What would the election results look like if we limited voting to people who are net contributors rather than net takers from the government? This would not be divided on race or gender lines - just lines of productivity. S/he who sacrifices the most to make government run would have the strongest voice. The next time you think of blaming the rich for your plight, remember this little nugget of truth. Fifty percent of Americans receive a check from a government entity each month (local, state, federal). Why don't we let the people who pay for government elect its leaders? Otherwise, isn't democracy just sanctioned stealing?
Discuss.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Just Wondering
If Barack Hussein Obama wins this election and creates a national heath system, what will happen when a pro-life mother learns she is carrying a baby with some form of disability?
Will the government require an abortion so the system is not "stuck" with the carrying costs of this child? Every national health care system ends up less efficient than projected and with costs billions more than anticipated. Is it too far fetched to suggest they will "eliminate" "unnecessary burdens" on the health care system for the "greater good" of the nation?
So, you ask, what about my freedom of religion on this issue? The government may say, look, if you want to have the child, that's fine, but they will not qualify for national health care - you will have to find a way to pay for it on your own. Which, with the private options we now have, this would be a possibility. However when a national system drys up these options by putting all the healthy people in a national system - where will we turn?
I am not sure how likely this is, but two facts haunt me. First, Barack Obama voted three times in Illinois to kill babies who were born alive after a failed abortion.
Second, our government, even under George W. Bush, already forces pro-life citizens to subsidize the operations of Planned Parenthood to the tune of more than $250 million annually. Planned Parenthood operates with a budget of nearly $1 billion annually. About a third comes from private donations. Another third from murder fees. Another third comes from us - the taxpayers. Planned Parenthood kills more than 225,000 babies each year.
I am opposed to national heathcare primarily for common-sense economic reasons. The government almost never improves something that is already a challenge for the private sector.
Yet, in the case of a liberal Congress led by an even more liberal Barack Obama, I fear a far graver danger.
Is this an unlikely scenario? I hope and pray it is.
Will the government require an abortion so the system is not "stuck" with the carrying costs of this child? Every national health care system ends up less efficient than projected and with costs billions more than anticipated. Is it too far fetched to suggest they will "eliminate" "unnecessary burdens" on the health care system for the "greater good" of the nation?
So, you ask, what about my freedom of religion on this issue? The government may say, look, if you want to have the child, that's fine, but they will not qualify for national health care - you will have to find a way to pay for it on your own. Which, with the private options we now have, this would be a possibility. However when a national system drys up these options by putting all the healthy people in a national system - where will we turn?
I am not sure how likely this is, but two facts haunt me. First, Barack Obama voted three times in Illinois to kill babies who were born alive after a failed abortion.
Second, our government, even under George W. Bush, already forces pro-life citizens to subsidize the operations of Planned Parenthood to the tune of more than $250 million annually. Planned Parenthood operates with a budget of nearly $1 billion annually. About a third comes from private donations. Another third from murder fees. Another third comes from us - the taxpayers. Planned Parenthood kills more than 225,000 babies each year.
I am opposed to national heathcare primarily for common-sense economic reasons. The government almost never improves something that is already a challenge for the private sector.
Yet, in the case of a liberal Congress led by an even more liberal Barack Obama, I fear a far graver danger.
Is this an unlikely scenario? I hope and pray it is.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Hockey Mom Hat Trick
First Goal: Prove that she can rise to the occasion and be President if duty calls.
Assessment: She scored with a slap shot to the upper left corner. Heck, she even tossed in a little foreign policy and made Obama look like a former community organizer by comparison. (Oh, you mean he actually put "community organizer" on his resume?!)
Second Goal: Convince women to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.
Assessment: While we won't really know until election day, Stacie was riveted to the speech. She connected with stories about being in the PTA, making a difference in a small town, and being mother of a son with Down's Syndrome. This woman is real, and she is going to connect with real women who work and raise a family.
Third Goal: Move the vote for John McCain from one of tacit obligation to one of moral and emotional commitment.
Assessment: Palin scored, perhaps, the winning goal on this front. You can vote for Obama and hand a mamma's boy one more undeserved stop on his journey to nowhere, or you can vote for McCain - a man who sweat and bled for you. You can vote for style, or you can vote for substance. Many Republicans have had their issues with John McCain, and I am one of them. I fought hard against his nomination in 2000, but when I check "McCain/Palin" in November, I will do so enthusiastically. The alternative is to reward a man who has done nothing for our country other than increase global warming with every speech he delivers.
Assessment: She scored with a slap shot to the upper left corner. Heck, she even tossed in a little foreign policy and made Obama look like a former community organizer by comparison. (Oh, you mean he actually put "community organizer" on his resume?!)
Second Goal: Convince women to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.
Assessment: While we won't really know until election day, Stacie was riveted to the speech. She connected with stories about being in the PTA, making a difference in a small town, and being mother of a son with Down's Syndrome. This woman is real, and she is going to connect with real women who work and raise a family.
Third Goal: Move the vote for John McCain from one of tacit obligation to one of moral and emotional commitment.
Assessment: Palin scored, perhaps, the winning goal on this front. You can vote for Obama and hand a mamma's boy one more undeserved stop on his journey to nowhere, or you can vote for McCain - a man who sweat and bled for you. You can vote for style, or you can vote for substance. Many Republicans have had their issues with John McCain, and I am one of them. I fought hard against his nomination in 2000, but when I check "McCain/Palin" in November, I will do so enthusiastically. The alternative is to reward a man who has done nothing for our country other than increase global warming with every speech he delivers.
Palin Delivers
Okay folks, the media is killing me. Not because the RNC speakers told me to be upset but because members of the news media are so stinking biased, and they cannot even see it!
One report from the floor took offense at Palin's "belittiling" and "putting down" Obama. Has anyone seen an Obama commercial lately? Come on people. He is not Mr. Nice Guy - especially when President Bush (who, incidentally, is not running for president) is his target.
Let Obama put his big boy pants on and defend his own record. I'm sure he made some tough decisions as a community organizer. Stop acting like he's the snotty-nosed kid who gets bullyed at school and needs his mommy to come to his aid.
Facts are facts. Palin can compete with Obama when it comes to oratory, and she has more leadership experience.
If people were watching and listening to Palin without being warped by the subtle twisting of the media, Palin just changed this election.
We shall see.
By the way, it sure was nice to finally have a Republican who can explain in simple terms why tax increases only on the "rich" drag everyone down. Why did it take us so long to find this lady? Maybe there is hope after all that Virginia Tech will find an offensive coordinator?
One report from the floor took offense at Palin's "belittiling" and "putting down" Obama. Has anyone seen an Obama commercial lately? Come on people. He is not Mr. Nice Guy - especially when President Bush (who, incidentally, is not running for president) is his target.
Let Obama put his big boy pants on and defend his own record. I'm sure he made some tough decisions as a community organizer. Stop acting like he's the snotty-nosed kid who gets bullyed at school and needs his mommy to come to his aid.
Facts are facts. Palin can compete with Obama when it comes to oratory, and she has more leadership experience.
If people were watching and listening to Palin without being warped by the subtle twisting of the media, Palin just changed this election.
We shall see.
By the way, it sure was nice to finally have a Republican who can explain in simple terms why tax increases only on the "rich" drag everyone down. Why did it take us so long to find this lady? Maybe there is hope after all that Virginia Tech will find an offensive coordinator?
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Media Bias - Palin and Pregnancy
Study after study has demonstrated that urging abstinence is more effective than teaching "safe sex." Teaching abstinence is never fail safe; practicing it is.
Sarah Palin's daughter did not practice what her mother preached. A question posed this morning on ABC was callous, mean-spirited, and wrong headed. The anchor woman went out of her way to point out that Palin is an advocate of abstinance education and that her daughter is now pregnant as if to say, "see, it does not work." The anchor kept stressing this point.
Even ABC should know that you cannot take one instance and make a case for scrapping an entire approach. This would be like saying we should eliminate ABC because of this one blatantly boneheaded and biased question . . . oh, wait a second.
So, ABC takes one example of a failed effort and rubs it in Palin's face. What about all the times that "safe sex" eduction has failed? Will the liberals who think our children are nothing more than horn-dogs who simply cannot control themselves take responsibility for what their assumption has done to American teens?
When we affirm the Biblical model of sex within the parameters of marriage, this is God's best. When we fail, He can restore. There is no restoration in "being safer next time." God heals the heart and gives grace to the humble. The Palins will be just fine.
As for ABC, they never will.
Sarah Palin's daughter did not practice what her mother preached. A question posed this morning on ABC was callous, mean-spirited, and wrong headed. The anchor woman went out of her way to point out that Palin is an advocate of abstinance education and that her daughter is now pregnant as if to say, "see, it does not work." The anchor kept stressing this point.
Even ABC should know that you cannot take one instance and make a case for scrapping an entire approach. This would be like saying we should eliminate ABC because of this one blatantly boneheaded and biased question . . . oh, wait a second.
So, ABC takes one example of a failed effort and rubs it in Palin's face. What about all the times that "safe sex" eduction has failed? Will the liberals who think our children are nothing more than horn-dogs who simply cannot control themselves take responsibility for what their assumption has done to American teens?
When we affirm the Biblical model of sex within the parameters of marriage, this is God's best. When we fail, He can restore. There is no restoration in "being safer next time." God heals the heart and gives grace to the humble. The Palins will be just fine.
As for ABC, they never will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)