that loses that, and fails to regain it, is doomed to failure. Families are not perfect by any means, but they have been under constant attack in the country for many decades now, and the assault shows no signs of letting up any time soon. We must fight back. If we don't want abortion and population control, and further destruction of the family to be the norm of the day, we must take a stand now.
As Christians we can never accept the idea that murdering people by denying access to health care (under the guise of universal health care coverage) and murdering babies in the womb, can ever be the right way to go. If you didn't understand before why the ideals of the left are wrong, I hope you do now. I will try in the future to make this clearer. We must stand and fight for the family and for the people. Right vs. Left really is Right vs. Wrong.
Aside from being lies of the left, even if they were true, these ideals are very shortsighted. Even if Speaker Pelosi were correct and keeping women from becoming pregnant and murdering babies in the womb would be a boost for our economy, what happens down the road when there are not enough younger workers to keep the economy moving? This is the problem faced by Japan right now. In fact, according to breakpoint (w/Chuck Colson and Mark Early), Japanese companies are sending their workers home early for the express purpose of... making babies. They have recognized the dire straights that they are in due to past practices and policies that have greatly lowered their birth rates, and they are taking action to correct the problem. Why are we trying to head in the other direction?
Beyond this, the fact of the matter is that these are, in fact, lies. The planet does not suffer from overpopulation, and is capable of sustaining many more people than are living on it today. Of course, we need the environmentalist wackoes to stop fighting against the farmers, and let them grow the crops and raise the livestock to be able to feed the global population, which they have the ability to do, if they are allowed to do so unhindered. Nor is "Global Warming", which has now turned into global cooling, forcing the extremists to change their jargon to "climate Change" which is a meaningless propaganda phrase, a real threat, according to leading and renowned climatologists, but instead of listening to them, the news only tells us about Al Gore and the other liberals, many with no science education at all, or certainly no specialty in climate science, saying that there can now be no doubt. True enough, there can be no doubt that these people are trying to introduce population control measures by any means they possibly can.
The truth of the matter is that it really comes down to the family. Rather than trying to destroy our culture by handing out condoms to our kids and murder as many babies as possible, we need to work on healing families. We need to undo the sexual revolution, get people to stop having sex before or outside of marriage, and stay married for life. I don't mean by laws, but by way of reason. We must start to explain that the way to make a strong, stable society, economy and everything, is by having a strong base of strong families.
You see, the family, and certainly not the Government, is the base of any society, and any society that loses that, and fails to regain it, is doomed to failure. Families are not perfect by any means, but they have been under constant attack in the country for many decades now, and the assault shows no signs of letting up any time soon. We must fight back. If we don't want abortion and population control, and further destruction of the family to be the norm of the day, we must take a stand now.
As Christians we can never accept the idea that murdering people by denying access to health care (under the guise of universal health care coverage) and murdering babies in the womb, can ever be the right way to go. If you didn't understand before why the ideals of the left are wrong, I hope you do now. I will try in the future to make this clearer. We must stand and fight for the family and for the people. Right vs. Left really is Right vs. Wrong.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Can't Even Believe This One
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is out pushing really hard for her huge pork barrel spending bill, which she, and other Democrats, are calling a stimulus package. Now there are plenty of places you can look and see all of the nonsense in this bill, and I've talked about the flaw in the entire premise here, but Speaker Pelosi really stuck her foot in her mouth, and you have to wonder if she even knows it. At press conference she told the assembled group that every month that we go without a (massive pork barrel irresponsible spending package) stimulus bill 500 MILLION Americans lose their jobs! I'm stunned. How does that even roll of the tongue without realizing that you've said something that is clearly untrue? Just to illustrate, in July of 2008 the US Population was estimated to be 303, 824, 640. So, according to Speaker Pelosi, every month that we don't go crazy spending on nonsense, nearly 200 million more people in the US lose their jobs than actually live in the US. Of course, even if you figure that the estimate is low, and say that maybe there are 350 million, you would have to remember that this includes everyone, from babies to the elderly, in other words, millions of people who don't even have jobs to begin with.
And we should trust this woman? I don't think so.
And we should trust this woman? I don't think so.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Babies As Organ Farms
Babies As Organ Farms
Gregory Koukl
Greg responds to a "stunning" L.A. Times editorial that states we should harvest the organs of anencephalic babies because it can now be morally justified.
| I want to read to you an editorial from the June 8 L.A. Times . It's a quite stunning editorial. I have never read anything quite like this. I was surprised that the L.A. Times editorial board took the position a position like this. It is called "An Exception to the Rule," and subtitled, "Parents should be able to donate organs of infants born without brains." The editorial reads, "Under the laws of every state and under prevailing medical ethics, human organs cannot be removed for transplant until the donor is legally dead. There is a good rationale for this: to prevent abuses. But every rule needs an exception, and one is warranted in the tragic cases of anencephalic newborns. Anencephaly is a congenital birth defect in which the infant is born without a forebrain and a cerebrum, but is able to survive for a short time with a brain stem that permits breathing, sucking, and other autonomic functions. Without higher brain functions, they can never experience consciousness, thoughts, emotions, pain, or anything remotely resembling a human being. Few survive more than a few days, yet their organs cannot be used to fill the desperate need for transplants to other infants because the organs deteriorate badly if doctors must wait for natural death to occur." Are you following this? We're talking about a severely handicapped individual with a brain stem, automatic responses, but no cognitive functions. This is a tragic circumstance, but the infants are now protected by law because they are human beings who are alive. The law disallows them for being used as donors of their organs because in the process of having their organs taken from them they are killed. If you recall in 1992, Baby Theresa in Florida was the subject of a lot of discussion and a court decision regarding this very issue. The court ruled to protect the child because the child was not dead yet. I did a commentary at the time called "I'm Not Dead Yet."
In any event, this editorial goes on to say that "Now the council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association has proposed to allow removal of organs before death as long as the parents agree and two doctors concur in the diagnosis of anencephaly. Nearly half of all children under age two waiting for hearts, livers, and kidneys die before a suitable organ is found. While not all of the 1,000 to 2,000 anencephalics born yearly in this country are suitable donors, many of them could save young lives. Doubters worry that this could send us down a slippery ethical and legal slope in which infants with other neurological impairments and elderly people with dementia would be sacrificed for their organs. But medical ethics and the law constantly change to reflect new understanding of human physiology. Two decades ago, the law caught up with medical science and recognized that life ends when the brain ceases to function even if the breathing and other functions continue. Anencephaly is a wretched tragedy for parents. Many, perhaps most yearn at least for the moral satisfaction of saying that they have saved the lives of other ill infants if only the law permitted organ donation. It is time for the legislature of California and other states to amend the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act to allow this exception." Simply put, the L.A. Times says that we ought to get with the times here because we know something now that we didn't know then. Something allows us to morally justify taking the life of a severely handicapped anencephalic human being in order to get its organs and help others with their organs. They view this, though a violation of the law, as an appropriate time when we should make an exception to a moral principle. Melinda the Enforcer made an interesting observation. If this is not a human, then how is this an exception to the law? If it doesn't qualify as a genuine, bonafide human being under the law--as they argue in this article--it doesn't have anything remotely resembling human beings--that's their wording. It doesn't have anything remotely resembling human beings. Now, if it doesn't remotely resemble a human being, then it isn't covered by the law and you can farm these children for their organs. There shouldn't be any problem taking their organs because they are not humans. First they say we should make an exception in this case, then they try to argue that it isn't human. If it isn't really human, it seems no exception needs to be made and we should be able to farm these beings for their organs with no fanfare. The article comments, "Doubters will raise the question that this will send us down a slippery ethical and legal slope in which infants with other neurological impairments and elderly people with dementia would be sacrificed for their organs." It is interesting that the writers don't say here, No, that won't happen. What they say is, "But medical ethics and the law constantly change to reflect new understandings of human physiology." What's interesting here is that they don't deny that this could be the slippery slope that leads us there, they just say sometimes we get new information. By the way, there is no new information in human physiology that justifies this particular action. It isn't like we know that these children who we thought were alive are now dead. They're not. They are still alive, and that is why the comparison with being brain dead misses the point altogether. When we talk about somebody being brain dead, and our discovery of that state, and an application of that rule, it is simply a clarification on when one actually is dead. In other words, scientists help us to pinpoint more clearly when one actually dies, and someone who is brain dead is dead. Just because machines can keep other bodily functions going for a season, it doesn't mean that the human being is still alive. It is simply a clarification on when one actually dies. And the point, of course, is that we don't want to do to a living human being what we should only do to a dead one--in this case, bury them. In other words, this scientific evidence just helps us to pinpoint more precisely the time of death so that we can treat dead people like dead people and living people like living people, but there is no comparison with the situation of anencephalic infants.
I am uncertain as to what we know now that we didn't know before that makes it legitimate for us to take the organs of another human being that is severely handicapped, and kill them in the process, for the sake of helping someone else. This is a purely utilitarian viewpoint of human beings. In other words, these poor children, like Baby Theresa two years ago, allegedly have value in that their organs can help others, but they don't have value in themselves and that is why their life can be forfeit. My point is that this is not a good comparison because clearly in the first case of brain dead people at the other end our whole desire is to know precisely when the human being ceases to exist as a living human being so that we can treat it as a dead human being and not accidentally treat a living human being like a dead human being. Dead human beings we can farm for their organs, living human beings we care for as valuable individuals. Clearly, in the case of anencephalics we have living human beings. If we follow this guideline that is offered in the editorial, the question then is, How handicapped does a human have to be before she can be used as an organ farm? That's really the question. There is no question about whether this child is a human being. I am going to hammer this issue home every single time it comes up because people who write and argue on these issues like to change the definitions of words just like they did here in the L.A. Times when they say that this child does not have anything remotely resembling a human being. Well, the elephant man didn't resemble a human being in many significant ways. We would do well to watch that movie every couple years because there is one point where he is being attacked in a railway station some people were frightened by his appearance. They cornered him and the mob drew down on him because he was so hideous looking. Finally, he looked them all in the face and said, "I am not an animal! I am a human being." Human beings are "be like" kinds of things and not "look like" kinds of things. Once we accept this line of thinking that the L.A. Times offers here, then it is simply a question of how severe the handicap has to be before we don't have to treat this individual as a valuable human being and we can treat them simply like an organ farm. Under this line of thinking, for example, why not use other severely handicapped humans that are able to survive but don't have those other things that the L.A. Times thinks makes a person a genuine, bonafide human being. Why don't we use them as kind of a potted plant that we tap for blood once a week--a living blood bank so to speak? Why not? If they don't look right, if they don't think right, if they don't have the capacity for thought, if they have a number one IQ, why not do that? The terrifying thing about using this as a clear case counter-example to show how ludicrous and how dehumanizing this way of thinking is, is that somebody is going to answer my rhetorical question with, Yeah, why not? Why shouldn't we take Down's Syndrome children and use them for those purposes? My question is, Where is the dividing line? Isn't it curious that we can't even do this with a pig without raising a significant ruckus? Do you remember a few years back when a pig heart was transplanted into a baby's body? This point that the L.A. Times makes that some will complain that this will put us at the top the of slippery slope and we will slide down it, is false. This isn't the top of the slippery slope--this is the bottom. We were at the top 20 years ago. This is advocacy for infanticide, pure and simple. That's what is being advocated here. We can take a human being and kill it in order to use its body parts to help others. What is it about this one that sets it apart from all other human beings? It is handicapped. Severely handicapped human beings are not really human. You know what it takes to be a human being? It is very simple. All you have to be is the offspring of two other human beings. Every single offspring of a human being is also a human being. Period. End of issue. It is a sufficient test for the humanness of any organism that it is the offspring of another human being. That is biology. That is science. That is fact. Whether you want to say that it may be a human being but you disqualify it as valuable because it doesn't meet your requirements for personhood, well, that is another issue. But my question is always going to be, What is the difference between a human being and a person? And if you attempt to give me a list, every single element on your list is going to be flawed. You are either going to find out that things that aren't persons like animals will turn out to be persons and ought to be protected by the law, and other things that are obviously human persons, like two-year-old children, will turn out not to be persons and should not be protected by the law. The fact of the matter is, human beings are personal beings by nature. That is what kind of being a human being is--personal. Our law ought to protect, as it does up until now under the Fourteenth Amendment, all human beings regardless of how handicapped they are. It is not up to the purview of the state legislature to rule on this because this has to do with our civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. All children, regardless of their IQ, regardless of their brain state, if they are human beings, deserve our protection. |
This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1995 Gregory Koukl
Monday, February 2, 2009
The New Guy
As of last week the Republican National Committee has a new Chairman, Micheal Steele of Maryland. I have seen him on several news programs, and have heard and read about him in a few places, and if my initial impressions of him hold up, I'm quite happy with this choice.It is my understanding that Mr. Steele is a true Conservative, and the only drawback that I have hear of so far is that it is said that he supports Affirmative Action (maybe one of these days I should do a post on that, and why I oppose it), but even if that's true, that's OK, little single issue disagreements can be dealt with over the course of time, and maybe we can change his mind, but again, even if not, we can still work with him quite well as long as he is, overall, the strong Conservative that I believe him to be.
The really important thing is that Mr. Steele understands that what the GOP needs to do to win elections is to clearly explain the Conservative positions and hold to them. Time and time again it has been proven that Conservative Republicans (and even Conservative Democrats as far as that goes) win elections, while "Moderate" or liberal Republicans tend to lose them, and damage the party as a whole. You need only to look as far as Presidential Politics to see this. Ronald Reagan, a true Conservative, won two landslide victories, the second one larger than the first, and both far larger and more significant landslides than the slight and overblown win that Obama pulled off in November. And, as a side note, a few million more people watched Ronald Reagan's first inauguration on TV than watched Obama's inauguration a couple of weeks ago, but the media doesn't like to let that one get out too much (make that, at all). Anyway, going forward, George H.W. Bush won the Presidency one time only, he won the first time because he had been Reagan's Vice President, and people thought that he might be as good as Reagan, but being that he was a moderate Republican instead of a Conservative like Reagan, people decided not to bother keeping him around for more than one term. The same thing would have happened his son, George W. Bush, if it hadn't been for the fact that we were in the middle of an armed conflict and people tended to trust him on that subject more than the Democrat challenger. And as we saw with John McCain, when you're so liberal that you are nearly a Democrat yourself, people will just go ahead and take the authentic Democrat.
Only be being Conservatives can the Republican party start to win again, but beyond that, even if we did manage to win by being slightly less Democrat than the Democrats, any victories would be meaningless. Contrary to what some have come to believe, politics is not a game to see which party can win the most elections, it is about ideas and doing what is going to be best of the Country, Conservative Principles work, liberal ones lead to disaster, every time.
Speaking for myself, I have high hopes for Micheal Steele, time will tell if they are well founded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
