As I mentioned after my Thanksgiving day wishes, there has a been a lot of buzz about the Manhattan Declaration. To me, this is something which is far too important to ignore.
For those who may not know, let me start by explaining what the Manhattan Declaration is. I will not be posting the Declaration itself here on my blog, but please feel free to go to www.manhattandeclartion.org to check it out for yourself, and see if you think that my characterization is accurate. It is certainly not my intention to, in any way, or at any time, mislead anyone, or misrepresent what this is all about.
The Manhattan Declaration, according the declaration itself, is "A Call Of Christian Conscience." It was originally drafted on October 20th of 2009, and released to the public on November 20th of 2009.
The document addresses three main issues, abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious liberty. It purports to be a document which unites differing Christian groups around these very important issues. It lays out a case for the pro-life position, and against Abortion. It lays out a case in favor of preserving marriage as a sacred institution, and why we should strive against allowing same-sex marriages to be recognized. It also outlines the dangers faced by religious groups in the present age, where there is much animosity directed at anyone who dares to so much as disapprove of nearly anything.
To the extent that it does these things I would support it as a statement of position, and as a place for people of conscience to rally, and say, OK, we have differences, but we all agree that these things are important, so let's stand together on them. But that is not all that the document says. And it going farther, it leaves a lot to be desired.
Clearly, I am pro-life. If you wish to call me anti-abortion, that's fine, I'm not going to fight you on it, I am anti-abortion, because I'm pro-life. As far as it goes, I think that the declaration does a pretty good job of laying out some good arguments and points for a pro-life position, however, for something that supposes to be a Christian document, it spends far too much time expounding secular arguments instead, and virtually no time on Biblical arguments, save a couple of verses of Scripture which are never explained or defended in any way. Also, I do believe that marriage is only possible, in a very real sense, between one man and one woman, and again, the declaration does a very good job of laying out a secular case for traditional marriage, but again, is staggeringly weak when it comes to a Biblical basis, which is especially important on this issue, because, if the Bible didn't speak to this issue I personally wouldn't really care about it at all. I also understand the importance of religious liberty, but again, it is defended and explained entirely with secular arguments. So, while I can affirm the positions taken by the declaration, I think that they could have done a better job laying them out and defending them, and the fact that they didn't defend them from the Bible is a serious problem for me.
All that being said, let me get on to the main problem that I have with the Manhattan Declaration.
The document makes a big deal about Christians, and where they stand on important issues. But what is meant by "Christian"? Well, to quote from the declaration; "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians..." This should be another problem for Bible believing Christians. The fact that this document lumps Evangelical Christians in with Catholics, as well as, so-called, Orthodox, sounds huge warning bells in my mind, as the beliefs of these groups are wildly different. This brings me back to how the Manhattan Declaration came to my attention. Initially I had heard Chuck Colson talk about some, which is not surprising since he is one of the people who wrote it, but I hadn't had time to check it out. Then a friend asked me if I had signed it yet, and I could only respond that, up to that point, I hadn't had time to check it out yet. So, when I had time, I went to the website, www.manhattandeclaration.org, and checked it out.
The first that I saw when I got to the website was the very brief summary that is there, and I decided to look and see who had signed the declaration. While there are some very well known Christian leaders on the list, you can't help but notice more than a few Roman Catholic Archbishops on the list. For any Bible believing Christian, this has to give you pause when considering something like this. So I knew I was going to have to look very closely at the declaration before I could make up my mind, so I pulled up the full declaration and read the entire thing.
If you should read the declaration you will find that only scant lip service is given to the Gospel, and even then it is not defined or explained in any way shape or form, yet we know for sure that a Roman Catholic Archbishop would mean something very different by Gospel than I do. Given that this document was written with the idea in mind that it was for the approval of Catholics and Christians, it seems clear that the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is not what's in view even the one time that it is mentioned. And no, in a pure sense, Catholics are not Christians. At it's best Catholicism is an apostate form of Christianity, but not true Biblical Christianity. That is not to say that no Catholics are truly redeemed, but given what is taught in most Catholic Churches and circles, I would venture to say that they are a rare breed.
Having established that the purposes of this document are not to further the Gospel, what then could they be? Well, it must have to do with propagating morality, but if that's all they are concerned with, why mention Christianity at all? Simply to have a grounding for the morality they are seeking? Perhaps, but if so, that does not do justice to the purpose of Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to share the Gospel with the entire world. That's it, that's the core, it's why the Church exists. Our mission to spread the Gospel, to preach the Gospel, is the reason the Church is in the world, it's the reason God doesn't rapture (sorry, it's the best word I can think of for this) us out of the world the instant we come to faith in Him. And that is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, that we are sinners in a fallen world, in danger of eternal judgment from a righteous and Holy and Just God, and can be redeemed out of this world and saved from that damnation only by grace and through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is something that could not be affirmed by many of the signers and endorsers of the declaration.
Now, from the Catholic perspective, there is a certain logic to this declaration. Being that Catholicism, as it is practiced, and as it is taught in most local Parishes and such, is a very legalistic religion, believing in a works based righteousness (often you will hear that the works must be coupled with faith, but even that is a gross bastardization of the Gospel) and that being good at least gets you closer to Heaven, no matter why you are good, it would make sense to force people, through political action or whatever, to be better, and thus put them closer to God, even if you have to drag them, kicking and screaming, to it. But this is not something that is compatible with Biblical Christianity. If a person rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is the true Gospel, then they are damned and destined for Hell, and just how good or bad they are is of little consequence to them.
So, if I were to sum up the Manhattan Declaration, I would have to put it something like this: "We, under the guise of Christianity, demand adherence to our moral standards. We stand up, shake our fist at the culture and say, you will submit to us, we will see to it. We couldn't care less if you go to hell for all eternity, we will have our moralistic domain here and now! We don't care if you believe, only that you submit!"
But wait, there's something familiar about that sentiment, it's Islam! That's right, Islam doesn't require an affirmation of faith, only submission to it's laws and teachings. That's what's going on with the Manhattan Declaration, it's declaring that we don't care what you believe, only that people submit to the moral standards that it puts forth. This is all too common amongst people who wish to claim Christianity. It is what Dr. Michael Horton calls Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism. That is, we try to be moral, and it makes us feel better, and oh yeah, as an afterthought, there is a god, but that doesn't really affect us.
For me to affirm the Manhattan Declaration would be to say, if you are homosexual, you can go to hell, as long as you go without a marriage license. If you are woman, you can go to hell, as long as you go without having had an abortion. And I will fight for religious liberty, and disregard laws that I think conflict with that, while also refusing to submit to the consequences of such action. That is something that I absolutely cannot affirm. No matter who you are, or what your sin, I want you to learn about Jesus, repent of your sins, and be redeemed. If you are going to hell anyway, it doesn't matter what sin you committed, it will separate you from God.
So do I support the Manhattan Declaration? Will I be signing it? No. Unreservedly, and emphatically, NO!
There is more to be said, and I know that some will raise objections to what I've written, but I'll have to deal with those as they arise, because this long enough already.
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Health Care Fact Check, Mr. President
|
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Desiring God Blogf: Conference and Documentary Preview
Desiring God Blog |
| Watch the Movie Collision at the Desiring God Conference Posted: 12 Aug 2009 07:38 AM PDT (Author: David Mathis) Desiring God will provide a special screening of the forthcoming film Collision, featuring Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, on Friday evening, September 25, at our national conference in Minneapolis. Christopher Hitchens is one of the most popular new atheists. He wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Collision is an 80-minute, documentary that follows him and Wilson on a 4-stop tour as they debate whether Christianity is good for the world. Doug Wilson is a winsome defender of the faith and has proven immensely helpful to many in his engagements with Hitchens. Since Wilson is a speaker at our conference, we thought many attendees would be eager to view the film with us. The screening will happen in the main auditorium at 9pm, following the opening session of the conference. Immediately following, John Piper will ask Wilson several follow-up questions about the film and his collision with Hitchens. The aim of our conference is to look at the majesty of Jesus and his purposes for the world through the lens of Scripture, with John Calvin's life and theology adjusting the focus. We think John Calvin would like the way God is exalted in this film, and we trust it will strengthen your faith. | |
| Posted: 11 Aug 2009 11:10 PM PDT (Author: Karen Hieb)
The new 28-lesson curriculum from Children Desiring God called "Abiding in Jesus" challenges junior high students to know Jesus as the savior and satisfier of their souls. Inspired by John 15, these lessons teach youth that abiding in Jesus leads to trusting him in all of life's situations and bearing spiritual fruit in him. The study features interactive teaching with small group discussion, application, and prayer. There is also a special emphasis on students experiencing Christian fellowship. The inclusion of journaling along with the teaching enables students to note important biblical truth. This will help to guide the class fellowship time and provide helpful direction for at-home Bible study and life application. Samples from "Abiding in Jesus" and other curricula from CDG are available free online. |
Friday, August 7, 2009
Debt For Clunkers
You have probably heard a lot about the so-called "Cash For Clunkers" program on the news, how it's so helpful and so popular, and going to do so much good for so many people, and for the economy, and so on and so forth. I have a different take. I think that this program is so idiotic that it's hard to know where to begin.
First, pitching the idea as "free money" toward the purchase of a new car, if you are turning in a qualifying car, with sufficiently poor gas mileage, which quite a few Americans do own, and then setting aside only a Billion Dollars for the program. I know, you're thinking, only a Billion? A billion is a ton of money, and you're right, it is, it's a ridiculous amount of money in fact, but bear with me. One billion dollars, at $4,500 a pop only goes as far as 222,222.2 cars. When people think they are getting "free money" you will have a lot more takers than that. So, thinking that they may have run out of money, although they don't know because they can't even process the claims that have been made so far, Congress has thrown in another Two Billion dollars, just to be on the safe side I guess, bringing the total amount of Cars that could be turned in to 666,666.6, but with no idea if even that will be enough.
Besides this, as I mentioned previously, the claims aren't being processed. The way the program works is that a person takes their "clunker" to a dealership, and the dealer determines, according to Government guidelines, if the "clunker" qualifies for the program, and if so, goes ahead and makes the deal, taking the $4,500 off of the price of the new car, and then submitting the paperwork for the deal to the Government, which, in turn, is supposed to cut the dealer a check for the $4,500. The problem is that while dealers are making deals and turning them in to the Government, the claims aren't being processed and the checks aren't being cut, so the dealers, already operating on the edge, are being forced to absorb a $4,500 hit on each car they sell on this program, at least in the short term.
Another problem is the simple fact that the Federal Government (quickly becoming a National Government, but I'll have to address that separately) is out of money. Even with no increase in spending, but just continuing the programs in place now, and leaving tax rates as they are today, we would continue going deeper in the hole. Of course, they are looking to increase spending by trillions of dollars over the coming years, and by comparison, three Billion dollars doesn't seem like much, but we are at the point were every single penny the Government spends is just more debt. So this program is yet another three billion dollars in debt, and that doesn't include the cost of processing all the claims, which will be significant because the Government never does anything efficiently.
Now we come to the claim that this program will have some positive impact on the environment. This is simply not true in the least. For starters a study has shown that supposed savings in gas, if in fact they were to be as claimed, would only amount to shutting down energy production in this Country for one hour per year. But that doesn't take a lot of other things into account. For starters, if paying less for gas, or getting better gas mileage, people will drive more, this is a studied and proven fact. Besides that, all of the cars that are turned in under this program will be destroyed, and therefore will need to be disposed of, which will have a negative environmental impact. Then there is a production cost (both monetarily and environmentally) of all the cars that will initially be produced to make up for the false bubble of demand for new cars over the short run, and transporting them to the dealerships. On top of that is the fact that some of these cars that are being destroyed would otherwise have been traded in and auctioned off to some junkyard or something, where people would have been able to pull spare parts off to use for their own vehicles that they are still driving, now those spare parts will not be available, causing new parts to be produced, having a higher environmental impact, as well costing the operators of the vehicles who need the parts considerably more than they would have paid otherwise.
Next we need to ask if this program is a good deal for people who participate in it. For the most part, people who participate will be purchasing new cars, the cost of which $4,500 will scarcely put a dent in, meaning that they will be taking out huge car loans to make up the difference. So, the great deal that they are getting means that they are trading in a car that they can afford in order to take $4,500 off of the price of a car that they can't even come close to affording, even with the discount, in order to save a couple of bucks a month in gas (remember they will also drive it more) giving them a huge pile of car debt, meaning that this "great deal" will be a net loss to their monthly disposable income. I suspect (and this is just me, I don't have a study on this) that a large share of these people will default on these loans (wow, what a blessing that will be to them). And besides, just a simple look at the math tells you how stupid this is. You take a car that qualifies as a Clunker under the program, which we will assume for the sake of this discussion is paid off (if it's not, things are even worse) and turn it in for the $4,500 discount on a new car. People are being encouraged to get Hybrid cars, because they get the best gas mileage. A new Toyota Prius starts at $22,000, but let's face it, most people won't go for the most basic model, so let's assume that they are somewhat reasonable and choose a model that is around $25,000, so they will be forced to finance around $20,500. They probably don't have triple A credit, and so, won't get the best interest rate, so, over the life of the loan, they are going to be paying back, on the conservative side, around $25,000. Even if we assume that gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon, roughly twice today's price, that $25,000 would have put 5,000 gallons of gas in their old clunker. Even at 15 miles per gallon, that would have taken them 75,000 miles. Now in their new Prius they will get roughly 50 miles per gallon (according to toyota.com/prius) an improvement of 35 miles per gallon, so that same 5,000 gallons of gas will take them 250,000 miles, but they still bought that 5,000 gallons, plus they spent $25,000 paying off the new car. To go the same 75,000 miles that the 5,000 gallons would have taken them in the old clunker would cost $7,500, so, apples to apples, to go the same distance, they will have paid $7,500 more with the new car. Adding that amount means that the old car would have taken them 97,500 miles for the same amount of money. So, they will have to drive this new car for 97,500 miles just to break even on the deal. Most people don't even keep a car that long, but assuming they do, let's remember that to this point they have not saved one single penny, that's just the break even point, assuming they haven't had to put any new parts on the car, which they would have and which would be considerably more expensive than on their old car, and service costs more also, so they'd have to drive a few thousand more miles to make up for that, but after they they should be to the good, right? Well, sure, but if they want to make back all of the money that the spent on this "great deal" they will have to drive that Prius for an additional 1,625,000 miles, and that doesn't include the increased cost given that they will drive more because they are getting better gas mileage. Some deal huh?
Worse still is what this will do to the new car market in the US. First, it will create a bubble in auto sales while the program runs it's course, followed by a collapse when people who would have bought a car later on now don't need one, and people who would have bought used cars can't because they have all been destroyed by Uncle Sam. Far from stimulating the economy, this program will be devastating.
So, what we get is a net negative environmental impact, significantly more debt, both for the nation, and for the suckers... I mean people... who participate in the program, and a significant net negative economic impact over the long term, especially as these people start to default on the car loans that they can't afford on cars that they could never afford and should not have purchased.
But that's not the worst part. As bad as all that is, it is nothing compared to this. The same morons who came up with this dud of a deal want to run your health care.
First, pitching the idea as "free money" toward the purchase of a new car, if you are turning in a qualifying car, with sufficiently poor gas mileage, which quite a few Americans do own, and then setting aside only a Billion Dollars for the program. I know, you're thinking, only a Billion? A billion is a ton of money, and you're right, it is, it's a ridiculous amount of money in fact, but bear with me. One billion dollars, at $4,500 a pop only goes as far as 222,222.2 cars. When people think they are getting "free money" you will have a lot more takers than that. So, thinking that they may have run out of money, although they don't know because they can't even process the claims that have been made so far, Congress has thrown in another Two Billion dollars, just to be on the safe side I guess, bringing the total amount of Cars that could be turned in to 666,666.6, but with no idea if even that will be enough.
Besides this, as I mentioned previously, the claims aren't being processed. The way the program works is that a person takes their "clunker" to a dealership, and the dealer determines, according to Government guidelines, if the "clunker" qualifies for the program, and if so, goes ahead and makes the deal, taking the $4,500 off of the price of the new car, and then submitting the paperwork for the deal to the Government, which, in turn, is supposed to cut the dealer a check for the $4,500. The problem is that while dealers are making deals and turning them in to the Government, the claims aren't being processed and the checks aren't being cut, so the dealers, already operating on the edge, are being forced to absorb a $4,500 hit on each car they sell on this program, at least in the short term.
Another problem is the simple fact that the Federal Government (quickly becoming a National Government, but I'll have to address that separately) is out of money. Even with no increase in spending, but just continuing the programs in place now, and leaving tax rates as they are today, we would continue going deeper in the hole. Of course, they are looking to increase spending by trillions of dollars over the coming years, and by comparison, three Billion dollars doesn't seem like much, but we are at the point were every single penny the Government spends is just more debt. So this program is yet another three billion dollars in debt, and that doesn't include the cost of processing all the claims, which will be significant because the Government never does anything efficiently.
Now we come to the claim that this program will have some positive impact on the environment. This is simply not true in the least. For starters a study has shown that supposed savings in gas, if in fact they were to be as claimed, would only amount to shutting down energy production in this Country for one hour per year. But that doesn't take a lot of other things into account. For starters, if paying less for gas, or getting better gas mileage, people will drive more, this is a studied and proven fact. Besides that, all of the cars that are turned in under this program will be destroyed, and therefore will need to be disposed of, which will have a negative environmental impact. Then there is a production cost (both monetarily and environmentally) of all the cars that will initially be produced to make up for the false bubble of demand for new cars over the short run, and transporting them to the dealerships. On top of that is the fact that some of these cars that are being destroyed would otherwise have been traded in and auctioned off to some junkyard or something, where people would have been able to pull spare parts off to use for their own vehicles that they are still driving, now those spare parts will not be available, causing new parts to be produced, having a higher environmental impact, as well costing the operators of the vehicles who need the parts considerably more than they would have paid otherwise.
Next we need to ask if this program is a good deal for people who participate in it. For the most part, people who participate will be purchasing new cars, the cost of which $4,500 will scarcely put a dent in, meaning that they will be taking out huge car loans to make up the difference. So, the great deal that they are getting means that they are trading in a car that they can afford in order to take $4,500 off of the price of a car that they can't even come close to affording, even with the discount, in order to save a couple of bucks a month in gas (remember they will also drive it more) giving them a huge pile of car debt, meaning that this "great deal" will be a net loss to their monthly disposable income. I suspect (and this is just me, I don't have a study on this) that a large share of these people will default on these loans (wow, what a blessing that will be to them). And besides, just a simple look at the math tells you how stupid this is. You take a car that qualifies as a Clunker under the program, which we will assume for the sake of this discussion is paid off (if it's not, things are even worse) and turn it in for the $4,500 discount on a new car. People are being encouraged to get Hybrid cars, because they get the best gas mileage. A new Toyota Prius starts at $22,000, but let's face it, most people won't go for the most basic model, so let's assume that they are somewhat reasonable and choose a model that is around $25,000, so they will be forced to finance around $20,500. They probably don't have triple A credit, and so, won't get the best interest rate, so, over the life of the loan, they are going to be paying back, on the conservative side, around $25,000. Even if we assume that gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon, roughly twice today's price, that $25,000 would have put 5,000 gallons of gas in their old clunker. Even at 15 miles per gallon, that would have taken them 75,000 miles. Now in their new Prius they will get roughly 50 miles per gallon (according to toyota.com/prius) an improvement of 35 miles per gallon, so that same 5,000 gallons of gas will take them 250,000 miles, but they still bought that 5,000 gallons, plus they spent $25,000 paying off the new car. To go the same 75,000 miles that the 5,000 gallons would have taken them in the old clunker would cost $7,500, so, apples to apples, to go the same distance, they will have paid $7,500 more with the new car. Adding that amount means that the old car would have taken them 97,500 miles for the same amount of money. So, they will have to drive this new car for 97,500 miles just to break even on the deal. Most people don't even keep a car that long, but assuming they do, let's remember that to this point they have not saved one single penny, that's just the break even point, assuming they haven't had to put any new parts on the car, which they would have and which would be considerably more expensive than on their old car, and service costs more also, so they'd have to drive a few thousand more miles to make up for that, but after they they should be to the good, right? Well, sure, but if they want to make back all of the money that the spent on this "great deal" they will have to drive that Prius for an additional 1,625,000 miles, and that doesn't include the increased cost given that they will drive more because they are getting better gas mileage. Some deal huh?
Worse still is what this will do to the new car market in the US. First, it will create a bubble in auto sales while the program runs it's course, followed by a collapse when people who would have bought a car later on now don't need one, and people who would have bought used cars can't because they have all been destroyed by Uncle Sam. Far from stimulating the economy, this program will be devastating.
So, what we get is a net negative environmental impact, significantly more debt, both for the nation, and for the suckers... I mean people... who participate in the program, and a significant net negative economic impact over the long term, especially as these people start to default on the car loans that they can't afford on cars that they could never afford and should not have purchased.
But that's not the worst part. As bad as all that is, it is nothing compared to this. The same morons who came up with this dud of a deal want to run your health care.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
What You Need To Know About Health Care
With all of the lies and hype in the media, there are some things that we need to make sure that people understand about what we will end up with if we allow a Government takeover of health care, and that they are lying in order to try to ram it through.
First of all, the number of uninsured that we hear about every day on various news outlets. Probably the number most often thrown around is 47 million, although you do also hear 50 million, 46 million, 46.5 million, and so on. You must understand somethings about this number to see that it is a complete lie. First of all, they use the 47 million figure to try to make you think that there are 47 million American Citizens that are chronically uninsured and simply have no hope of ever being covered. The truth is that some of this number, around 9 to 12 million, is illegal aliens, and not citizens at all. Another large chunk of this number comes from people who were without health insurance for less than four months while they were out of work, but had no serious long term lapse. Another large chunk is young people who can easily afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it, because they simply feel that they don't need it. So when the numbers are analyzed and understood, the fact is that there are somewhere from 10 to 15 million chronically uninsured American Citizens. Still an issue, but clearly something that doesn't require a Government takeover of health care to solve.
Another point is that in the United States being uninsured is not the same thing as not having access to health care. Because of laws in this nation, anyone who shows up at an Emergency Room must be evaluated and treated until they are stable, without regard to their ability to pay. By saying this I'm not trying to make a claim that the issue is solved, simply that we do not have millions of people dying in the streets because they don't have health care. Are there still some horror stories? Sure, but they do not arise from the fact that people are uninsured, and therefore, overhauling the insurance industry will not affect them in the slightest.
Furthermore, it must be understood that the claims made by the proponents of a Government takeover of health care are simply not possible. They claim that they will cover more people (47 million by their own claims) and expand services, while at the same time reducing costs. That is just utterly ridiculous on it's face. The only way that they can reduce costs is by rationing the care. That is to say that for each year there are X number of dollars available for each area of care, and once those dollars are gone, they are gone, and we don't do any more of that until next year. That means that they have to assign priority to different people to see who they will spend some of those precious few dollars on, and if you are old, or have some condition that renders you unable to hold down a job, and thereby pay taxes, you will not be the priority, you will simply be left to die, so that you won't burden the system for the "productive members of society." I'm not kidding, one of the main advisers on health care to the Obama Administration has stated in the past the Health Care dollars should not be spent on people with dementia or some other debilitating disease, and that he doesn't think that age discrimination is wrong because, now listen to this reasoning, everyone who is 65 was once 25.
If this plan gets pushed through, it will not be doctors and patients making choices about health care, it will be faceless, nameless, bureaucrats in cubicles, thousands of miles away, to whom you are nothing more than a number and a formula. These people who are pushing this plan accuse the Republicans of being the "party of No," claiming that we simply say no, and don't offer alternative plans. Of course this is another big lie, we have some plans that would actually work to make Health Care better, but even if we didn't, there would be nothing wrong with standing up and saying "NO" to making it worse.
First of all, the number of uninsured that we hear about every day on various news outlets. Probably the number most often thrown around is 47 million, although you do also hear 50 million, 46 million, 46.5 million, and so on. You must understand somethings about this number to see that it is a complete lie. First of all, they use the 47 million figure to try to make you think that there are 47 million American Citizens that are chronically uninsured and simply have no hope of ever being covered. The truth is that some of this number, around 9 to 12 million, is illegal aliens, and not citizens at all. Another large chunk of this number comes from people who were without health insurance for less than four months while they were out of work, but had no serious long term lapse. Another large chunk is young people who can easily afford health insurance, but choose not to buy it, because they simply feel that they don't need it. So when the numbers are analyzed and understood, the fact is that there are somewhere from 10 to 15 million chronically uninsured American Citizens. Still an issue, but clearly something that doesn't require a Government takeover of health care to solve.
Another point is that in the United States being uninsured is not the same thing as not having access to health care. Because of laws in this nation, anyone who shows up at an Emergency Room must be evaluated and treated until they are stable, without regard to their ability to pay. By saying this I'm not trying to make a claim that the issue is solved, simply that we do not have millions of people dying in the streets because they don't have health care. Are there still some horror stories? Sure, but they do not arise from the fact that people are uninsured, and therefore, overhauling the insurance industry will not affect them in the slightest.
Furthermore, it must be understood that the claims made by the proponents of a Government takeover of health care are simply not possible. They claim that they will cover more people (47 million by their own claims) and expand services, while at the same time reducing costs. That is just utterly ridiculous on it's face. The only way that they can reduce costs is by rationing the care. That is to say that for each year there are X number of dollars available for each area of care, and once those dollars are gone, they are gone, and we don't do any more of that until next year. That means that they have to assign priority to different people to see who they will spend some of those precious few dollars on, and if you are old, or have some condition that renders you unable to hold down a job, and thereby pay taxes, you will not be the priority, you will simply be left to die, so that you won't burden the system for the "productive members of society." I'm not kidding, one of the main advisers on health care to the Obama Administration has stated in the past the Health Care dollars should not be spent on people with dementia or some other debilitating disease, and that he doesn't think that age discrimination is wrong because, now listen to this reasoning, everyone who is 65 was once 25.
If this plan gets pushed through, it will not be doctors and patients making choices about health care, it will be faceless, nameless, bureaucrats in cubicles, thousands of miles away, to whom you are nothing more than a number and a formula. These people who are pushing this plan accuse the Republicans of being the "party of No," claiming that we simply say no, and don't offer alternative plans. Of course this is another big lie, we have some plans that would actually work to make Health Care better, but even if we didn't, there would be nothing wrong with standing up and saying "NO" to making it worse.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A Very Old Argument
When he was on the campaign trail, then candidate, Obama talked a lot about change, and said that it was time for new, fresh ideas. However, as soon as he became President, he bought into the same old arguments for Government intrusion into the Economy and American life. Something always seemed really off to me about the whole "too big to fail" argument. And as for Obama himself, he likes to say that he really doesn't want to take over companies and such, but he just has to, because of the economy. Basically saying that, while having the Government take over everything would be bad, the economy would just collapse if he doesn't do it.
Aside from the fact that all of the things that he has done will not do anything to fix the economy (Yes, I know Bush started some of this stuff, but Obama has started quite a bit more, and has ramped up all the stuff that Bush started), there was something else that I couldn't quite nail down. Then it finally hit me. This is an argument so old that no one alive today actually heard it first hand. However, if you've studied American History in depth at all, you have heard this argument before, it went something like this, "Well, personally I don't think we should have Slavery in the United States, but if we get rid of it, the economy will collapse, so we just have to accept Slavery." In that case the truth was that the people making that argument were either cowards, unwilling to stand up for what was right and take some risks, or, more likely, they were really pro Slavery and looking for an excuse to continue the practice. In the current case we are looking at people, from Obama on down, who really do want to install a Marxist Government, and are using the excuse of the economy to do it.
While personal Slavery is certainly a worse form of Slavery than Marxist enslavement, under the Marxist system it is the entire populace that is enslaved.
It really is remarkable to me that the very same argument that was used by the pro Slavery crowd 150 years go, is now being used by another group whose interest lies in enslaving us all.
Aside from the fact that all of the things that he has done will not do anything to fix the economy (Yes, I know Bush started some of this stuff, but Obama has started quite a bit more, and has ramped up all the stuff that Bush started), there was something else that I couldn't quite nail down. Then it finally hit me. This is an argument so old that no one alive today actually heard it first hand. However, if you've studied American History in depth at all, you have heard this argument before, it went something like this, "Well, personally I don't think we should have Slavery in the United States, but if we get rid of it, the economy will collapse, so we just have to accept Slavery." In that case the truth was that the people making that argument were either cowards, unwilling to stand up for what was right and take some risks, or, more likely, they were really pro Slavery and looking for an excuse to continue the practice. In the current case we are looking at people, from Obama on down, who really do want to install a Marxist Government, and are using the excuse of the economy to do it.
While personal Slavery is certainly a worse form of Slavery than Marxist enslavement, under the Marxist system it is the entire populace that is enslaved.
It really is remarkable to me that the very same argument that was used by the pro Slavery crowd 150 years go, is now being used by another group whose interest lies in enslaving us all.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Why Mark Sanford Should Resign
Some Democrats are claiming that Mark Sanford should resign because he is a Republican who has always talked about family values, and then failed to live up to them. Some Republicans are making the rather bizarre argument that he should stay in his job because having an affair isn't related to his ability to Govern his State. Both of these groups are off the mark.
First of all, just because he claimed to hold to certain values, and then it turns out he's a lying, cheating piece of crap, doesn't reflect on the values he claimed to hold. If a father teaches his children not to steal, and then it turns out that he has stolen millions of dollars from his company, does that mean that he was wrong when he told his children that stealing was bad? Are we required to say that stealing is OK because he didn't live up to the standard that he preached to his children? Hardly. By the same token, what Sanford claimed to think about cheating and the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with this, even if he had never said a single word about family values, but still cheated on his wife, he would be a lying, cheating piece of crap, just as he is now.
On the other hand, the office of Governor is a position of trust. Being a husband is also a position of trust. When a man is married he takes a sacred oath before God and man, that he will love, honor, and cherish his wife for the rest of his life. The marriage vow, deeply personal, and yet highly public, is not to be taken lightly. The oath that a man swears to be faithful to his wife should be fundamental to him, shaping all aspects of his life. He must be willing to deny his own selfish desires any time they may violate the vow that he has made. In many regards, the office of Governor is no different. A man (or woman, but I'm talking about a specific man here) takes an oath to do what is right and good for the people of his State, laying aside his own selfish desires, and vows to always stand up and fight for the people of his State. How can the people of South Carolina possibly trust Mark Sanford to uphold his oath to them if he couldn't be bothered upholding his oath to his own wife? Quite frankly, they can't.
It is also time for Sanford to put his own career aside for another reason. He should step aside for the good of the GOP. Unless it is his intention to hand victory to the Democrats in the next Gubernatorial election, he needs to allow the South Carolina GOP to some breathing room to try to pick up the pieces and actually have a shot at staying in power, which will be almost impossible if he remains in office.
Let's remember that being a Governor is not like being an actor. Actors can do good work even if they are total schmucks who can't be trusted for anything at all, ever. Being an actor is not a position of trust. I'm not saying that I encourage actors to be unfaithful, just that they don't need to quit being an actor because of it. But anyone who is in a position of trust, be they a Governor, a Senator, a President, or anyone else in a position of trust, who can't even honor a sacred vow to be faithful to their spouse, should not remain in office.
First of all, just because he claimed to hold to certain values, and then it turns out he's a lying, cheating piece of crap, doesn't reflect on the values he claimed to hold. If a father teaches his children not to steal, and then it turns out that he has stolen millions of dollars from his company, does that mean that he was wrong when he told his children that stealing was bad? Are we required to say that stealing is OK because he didn't live up to the standard that he preached to his children? Hardly. By the same token, what Sanford claimed to think about cheating and the sanctity of marriage has nothing to do with this, even if he had never said a single word about family values, but still cheated on his wife, he would be a lying, cheating piece of crap, just as he is now.
On the other hand, the office of Governor is a position of trust. Being a husband is also a position of trust. When a man is married he takes a sacred oath before God and man, that he will love, honor, and cherish his wife for the rest of his life. The marriage vow, deeply personal, and yet highly public, is not to be taken lightly. The oath that a man swears to be faithful to his wife should be fundamental to him, shaping all aspects of his life. He must be willing to deny his own selfish desires any time they may violate the vow that he has made. In many regards, the office of Governor is no different. A man (or woman, but I'm talking about a specific man here) takes an oath to do what is right and good for the people of his State, laying aside his own selfish desires, and vows to always stand up and fight for the people of his State. How can the people of South Carolina possibly trust Mark Sanford to uphold his oath to them if he couldn't be bothered upholding his oath to his own wife? Quite frankly, they can't.
It is also time for Sanford to put his own career aside for another reason. He should step aside for the good of the GOP. Unless it is his intention to hand victory to the Democrats in the next Gubernatorial election, he needs to allow the South Carolina GOP to some breathing room to try to pick up the pieces and actually have a shot at staying in power, which will be almost impossible if he remains in office.
Let's remember that being a Governor is not like being an actor. Actors can do good work even if they are total schmucks who can't be trusted for anything at all, ever. Being an actor is not a position of trust. I'm not saying that I encourage actors to be unfaithful, just that they don't need to quit being an actor because of it. But anyone who is in a position of trust, be they a Governor, a Senator, a President, or anyone else in a position of trust, who can't even honor a sacred vow to be faithful to their spouse, should not remain in office.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Rationed Care
There is a lot of confusion about the current state of the Health Care System in the United States of America, leading many to think that the only solution is the Universal Health Coverage option being pushed by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress, among others, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Are there problems with Health Care in the United States as it stands today? Sure there are, but why? Well, some of it is pretty easy to understand, and once the problems are understood, it's easy to see how those things could be remedied, without turning the whole thing over to the Government.
The first thing that most people can understand without much trouble is quite simple, litigation. That is to say, lawsuits with huge judgments that cause all doctors to need malpractice insurance that costs tons of money and drives up the cost of Health Care for everyone. Judgment limits, or penalties for people filing frivolous lawsuits would make a drastic dent as it is one of the largest areas of waste in the entire Health Care System.
A second problem started with total coverage insurance. That is to say that some people having insurance that is too good has been part of the problem. This can be a little more difficult to understand, so let me explain. As good as it seems to most of us to have great insurance, with no deductible and no, or very low copay, this leads some people, possibly even a great deal of people, to run to the Doctor or ER for every sniffle or hangnail, which further increases the cost of Health Care, again, for everyone.
Then there is the issue of the uninsured, one of the biggest places that the Statists tries to convince us that we need the Government to step in and take over, by telling us that there are 50 million uninsured people in the United States that just simply have no access to Health Care, and, they would have us believe, are just dying in the streets. There are so many lies surrounding this part of the issue that it's almost difficult to see all of it. First of all, the very number is a lie. This number of people comes from the Census data, and includes people that were uninsured for a very small window of time, after losing a job, or some such reason, as well as people who are offered insurance by their employer, or can afford to purchase it on their own, but choose not to, mostly because they are young, healthy people who feel they can better use the money in other areas, and are willing to take the risk. Very few of these people are chronically uninsured. Besides this, around 10 million of the 50 million number are illegal aliens. The second part of this lie is the idea that even those who are unable to get Health Insurance are also barred from receiving medical care, however, current Federal laws require that all people who come to any Emergency Room must be evaluated and receive any required treatment. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Probably, but they are the exception, and not the rule.
The other side is what actually happens when such a plan is put in place. We need only to look to Britain and Canada. It doesn't take much to find British news stories telling all of the horror stories about how terrible this system is. Basically, it amounts to rationed care, that is to say, someone sitting in a cubicle somewhere deciding who receives treatment and who doesn't. The Government never does anything efficiently, so the idea that the State running Health Care is going to reduce cost and increase the amount quantity of care available is an absolutely insane idea. The fact is that they will likely increase cost even more, and limit the quantity of care available, but let's assume a best case scenario where the quantity of care stays equal to what it is right now, they are telling us that there isn't enough now, so there wouldn't be enough then either, meaning that someone will have to decide who gets it, and who doesn't, and if it's all considered free, the demand will increase, which will further limit the supply. The elderly will be hit first, and then likely the children. Those with the most political influence will receive the best care, because Health Care decisions will not be medically based, but rather politically based, just as is everything that a Government does is politically based.
The truth is that universal Health coverage, provided by a Government equals rationed care, not enough care, and a far worse system than what we have today.
Are there problems with Health Care in the United States as it stands today? Sure there are, but why? Well, some of it is pretty easy to understand, and once the problems are understood, it's easy to see how those things could be remedied, without turning the whole thing over to the Government.
The first thing that most people can understand without much trouble is quite simple, litigation. That is to say, lawsuits with huge judgments that cause all doctors to need malpractice insurance that costs tons of money and drives up the cost of Health Care for everyone. Judgment limits, or penalties for people filing frivolous lawsuits would make a drastic dent as it is one of the largest areas of waste in the entire Health Care System.
A second problem started with total coverage insurance. That is to say that some people having insurance that is too good has been part of the problem. This can be a little more difficult to understand, so let me explain. As good as it seems to most of us to have great insurance, with no deductible and no, or very low copay, this leads some people, possibly even a great deal of people, to run to the Doctor or ER for every sniffle or hangnail, which further increases the cost of Health Care, again, for everyone.
Then there is the issue of the uninsured, one of the biggest places that the Statists tries to convince us that we need the Government to step in and take over, by telling us that there are 50 million uninsured people in the United States that just simply have no access to Health Care, and, they would have us believe, are just dying in the streets. There are so many lies surrounding this part of the issue that it's almost difficult to see all of it. First of all, the very number is a lie. This number of people comes from the Census data, and includes people that were uninsured for a very small window of time, after losing a job, or some such reason, as well as people who are offered insurance by their employer, or can afford to purchase it on their own, but choose not to, mostly because they are young, healthy people who feel they can better use the money in other areas, and are willing to take the risk. Very few of these people are chronically uninsured. Besides this, around 10 million of the 50 million number are illegal aliens. The second part of this lie is the idea that even those who are unable to get Health Insurance are also barred from receiving medical care, however, current Federal laws require that all people who come to any Emergency Room must be evaluated and receive any required treatment. Are there people who fall through the cracks? Probably, but they are the exception, and not the rule.
The other side is what actually happens when such a plan is put in place. We need only to look to Britain and Canada. It doesn't take much to find British news stories telling all of the horror stories about how terrible this system is. Basically, it amounts to rationed care, that is to say, someone sitting in a cubicle somewhere deciding who receives treatment and who doesn't. The Government never does anything efficiently, so the idea that the State running Health Care is going to reduce cost and increase the amount quantity of care available is an absolutely insane idea. The fact is that they will likely increase cost even more, and limit the quantity of care available, but let's assume a best case scenario where the quantity of care stays equal to what it is right now, they are telling us that there isn't enough now, so there wouldn't be enough then either, meaning that someone will have to decide who gets it, and who doesn't, and if it's all considered free, the demand will increase, which will further limit the supply. The elderly will be hit first, and then likely the children. Those with the most political influence will receive the best care, because Health Care decisions will not be medically based, but rather politically based, just as is everything that a Government does is politically based.
The truth is that universal Health coverage, provided by a Government equals rationed care, not enough care, and a far worse system than what we have today.
Friday, May 1, 2009
That's The Argument?
The other night at President Barack Obama's most inane press conference to date he was asked a question about Abortion. I was utterly floored by the outright silliness of his answer. Now, as usual, he spoke for several minutes, running out the clock to avoid the possibility that someone might actually ask him a serious question, not that Abortion is not a serious issue, but everyone knows how radically pro-abortion Obama is, so you can't really say asking his position constitutes a serious question. Anyway, the point is, you have to learn to ignore the clutter words and cut to the relevant section of any quote when listening to Obama. So here it is, he said that Pro-Choice is the correct position on the issue of Abortion because, are you ready for this? Because the women don't take the choice lightly!
Seriously, that was his argument in defense of Abortion. Utterly stunning isn't it? So, let's take a look at it, since it is, after all, the defense of a position offered by the President of the United States.
If you've read much of my blog, and if not you always have the option of looking back at the archives, you will see that I have addressed the Abortion issue multiple times, and explained why it is murder, why it is taking the life of an innocent human being, and posted several excellent explanations of the horror of Abortion from the wonderful people from Stand To Reason (linked in the sidebar), but Obama simply dismissed all of that, saying that it's OK because the women don't take the choice lightly, so, therefore, we must conclude from what he said, that there is nothing wrong with it for that reason alone.
Of course, you simply can't apply that kind of "logic" to a single issue, if it's good enough for Abortion, it's good enough for pretty much everything, right? So, what happens if we apply this concept across the board. What you come up with is a system whereby any action is justified as long as the decision to undertake that action is well considered, and of course, not taken lightly, and the action itself cannot be questioned, and is not subject to judgements of right or wrong or ciminality, or anything else. Under a system like this crime could only be punished if the perpetrator took the choice to commit the crime lightly.
Therefore:
Carjacking, OK as long as the criminal doesn't take the choice to carjack lightly.
Murder, OK, as long as the murderer doesn't take the choice to murder lightly.
Armed Robbery, OK, as long as the robber doesn't take the choice to rob lightly.
Rape, OK, as long as the rapist doesn't take the choice to rape lightly.
Genocide, OK, as long as the genocidal maniac doesn't take the choice to exterminate millions of people lightly.
War, OK, as long as the warmonger doesn't take the choice to wage an unjust war lightly.
Adultery, OK, as long as the cheater doesn't take the choice to cheat lightly.
Assault, OK, as long as the attacker doesn't take the choice to attack lightly.
I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.
In short, no matter what a person chooses to do is fine, as long as it is well considered, or not taken lightly. So said our President. Now, regardless if you like Obama or not, or if you are Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion, everyone has to see that this was about the silliest thing that could have been said, and nobody challenged him on it, now isn't that sad?
Seriously, that was his argument in defense of Abortion. Utterly stunning isn't it? So, let's take a look at it, since it is, after all, the defense of a position offered by the President of the United States.
If you've read much of my blog, and if not you always have the option of looking back at the archives, you will see that I have addressed the Abortion issue multiple times, and explained why it is murder, why it is taking the life of an innocent human being, and posted several excellent explanations of the horror of Abortion from the wonderful people from Stand To Reason (linked in the sidebar), but Obama simply dismissed all of that, saying that it's OK because the women don't take the choice lightly, so, therefore, we must conclude from what he said, that there is nothing wrong with it for that reason alone.
Of course, you simply can't apply that kind of "logic" to a single issue, if it's good enough for Abortion, it's good enough for pretty much everything, right? So, what happens if we apply this concept across the board. What you come up with is a system whereby any action is justified as long as the decision to undertake that action is well considered, and of course, not taken lightly, and the action itself cannot be questioned, and is not subject to judgements of right or wrong or ciminality, or anything else. Under a system like this crime could only be punished if the perpetrator took the choice to commit the crime lightly.
Therefore:
Carjacking, OK as long as the criminal doesn't take the choice to carjack lightly.
Murder, OK, as long as the murderer doesn't take the choice to murder lightly.
Armed Robbery, OK, as long as the robber doesn't take the choice to rob lightly.
Rape, OK, as long as the rapist doesn't take the choice to rape lightly.
Genocide, OK, as long as the genocidal maniac doesn't take the choice to exterminate millions of people lightly.
War, OK, as long as the warmonger doesn't take the choice to wage an unjust war lightly.
Adultery, OK, as long as the cheater doesn't take the choice to cheat lightly.
Assault, OK, as long as the attacker doesn't take the choice to attack lightly.
I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.
In short, no matter what a person chooses to do is fine, as long as it is well considered, or not taken lightly. So said our President. Now, regardless if you like Obama or not, or if you are Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion, everyone has to see that this was about the silliest thing that could have been said, and nobody challenged him on it, now isn't that sad?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Take Your Big Tent And Stuff It
There are a lot of people in the media, as well as people who call themselves Conservatives, who are trying to tell us that the Republican Party needs to be more inclusive. They say that we need to have a big tent. What they really mean by this is that we must abandon all of our principles, accept all people, regardless of their ideas, and everything will be OK, as long as all the Conservatives in the big tent sit down and shut up. Their interest really lies in grabbing and maintaining their own power while furthering the Democratic agenda.
They tell us that we cannot win if we continue to hold fast to our core Conservative Principles, claiming that those principles are the reason why we have lost as much recently has we have, ignoring the fact that those who have lost the most have been those who have held our positions the least. But for the sake of this argument, let's go ahead and give them the (false) premise that we cannot win on our principles, what then? I say, fine, so be it. It's not a game, it's not about winning no matter what. It's all about which principles and positions will win out in the end. If we take a stand on our principles and lose, then fine, at least it's an honest defeat, but if we abandon our principles, and move left, and just go along with all of the Democrat agenda points, then we have lost already, even if we win.
Besides this, contrary to what some are trying to claim, Conservatives fully understand that we don't all have to be in agreement on every issue, but we are saying is that we must hold to those core principles that the Country was founded on. We can have the debate, we can argue our positions, in fact we welcome it, we love having the chance to explain what we believe and why, it's just that many people aren't listening. Many times this comes down to the fact that often the Statist position is easy to grasp, it's nearly always dishonest and virtually never does the good they claim it would do, but oh how it sounds good. Conservative positions usually take a little more work to explain and understand, but they actually work as advertised, and that's the difference.
I understand that the media keeps trying to tell Conservatives to sit down and shut up because they are committed to the leftist agenda, and want to further it at all cost, including the suppression of free speech. For those who call themselves Conservatives in one breath, while proving in the next that they are not, I can only assume that they are either narcissistic, hungering for the approval of the media and elitists, or power hungry, or just too dang lazy or stupid to articulate Conservative positions and principles.
So, back to my topic for this post, I mean it, take your big tent and stuff it!
They tell us that we cannot win if we continue to hold fast to our core Conservative Principles, claiming that those principles are the reason why we have lost as much recently has we have, ignoring the fact that those who have lost the most have been those who have held our positions the least. But for the sake of this argument, let's go ahead and give them the (false) premise that we cannot win on our principles, what then? I say, fine, so be it. It's not a game, it's not about winning no matter what. It's all about which principles and positions will win out in the end. If we take a stand on our principles and lose, then fine, at least it's an honest defeat, but if we abandon our principles, and move left, and just go along with all of the Democrat agenda points, then we have lost already, even if we win.
Besides this, contrary to what some are trying to claim, Conservatives fully understand that we don't all have to be in agreement on every issue, but we are saying is that we must hold to those core principles that the Country was founded on. We can have the debate, we can argue our positions, in fact we welcome it, we love having the chance to explain what we believe and why, it's just that many people aren't listening. Many times this comes down to the fact that often the Statist position is easy to grasp, it's nearly always dishonest and virtually never does the good they claim it would do, but oh how it sounds good. Conservative positions usually take a little more work to explain and understand, but they actually work as advertised, and that's the difference.
I understand that the media keeps trying to tell Conservatives to sit down and shut up because they are committed to the leftist agenda, and want to further it at all cost, including the suppression of free speech. For those who call themselves Conservatives in one breath, while proving in the next that they are not, I can only assume that they are either narcissistic, hungering for the approval of the media and elitists, or power hungry, or just too dang lazy or stupid to articulate Conservative positions and principles.
So, back to my topic for this post, I mean it, take your big tent and stuff it!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
They're Ba-a-a-ack!
With the tragic shootings that have been in the news lately, it was only a matter of time before all of those anti gun nuts came out swinging, and trying once again to convince everyone that the Second Amendment to the Constitution really doesn't matter, and that the Government should take more illegal steps to remove guns from the hands of US Citizens. However, for now, I'll put all of that aside, and let's just look at the basic question, will taking guns away result in less people being killed?
Genesis 4:8 says, "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." Did Cain use a gun? No. The fact is that you do not need a gun to kill someone. A person who is committed to the idea that they need to kill a person, or persons, can find many ways to do it that do not involve a gun. Is it easier with a gun? Sure, but so is self defense. Would it have been any harder for the man in Binghamton to kill all of those people with an axe? Or a chainsaw? Regardless of his weapon of choice, the fact is that an armed person, with knowledge of, and ability to use, his or her gun, could have put a very quick end to the carnage, with a much lower body count.
The fact is that for Millenia prior to the invention of firearms human beings were constantly engaging in murders and wars. They didn't have guns, and yet they managed to kill on a staggering scale.
Some of these nuts are just afraid of guns, some hate them because they see them as uncivilized, or some such nonsense, and some know that they are critical to the survival of liberty and the civil society, and it is this that they wish to destroy, but whatever the reason why people want to take the guns away, the end result is the same, you and your family will be less safe, and less free.
Genesis 4:8 says, "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." Did Cain use a gun? No. The fact is that you do not need a gun to kill someone. A person who is committed to the idea that they need to kill a person, or persons, can find many ways to do it that do not involve a gun. Is it easier with a gun? Sure, but so is self defense. Would it have been any harder for the man in Binghamton to kill all of those people with an axe? Or a chainsaw? Regardless of his weapon of choice, the fact is that an armed person, with knowledge of, and ability to use, his or her gun, could have put a very quick end to the carnage, with a much lower body count.
The fact is that for Millenia prior to the invention of firearms human beings were constantly engaging in murders and wars. They didn't have guns, and yet they managed to kill on a staggering scale.
Some of these nuts are just afraid of guns, some hate them because they see them as uncivilized, or some such nonsense, and some know that they are critical to the survival of liberty and the civil society, and it is this that they wish to destroy, but whatever the reason why people want to take the guns away, the end result is the same, you and your family will be less safe, and less free.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Mass Deception
I'm sure that everyone has heard in the media by now that President Obama has reversed President Bush's ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The problem is that in most cases, most, if not all, of the details are lies.
First off, President Bush did not ban the research, in a gesture reflective of his devotion to life he banned the Federal Government from funding such research on lines of Embryonic Stem Cells created after August 9th of 2001. So Federal dollars could not be used to fund the creation and destruction of embryos in ongoing research, but the research did continue. There was funding at the State level, and there was private funding. Bush's so-called ban was a symbolic gesture, nothing more. Certainly it didn't stifle the research, as so many would have us believe. In order to take that argument seriously would be to believe that nothing worthwhile is ever developed without Government funding, and that's just silly.
The second big lie is the idea that only Embryonic Stem Cell Research holds any promise for health care application. The lies don't come much bigger than this one. The fact is that Embryonic Stem Cells have shown little or no promise in practical application, while adult Stem Cells and what are known as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells have shown tremendous promise for many different applications. In fact, there are some treatments available today that are making use of Adult Stem Cells in repairing debilitating injuries and restoring quality of life to real people in real situations, the same cannot be said for Embryonic Stem Cells, and that is not because there were no Federal dollars funding the research, as I said, the research has been going on, but they face some pretty significant problems, the least of which is the few bucks they may or may not get from Uncle Sam.
The problem, as usual, is that the media can't be bothered with the facts, not when there is a political agenda to be won. They report on this story as though, now that the great President Obama has reversed the backwards decision of that moron that came before him, we'll have cured Cancer inside of a few weeks. It's ridiculous, but that's how they tend to report on things like this.
Another problem with the reporting is that they like to make believe that this is all about religious wackos trying to get in the way of science, but the fact is that there are genuine ethical concerns here that do not have a religious basis. Ethical concerns are always trying to find a balance with scientific research and discovery. They don't test nuclear bombs in Central Park, do they? Of course not, but that's not a practical scientific concern, it's an ethical one. We don't do medical experiments on humans (Fetuses and Embryo's not withstanding) and that also is an ethical, rather than a scientific concern.
You see, you could extract some Adult Stem Cells from me right now, and aside from some minor discomfort, I would be none the worse for wear. You can collect Umbilical Cord blood from newborns, with no ill effect on either the child or the mother (that is another promising source). But to collect Embryonic Stem Cells requires the destruction of the Embryo. But of course, the argument goes, that Embryo's are not people, sure, under the right conditions they could become people, but they're really not people. I would ask, how do you know? This is starting to sound a lot like the Abortion debate isn't it? Well, it should, it's related. The argument from the other side goes that, we don't know when they really become a person, so it's ok to use them as we see fit. This is a stunningly ignorant argument. If you see a burlap sack laying in the middle of the street, and you don't know if it's just a bag of old leaves, or if it's a bag of kittens, does not knowing make it ok to run over that bag, which might be full of kittens? Or would it be correct and ethical to be careful and protect the bag until you were able to look inside and see if it contains live kittens or not? To me the choice is clear.
If you must destroy something that may or may not be human life, is that not enough of an ethical dilemma to tell you that you should hold off on that? Even if it did hold great promise for curing all kinds of diseases and such, which, as I explained before, it does not.
This doesn't even cover all of the lies that are being propagated regarding this issue, but hopefully I've given you something to think about, and hopefully we can get past the lies, and learn the truth.
First off, President Bush did not ban the research, in a gesture reflective of his devotion to life he banned the Federal Government from funding such research on lines of Embryonic Stem Cells created after August 9th of 2001. So Federal dollars could not be used to fund the creation and destruction of embryos in ongoing research, but the research did continue. There was funding at the State level, and there was private funding. Bush's so-called ban was a symbolic gesture, nothing more. Certainly it didn't stifle the research, as so many would have us believe. In order to take that argument seriously would be to believe that nothing worthwhile is ever developed without Government funding, and that's just silly.
The second big lie is the idea that only Embryonic Stem Cell Research holds any promise for health care application. The lies don't come much bigger than this one. The fact is that Embryonic Stem Cells have shown little or no promise in practical application, while adult Stem Cells and what are known as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells have shown tremendous promise for many different applications. In fact, there are some treatments available today that are making use of Adult Stem Cells in repairing debilitating injuries and restoring quality of life to real people in real situations, the same cannot be said for Embryonic Stem Cells, and that is not because there were no Federal dollars funding the research, as I said, the research has been going on, but they face some pretty significant problems, the least of which is the few bucks they may or may not get from Uncle Sam.
The problem, as usual, is that the media can't be bothered with the facts, not when there is a political agenda to be won. They report on this story as though, now that the great President Obama has reversed the backwards decision of that moron that came before him, we'll have cured Cancer inside of a few weeks. It's ridiculous, but that's how they tend to report on things like this.
Another problem with the reporting is that they like to make believe that this is all about religious wackos trying to get in the way of science, but the fact is that there are genuine ethical concerns here that do not have a religious basis. Ethical concerns are always trying to find a balance with scientific research and discovery. They don't test nuclear bombs in Central Park, do they? Of course not, but that's not a practical scientific concern, it's an ethical one. We don't do medical experiments on humans (Fetuses and Embryo's not withstanding) and that also is an ethical, rather than a scientific concern.
You see, you could extract some Adult Stem Cells from me right now, and aside from some minor discomfort, I would be none the worse for wear. You can collect Umbilical Cord blood from newborns, with no ill effect on either the child or the mother (that is another promising source). But to collect Embryonic Stem Cells requires the destruction of the Embryo. But of course, the argument goes, that Embryo's are not people, sure, under the right conditions they could become people, but they're really not people. I would ask, how do you know? This is starting to sound a lot like the Abortion debate isn't it? Well, it should, it's related. The argument from the other side goes that, we don't know when they really become a person, so it's ok to use them as we see fit. This is a stunningly ignorant argument. If you see a burlap sack laying in the middle of the street, and you don't know if it's just a bag of old leaves, or if it's a bag of kittens, does not knowing make it ok to run over that bag, which might be full of kittens? Or would it be correct and ethical to be careful and protect the bag until you were able to look inside and see if it contains live kittens or not? To me the choice is clear.
If you must destroy something that may or may not be human life, is that not enough of an ethical dilemma to tell you that you should hold off on that? Even if it did hold great promise for curing all kinds of diseases and such, which, as I explained before, it does not.
This doesn't even cover all of the lies that are being propagated regarding this issue, but hopefully I've given you something to think about, and hopefully we can get past the lies, and learn the truth.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
I Hope He Fails Too
I know that I've addressed this once before, but there sure do seem to be a lot of people out there who just aren't getting it, so I'm going to take another crack at it.
Rush Limbaugh has taken a lot of heat for saying that the hopes that President Obama fails, and has tried to explain what he means by that. Of course, his problems is that most people don't care what he means. They are the drones who just want to go along with Obama and support everything he does, no matter how destructive to our nation.
Of course, Rush has one other problem. I don't think that he, or most of his defenders, have done a particularly good job of explaining what he meant.
Barack Obama is an admitted Marxist, oh, not is so many words, but again, as I've said before, if you understand Marx, and you listen to what Obama is saying, and what he is pushing, you will see that it can hardly be described by other names. Many would say Socialism, and I've used that word before, because it is accurate, but Marxism is a particular brand of Socialism, so it's a less broad definition.
It is a fact that Socialism has been tried many times over, in many different forms, including Marxism specifically, the world over, and it has never worked. It is a flawed and failed system, and Obama and his administration are trying to put it in place here in the United States. Being that we know that this will be a colossal failure and do horrific damage to our nation, we hope that he fails in that plan.
For President Obama, success means instituting socialism in the the United States of America. Therefore, yes, I hope he fails!
Rush Limbaugh has taken a lot of heat for saying that the hopes that President Obama fails, and has tried to explain what he means by that. Of course, his problems is that most people don't care what he means. They are the drones who just want to go along with Obama and support everything he does, no matter how destructive to our nation.
Of course, Rush has one other problem. I don't think that he, or most of his defenders, have done a particularly good job of explaining what he meant.
Barack Obama is an admitted Marxist, oh, not is so many words, but again, as I've said before, if you understand Marx, and you listen to what Obama is saying, and what he is pushing, you will see that it can hardly be described by other names. Many would say Socialism, and I've used that word before, because it is accurate, but Marxism is a particular brand of Socialism, so it's a less broad definition.
It is a fact that Socialism has been tried many times over, in many different forms, including Marxism specifically, the world over, and it has never worked. It is a flawed and failed system, and Obama and his administration are trying to put it in place here in the United States. Being that we know that this will be a colossal failure and do horrific damage to our nation, we hope that he fails in that plan.
For President Obama, success means instituting socialism in the the United States of America. Therefore, yes, I hope he fails!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Partisan Bickering
Politicians like to use Buzz Words. These are words that either sound good, or sound bad, depending on what emotion they wish to instill in the people, but often how they sound has little or nothing to do with the actual meaning of the words, or with the real world situation that the politicians are talking about.
Lately, one of the big buzz phrases is "partisan bickering." This is something that we hear about all the time on the news, and it's given with the implication that the only reason someone is standing up and arguing against the direction that someone wants to go is because they are in the opposing party, and it's all dismissed as partisan bickering.
The problem is that what they are dismissing is not someone just being obstructionist because of their party affiliation or political ideology, but they are dismissing disagreement. Dissent, which is critical to the functioning of a free society, is being ignored and dismissed, not because the disagreement is not valid, but rather because those in power, and their lapdogs in the media, are afraid that if there is an honest public debate, their side will lose ground. They want to implement all of their ideology without anyone getting in their way, for any reason whatsoever, and so they decry "partisan bickering" every time someone holds an opposing view.
As I said though, debate and disagreement are critical to the functioning of a free society. People will have differing ideas, and they need to be able to stand up and say so, but when they do, in this day and age, they find themselves dismissed as being partisan.
Did you know that the Soviet Union had no Partisan Bickering? Did you know that Nazi Germany had not Partisan Bickering? Communist China has no Partisan Bickering. Burma has no Partisan Bickering. Nor does Cuba or Venezuela. Are we seeing a point here? For anyone too dense to get it, all of these are, or were when they existed, totalitarian regimes where disagreement would get you killed, or still will in some of them. Is this where we are headed? Impossible? It didn't' happen overnight in those countries either. Venezuela is a good example of a place where they aren't all the way down that road yet, but are getting there at an alarming pace.
On top of this we have some Democrats, like the senior Senator from New York, declaring that a totally partisan bill, like the so called stimulus package, is be-partisan, and how dare anyone not go along when he has declared that the Republicans have been met halfway, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.
Disagreement is good, and when it is gone, freedom of speech is not far behind.
Lately, one of the big buzz phrases is "partisan bickering." This is something that we hear about all the time on the news, and it's given with the implication that the only reason someone is standing up and arguing against the direction that someone wants to go is because they are in the opposing party, and it's all dismissed as partisan bickering.
The problem is that what they are dismissing is not someone just being obstructionist because of their party affiliation or political ideology, but they are dismissing disagreement. Dissent, which is critical to the functioning of a free society, is being ignored and dismissed, not because the disagreement is not valid, but rather because those in power, and their lapdogs in the media, are afraid that if there is an honest public debate, their side will lose ground. They want to implement all of their ideology without anyone getting in their way, for any reason whatsoever, and so they decry "partisan bickering" every time someone holds an opposing view.
As I said though, debate and disagreement are critical to the functioning of a free society. People will have differing ideas, and they need to be able to stand up and say so, but when they do, in this day and age, they find themselves dismissed as being partisan.
Did you know that the Soviet Union had no Partisan Bickering? Did you know that Nazi Germany had not Partisan Bickering? Communist China has no Partisan Bickering. Burma has no Partisan Bickering. Nor does Cuba or Venezuela. Are we seeing a point here? For anyone too dense to get it, all of these are, or were when they existed, totalitarian regimes where disagreement would get you killed, or still will in some of them. Is this where we are headed? Impossible? It didn't' happen overnight in those countries either. Venezuela is a good example of a place where they aren't all the way down that road yet, but are getting there at an alarming pace.
On top of this we have some Democrats, like the senior Senator from New York, declaring that a totally partisan bill, like the so called stimulus package, is be-partisan, and how dare anyone not go along when he has declared that the Republicans have been met halfway, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.
Disagreement is good, and when it is gone, freedom of speech is not far behind.
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.
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, January 28, 2009
Pigs On No-Doze
Economic Stimulus, Rescue and Recovery Package, Bailout, Reinvestment, or Massive Pork Barrel Spending. To paraphrase Shakespeare, what we call pork, by any other name, would still be pork. And that's what the Obama administration is pushing through Congress, a massive Pork Barrel bill that will do nothing to boost our economy in any way. In fact, what they are trying to do will be a massive drain on our economy. You simply cannot spend your way out of a recession. In a recession revenues drop off, which means that you have less money to spend, so, when in a recession, if you wish to spend, there are only two options, you must a) increase taxes, which history has proven over and over again is an economy killer, and/or b) you must borrow that money from somewhere which is also an economic killer, if not now, then down the road.
There was a Liberal Democrat on Hannity last night (and I forget her name) who kept repeating over and over again, the same line we here from Democrat politicians, "But we have to do something." As I have said many times in the past, and will continue to say, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.
Many times we have heard Democrats, from President Obama on down, talk about setting up "New Deal" like projects, because they worked so well for FDR. The fact of the matter is that they didn't work so well for FDR. When FDR took office the unemployment rate was 17.4%, after five years of his "shovel ready projects" and economic policy, and massive pork barrel spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the unemployment rate was 17.4%. FDR was a complete failure when it came to dealing with the depression. It was our entry into WWII that finally got our economy going again. Obama wants to go down the FDR road, does that mean that he wants to start another Global War? Or is he after something else?
The answer is quite simple, he's after something else. Social change. Like most other liberal democrats, Obama cares only for furthering the cause of the far left, which is Socialism, in some form or another. From listening to Obama, he personally favors Marxism. Now I know that most people don't want to hear such talk, but the fact is that either you listen, get motivated and get involved, or one of these days you wake up in a Country that you don't recognize at all. You're liberties will be gone, the Constitution will be no more, and it will be too late. So wake up, start to listen, start to read, don't just accept what you are told by the media, do your own thinking. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, read the Communist Manifesto, and look at the raw facts of History. Don't be a drone, be an American.
There was a Liberal Democrat on Hannity last night (and I forget her name) who kept repeating over and over again, the same line we here from Democrat politicians, "But we have to do something." As I have said many times in the past, and will continue to say, doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.
Many times we have heard Democrats, from President Obama on down, talk about setting up "New Deal" like projects, because they worked so well for FDR. The fact of the matter is that they didn't work so well for FDR. When FDR took office the unemployment rate was 17.4%, after five years of his "shovel ready projects" and economic policy, and massive pork barrel spending to stimulate the economy and create jobs, the unemployment rate was 17.4%. FDR was a complete failure when it came to dealing with the depression. It was our entry into WWII that finally got our economy going again. Obama wants to go down the FDR road, does that mean that he wants to start another Global War? Or is he after something else?
The answer is quite simple, he's after something else. Social change. Like most other liberal democrats, Obama cares only for furthering the cause of the far left, which is Socialism, in some form or another. From listening to Obama, he personally favors Marxism. Now I know that most people don't want to hear such talk, but the fact is that either you listen, get motivated and get involved, or one of these days you wake up in a Country that you don't recognize at all. You're liberties will be gone, the Constitution will be no more, and it will be too late. So wake up, start to listen, start to read, don't just accept what you are told by the media, do your own thinking. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, read the Communist Manifesto, and look at the raw facts of History. Don't be a drone, be an American.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Such A Centrist
I just wanted to take some time to talk to all the idiots who kept proclaiming that Obama is really a centrist, and he won't be as bad as everyone was thinking. Let's take a look at all the "Centrist" things he's done so far.
He appointed far left ideologue Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Now I know, lots of people want to say that she's a centrist to, but that's also crap, she's as big a liberal democrat as they come.
He appointed another big lib, one who fought hard to get pardons for Terrorists under President Clinton, because he's a favorite of the far left.
He appointed another favorite of the far left for the Treasury department, and who cares if the man who will be running the IRS couldn't be bothered paying his own taxes until after he was caught. And it clearly wasn't an honest mistake, the guy is a liar and a deliberate tax cheat, but let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong, and he really did make a mistake, do we really think that someone who is so stupid that they can't do what millions of regular folks do every year is really the one to take over Treasury?
He signed an order to close Club Gitmo (as Rush Limbaugh calls it accurately) where no one has ever been tortured, defining torture as 1/1000 of what the terrorists themselves do to innocent people every day, we didn't even come close. But since we were keeping the terrorists locked up where they couldn't kill us, it had to be shut down, you know, in the interest of getting them back on the battle field where they can start killing Americans again.
Despite the fact that last years "stimulus" package did nothing to help the economy, and the emergency bailouts of the past couple of months have been total disasters, he and the other dems are pushing hard to do both of these things again.
Despite the fact that socialized medicine has failed horribly everywhere on earth that it has been tried, and despite the fact that anyone with any common sense knows that what it really amounts to is rationing of medical care, and not care for everyone that needs it as it has been pitched, he is still pushing hard to have it imposed on the American people.
Barack Obama has been President for less than a week and he's already the most Marxist President in the history of our great nation, this is not good, and it certainly is not centrist.
He appointed far left ideologue Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Now I know, lots of people want to say that she's a centrist to, but that's also crap, she's as big a liberal democrat as they come.
He appointed another big lib, one who fought hard to get pardons for Terrorists under President Clinton, because he's a favorite of the far left.
He appointed another favorite of the far left for the Treasury department, and who cares if the man who will be running the IRS couldn't be bothered paying his own taxes until after he was caught. And it clearly wasn't an honest mistake, the guy is a liar and a deliberate tax cheat, but let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong, and he really did make a mistake, do we really think that someone who is so stupid that they can't do what millions of regular folks do every year is really the one to take over Treasury?
He signed an order to close Club Gitmo (as Rush Limbaugh calls it accurately) where no one has ever been tortured, defining torture as 1/1000 of what the terrorists themselves do to innocent people every day, we didn't even come close. But since we were keeping the terrorists locked up where they couldn't kill us, it had to be shut down, you know, in the interest of getting them back on the battle field where they can start killing Americans again.
Despite the fact that last years "stimulus" package did nothing to help the economy, and the emergency bailouts of the past couple of months have been total disasters, he and the other dems are pushing hard to do both of these things again.
Despite the fact that socialized medicine has failed horribly everywhere on earth that it has been tried, and despite the fact that anyone with any common sense knows that what it really amounts to is rationing of medical care, and not care for everyone that needs it as it has been pitched, he is still pushing hard to have it imposed on the American people.
Barack Obama has been President for less than a week and he's already the most Marxist President in the history of our great nation, this is not good, and it certainly is not centrist.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Some Leader
President Elect Barack Hussein Obama (it's OK, he's now decided that he likes his middle name) has stated that we are just going to have to accept that we will run Trillion Dollar per year deficits for the next several years. So, out grossly irresponsible Government has put us in a deep hole, and very, very deeply in debt, and he's telling us that the answer to this problem is going to be to dig this hole so much deeper that we will never be able to get out of it. Wonderful, just wonderful.
He also stated that this problem is so big that only the Government can solve it. Of course he fails to mention that the problems we are facing as a nation are primarily Government caused. This would be akin to a builder who did such a poor job of constructing a building that it was on the verge of collapsing on a school and a nursing home and the builder saying, yes I know we screwed this up, but this problem is so big that only I can fix it... and I'm going to fix it by putting massive weights on top and blowing out the foundation!
No, Government is not the solution, and we don't have to accept Trillion dollar deficits (that means debt people, with interest) for years to come. We need lower taxes, lower spending, and for the Government to get the heck out of the way of the American people and the free market. And please don't give me that nonsense about the free market having caused this crisis, Government interference in the free market caused this crisis, and more Government interference will only make it worse.
He also stated that this problem is so big that only the Government can solve it. Of course he fails to mention that the problems we are facing as a nation are primarily Government caused. This would be akin to a builder who did such a poor job of constructing a building that it was on the verge of collapsing on a school and a nursing home and the builder saying, yes I know we screwed this up, but this problem is so big that only I can fix it... and I'm going to fix it by putting massive weights on top and blowing out the foundation!
No, Government is not the solution, and we don't have to accept Trillion dollar deficits (that means debt people, with interest) for years to come. We need lower taxes, lower spending, and for the Government to get the heck out of the way of the American people and the free market. And please don't give me that nonsense about the free market having caused this crisis, Government interference in the free market caused this crisis, and more Government interference will only make it worse.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Not Proportional
I am really sick and tired of hearing people saying that yes, Israel has been attacked a little, but their response has not been proportional. Well, that statement is half true, while being completely false. Let me explain.
To say that Israel has been attacked a little is a horribly gross understatement. In the last 6 months the terrorists who reside in Gaza have fired over 6,500 rockets into Israel, destroying property and killing innocent people. Besides that, these attacks have been going on for many, many years.
As for the second part of the statement, that they have not engaged in a proportional response, well, that is true, but not the way these morons mean it. Since these terrorist cowards fire their rockets and then hide behind their women and children, and manufacture these rockets in schools and orphanage basements, Israel has been stunningly restrained and careful about their response, trying to keep civilian deaths to a minimum, but at the same time realizing that they have no choice but to take action to stop the attacks on their civilians.
All of these people who support the terrorists in this conflict should be very thankful that Israel has not engaged in a proportional response, because to respond proportionally to what they have been subjected to would mean the complete and utter destruction of all the peoples in Gaza and the West Bank. I have stated before, and I still hold this position, that it would be impossible for Israel to over react, given what they have been put through, not only since the official formation of their nation in the modern age, but also over the past 5,000 years of their history. I can't imagine that I would show such amazing restraint in the face of such attacks. The Israel haters should be really happy that I'm not in charge of the IDF, because there would be nothing left of the terrorists by now.
To say that Israel has been attacked a little is a horribly gross understatement. In the last 6 months the terrorists who reside in Gaza have fired over 6,500 rockets into Israel, destroying property and killing innocent people. Besides that, these attacks have been going on for many, many years.
As for the second part of the statement, that they have not engaged in a proportional response, well, that is true, but not the way these morons mean it. Since these terrorist cowards fire their rockets and then hide behind their women and children, and manufacture these rockets in schools and orphanage basements, Israel has been stunningly restrained and careful about their response, trying to keep civilian deaths to a minimum, but at the same time realizing that they have no choice but to take action to stop the attacks on their civilians.
All of these people who support the terrorists in this conflict should be very thankful that Israel has not engaged in a proportional response, because to respond proportionally to what they have been subjected to would mean the complete and utter destruction of all the peoples in Gaza and the West Bank. I have stated before, and I still hold this position, that it would be impossible for Israel to over react, given what they have been put through, not only since the official formation of their nation in the modern age, but also over the past 5,000 years of their history. I can't imagine that I would show such amazing restraint in the face of such attacks. The Israel haters should be really happy that I'm not in charge of the IDF, because there would be nothing left of the terrorists by now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
