The Right to Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Imagine if Mitt Romney gets elected, makes polygamy legal and mandates mission trips for young people.  I think we would be pretty shocked at the bold establishment of religion coming from the white house.  Yet we did not have that same gut reaction when Obama established his religion from the white house and got it passed without the required majority support through budget reconciliation. 

This is why the conservative movement has been so unprepared to handle charges that they are oppressing women or denying people rights when we object to being forced to pay for abortion.  Being told that by me not paying for someone else’s birth control, I am denying them the right to birth control is like telling a jungle native that they must be born again and put Jesus in their heart.  It just doesn’t translate.  The argument that healthcare is a right and society must therefore provide it is so ridiculous that conservatives reject it automatically.  But for Obama and social justice, liberation Christians it is gospel truth.

I checked, healthcare isn’t in the constitution.  But neither are puppies, and there are certain things you just have to be cautious about when arguing against.

What is in the constitution is religion and guns.  In fact, the private ownership and practice of both are enumerated rights.  What if I am too poor to afford a gun?  What if my community is too poor to support a church?  How is it that social justice does not then require the government or society to purchase my gun for me?  And as simply as that, for the non-liberation theologian, the idea of society owing me healthcare is defeated.

So why doesn’t this concept fall so easily?  If you listen to the liberal argument, Georgetown is denying Sandra Fluke the right to birth control by not buying it for her.  The right has a “war on women” because we want to protect the religious liberty and conscience of churches and religious organizations.  Conservatives have already ceded the rights of the religious employer in a secular field.  And how easily we let go.  I often wonder if Ben Nelson, Democrat from Nebraska who sold his conscientious objection to abortion funding for an earmark, ever wishes he could buy back his soul.

To understand the religious connotations of social justice in healthcare and why this religion shamelessly trumps the constitution, you have to understand liberation theology and James Cone.  Cone was required reading at Obama’s church.  Cone divided his teaching into dogmatic and methodological teachings.  The dogmatic teaching was the paradox that there is no universal truth.  Not even revelation in the Scriptures is absolute truth.  In fact, God is not in control and the very evidence of that is the existence of racism.

Cone’s methodological approach was contextual-dialectic.  What this means is that scripture has value in the way it relates to the reader’s context.  For Cone, this meant that the value of scripture was how it confirmed his own perception of racism against blacks.  From his perspective, there was no value in the original, contextual meaning of the scriptures.

Apply this to Obama’s thinking, and it makes sense that he would think Jesus wanted him to raise taxes, or that healthcare is a social justice right that trumps the constitution.  It also explains a lot about the ambiguity of Obama’s faith, his comfort level with the Muslim faith, and why he is so eager to impose his liberation theology on the country.  Obama is what the media keeps trying to convince us Santorum is.  Obama is a religious fanatic who is seeking to impose his beliefs on the country.  He is not alone, social justice and liberation theology is the spine of the liberal movement in the United States.  Documents like the constitution have value only to the extent that they endorse the liberal readers personal context.

That is why when a religious employer refuses to buy abortion pills for their employees, they are actually denying that employee the right to have abortion pills and are stealing her rights.  This is truth from the liberal perspective.

If Conservatives are going to successfully defend the constitution, perhaps James Cone should be required reading for us as well.

Victory for Free Speech and Call to Vigilance

This past week, in a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court protected freedom of speech and overturned a portion of campaign finance laws that had made it illegal for groups of Americans to advertise for and endorse candidates by name.  Previously, if corporations, unions, or other organized groups of Americans wanted to campaign for a politician, they had to cut through the bureaucracy and create a special regulated 529 group to do it.  And even then, the best they could do is make vague comments about issues that candidates may have supported or opposed without mentioning the candidate by name.

In the government’s arguments in favor of campaign finance laws, lawyers told the Supreme Court that if someone wrote a 1,000 page book and finished it with “vote for so and so”, the book would not be allowed to be released within a certain time period  before the election.

What this ruling means is that Americans need to be vigilant.  We need to learn the issues.  A caller on this morning’s C-Span Washington Journal complained that he didn’t think corporations should be able to vote.  Fortunately for him, this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with allowing corporations to vote.  In fact, I would almost prefer a corporate vote to a vote from someone as ill-informed as this particular caller.  But it does demonstrate how easily many Americans will believe the absurd.  The fear is that many Americans will be overwhelmed with the billions of dollars in advertising unleashed by this ruling and will vote for whoever SEIU, Microsoft, and McDonalds tells them to.  That’s possible.  Have you tried the Subway diet because the TV said to?  Do you have a Shamwow and a Snuggy?  Did you get a Lexus for Christmas?

What I think is truly interesting is that the people making the loudest objections to this ruling are the Democrats.  Suddenly the gag rule is lifted.  Corporations can talk about what has been going on.  After the vilification of the banks, what do you think voters will do when AIG runs their side of the story in commercial form?  It will be interesting.

This could be especially damaging to Democrats who have recently all but conceded on their efforts to destroy our healthcare system and now are aiming to destroy our economy instead.  In fact, since the beginning of this week the DJIA has fallen from 2010 highs to nearly below 10,000 again.    It was down 552 points over Thursday and Friday.  Businesses are not excited about Obama’s plans to increase regulations and taxes under the pretense of creating economic recovery.

So why would I consider this ruling a victory for free speech?  If you remember, Obama decided to break his promise of taking public financing and the regulation that comes with it.  Instead, he raised a war chest of campaign funds and poured it into the 2008 election, filling the airwaves with future broken promises.  In the meantime, successful American businesses who would soon be struck by Obama’s policies were denied their freedom of speech.

As far as worried about corporate advertising, who would you have been more likely to believe in 2008?  Would you have believed the young, aspiring and promising Barack Obama?  That bright morning star?  Or the CEO of Freddie Mac trying to explain the Community Reinvestment Act in a billion dollar ad?  Nothing will change about your responsibility to find out the facts for yourself.

Now, as Obama has lost his Senate majority in what many consider a referendum on his healthcare plan in Massachusetts, he has returned to his populist attacks on banks and corporations.  What is Obama going to do when corporations begin running ads showing how many people they will have to layoff under a cap & trade system?  What is Obama going to do when AIG runs an ad showing how much they will need to raise rates to stay competitive when Obama hits them with penalty taxes?  How will Obama respond when insurance companies run commercials with charts showing how much Obamacare will cause their rates to rise?

I think that is why he preferred certain people and groups not having freedom of speech.

Global Climate Change Ices Titans

On Sunday the New England Patriots handed the Tennessee Titans a humiliating 59-0 loss.  Both Kerry Collins and Vince Young consistently handed the ball over through fumbles and interceptions.  On top of that, Tom Brady threw a record five touchdown passes in the second quarter of the game; sealing the victory before the first half came to an end.  Now, one prominent politician and former Presidential candidate is crying foul.

Tennessee native and former Senator Al Gore said late Sunday night that the Patriots’ win should have an asterisk next to it.  His reasoning?  The Titans, who play in a normally warmer climate than the frigid Gillette Stadium, were not prepared for the early October snow and ice storm that struck Foxboro this past weekend.  The unseasonable cold and snow caused the Titans to mishandle the ball and not think clearly, argued Gore.

Although Al Gore won the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize for his work in cutting developed industrial nations down to the level of more peaceful third world countries with his work on Global Warming, recent cold trends have caused scientists to rethink and expand their hypothesis to include all types of global climate change.  After the crushing loss, Gore posted a scientific study of the game at his website along with photos of the conditions at the game:

Titans vs. Patriots

Although Gore later admitted that the photo had been slightly doctored and computer images had been added, his team of scientists are prepared to testify that certain areas of the stadium could very well have looked like that on Sunday evening.  The NFL is reportedly seeking to have the webpage taken down since it supposedly carries pictures and descriptions of the game, which is strictly forbidden under copyright law.

Preparing Newborns for Future Debt

Remember when Hillary Clinton campaigned on giving every newborn in the US a $500 savings account to get them on their way?  Who knew it was an actual bill.  The America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education Act (or ASPIRE, investment was thrown in there just to make a nice acronym.  We all know investing is evil.) would give every newborn a $500 savings account that theoretically would grow and be used in the future to pay for college, a Mustang to drive while in college, or some other necessary thing.  That’s the bill’s intention anyway.

I figured we would run the numbers.  Current CD rates are at 2.9%.  That is a safe investment right now, so let’s take your $500 and put it in a CD for 18 years.  Compounded daily, the future value of this $500 at current safe CD rates is $842.67.  Nevermind the Mustang, maybe you can buy your first semester textbooks with it.  Is it worth the $35 billion this plan will cost US taxpayers?

Nevermind, taxpayers won’t be paying for this.  We stopped paying for things back in May.  Now China pays for everything.  Consider this: this year alone the US has already paid $383 billion in interest on our national debt.  That’s three times what universal healthcare is going to cost us.  Let’s look at that $500 savings account another way.  Currently the US is paying 3.5% on long-term treasury notes (what the Government sells to finance it’s debt).  So when you turn 18, you can cash in your $500 ASPIRE savings account to pay off the $500 in debt plus interest it took to open your savings account at birth. That comes to a total of $938.77.

Happy 18th birthday, you still owe China $96.10.

Personal Health Insurance Reform

In breaking news today, we are starting to get a taste of how Democrats are going to penalize you if you don’t buy health insurance.  Sen. Baucus is proposing fining American families up to $3,800 for not buying health insurance.  After the Democrat healthcare plan passes, it may become cheaper to renounce your citizenship and live here as an illegal alien.

Of course, Republicans can’t really make too much noise, since they almost put Mitt Romney forward as their Presidential candidate.  The only difference between Romney’s healthcare plan in Massachusetts and Baucus’ plan is that Romney’s didn’t violate the Federal Constitution.

Obama said some great things in his speech to schoolkids today. If I didn’t know any better, I would think he was a Conservative Republican.  It got me thinking.  Perhaps we are focused on the wrong type of reform.  Democrats love to talk about the 47 million uninsured, give or take.  Apparently the CBO says it could vary by 10 million in either direction on any given day.  This number may be true, but it is misleading. It counts illegal aliens, those who make more than $50,000 a year but choose to not buy health insurance, those who are between insurances, and those who are eligible for state and federal assistance already but don’t take advantage of it.  It also counts those who are young, in excellent health, and just might not need full coverage insurance.

We definitely need to find constitutional ways to provide healthcare for those who truly cannot afford it and have no access.  But before we throw the Constitution in the garbage and completely remake our healthcare system to be more like Andorra’s (fourth best healthcare nation in the world, according to the World Health Organization), maybe we should consider personal health insurance reform.  Consider the following personal reforms:

Set your healthcare and the healthcare of your family as a priority.  How often have we seen it?  The overweight person on the evening news with a cigarette in their hand telling about how bad they have it and how they need national healthcare.  Do they really care about their healthcare?

BlueCross BlueShield is now boasting health insurance plans starting lower than $30 a month.  If you are looking for something more comprehensive, you can go to ehealthinsurance.com and shop around.  I added two kids to my family and got some quotes and for more than bare bones I could expect to pay $300 a month on average.  So let’s go with that number.

So let’s look at your finances.  Do you smoke?  Tobaccofreekids.org estimates the cost of a pack of cigarettes to be an average of $5.29 in the US.   So let’s say you smoke three packs a week.  Quit smoking and you can save about $60 a month.  Get your spouse to quit too and you are almost halfway to being able to afford health insurance.

Do you drink regularly?  Beer is about $1 a can.  Skip a beer every night.  You just saved another $30 a month.  If your spouse skips as well, you have saved $180 a month just from quitting smoking and cutting back on the beers.

How much do you spend on Cable TV?  Is that really worth more than your health?  If you have cheap basic cable you can save $10 a month.  If you have good cable tv and no health insurance, shame on you.  However, that aside, you can save up to $130 a month by cutting back on your cable, depending on how good it is.  Congratulations, now you can afford health insurance and I don’t have to buy it for you.

Library cards are free.  At your local library you can get books, movies, music, and all sorts of other forms of entertainment.  You can get the internet at the Library.  How much would that save you?

How many times a week do you eat out?  Shave off a trip to McDonalds for you and your family.  You just saved more than $20 on one meal. Imagine what you could save by skipping your next trip to Chili’s?

Use coupons.  It may be embarrassing, but let me tell you what is more embarrassing: me paying for your healthcare when you could have bought it yourself.    My wife has saved more with coupons this year than our health insurance costs.

Shop for clothes and other items at thrift stores.  You can get brand name clothes for 1% of the cost, sometimes with the tags still on them.  Don’t make me use my taxes to buy your health insurance because you are too proud to shop at thrift stores.

Now, I know Cash for Clunkers was a great deal and all, but did you really just take on a new car payment?  Is your ride really more important than your health?  Did you know that you can buy a used car for as cheap as your next four months car payments will be, and it will last you for years?  Buy used, buy cheap, and be able to buy health insurance.

President Obama just told our school kids the importance of personal responsibility, the rewards of hard work, and how every individual has an opportunity to succeed and take care of themselves in America.  Let’s see if they can put together a healthcare plan that reflects that.