Posts Tagged 'liberal'

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.

How Third Party Candidates Will Help TEA Party

I’m sure you read the title of this blog and scratched your head.  I assure you I am not crazy.

In 1992 and 1996 Republican candidates who leaned moderate were defeated by Bill Clinton.  In neither election did Clinton get 50% of the popular vote.  In fact, George W. Bush and Al Gore both came closer to 50% in 2000 than Clinton ever got.  In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, Republicans were hijacked by the third party candidacy of Ross Perot.    Perot was a spunky, debt-conscious candidate who predicted many of the troubles we face today.  Though some conservatives would have preferred Perot to George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, it was from these elections that we had ingrained in our minds that a vote for a third party was a vote for the Democrat.

In 2006 the electorate shifted.  We had RINO Republicans in office, who had easily ridden George W. Bush’s coat-tails and the architecture of Karl Rove.  Conservatives did not like these RINOs and moderates couldn’t tell the RINOs from the Democrats and didn’t like our hundred billion dollar deficits.  In 2006 conservatives stayed home.  Or, in some cases, they voted for the third party candidate.

In this case, I am not talking about a conservative third party candidate, but I am talking about the 2006 re-election of Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut as an independent.  Joe had lost to his radical leftist opponent Ned Lamont, and decided to leave the Democrat party and run on a third party ticket.  In this race, moderate Republicans dumped their no-chance-in-hell (or any other blue state) candidate and voted with the moderate Lieberman.  Lieberman won.

Lieberman’s victory against the radical wing of his party, assisted by moderate Republicans, has given hope to moderates everywhere.  When Marco Rubio went from double digits behind Charlie Crist to the obvious winner, Crist dropped the Republican party and ran as a third party candidate.  Rubio still leads him and his opponent by double digits in a state Democrats gave to Obama in 2008, and the other Senators are a true blue Democrat and a moderate Crist appointed Republican.

You can’t blame RINOs for being upset about their upset losses to TEA party candidates.  Basically, they have been fired by the people in their party.  They didn’t expect it; their bosses in the party kept telling them they were awesome.  Crist will be giving up his Jim Greer expense account and his wife won’t be able to use tax dollars to go to Disney World or partying in NYC anymore.  Murkowski won’t get the lobbyist attention anymore.  Castle is left friendless and embarrassed in Delaware.

So what has changed since 1996?  Now the moderate is the third party.  Instead of the conservative vote being split between the candidate who can win and the candidate who we like, while the moderates and Democrats give the Democrat the victory, conservatives will be united against a candidates whose electorate will be split between radical Democrats and moderates.  Did I mention that Rubio holds a double digit lead over Crist and Meek?

Gallup shows that conservatives make up the largest group percentage-wise in this country.  They accounted for 40% back in 2009 when the deficit was only a trillion dollars and people still thought everything was Bush’s fault.  Moderates accounted for 35% and liberals took 21%.  That leaves “don’t knows” of 4%.  When Republicans were acting like moderates (safe word for mildly liberal), Democrats won.  Why not?  It was 50% to 40%.  Moderates looked at both parties, asked what’s the difference, and then voted for the party that wasn’t pretending to be something it’s not.

But split the liberal and moderate vote, and conservative TEA Party Republicans have a 5% advantage over their RINO opponents.  Still think I’m crazy?  The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll has Marco Rubio at 40%, Charlie Crist at 26% and Kendrick Meek at 21%. Sounds like Gallup got it about right.

So, Conservatives, call Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle and encourage them to start write-in campaigns.  The moderates in this country need someone to vote for.

Halfway States Rights Does Not Equal States Rights

In the political circles where I like to debate, the question commonly comes up about drug policy.  Most Libertarians, many progressive social Democrats and even some Conservatives will argue strongly against our war on illegal drugs.  Many argue that it costs too much, many argue that it is government intrusion into our lives and unconstitutional, and others argue just because they happen to be high at the time.

I have been asked my opinion on the issue and people are sometimes surprised how I answer.  Most conservatives, especially Christian, free-market conservatives who know that illegal drugs ruin lives and turn some people into permanent wards of the state, strongly support Federal intervention and Federal drug laws.  I don’t.

I have read through the Constitution many times and cannot find anything that would justify a Federal ban on putting any sort of substance into your body.  Don’t get me wrong, I have seen what drugs do to people and I would vote in a heartbeat to ban them in my state or city.  But until we amend the Constitution with a new prohibition amendment, we damage the integrity of our national foundation of personal freedom and states rights when the Federal Government assumes the duties that the Constitution clearly delegates to the individual states.    In fact, I think if Thomas Jefferson knew only that Reagan was the one who mandated that states adopt 21 as the drinking age limit, he would certainly have called Reagan an anti-Constitutional tyrant.

So is this high praise of President Obama for instructing his attorney general, Eric Holder, to spend more time on affirmative action violations and less time on prosecuting medical potheads in states where it is legal?  No, and here is why:

Currently there are medical marijuana laws in 13 states.  Washington State is perhaps the most lenient, allowing you to have 24 oz. without getting busted and not charging you for a license to carry (marijuana).  Meanwhile, the other 37 states do not have any medical marijuana freedoms.  Yet, every year all 50 states pay billions in Federal taxes for national drug rehab programs alone.  We are spending nearly $500 billion a year on the state and federal level for rehab, incarceration, child services, dealing with homelessness, and other drug related costs.  States cover much of the bill on their own, but according to Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, if the Federal Government recorded costs for prevention and rehabilitation as a separate budget item, it would rank as the  sixth most expensive Federal program.  It accounts for 9.6% of the Federal budget.

Let me break that down in simpler terms.  When Californians can get a prescription for marijuana to handle their stress, athlete’s foot, occasional headaches, or whatever else they can get a doctor to write a prescription for; people in Florida, Connecticut, New York, and Texas will be footing the bill to help them clean up their lives.  When someone in Michigan can’t get a job because spend half the day too stoned to get up, someone in Minnesota will be writing their Federal welfare check.

The Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to rob one state to pay for another’s social ills.  The Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to provide for certain groups’ specific welfare while harming the welfare of others through redistributive programs.  The Federal Government does have the constitutional duty to regulate interstate commerce and ensure that one state is not ripping off another.

By granting states the individual right to legalize self-destruction, but requiring that all states be mandated to pay for the consequences, Obama has violated the interstate commerce clause and made national social programs such as Federal welfare, Medicaid, Federally funded SCHIP, Federal funding for faith-based organizations, and his dream of universal healthcare and a public option that much more unconstitutional.

Given the choice, I would rather that Obama had ended unconstitutional wealth redistribution programs than lifted the unconstitutional Federal ban on drugs while still making me pay for the consequences.  Either way, this is no victory for states rights advocates.

Conservatives Need Not Apply

There are few people in this country so convicted of every person’s constitutional right to equality and the pursuit of happiness as Rush Limbaugh.  Rush has spoken many times on his radio program about each individual’s rights to equal treatment under the law, opportunity without government prohibition, and God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  He has also been vocal about each person’s responsibility to live up to their personal potential and how special treatment from the Government prohibits this.  Of course, these views are not at all popular with those who believe that the rich have been treated unfairly well and that certain specific groups of people need the government to take from the rich and give to them in order to succeed.

Add to this that Rush is an outspoken conservative public figure and it is easy to see why so many, especially on the left, outright hate him.  Even back when political correctness ruled our country, Rush could always be counted on to give his clear personal opinion.  That always makes some people uncomfortable.  There aren’t many honest people left out there in the public spotlight.  The reason for this is the rampant bigotry against people who lean heavily conservative.

This was made all to evident this week as Rush was denied his attempt to purchase a portion of the NFL football team, the St. Louis Rams.  Rush has an intense love for football, I dare say almost as much as my own love for football.  But what began with racist attacks from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ended with Rush being disallowed from purchasing a portion of the franchise.  For years men and women were not allowed to vote, drink from the same fountain, own property, or shop at certain establishments because of their race, gender, or in some cases sexual preference.  Now we are seeing discrimination based on political views.

We should have seen this coming.  In fact, some of us did.  Suddenly a few months ago, disagreeing with this President was racism.  Speaking out about healthcare or cap and trade became hate speech.  Now, believing in equality, opportunity, and the constitution is racism and expressing your conservative leanings is hate speech.  And if they can’t find good examples of things you have said to make people hate you, they make them up.

When the news first came out about Rush’s desire to pursue his happiness and own a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams, false quotes immediately began appearing and being attributed to Rush.  One such example was CNN saying that Rush had said “Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” But it turns out Rush never said this.  A leftist bigot made up the quote and attributed it to Rush because he hated Rush’s conservatism.  But as the blog I linked to here points out, CNN was too busy fact checking a Saturday Night Live skit about Obama to fact check their own story on Rush.

So what is the end result of all this?  Maybe I should quit my blog.  I buy stocks in different companies, which is no different then what Rush was trying to do.  Will I someday be told by a company that I can’t buy their stock because I am an outspoken conservative? Will I someday be turned down for a job because in my personal life I am an outspoken conservative constitutionalist?  Some argue that we have already reached this point.

Robert J. Avrich claims that he was fired from a screenwriting job for being too conservative for Hollywood.  Ben Stein says he was fired from the New York Times for being a creationist, but one leftist blogger at Businessinsider.com contends that it was just because Stein is conservative.  Kansas teacher Tim Latham was fired for being a conservative.   And now Rush is the latest to be on the receiving end of this leftist discrimination.  But you will never see Congressional Democrats adding conservatives to the hate crimes protected groups list.

Rush Limbaugh said on his program today that he probably wasn’t going to sue over this because he has never conducted himself or his business that way.  I would caution Rush that when he is discriminated against in this way, he does not just represent himself.  He represents every outspoken conservative in America.  When Rush is denied this opportunity solely because of his conservative values, we are all denied.

Do you think I’m wrong here?  Leave me a comment.  I think this is a very serious issue that in the long run could affect every outspoken, freedom loving conservative.

Obama’s Tax Problem

During the campaign, Obama sought to defeat the old Liberal label of “tax and spend”.  He swore fiscal responsibility and pay-go.  $1.58 trillion in red ink later and here we are.

He promised something else.  Obama promised no tax increases on people who make less than $250,000 a year.  That number fluctuated, but in the end it was between $150,000 and $250,000.  Now Obama is in trouble.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise.  All throughout the campaign, Conservatives kept saying you can’t have fiscal responsibility, buy whatever you want, and give 95% of Americans a tax cut.  We said even if you don’t balance the budget, if you spend as much as Obama was promising, you will have to raise taxes.  Some of us even predicted that Obama would seek to redefine the word tax in order to get around it (e.g. raising government fees, licensing costs, and other such things).

On Sunday with George Stephanopoulos, that is exactly what Obama did.  First he argues that private insurance companies raising rates because people use the ER for free is a tax increase.  Then he argues that adding up to $3,800 to a family’s tax bill for not buying government approved insurance is not a tax increase.

This issue is about to get even worse for Obama.  The White House has recently admitted that Conservatives were correct in their estimates of what Cap and Trade taxes would cost the average family in the US.  When the administration said it would cost families the equivalent of a postage stamp a day, they meant if you were mailing bricks.  The final White House number comes to $1,761 per family in new Cap and Trade taxes.  Considering how well they’ve done with their other estimates lately, like how high unemployment would get, I am not too optimistic that the number will be so low.

If Democrats stick with the Baucus plan, they will have a new tax issue to answer for.  The Baucus plan pays for itself through taxes on medical equipment, clinics, insurance companies, and medical savings accounts.  A rational person might think that if you wanted to cut medical costs, you would actually cut taxes on all these things.  After taxing these things and making them more expensive, the Baucus plan gives you tax credits so that you can afford to buy insurance at the pretax rates.  It generously gives you up to 13% of your income back to buy health insurance, if you don’t make too much.  Will that be enough to pay for health insurance when the Baucus plan increases healthcare costs by 30% with his new embedded taxes?  By the way, in case you were wondering, I am assuming that some of the cost of the Baucus plan actually will be paid for by Medicare cuts like they promise.  But seriously now, what are the odds of that happening?

Consider this, to pay for his trillion dollar deficits, Obama is considering raising the top tax bracket to 39% (a 4% increase) and tacking on a 5% “surcharge” for a total tax increase on the richest Americans of 9%.  At the same time, he is going to increase your family’s utility bill through Cap and Trade taxes by $1761 and fine you $3,800 if you don’t buy government approved insurance.  By my calculations, if you have a family of four making 300 times the poverty level, that’s a tax increase of 9%.  Now don’t get too upset, the rich will be paying embedded Cap and Trade taxes too.  Their taxes will still go up more than yours.  Feel better now?

The Baucus bill is a gift to the insurance lobby.    Think about it from the insurance company’s perspective.  Yes, you pay higher taxes as an insurance company, but then that money is given to your potential clients and they are told they must buy your product or they will pay government penalty taxes.  30 million new customers, whether they need insurance or not.  In addition, the government takes everyone who can’t afford you or is high risk and puts them in a government co-op (totally different than a government option).

Count on Obama to claim credit for giving 95% of Americans a tax cut when you get your health insurance credits.  Don’t count on him admitting that Cap and Trade, embedded healthcare taxes, tax penalties for not buying government approved insurance, taxes on your employers and taxes on your employee and health savings accounts are actually tax increases on those of us who make less than $250,000.

Begala Gives Conservatives a Lesson in Love

On September 13, Paul Begala decided that conservatives need a lesson in love. Apparently, out of a million TEA party protesters in Washington DC on Saturday, Begala found an offensive protest sign.  The sign said “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy”.  Obviously that is far more offensive than the call from the Left to “Pass Obamacare because Kennedy died”.  Begala writes an admonishment to the “hate-mongers” in his Huffington Post blog.

Begala has a point you know.  The only reason we could possibly not want free healthcare for all is because we hate Obama.  Chances are, it’s because we are all racists.  That is what causes Begala’s loving, yet somewhat harsh reaction to the sign he saw:

“The sign made me nauseous, made me embarrassed, made me wonder if at long last there is no decency on the far right…Oh, I get it. Sen. Kennedy is dead, and these slugs want health care reform to be dead too. That is so clever.”

That’s right, the embarrassing “slugs” want health care reform to be dead too.  He makes a good point.  Don’t the embarrassing “slugs” realize how hateful it is to want freedom in our medical choices, to not want to stack another trillion dollars onto the deficit, to not want to be forced into paying for abortion?  But no, the “right-wing hate mongers” have to use Kennedy’s death to “make a cheap point” about health care.  That is completely different from naming the bill after Kennedy and calling on people to vote for it in his honor.

Begala says that you can’t even imagine what the response would be if progressives had such a repulsive sign in one of their protests.  Progressives aren’t as hateful as the “teabaggers” (a reference to an incredibly offensive sexual act, used here in love by Begala).

Progressive protest signs are never offensive, argues Begala

Progressive protest signs are never offensive, argues Begala

He has a point.  How would we respond if we ever were to see a Liberal with an offensive protest sign?

“The inmates have taken over the asylum.”  It would be offensive, I guess, if it weren’t so true.  Begala guesses that the reason we are so hateful now is that Reagan is dead and has been replaced with “Joe the shouter…and Sarah Palin the screecher”.  What cute and friendly nicknames.

Begala points out that the “whack-jobs” at the DC demonstrations didn’t have signs saying to repeal Medicare or Social Security.  Apparently we all recognize how successful those are and wouldn’t want to touch them.  Also, none of them had signs protesting the billions wasted keeping our country safe from terrorists.  Apparently these “teabaggers” don’t care about overspending during the Bush administration.   Nevermind that the opening video at the protest highlighted Bush’s stimulus plan of 2008 as an example of government waste.

According to Begala, the TEA party is more about hate, not high-minded debate.  Thank goodness we have people like Paul Begala to let us know who the hypocrites are in this debate.

Why I Favor a Liberal Health Co-op

I’m sure many of you read the title to this post and got the wrong idea.  Calm down. It’s okay. I favor a PRIVATE liberal health co-op.

For a while now I have been asked why I don’t want people to have healthcare.  I have been accused of being immoral, greedy, evil, stupid, and naive.  People I have debated with have conjured up ideas of me standing there, medicine in hand, refusing to act as a child succumbs to cancer.  It all appears to be a natural part of this universal healthcare debate.  People have asked me why it is I don’t want free healthcare.  I think free healthcare is a great idea.  Find me enough excellent doctors who will work for free, including paying all their own expenses,  and let’s do it.

The question has never been whether we want free healthcare or not.  The question is whether we want to pay for our healthcare, or pay the government to buy our healthcare for us.  The question has never been one of morality.  It has been whether we have a responsibility to give charitably to our neighbors, or to give to the government so that the government can give charitably to our neighbors.  The question has never been whether Jesus would want people to have free healthcare.  The question is whether Jesus would pay for His neighbor’s healthcare, or require that the government take His money and buy His neighbor’s healthcare for Him.

I have recently highlighted successful Christian health co-ops that provide healthcare at no profit the way Obama’s unconstitutional public option would.  Here is my question:  why won’t the liberals who want non-profit healthcare that covers the poor do the same thing?  If Jesus would pay for everyone’s health insurance, why don’t liberals get together and start a non-profit health co-op?

This is a somewhat foreign concept, so let me offer some ideas.  They could make payments on a sliding scale.  Hollywood liberals like Michael Moore, liberal Democrats like John Kerry, and the majority of the national media could pay incredibly high premiums that would cover the poor without raising taxes, without violating the constitution, without short changing doctors, and without paying huge profits to the insurance companies.  If this were truly a matter of moral imperative, they would have one already.  They could even name it after Ted Kennedy.

In addition, like a Christian co-op, a liberal co-op could freely choose what to cover and what not to cover without the fear of government mandates.  They could require that you get preventative care in order to keep receiving benefits from the co-op.  They could cover abortions and illegal aliens without me having to pay for it.  They could deny coverage to anyone who chooses to have more than 2.5 children.  They could even deny coverage to anyone whose car gets worse than 20 mpg.  All this without a single penny in deficit spending or any government involvement at all.

If liberals truly care about the poor, I’m sure they will jump at the opportunity to provide a private co-op that covers poor people at no cost.   If nothing else, millionaires and billionaires like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, George Clooney, George Soros, Michael Moore and others could boast how much better and moral they are than the rest of us for providing free healthcare to the poor.  After all, don’t they want people to have free healthcare?  No one should die because they get sick.  No one should go broke because they don’t make enough money.  Isn’t that how it goes?

I support a private liberal health co-op because that would go a long way to fix our healthcare system.  It would ensure that no one is dropped for pre-existing conditions or because they lose their job.  It would ensure that no one goes bankrupt because they can’t afford their healthcare.  It would provide rich liberals a chance to be moral and do what Jesus would do.  It would let them cut out the insurance company middle man and save millions of dollars.  It would allow them to collectively pool resources and bargain with healthcare providers for lower rates.  It would provide competition to other health insurance companies.  They could even have ACORN volunteers manage the trust fund.  All this and it wouldn’t require one drop of government intervention or add one penny to the federal budget.  Then Obama could reform Medicare and use the savings to pay down our China debt instead.

Unfortunately, liberals find it much easier to put your money where their mouth is.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories