Posts Tagged 'conservatives'

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.

Let the Democrats Have the Moderates

Democrats continue every election cycle to try to tell Republicans how to win elections. When your arch enemy starts giving you tips on how to defeat him, you should be suspicious. Yet Democrats keep offering friendly advice. No, thanks.

Democrats keep telling Republicans that we need to make our tent bigger. We need more liberals in our party. We need to get away from issues that kill our party like smaller government, the right to live, and, of course, family values. Americans don’t want that. As long as we stay the party of small government, focused on that 200 year old constitution and this crazy idea that men are born equal, not that they need to be made equal by the government, we will remain the minority party.

But who are the moderates anyway? One thing is for sure: they are not reliable. For example, take Dede Scozzafava. After spending months telling everyone she is a conservative and a die-hard Republican despite her liberal record, she finally drops out of the race and endorses the liberal Democrat over the Conservative party candidate. Or how about Colin Powell and a number of other moderate Republicans who begged the Republicans to put forth a moderate/liberal candidate for President and then proceeded to endorse the liberal Democrat when they did.

Moderates are people who think the government should provide every social service imaginable, while still thinking the government should spend less and tax less. They think abortion on demand is terrible and tragic, but should be safe and legal. They think partial birth abortion should be illegal because it is the murder of a living baby, except in the case of rape, danger to the mother’s life, poverty, or a real good sob story. They vote for the incumbents if their life is going good and they are generally happy. They vote against the incumbent if they’ve had a bad day, or if the opponent has a strong chin and more rugged facial features.

They vote based on color, gender, negative advertising, popular fads, and shiny lights. They support short wars, aid for Africa (even if it’s borrowed from China) and environmental reform, whether it actually helps the environment or not. They love federal grants and then complain about how the government wastes so much money. Generally, they are incompetent and uninformed.

But they still vote. Why don’t I want them? Think about it. When Republicans stuck to their conservative principles and presented them eloquently, they won. When conservatives won, Democrats ran blue-dog conservatives to compete with Republican conservatives. When Democrats started winning again was when Republicans started going after liberal moderates and Democrats ran conservative blue dogs. Then in 2008, Democrats ran socialists and ultra-liberals while Republicans ran liberals and wishy washy, unreliable moderates. Republicans were killed in a landslide.

Democrats weren’t trying to broaden their tent in 2008. They ran on a genius graphic design team, color, good looks, discontent and fluff. It had nothing to do with them being pro-big government, pro partial birth abortion, pro overseas abortion funding, pro debt, and anti-military. It had everything to do with advertising, discontent, and the fact that we were involved in two wars that had lasted longer than a year each. Now, because Democrats have stuck to their principles, the entire Washington Republican movement is stuck on this stupid idea that they need to broaden their base and become more liberal if they are going to win elections.

What Newt Gingrich and other Washington Republicans don’t understand is that when you pick up your tent and move it to the other side of the field, you leave your base out in the cold and they stop voting for you. And when you get to the other side of the field, they don’t vote for you either because they already have a tent. As for all the people in the middle, whether they go right or left has absolutely nothing to do with values or issues.

Think about it. If you truly believed that the thing growing in a pregnant woman has the intrinsic value of a wart, then how could you ever vote for anyone who would suggest that a woman’s right to remove that wart should be limited? Yet, Democrats won the majority on the backs of pro-life blue dogs. If you truly believed that the constitution should be the basis of our government and that politicians should uphold their vow to uphold and implement the constitution, then you would never vote for a big government candidate who borrows $1.5 trillion from China to buy local infrastructure projects and subsidize or buy private industries.

Moderates are going to continue to look for the next shiny thing that looks good and talks sweetly. Run and vote on principle. If both sides ran on principle, Conservatives would get 40% and Liberals would get 20%. I would rather have them coming over to our side to get votes while losing their 20% base than the other way around.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories