Shh, Someone Might Hear Democrats Talking About Healthcare

You never hear the Democratic leadership talking about healthcare anymore. Why is this? Shouldn’t the passage of the healthcare legislation – heralded just a few short months ago as “a historic victory” - be an accomplishment worth bragging about? Have confidence in us! We passed the healthcare bill – we can handle this next problem without trouble!

Clearly Democrats don’t think it is in their best interest to broadcast their accomplishment since we rarely hear one of them mention healthcare.

Could it be that Democratic leadership realizes that trumpeting their healthcare “victory” has the complete opposite effect from the upswing of approval they were counting on? Ironic, isn’t it? Instead of inspiring America’s confidence in the ability of Congress and the Democratic leaders, discussion of healthcare stirs and motivates the American People even more deeply to protect themselves and hold Congress accountable for the laws they pass.

The Democrats in Congress and President Obama must find that inconvenient.

Even with the silence, 63% of the American People want to repeal the healthcare bill. For the past month the numbers have only been getting higher. Imagine if the Democratic leadership wasn’t avoiding any mention of the subject.

So don’t expect bragging any time soon. The healthcare bill is a political loser and the Democrats know it. There is nothing they can do about it either, without sacrificing their own agenda. Of course they aren’t willing to do that. They paid almost any price during Obama’s candidacy for approval, but meddle with the core of their agenda now that they have power and their limit has been reached. There is no price they can be paid to sacrifice that, even at the cost of support.

Surely they won’t be quick to throw in America’s face how they refused to consult with the People and how blatantly we and our opinions were ignored during the passage of the healthcare bill.

Maybe someday they will realize that if they act in the interest of the People and listen to what the People say, they will receive the support they then deserve. It’s possible, but I wouldn’t count on it. Until then, they will continue to underestimate the intelligence of the People by believing that the least said about healthcare, the sooner the breach of trust with America will be mended.

Waterboard that Terrorism?

The libs love to claim that following the will of Jesus and participating in war (and actions necessary in war such as waterboarding) are a contradiction. What would Jesus have to say about it? Let's look at one of my favorite sites to discover. Similar to Serious C, this guy is Seriously Christian. Check out his site here

I am a Sunday School teacher and I gave my class the following question to answer: Is the US justified in declaring war on Osama bin Laden, and what is the Christian response to a call for war? Are we to be pacifists? I would be interested in you take on this issue.

Todd

Hi Todd,

Thank you for writing and for giving of your time and talent to help educate others in a strong Christian worldview. As we come into these uncertain times, a solid foundation will go a long way in understanding how we as Christians should react to the various issues we're facing.

Our first reaction to war is usually one of repugnancy. It entails massive death and destruction from all parties and we can see how this type of "problem solving" is outside of God's perfect will for humanity. However, God's perfect will for humanity was for man to never sin. Since man has a sin nature, it may not be possible to live in a world where wars don't exist. Let's try and unravel what position the Bible takes in respect to Christianity and war.

Before going too far, we need to establish first that the Bible makes a distinction between individual moral responsibility and governmental responsibility. As free moral agents, Paul tells us "See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people." (1 Thess 5:15) Individual Christians should show Christ's love to those who personally wrong them. But this does not mean that if someone physically threatens us we should not fight back. Nor does it imply that we shouldn't use physical force to aid another person being threatened. In such situations it would be a greater sin to stand by and do nothing that to help a person who is in danger.

The same type of responsibility God requires of governments. They are specifically put in a position of power to protect their citizens. Paul shows us this in Romans 13: 3-5 where he writes,

"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."

Note how the Scriptures say that the ruling body "does not bear the sword for nothing." In other words, governments are to function in a guardian role, both dealing with crime inside its own borders (such as the police) and also any enemy who would attack its citizens from outside.

This brings up another concept that in recent years people have forgotten; that there exists such a thing as a just war. The Romans passage above is very clear on this point. A government can function as an avenger of God to bring His judgment upon them. The Old Testament is replete with examples of this, but I'd like to look at a more modern situation.

In World War II Hitler was bent on conquest of Europe. He also sought to exterminate the Jewish race from the face of the planet. Those allied against Hitler and his plan were just in fighting him and his armies. To ignore him is morally the same as a police officer who does not try to stop a mugging attempt. There were good reasons, moral reasons to go to war in that instance and it would have been more immoral for the United States not to get involved.

The question that we must ask, then, is does our current situation fit the criteria for a just war? Is the United States justified in using its considerable military might against bin Laden and other terrorists? Let's look at what we know already.

1. The terrorists have attacked United States property and people before in the bombings of our two embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole.
2. They have intentionally killed thousands of innocent civilians for no other purpose than to try and hurt us.
3. There will be a continuing threat of danger to U.S. citizens as it is highly likely the terrorists will try other acts in the future.

Taken together, I believe that it is the God-given responsibility of the United States government to protect all its citizens by declaring war on those who would seek us intentional harm. I believe that Romans 13 commands the government to not shirk its role of protector and guardian of all those who fall within its care, just as a police officer should not shirk his role of protecting those who fall within his care. To ignore such a dangerous threat to our population would be a bigger sin.

I hope this has helped clarify how Christians should approach this very sensitive topic. Although this is a very emotional issue, I think that we can thoughtfully discern the will of God and how He would want us to proceed. Please let me know how your class goes. I'd be interested in their reactions to this question.

Read more: http://comereason.org/soc_culture/soc005.asp#ixzz0m8HCqwzu


This guy is legit. He argues for a contradictory free bible Atlas Shrugged style. If you find a contradiction. Check your premises. You will find one of them is wrong.

ACORN CEO attacks Tea Parties, promotes Collectivism

Why Arizona Immigration Bill is a Good Thing

A law cracking down on illegal immigration was recently passed in the Arizona state legislature and is currently waiting to be signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

Among other things (such as placing restrictions on hiring day laborers and making it a criminal offence to knowingly transport illegal immigrants), this law would require law enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of any person displaying “reasonable suspicion” of being in our country illegally (such as offering day labor on street corners, disregard for other laws, lack of residence, etc). It would also make it a criminal violation for that person to lack proper alien registration documentation.

Critics of this bill say that it will condone and encourage racial profiling, since it will require officers to verify someone’s immigration status if there is just “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. This changes the current law, which only allows officers to question someone’s immigration status if they are involved in another crime.

These points are valid in one sense. Though the bill states that officers cannot stop a person based solely on their color or race, this law probably will lead to some legal citizens (or legal aliens) being required to prove that they are in fact, legal. It’s unfortunate to cause law-abiding people inconvenience, but it would be naive to think that this won’t happen at all.

But critics of this bill are missing a very important staple in their argument: This law was designed to be a deterrent. If an illegal is afraid to do something (get a job, apply for federal benefits, rent housing, etc.) for fear of being caught, they will not do that thing. Similarly, if employers are afraid of hiring illegals for fear of being fined, they will require employees to verify their immigration status and they will not hire illegals. If these things are enforced, illegal aliens are less likely to want to come here.

Our government was designed to protect the Rights of the People, and it is our duty to provide the safeguards necessary to ensure that our laws are not broken and our freedoms are not infringed upon. Illegal immigrants are breaking our laws by even setting a foot onto our soil, and like the old saying goes: When you break a rule, it doesn’t just hurt you, it hurts everyone. By committing the crime of entering our country illegally, these people are not only disregarding our legal system and mooching off tax-payer funded services, they are causing problems for legal immigrants who do respect the law and the process of immigration in our county.

The best solution to this is to send illegal immigrants back where they belong, and that’s what this law will help to do.

It's Not About Creating Victims...It's About Creating Victories

Lt. Col. Allen West does it again. He is asking his constituents to "hold the line" from now until November. I can't think of any other person I would rather have fighting for me in the trenches or in Washington. God Bless this man.

Why it's a Health Care Nightmare

There are several core principles liberals and conservatives disagree on. Liberals see the "investor class" as evil and greedy corporate goons that take advantage of the "hard working class" a.k.a. victims. A conservative sees the investor class and small business owners as job creators and the lifeblood of this economy.

Practically all liberals refuse to admit this bill is a stepping stone to a completely socialized medicine system. They are either extremely naive or a closet communist in my opinion. This bill will greatly increase taxes on small businesses which will in turn create an incentive for employers to dump their employs into the government system. The bill also has several anti-growth characteristics. For example:

1. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit – up to 35 percent of the company’s share of their total health care premium.
2. Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected. Businesses with 50-60 workers have a HUGE incentive to downsize.
3. Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.

Once companies dump their employees into this plan, other companies will have to follow suit in order to compete with their competitors’ lower costs. After this process is repeated we are left with a socialistic system which any economist will admit is bad news bears. I believe it is necessary in a struggling economy to promote small business growth in order to create jobs. This is a simple concept which makes it all the more frustrating when our peers refuse to accept its truth.

I am thankful for my health care coverage my parents have busted their butts to provide for me. However, ruining my health care won't improve the situation for people who don't have coverage and need our help. This country is in serious need of HCR but this bill is certainly not the answer.

Stiltz Out

Healthcare Security or Loss of Liberty? Just Ask Ben.

Just wait until the November elections. We've all heard it. But what does it mean? Is it just a talking point Republicans are using to continue the fight against the recently passed healthcare bill? Or are the November elections an event so critical to our country that it is in our best interest to keep focus on that vote and ensure that Republicans win back a significant number of seats in both the House and the Senate?

Government control is a dangerous thing. Even before it has escalated to full-blown socialism, it invades the most personal parts of people's lives, where government should not be involved at all.

For example, Germany is supposed to be a democracy like the US. They are not even supposed to be a socialist country, yet their government is in full control of the nation's school system. By law in Germany, parents are given next-to-no school choice. They are required to send their children to public school...period. In fact, one German family chose to home school their children because they disagreed with some of the curriculum in the public school. As a result, they were fined and police came to their house to force their children to attend the public, government-run school, instead of the school the parents thought best for their children. Ultimately, this family sought political asylum in the United States so that they did not lose custody of their children to the German government.

The German government - supposed democracy or not - has taken enough control of its citizens to dictate on issues that should be the choices of each individual (such as parents choosing how to educate their children), instead of protecting these rights as the fundamental freedoms they are.

The new healthcare bill signed into law by President Obama is very similar in principle, but should be the cause of even graver concern.

Once the new law is enacted, our government will be in control of our entire healthcare system. Our government will hold the power to dictate all of our healthcare choices - choices inherently those of each individual. The government will go as far as to fund abortion coverage with taxpayer money and to ration and distribute care and medication. These decisions will be based not on the lives of the People, but on money; and anyone who does not purchase an insurance policy that is deemed acceptable by a panel of Washington elite will be penalized.

For example, my father is a small business owner and has a high-deductable, catastophic insurance plan that he has used for over ten years. Under the new healthcare law, this plan will not be acceptable, and he will be forced to purchase a plan that the government deems "best for him."

Clearly, this is a violation of the basic rights of a Free People, and is arguably unconstitutional as well. However, the most dangerous part of this new law is ironically the feature Democrats trumpeted as its greatest asset: health insurance for everyone. Under this mandate, every person is required to purchase healthcare coverage, whether they want it or not. Those who cannot afford a plan will be given tax credits to cover the cost and those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied.

This kind of entitlement program is unchartered waters for our country. What are the consequences?

Once the law is in full effect, it will become engrained in people's systems. People will lose the desire to fight it, to be independent, to make their own choices, because entitlements are addictive - once people feel they are "taken care of," their desire to be responsible for themselves will be completely obliterated. This is not how our country was founded, nor is it how we have become the greatest nation in the world.

The American People have said, loud and clear, that this is not the direction we want for our country, and it is still in our power to make our opinions count. This law must be repealed before it has taken full effect. It must be killed before it takes hold, because once it is in place, nobody will want to live without it, whatever the cost in blood, freedom, and money. November is our chance to ensure that our Congress listens to what we want and represents the views of the People who hired them.

Or else, as Benjamin Franklin said, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."