"Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway." ~ John Wayne
I found this information at Lone Ranger's blog. I rarely copy and paste someone elses article, but this is so unbelievably fascist in nature, I am linking to, and quoting from it directly.
I can't make this stuff up.
In a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), released by Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI), the JCT states,
"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax"
(BTW, how much is "acceptable"?)
"If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”
And...
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”
The cost of Obama's health care insurance, which we will be compelled to purchase whether we want to or not, is $15,000.00. I assume this is a yearly fee. I don't know if they will want it all up front or if they will allow us to pay for it incrementally.
I wouldn't put it past these Liberal elitists to expect payment in full and in advance.
I am not poor, but I am not wealthy, either. I cannot afford to pay for Obama's health insurance.
Nor can I afford the fine levied for not purchasing Obama's health insurance.
How is this plan supposed to make health care affordable for those who cannot afford health care now?
I get notices in the mail and over the phone all the time offering to sell me health insurance plans for much less than Obama is planning on selling it, and I can't afford them, either.
Frankly, this scares me. I am a law abiding citizen.
I am not a criminal.
If this information is correct, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and company intend to criminalize my inability to afford health care insurance.
I will not pay them.
They have thrown down the gauntlet. They have challenged the strength of my resolve.
I don't fight back, but I don't back down, either. I stand firm.
At this point, I wouldn't accept the Government's health care plan even if it was free, and wasn't paid for with taxes, and I was dying of a curable disease. It has become the principle of the thing, now.
I do not intend to go to jail. I do not intend to pay any fines.
I dare them to try to force me to buy their Government health care.
I am not a particularly courageous guy, but when I get angry, I know no fear, and this makes me extremely angry.
They are in for a helluva fight.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Ruminations
"To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe." ~ Marilyn vos Savant
Just a couple of thoughts I've been ruminating about today:
Number 1: Since our Congressmen don't read the bills they vote on, I think some true Conservative Congressman should slip a provision into the health care reform bill that forces Liberal Democrat leaders such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Hussein Obama to resign from office, effective immediately upon passage.
I could support that kind of health care reform bill.
2. Prayers go out to the families of the armed forces members who were killed or wounded in the evil Islamic terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Texas.
First reports were that the cowardly Muslim gunman was killed, but now we know he survived his wounds and is currently on a respirator at the base hospital.
If he survives, he should be given the death sentence, but since this is the home of the brave and land of the free, we must give him the benefit he didn't give his victims.
A fair trial.
This presents problems, because we know his lawyer(s) will argue he is not responsible for his actions, extenuating circumstances, temporary insanity, justifiable homicide, or any one of dozens of "legal defenses". And, he could win.
Personally, I hope they keep him alive but in a coma until he dies of old age. The man deserves death, but that would be too good for him. He deserves to live out the rest of his life as a vegetable, and in tremendous pain before he goes to meet his 42 virgins.
That would insure that he has no chance to be exonerated due to some heretofore unknown technicality.
No trial, no exoneration, and just punishment all at the same time. Perfect!
3. I don't care what Barack Hussein Obama says publicly about this local terrorist attack.
He's a liar.
I'll bet he's jumping for joy, celebrating one of his own, exterminating American soldiers. It's what he wants. It is a major part of his agenda, and I don't care if the Libtards disagree. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Obama is despicable.
4. One way to prevent further such attacks: Immediate in-depth investigations and subsequent dishonorable discharges (if determined subversive) of every member of the armed forces with the word "Muslim" entered on the "Religious Preferences" line in their records.
Racial profiling?
Absolutely.
So what?
Just a couple of thoughts I've been ruminating about today:
Number 1: Since our Congressmen don't read the bills they vote on, I think some true Conservative Congressman should slip a provision into the health care reform bill that forces Liberal Democrat leaders such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Hussein Obama to resign from office, effective immediately upon passage.
I could support that kind of health care reform bill.
2. Prayers go out to the families of the armed forces members who were killed or wounded in the evil Islamic terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Texas.
First reports were that the cowardly Muslim gunman was killed, but now we know he survived his wounds and is currently on a respirator at the base hospital.
If he survives, he should be given the death sentence, but since this is the home of the brave and land of the free, we must give him the benefit he didn't give his victims.
A fair trial.
This presents problems, because we know his lawyer(s) will argue he is not responsible for his actions, extenuating circumstances, temporary insanity, justifiable homicide, or any one of dozens of "legal defenses". And, he could win.
Personally, I hope they keep him alive but in a coma until he dies of old age. The man deserves death, but that would be too good for him. He deserves to live out the rest of his life as a vegetable, and in tremendous pain before he goes to meet his 42 virgins.
That would insure that he has no chance to be exonerated due to some heretofore unknown technicality.
No trial, no exoneration, and just punishment all at the same time. Perfect!
3. I don't care what Barack Hussein Obama says publicly about this local terrorist attack.
He's a liar.
I'll bet he's jumping for joy, celebrating one of his own, exterminating American soldiers. It's what he wants. It is a major part of his agenda, and I don't care if the Libtards disagree. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Obama is despicable.
4. One way to prevent further such attacks: Immediate in-depth investigations and subsequent dishonorable discharges (if determined subversive) of every member of the armed forces with the word "Muslim" entered on the "Religious Preferences" line in their records.
Racial profiling?
Absolutely.
So what?
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Sending A Message
"The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way." ~ Henry David Thoreau
Probably, by now, both of my readers have learned of the Republican victories in yesterday's Gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.
Here in Virginia, the Republican party made a clean sweep, winning the Governors race, as well as Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General.
This makes me very happy. I believe it's the first time since I've been voting that all the candidates I voted for have won.
In New Jersey, the mostly Liberal Democrat and "moderate" voters have joined with Republicans to oust corruption plagued Governor Corzine, and install a Republican Governor.
I was at work when my wife called me and told me of the Republican victory in Virginia. My boss was standing nearby when I received the call, and he looked at me with a quizzical expression when I disconnected. When I told him the news, he responded, "It's not surprising. Obama has screwed up this country so much, it's no wonder people are voting Republican. They will vote for Republicans in the next Presidential elections, too."
I've read a couple of articles so far that also suggest these victories are significant losses for Barack Hussein Obama.
The general consensus seems to be that these outcomes will send the message to the White house that American voters are not happy with the way Obama is presiding over our country.
I disagree.
Barack Hussein Obama is much too arrogant and narcissistic to consider the results of these elections a personal loss for him or his administration. Although Obama personally campaigned on behalf of the losing candidates in these races, he will not even consider that he had any effect whatsoever on their outcomes. He will probably blame the losses on incompetent or inadequate campaigning by the Democratic candidate's campaign personnel, or on Fox News.
If it was sent to Obama, I don't think he will get the message.
I do, however, think these Republican victories will send a message to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
They have been ignoring the will of the majority for too long now.
They have been thumbing their collective noses at we the people.
They have been running things their way, and now it's coming back to haunt them in a big way.
I believe last night's elections are just the beginning of a long needed house cleaning. More will come. There will be a changing of the guard.
Perhaps now the Legislature will sit up and take notice. Perhaps now they will listen to the voice of the people.
If they value their jobs. If they wish to be re-elected.
The message has been delivered.
The question now is: Will they listen?
Probably, by now, both of my readers have learned of the Republican victories in yesterday's Gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.
Here in Virginia, the Republican party made a clean sweep, winning the Governors race, as well as Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General.
This makes me very happy. I believe it's the first time since I've been voting that all the candidates I voted for have won.
In New Jersey, the mostly Liberal Democrat and "moderate" voters have joined with Republicans to oust corruption plagued Governor Corzine, and install a Republican Governor.
I was at work when my wife called me and told me of the Republican victory in Virginia. My boss was standing nearby when I received the call, and he looked at me with a quizzical expression when I disconnected. When I told him the news, he responded, "It's not surprising. Obama has screwed up this country so much, it's no wonder people are voting Republican. They will vote for Republicans in the next Presidential elections, too."
I've read a couple of articles so far that also suggest these victories are significant losses for Barack Hussein Obama.
The general consensus seems to be that these outcomes will send the message to the White house that American voters are not happy with the way Obama is presiding over our country.
I disagree.
Barack Hussein Obama is much too arrogant and narcissistic to consider the results of these elections a personal loss for him or his administration. Although Obama personally campaigned on behalf of the losing candidates in these races, he will not even consider that he had any effect whatsoever on their outcomes. He will probably blame the losses on incompetent or inadequate campaigning by the Democratic candidate's campaign personnel, or on Fox News.
If it was sent to Obama, I don't think he will get the message.
I do, however, think these Republican victories will send a message to the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
They have been ignoring the will of the majority for too long now.
They have been thumbing their collective noses at we the people.
They have been running things their way, and now it's coming back to haunt them in a big way.
I believe last night's elections are just the beginning of a long needed house cleaning. More will come. There will be a changing of the guard.
Perhaps now the Legislature will sit up and take notice. Perhaps now they will listen to the voice of the people.
If they value their jobs. If they wish to be re-elected.
The message has been delivered.
The question now is: Will they listen?
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Definitions
“When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves.” ~ George Pataki
I think if there must be one or two words that define what is meant by the word, "Conservatism", it would be the words, "personal responsibility".
Conservatism, to me, means taking responsibility for oneself. And, by "responsibility", I mean taking blame for your own words and actions as well as taking credit.
I have much more respect for the man who admits to doing wrong while apologizing for whatever he did, than the man who makes excuses and blames others for his mistakes even if his apology is sincere.
And, I think that extends to taking punishment, also. A couple of years ago, a man named Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed in California for four very senseless and brutal murders.
To my knowledge, he went to his Maker protesting his innocence, and without taking responsibility for his crimes.
Can anyone think of another man who makes excuses and blames others for his problems?
(hint)
Barack Hussein Obama is a Liberal. Personal Responsibility are not words that describe him. Nearly a year into his administration and he still blames his predecessor on America's problems.
One could argue that Obama takes personal responsibility sometimes, and that would be true.
Now, he often takes credit for what he perceives as positives, however, he never takes the blame for anything negative.
Remember when he claimed the reason a Chicago White Sox pitcher pitched a perfect game was because Obama wore a White Sox jersey at the all-star game? It was a statement made with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, I realize, but still the statement speaks volumes about the man's character, in my opinion.
If his health care bill passes, he will take the credit. When it fails, as it inevitably will, he will not take the blame.
Mark my words.
And, that brings up another term I want to define, because as sure as I'm writing this, some Liberal who read this will undoubtedly suggest that my disdain for Obama is rooted in racism. Even if they don't comment, there will likely be one or two Liberals who will mutter to themselves, "He doesn't like Obama just because Obama is black".
I would submit that anyone who believes Conservatives reject Obama or his policies because of his color is a racist himself.
If someone voted either for him or against him simply because he is black, that someone is the definition of a racist.
Some people no doubt voted against him because he's black. That's a sad reality.
Multitudes voted for him for the same reason.
This isn't only my opinion. It's a fact.
This is how I define racism:
The act of judging a person on the color of his skin, rather than on the content of his character.
I sincerely believe most Conservatives oppose Obama and his policies, not because he is a black man, but because he represents positions that Conservatives deem harmful to the continued existence of the Constitutional Republic that is the United States of America.
Barack Hussein Obama is not disliked because he is black. He is disliked for his refusal to take personal responsibility, and for failure to demand others take personal responsibility for themselves.
This failure will ultimately create more problems in the future for all Americans.
I think if there must be one or two words that define what is meant by the word, "Conservatism", it would be the words, "personal responsibility".
Conservatism, to me, means taking responsibility for oneself. And, by "responsibility", I mean taking blame for your own words and actions as well as taking credit.
I have much more respect for the man who admits to doing wrong while apologizing for whatever he did, than the man who makes excuses and blames others for his mistakes even if his apology is sincere.
And, I think that extends to taking punishment, also. A couple of years ago, a man named Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed in California for four very senseless and brutal murders.
To my knowledge, he went to his Maker protesting his innocence, and without taking responsibility for his crimes.
Can anyone think of another man who makes excuses and blames others for his problems?
(hint)Barack Hussein Obama is a Liberal. Personal Responsibility are not words that describe him. Nearly a year into his administration and he still blames his predecessor on America's problems.
One could argue that Obama takes personal responsibility sometimes, and that would be true.
Now, he often takes credit for what he perceives as positives, however, he never takes the blame for anything negative.
Remember when he claimed the reason a Chicago White Sox pitcher pitched a perfect game was because Obama wore a White Sox jersey at the all-star game? It was a statement made with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, I realize, but still the statement speaks volumes about the man's character, in my opinion.
If his health care bill passes, he will take the credit. When it fails, as it inevitably will, he will not take the blame.
Mark my words.
And, that brings up another term I want to define, because as sure as I'm writing this, some Liberal who read this will undoubtedly suggest that my disdain for Obama is rooted in racism. Even if they don't comment, there will likely be one or two Liberals who will mutter to themselves, "He doesn't like Obama just because Obama is black".
I would submit that anyone who believes Conservatives reject Obama or his policies because of his color is a racist himself.
If someone voted either for him or against him simply because he is black, that someone is the definition of a racist.
Some people no doubt voted against him because he's black. That's a sad reality.
Multitudes voted for him for the same reason.
This isn't only my opinion. It's a fact.
This is how I define racism:
The act of judging a person on the color of his skin, rather than on the content of his character.
I sincerely believe most Conservatives oppose Obama and his policies, not because he is a black man, but because he represents positions that Conservatives deem harmful to the continued existence of the Constitutional Republic that is the United States of America.
Barack Hussein Obama is not disliked because he is black. He is disliked for his refusal to take personal responsibility, and for failure to demand others take personal responsibility for themselves.
This failure will ultimately create more problems in the future for all Americans.
Monday, October 26, 2009
More Evidence Journalism Is Dead
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~ Mark Twain
This story is the stupidest attack on a Conservative I've heard yet.
I don't believe the anonymous author of this article actually listened to the comments Rush made about this story.
Because he got it all wrong.
Listen for yourselves:
Not once did Rush say he believed the story. He did, however, mention the story has no sourcing data.
He did say, "[W]e have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate".
He also said, "I have had this happen to me recently. I've had quotes attributed to me that were made up. And when it was pointed out to the media that these quotes were made up, they said, 'It doesn't matter. We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway.'"
(Obviously referring to the recent lies spread all over the internet and the broadcast media about certain made up statements falsely attributed to him)
And then, he mocked Dan Rather, by paraphrasing, almost word for word, the statement Dan Rather made when it was revealed he had reported a story based on forged documents, ie, "I don't care that these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it".
I don't know what the author of this blatantly leftist attack on Limbaugh was smoking, but I would have paid almost anything for a hit of it back in the 70's.
And, I don't blame the author for not supplying a byline. I'd be embarrassed, too.
One would have to do some amazing mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion Rush bought the story. In fact, it would seem the only person who actually bought it was Michael Leeden, the "obscure blogger" who first reported it, apparently thinking it was true.
In fact, Leeden admitted, according to the article, he thought it was true. "I failed to notice that one of the tags was 'satire,'" he wrote.
Well, I'm sure Mr. Leeden recognizes satire once he becomes aware of it, but the anonymous AP reporter apparently doesn't.
This story is the stupidest attack on a Conservative I've heard yet.
I don't believe the anonymous author of this article actually listened to the comments Rush made about this story.
Because he got it all wrong.
Listen for yourselves:
Not once did Rush say he believed the story. He did, however, mention the story has no sourcing data.
He did say, "[W]e have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate".
He also said, "I have had this happen to me recently. I've had quotes attributed to me that were made up. And when it was pointed out to the media that these quotes were made up, they said, 'It doesn't matter. We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway.'"
(Obviously referring to the recent lies spread all over the internet and the broadcast media about certain made up statements falsely attributed to him)
And then, he mocked Dan Rather, by paraphrasing, almost word for word, the statement Dan Rather made when it was revealed he had reported a story based on forged documents, ie, "I don't care that these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it".
I don't know what the author of this blatantly leftist attack on Limbaugh was smoking, but I would have paid almost anything for a hit of it back in the 70's.
And, I don't blame the author for not supplying a byline. I'd be embarrassed, too.
One would have to do some amazing mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion Rush bought the story. In fact, it would seem the only person who actually bought it was Michael Leeden, the "obscure blogger" who first reported it, apparently thinking it was true.
In fact, Leeden admitted, according to the article, he thought it was true. "I failed to notice that one of the tags was 'satire,'" he wrote.
Well, I'm sure Mr. Leeden recognizes satire once he becomes aware of it, but the anonymous AP reporter apparently doesn't.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
I Still Don't Understand
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea...Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven... Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." Matthew 18:6, 10, and 14
In my previous post, I stated I don't understand how Christians can support politicians who support abortion. I made my case.
Not only did I post it here on my blog, I also posted it as a Facebook note on my Facebook page. It was there that I received a response from the Liberal Christian point of view.
I said it was a response. It was not a convincing explanation of why some Christians embrace the "right to choose" ideology.
My Doctor Professor nephew Kevin (Liberal) attempted to enlighten me, but in my opinion, fell woefully short, which is somewhat surprising, since he is a college professor with a doctorate and everything. I would think he could have been much more convincing. Perhaps he doesn't believe his explanation himself. In the interest of brevity, I will spare both of my readers the entire exhaustive response he wrote.
I would like, however, to paste an excerpt or two from his diatribe so that my two readers will better understand my response to him which I have inserted in their entirety below.
My Doctor nephew Kevin said this first:
When I saw the title "What I Don't Understand," I knew that this would have to be a long Facebook note!
Bwah ha ha ha ha!
Just kidding. I know, this is a serious issue, but I just had to throw in a little (probably inappropriate) levity.
OK, that was funny, I admit. But then he went all Liberal on me, writing, among other things,
I do find myself wishing that anti-abortion conservatives would put as much energy into fighting other violations of the sanctity of life as they do into fighting for the criminalization of abortion... all they seem interested in is making sure that all these aborted fetuses get born, but when it comes to supporting them with things like healthcare, childcare, early childhood education, safe and affordable housing, job training and creation for the child's parents, public education, after-school programs, financial aid for poor teens seeking college education, etc., these conservative voices suddenly sing a very anti-life tune. I won't even get into how fiercely these so-called "pro-life" advocates support things like war, the death penalty, and all manner of practices that destroy the environment and threaten all of God's Creation.
That's just a teeny snippet of the response I received. I can't paste the entire conversation here. This post is already much too long. But, another relative of mine, my niece Lori, daughter of a different sibling, wrote, among other things, the following:
"First of all I'd like to say, Sorry Mom, but here is how I feel". (She is my sister's daughter, which makes me proud to know, at least my sister is against abortion)
Anyway, she also defended abortion but without presenting a convincing or logical argument. However, she can be excused for her inability to articulate her thoughts coherently. My nephew can't. He is a genius. Really.
She went on to write, "I do want to ask you to stop indicating that I am not a Christian just because I don't agree with you or because I voted for Obama."
Both Niece and Nephew mentioned an opposition to the death penalty, saying, in so many words, they believe execution to be inhumane.
Although my first response to Kevin's comments are (if I may say so myself) quite logical and well thought out, and should have been convincing, I will not post it here. This is my second response to their first responses:
(First statement responding to Niece Lori's assertion that I accused her of not being a Christian)"It is not my place to say whether anyone is a Christian or not, and I didn't. I said I don't understand how one can call himself a Christian and support the mass murder of innocent babies. I then said I know there are Christians that do. And, I am absolutely convinced that they are indeed Christians. As I said, I don't understand it, and I am still waiting for someone to explain it to me logically.
While I admire and respect Kevin for his intellect and education, I don't believe he is being intellectually honest in responding to my note. Common sense tells us that in order for a child to have a chance at a better education, a more fulfilling childhood, better childcare, better health care, job training etc, he must first have a chance at life. What chance does a dead baby have at any of those things?
Don't misunderstand me. I believe a woman has the right to choose. She has the right to choose to keep her pants on. She has the right to choose not to have pre-marital sex, or at least act wisely before she's ready to have a child. She has the right to choose abstinence. She also has the right to make lifestyle choices all the way from her own birth to her death. All decisions have consequences. Some have more consequences than others. Some have good consequences. Some have unfortunate consequences, but all decisions result in some form of consequences.
When one makes a decision, one must be prepared for the consequences involved in making that decision. If one is not capable of dealing with unfortunate consequences, than one should not make that decision. If a woman makes the unfortunate decision to do something that causes her to end up pregnant when she doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't get to take a mulligan. She must live with the consequences of her decision. That's called taking personal responsibility.
Now, before I am challenged with the inevitable question about cases of rape and incest, my answer remains the same. There is never an intellectually honest reason to abort a living human child. If a woman is raped, why punish the baby with execution? That doesn't make sense. If a woman becomes pregnant due to an incestuous relationship either with her consent or without, again I say, why punish the baby with execution? In neither case is the pregnancy the baby's fault.
Again, it's all about personal responsibility. Put it this way...If a two year old child suffers some calamity and is left permanently disabled as a result, would it be right for the child's parents to put the child to death to avoid taking responsibility for the care and nurturing of that child? Of course it wouldn't.
With abortion we have the exact same scenario with the only exception being that of the child's physical age. It is punishing the innocent so that the responsible party can spare himself a modicum of inconvenience. That is NOT taking personal responsibility.
I also find it dichotomous for one to object to executing a murderer on grounds that it is inhumane but doesn't have a problem killing unborn children who have done nothing to deserve death save being an inconvenience to his mother.
A murderer committed a crime. He deserves whatever punishment he gets for his transgressions. As I say, if he didn't want to face a just punishment, he shouldn't have committed the crime. After all, he most likely knows what would likely happen to him if he gets caught. And still he decides to commit the crime. How many people would he have to kill before his defenders would say he deserves what he gets?
If it is inhumane to take his life, how much more inhumane is it to take the life of a perfectly innocent baby?
And what about war? Is it inhumane to defend one's country against murderous savages who have every intention of wiping our country off the face of the earth? Again, which killing is more moral? The killing of a mortal enemy who will kill you or your family if not killed first, or killing an innocent baby in the womb before he has the chance to choose whether he wants to be a murderer or a terrorist or a brain surgeon or a teacher, etc?
It seems to me one does not have much faith in God or your fellow man if you think an unborn child doesn't stand any chance just because he may happen to be unwanted. the world is full of people who beat the odds to become successful in a veritable plethora of endeavors. They are written about in songs and in legends.
Why not give the innocent unborn child the opportunity to become someone.
Why not give him or her a chance?
I still don't get the logic".
In my previous post, I stated I don't understand how Christians can support politicians who support abortion. I made my case.
Not only did I post it here on my blog, I also posted it as a Facebook note on my Facebook page. It was there that I received a response from the Liberal Christian point of view.
I said it was a response. It was not a convincing explanation of why some Christians embrace the "right to choose" ideology.
My Doctor Professor nephew Kevin (Liberal) attempted to enlighten me, but in my opinion, fell woefully short, which is somewhat surprising, since he is a college professor with a doctorate and everything. I would think he could have been much more convincing. Perhaps he doesn't believe his explanation himself. In the interest of brevity, I will spare both of my readers the entire exhaustive response he wrote.
I would like, however, to paste an excerpt or two from his diatribe so that my two readers will better understand my response to him which I have inserted in their entirety below.
My Doctor nephew Kevin said this first:
When I saw the title "What I Don't Understand," I knew that this would have to be a long Facebook note!
Bwah ha ha ha ha!
Just kidding. I know, this is a serious issue, but I just had to throw in a little (probably inappropriate) levity.
OK, that was funny, I admit. But then he went all Liberal on me, writing, among other things,
I do find myself wishing that anti-abortion conservatives would put as much energy into fighting other violations of the sanctity of life as they do into fighting for the criminalization of abortion... all they seem interested in is making sure that all these aborted fetuses get born, but when it comes to supporting them with things like healthcare, childcare, early childhood education, safe and affordable housing, job training and creation for the child's parents, public education, after-school programs, financial aid for poor teens seeking college education, etc., these conservative voices suddenly sing a very anti-life tune. I won't even get into how fiercely these so-called "pro-life" advocates support things like war, the death penalty, and all manner of practices that destroy the environment and threaten all of God's Creation.
That's just a teeny snippet of the response I received. I can't paste the entire conversation here. This post is already much too long. But, another relative of mine, my niece Lori, daughter of a different sibling, wrote, among other things, the following:
"First of all I'd like to say, Sorry Mom, but here is how I feel". (She is my sister's daughter, which makes me proud to know, at least my sister is against abortion)
Anyway, she also defended abortion but without presenting a convincing or logical argument. However, she can be excused for her inability to articulate her thoughts coherently. My nephew can't. He is a genius. Really.
She went on to write, "I do want to ask you to stop indicating that I am not a Christian just because I don't agree with you or because I voted for Obama."
Both Niece and Nephew mentioned an opposition to the death penalty, saying, in so many words, they believe execution to be inhumane.
Although my first response to Kevin's comments are (if I may say so myself) quite logical and well thought out, and should have been convincing, I will not post it here. This is my second response to their first responses:
(First statement responding to Niece Lori's assertion that I accused her of not being a Christian)"It is not my place to say whether anyone is a Christian or not, and I didn't. I said I don't understand how one can call himself a Christian and support the mass murder of innocent babies. I then said I know there are Christians that do. And, I am absolutely convinced that they are indeed Christians. As I said, I don't understand it, and I am still waiting for someone to explain it to me logically.
While I admire and respect Kevin for his intellect and education, I don't believe he is being intellectually honest in responding to my note. Common sense tells us that in order for a child to have a chance at a better education, a more fulfilling childhood, better childcare, better health care, job training etc, he must first have a chance at life. What chance does a dead baby have at any of those things?
Don't misunderstand me. I believe a woman has the right to choose. She has the right to choose to keep her pants on. She has the right to choose not to have pre-marital sex, or at least act wisely before she's ready to have a child. She has the right to choose abstinence. She also has the right to make lifestyle choices all the way from her own birth to her death. All decisions have consequences. Some have more consequences than others. Some have good consequences. Some have unfortunate consequences, but all decisions result in some form of consequences.
When one makes a decision, one must be prepared for the consequences involved in making that decision. If one is not capable of dealing with unfortunate consequences, than one should not make that decision. If a woman makes the unfortunate decision to do something that causes her to end up pregnant when she doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't get to take a mulligan. She must live with the consequences of her decision. That's called taking personal responsibility.
Now, before I am challenged with the inevitable question about cases of rape and incest, my answer remains the same. There is never an intellectually honest reason to abort a living human child. If a woman is raped, why punish the baby with execution? That doesn't make sense. If a woman becomes pregnant due to an incestuous relationship either with her consent or without, again I say, why punish the baby with execution? In neither case is the pregnancy the baby's fault.
Again, it's all about personal responsibility. Put it this way...If a two year old child suffers some calamity and is left permanently disabled as a result, would it be right for the child's parents to put the child to death to avoid taking responsibility for the care and nurturing of that child? Of course it wouldn't.
With abortion we have the exact same scenario with the only exception being that of the child's physical age. It is punishing the innocent so that the responsible party can spare himself a modicum of inconvenience. That is NOT taking personal responsibility.
I also find it dichotomous for one to object to executing a murderer on grounds that it is inhumane but doesn't have a problem killing unborn children who have done nothing to deserve death save being an inconvenience to his mother.
A murderer committed a crime. He deserves whatever punishment he gets for his transgressions. As I say, if he didn't want to face a just punishment, he shouldn't have committed the crime. After all, he most likely knows what would likely happen to him if he gets caught. And still he decides to commit the crime. How many people would he have to kill before his defenders would say he deserves what he gets?
If it is inhumane to take his life, how much more inhumane is it to take the life of a perfectly innocent baby?
And what about war? Is it inhumane to defend one's country against murderous savages who have every intention of wiping our country off the face of the earth? Again, which killing is more moral? The killing of a mortal enemy who will kill you or your family if not killed first, or killing an innocent baby in the womb before he has the chance to choose whether he wants to be a murderer or a terrorist or a brain surgeon or a teacher, etc?
It seems to me one does not have much faith in God or your fellow man if you think an unborn child doesn't stand any chance just because he may happen to be unwanted. the world is full of people who beat the odds to become successful in a veritable plethora of endeavors. They are written about in songs and in legends.
Why not give the innocent unborn child the opportunity to become someone.
Why not give him or her a chance?
I still don't get the logic".
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What I Don't Understand
"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 19:14
Do you know what I don't understand? I don't understand Christians who support political candidates who support abortion. More than that, really. I don't understand Christians who are Liberals.
Perhaps the most important issue that has come to distinguish a Liberal from a Conservative is abortion.
In my view, Christianity and a pro-choice ideology are incompatible with each other.
Christians are supposed to believe in the sanctity of life. How do Christian Liberal/Democrats justify their party's stance on abortion? Considering the Democrat's stance on this issue, I don't understand how Christians can justify being Democrats.
Is it possible to support a candidate without supporting a major plank in his platform?
Especially a candidate who may have a considerable impact on legislation that would directly strengthen or weaken Roe v Wade in the future?
I don't think it matters much what a candidate for state Treasurer, for instance, believes about abortion.
But a President, Governor, or United States legislator?
How can a Christian reconcile his belief in the sanctity of life with the taking of innocent human life within the womb? It just makes no sense to me.
Why would a Christian vote for a candidate who openly advocates a position which favors abortion?
Barack Hussein Obama not only favors abortion on demand, in any trimester, without reservations or conditions, but when he was a State Senator in Illinois, he voted against legislation that would save live babies born in spite of failed abortion attempts.
Get that?
Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
He thinks babies who survive abortion attempts should be neglected, and deprived of care, until they die.
How can Barack Obama call himself a Christian?
And, seriously, how could a Christian have voted for that man?
Christians who vote for such an obvious enemy to Christian values must be ignoring the abortion issue in favor of some other issue they consider more important. I believe they have a much too cavalier attitude regarding abortion.
Millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered since the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.
That is a fact that, in my opinion, cannot be ignored. How can any Christian consider that a trivial matter, not important enough to consider when choosing to vote for one candidate or another? If that is indeed their reasoning?
Here in Virginia, the race for Governor depends a great deal on the how the two candidates differ in their opinion of abortion. The Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, is actually using abortion as a wedge issue, advertising that his opponent, Bob McDonnell, has both introduced and supported legislation that would limit a "woman's right to choose". It is a major plank in his campaign platform. He would like you to vote against his opponent, based a great deal on this issue. That, and a thesis McDonnell wrote 20 years ago in graduate school, which really didn't contain anything objectionable to anyone who sincerely advocates Christian values.
In my opinion, Creigh Deeds is only hurting himself. Virginia has traditionally been a Conservative state. Yes, we have a Democrat Governor now, and Obama won Virginia in the last election, but I believe most Virginians are still vehemently opposed to abortion.
Deeds is at least 10 percentage points behind McDonnell in every poll. One would think he'd realize he's playing with fire.
And, make no mistake.
Abortion is a seminal issue with both Liberals and Conservatives.
One of the first questions Liberal media types ask Republican candidates for any office is, "Where do you stand in regard to abortion rights?" If a Republican says he is against abortion, the Liberal media uses this for ammunition to begin their onslaught of attacks against the Republican.
Democrats who are against abortion often keep a low profile on their view. If they campaigned on the right to life, they would lose their own party's support, but they often get Republicans votes.
Don't tell me that isn't significant.
Here's the wrap: If it's such an important issue (and I agree that it is), how can a Christian, in good conscience, support any candidate who favors abortion?
And frankly, although I am loathe to ask, how can one call himself a Christian who supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent pre-born babies?
And yet, I know without a doubt, there are Christians who do.
I just don't understand.
Do you know what I don't understand? I don't understand Christians who support political candidates who support abortion. More than that, really. I don't understand Christians who are Liberals.
Perhaps the most important issue that has come to distinguish a Liberal from a Conservative is abortion.
In my view, Christianity and a pro-choice ideology are incompatible with each other.
Christians are supposed to believe in the sanctity of life. How do Christian Liberal/Democrats justify their party's stance on abortion? Considering the Democrat's stance on this issue, I don't understand how Christians can justify being Democrats.
Is it possible to support a candidate without supporting a major plank in his platform?
Especially a candidate who may have a considerable impact on legislation that would directly strengthen or weaken Roe v Wade in the future?
I don't think it matters much what a candidate for state Treasurer, for instance, believes about abortion.
But a President, Governor, or United States legislator?
How can a Christian reconcile his belief in the sanctity of life with the taking of innocent human life within the womb? It just makes no sense to me.
Why would a Christian vote for a candidate who openly advocates a position which favors abortion?
Barack Hussein Obama not only favors abortion on demand, in any trimester, without reservations or conditions, but when he was a State Senator in Illinois, he voted against legislation that would save live babies born in spite of failed abortion attempts.
Get that?
Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
He thinks babies who survive abortion attempts should be neglected, and deprived of care, until they die.
How can Barack Obama call himself a Christian?
And, seriously, how could a Christian have voted for that man?
Christians who vote for such an obvious enemy to Christian values must be ignoring the abortion issue in favor of some other issue they consider more important. I believe they have a much too cavalier attitude regarding abortion.
Millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered since the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.
That is a fact that, in my opinion, cannot be ignored. How can any Christian consider that a trivial matter, not important enough to consider when choosing to vote for one candidate or another? If that is indeed their reasoning?
Here in Virginia, the race for Governor depends a great deal on the how the two candidates differ in their opinion of abortion. The Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, is actually using abortion as a wedge issue, advertising that his opponent, Bob McDonnell, has both introduced and supported legislation that would limit a "woman's right to choose". It is a major plank in his campaign platform. He would like you to vote against his opponent, based a great deal on this issue. That, and a thesis McDonnell wrote 20 years ago in graduate school, which really didn't contain anything objectionable to anyone who sincerely advocates Christian values.
In my opinion, Creigh Deeds is only hurting himself. Virginia has traditionally been a Conservative state. Yes, we have a Democrat Governor now, and Obama won Virginia in the last election, but I believe most Virginians are still vehemently opposed to abortion.
Deeds is at least 10 percentage points behind McDonnell in every poll. One would think he'd realize he's playing with fire.
And, make no mistake.
Abortion is a seminal issue with both Liberals and Conservatives.
One of the first questions Liberal media types ask Republican candidates for any office is, "Where do you stand in regard to abortion rights?" If a Republican says he is against abortion, the Liberal media uses this for ammunition to begin their onslaught of attacks against the Republican.
Democrats who are against abortion often keep a low profile on their view. If they campaigned on the right to life, they would lose their own party's support, but they often get Republicans votes.
Don't tell me that isn't significant.
Here's the wrap: If it's such an important issue (and I agree that it is), how can a Christian, in good conscience, support any candidate who favors abortion?
And frankly, although I am loathe to ask, how can one call himself a Christian who supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent pre-born babies?
And yet, I know without a doubt, there are Christians who do.
I just don't understand.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
I'm Nominating Myself For Next Year's Nobel Peace Prize
"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
Barack Hussein Obama has another feather in his cap. Now, he can add a Nobel peace prize to his resume. I predict he will soon be adding the words, "I won the Nobel Peace prize" to his incessant reminders that he is the President.
When I first heard Barack Hussein Obama had won the Nobel peace prize, I was aghast. Had the Nobel prize committee lost their minds?
But then, I decided to objectively consider what Obama's qualifications might be to earn him such an accolade.
What are the qualifications? Who should win a peace prize? What traits should one possess that would qualify him to win a peace prize?
Obviously, it should be someone who accomplishes something extraordinary to establish peace. Someone who ends strife between two warring factions somewhere in the world, shouldn't it?
If I were awarding a peace prize, I believe I'd look for someone who did something substantial to peacefully settle a dispute or two.
What has Obama done that establishes peace?
I don't think it's so much an establishment of peace as a reluctance to make war that made the Nobel committee award the peace prize to Obama.
When Obama took office, the United States were engaged in two wars. One in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan.
Did Obama somehow manage to convince either of our enemies in these two theaters of war to settle their differences with us peacefully?
Well, no, he didn't. We are still at war with terrorists factions in both countries.
But on the other hand, he didn't escalate the wars either. Perhaps that's why he won the peace prize.
Or maybe because he talks a good game. Talking about bringing peace to the world is really the only thing he's done to establish a peace. He hasn't done a thing to make it happen. And if anyone had the power to accomplish such a task, it seems it should surely be Obama.
But, that couldn't be it, could it? Anyone can talk about peace. It seems to me that there are thousands, perhaps millions of people in this world who are at least as deserving of being awarded the Nobel peace prize as Barack Hussein Obama. Thousands can talk about peace as eloquently as Obama. Why weren't any of those thousands considered?
Mark Levin nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize, but Rush didn't win. I wonder why.
Rush Limbaugh is as deserving as Obama.
I myself, am just as deserving of the prize as Obama.
Witness this:
I want world peace.
There. Now, I am qualified to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
I've done nothing to earn the award.
And neither has Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama has another feather in his cap. Now, he can add a Nobel peace prize to his resume. I predict he will soon be adding the words, "I won the Nobel Peace prize" to his incessant reminders that he is the President.
When I first heard Barack Hussein Obama had won the Nobel peace prize, I was aghast. Had the Nobel prize committee lost their minds?
But then, I decided to objectively consider what Obama's qualifications might be to earn him such an accolade.
What are the qualifications? Who should win a peace prize? What traits should one possess that would qualify him to win a peace prize?
Obviously, it should be someone who accomplishes something extraordinary to establish peace. Someone who ends strife between two warring factions somewhere in the world, shouldn't it?
If I were awarding a peace prize, I believe I'd look for someone who did something substantial to peacefully settle a dispute or two.
What has Obama done that establishes peace?
I don't think it's so much an establishment of peace as a reluctance to make war that made the Nobel committee award the peace prize to Obama.
When Obama took office, the United States were engaged in two wars. One in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan.
Did Obama somehow manage to convince either of our enemies in these two theaters of war to settle their differences with us peacefully?
Well, no, he didn't. We are still at war with terrorists factions in both countries.
But on the other hand, he didn't escalate the wars either. Perhaps that's why he won the peace prize.
Or maybe because he talks a good game. Talking about bringing peace to the world is really the only thing he's done to establish a peace. He hasn't done a thing to make it happen. And if anyone had the power to accomplish such a task, it seems it should surely be Obama.
But, that couldn't be it, could it? Anyone can talk about peace. It seems to me that there are thousands, perhaps millions of people in this world who are at least as deserving of being awarded the Nobel peace prize as Barack Hussein Obama. Thousands can talk about peace as eloquently as Obama. Why weren't any of those thousands considered?
Mark Levin nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize, but Rush didn't win. I wonder why.
Rush Limbaugh is as deserving as Obama.
I myself, am just as deserving of the prize as Obama.
Witness this:
I want world peace.
There. Now, I am qualified to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
I've done nothing to earn the award.
And neither has Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
