Healthcare and Abortion... a political trick

 How did some of the individuals in the Congress achieve election?  Most of us unelected news readers have known that Pelosi would use the issue of abortion to pass the House version of socialized healthcare.  The oldest legislative trick in the book is to pretend as though you are giving up something to gain something.  Only later, to place the something you pretended to give-up, into another piece of legislation.  The Washington Post (11-8-09) reported this morning:

Pelosi needed to corral at least 218 of 258 Democrats to push the bill across the finish line. That task appeared to grow easier after party leaders broke a weeks-long impasse over abortion by agreeing to hold a vote on an amendment -- offered by antiabortion Democrats -- that would explicitly bar the public plan from` covering the procedure. The amendment, approved 240 to 194, with 64 Democrats in favor, also would prohibit people who received insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that covered abortion.

She and the Democrats, once again used the inalienable right of life, for political gain.  The article goes on to state:

The deal cleared the way for dozens of antiabortion Democrats to back the package. The most passionate advocates of abortion rights were not happy, but few were prepared to vote down legislation that promises to achieve so many long-held party goals.

To all "conservatives" who fell prey to this smoke screen tactic, I have three questions:

1.  When do you think abortion will be covered with my tax dollars?

2.  Which bill will they, the Democrats, sneak that amendment?

3.  How does it feel to know you were duped into voting for a bill that could potentially clear the path for state paid and administered abortions?

 

Please stop masquerading as statesmen of knowledge.  This time you acted as simple political pawns.  Days ago, seeing that such an amendment would come to the floor, painting conservatives into the corner, you should have taken the fight public.  How could you not see this was coming?  How could you have not called Speaker Pelosi on such a move?

 

She used the basic freedom of life, to gain your vote, to pass legislation that could eventually be wielded - to end life.  I will do everything in my power to see every "conservative" who voted for this bill - defeated in 2010.

Insensitivity of a President

Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J. - AP News 118/09

 

Did you catch that?  A national tragedy, in which our sitting President said little about, has yet to meet with families, and what little he did say - came before a speech (on the day of the shooting) pushing his agenda.  And yet he is able to use the events of last week - to push healthcare.  Never have I been more nauseated by politics, then the handling of Fort Hood by this President and his administration.

 

(Before I begin my rant, on a side note, former President George W. Bush and Laura visited the wounded.  They did so without media attention, with no camera crew.)

 

The insensitive handling of Fort Hood has not just fell on the hearts of conservatives.  An NBC Chicago (11/6/09) affiliate wrote the following:

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.  

Has the President been to Texas yet?  No.  Is he not the Commander-In-Chief during a tragic time for our military?  Yes.  Then the questions beg to be asked:  Where is his presence now, when needed by the Army families?  Why has he not visited with families in Texas?  (He was able to stand at salute for passing coffins, once.)  Why did he not cancel the weekend, the meetings, the Indian Tribal dinner, and immediately fly to Texas?

The answer:  healthcare.

He has hung his entire Presidency on this issue.  To lose this issue, in his mind, is to doom his Presidency.  Therefore, he must stay on "message", not leave the fight, and keep the healthcare train on course for passage.  And if that means a little insensitivity to the families of the dead at Fort Hood - then so-be-it.

Here is what the President should have done:

1.  Immediately following the tragedy, cancel the tribal dinner and speak to the Press for a few minutes calling for calmness and prayers for the situation.

2.  Announced a trip to Texas, clearing the schedule, to lead the nation in mourning for this horrific act of terrorism.

3.  Declared that acts of terrorism, domestic and international, will not be tolerated in these United States.

4.  Addressed the nation from Texas and declare today (Sunday) a national day of mourning.

5.  Visit the families of all murdered and injured.

6.  Send Gibbs out to update the progress of all investigations.

Click here for my short memorial to Fort Hood.

What the President did do:

1.  Said a few words, after a humorous speech opening.

2.  Said a few more words that Americans "should not jump to conclusions" about the motives of the shooter.

3.  Used the tragedy - to push Congressional delegates to make a "sacrifice" and vote for socialized healthcare.

Sickening.  Wrong.

Fort Hood (a Memorial)

Standing in the Dallas-Forth Worth air terminal, I first heard of the saddening news concerning the devastating act of terrorism at Fort Hood.  And after my flight landed back home in Nashville, the news only seemed to worsen as the death and injury count rose.  Clearly, we are living in dangerous times.

We can never understand the face of evil.  We can analyze it, we can diagnose it, we can blame it on "compassion weariness", and yet evil is evil.  Darkness will always be darkness.  And the only thing that changes darkness - is light.

For some reason I was reminded of the quotation from Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet that Robert Kennedy quoted after the death of his brother:  When he shall die take him and cut him out into stars and he shall make the face of heaven so fine that all the world will be in love with night and pay no worship to the garish sun.  There is no darkness, where there is a flicker of light.

Those men and women, who fell prey and victim to such senseless acts, confronted the face of darkness.  Earlier in the day, they had no idea that they would stand in the way of such violence.  They began their day like so many other days before.  They were going about their business, serving their country, working jobs, raising families - simply living good lives.  They were light.  And while it may appear that "evil" won yesterday.  There is nothing farther from the truth.  For good people always leave behind, in the lives of light, a legacy in the other people that surrounded them.  Meaning, within these dark hours of the tragedy at Fort Hood, there are flickers of light in the memories of those taken from us.  Evil never wins the day.

And so, may we as Americans taken the fallen at Fort Hood and "cut [them] out in the stars and [they] shall make the face of heaven so fine."  May we remember them as the heroes of everyday life.  And in these dark times, may we remember that they exemplify the flickers of light that still abound.  There is no darkness that can overcome, when good people go about - being good people.

As my family closed out yesterday, our soon-to-be three year old chose a book for her book time - on fear.  The tiny writing closed with the following taken from the Scriptures:

Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.   -Isaiah 41:10

May God bless the families of the victims at Fort Hood.  May God bless those who serve our country with due diligence.  And may God never remove his blessing from these United States of America. 

Why Polanski Matters

Film maker Roman Polanski broke the law.  It is that simple.  Recently I listened to a debate with the question, concerning this subject, posed, "what if it was your daughter, would you not want justice?"  Now as a father of a little girl, I find nothing wrong with the question.  However, there is a larger issue behind the question of Polanski.  And this issue, is why the Polanski matter - matters.

Now for reasons of discussion, through this entry we will refer to those on the other side of the aisle of what you and I believe, the Left. The Left has proven again, through their reasoning on Polanski, that enforcement of the Law - is conditional.  Those on the Left believe that the Law only matters, when they need it to matter.  (In fact, above and beyond the Law we see this inconsistent thought process in everything.  Reaction to Governor Sanford verses "Late Night's" Letterman being a great example.)  Here are three arguments recently used by the Left, in arguing for the freedom of Polanski, that proves their conditional enforcement of the Law.

1.  She, the victim, does not care anymore:  Victim rights only matter, when decided on by the Left

Repeatedly we have heard that the victim in crime has forgiven Polanski and has simply wanted the charges to be dropped.  According to the Left, this is every reason to let Mr. Polanski alone.  And while it is borderline heroic of his victim to forgive, that process did not take place overnight.  In fact her public forgiveness came twenty some years after the crime. Her forgiveness came with a price - one most likely with pain.

And Law, the enforcement of, does not depend upon the opinion or feelings of the victim.  An example of such can be found in abuse victims. Many times abuse victims have sadly become attached to and even miss their abusers after the crime.  Yet the abuse victim's attitude, emotional state, and opinion - does not impact the enforcement of the Law.  Nor should it.  The Law is the Law, in the words of Aristotle, "without passion."

On a side note, the Left only seems to deny victims rights, (i.e. Letterman harassment, post-abortion mothers, anyone involved with Kennedy, Rangle, Clintons) when it is convenient.  A thirteen year old girl was victimized by a 40 year old man in the 1970s.  What about her rights at that time, or ten years later, or during her counseling, or when she suffered through the personal, private, and public embarassment?

2. Polanski never abused and would never abuse again:  Will the crime be repeated?

This one is almost too rediculous to address.  There have been many who have actually posed this argument in favor of Polanksi, that he would never abuse again.  The Law is not written for that reason.

The Law states a certain offense equals a certain penalty.  Whether or not the criminal will break the law again is not taken into consideration with enforcement of the Law.  If we think along the lines of the Left then each of us would get a "freebie" for any first time offense (breaking speed limit, shop lifting, murder) as long as we - promise to never do it again.  

The Law is written to protect the citizens, not to guarantee that a criminal gets a first time offense without penalty.  

3. Does this better society, according to the ideals of the Left?

One writer made it quite clear that putting Polanski in jail would not better society.  Really?  Not enforcing laws written on the books, would not better society?  Why write more laws, if we do not enforce the ones we already have written?  Not enforcing the law, is abuse of the law. Abuse of the law, renders the law pointless.  Pointless laws eventually leads to a lawless society.  

Now you may read this and think I have gone a little too sensational.  However, do we not constantly see this pattern on the Left?  Laws abused by Congressman Rangel, corporations and financial institutions under the watch of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, Attorney General Holder, and let us not even start on the Clinton years - point to a consistent behavior of abusing the Law.  The Left refuses to enforce Law if it is inconvenient for them.

In addition, once again, the Law is not written based upon the "good of society" if the law is enforced.  The Law is written to be enforced - for the good of society.  Criminal laws are written to be enforced, whether the person be famous, elected, or not.

Conclusion:  And within this writing we see a consistent pattern that leads us down a questionable road.  All enforcement of the law, according to the Left, depends upon definitions and interpretations given by the Left.  If there are certain conditions, certain ideals at stake, or just someone they know - the Law no longer matters.  And if it benefits a cause of the Left, politically accounts, or betters their movement or goals - they wield the law (Eric Holder) usually in a wrong manner.

The questionable road lays in the following questions.  Do we really want a government ran by individuals who can decided when and when not to enforce laws?  Do we want to be "led" by individuals who can decided that a crime against you - was not a crime at all?  Do we want people in power who can commit wrongs against the people - and never be called criminals?  Led by these people?  Yes, according to a Politico articletoday:

Movie industry types calling for the release of director Roman Polanski last year gave $34,000 to Obama's presidential campaign and the Democratic Party, FEC records show.

Law is Law.  Enforcement of the Law, blind justice, is crucial to our Republic.  And yet, through Polanski, the Left demonstrates again that enforcing the Law is - conditional. 

THE STORY OF THE DAY: ARABS PLOT TO DROP DOLLAR

This may very well be the most important story you will read today.  While this Administration plays appeasement, countries our out to destroy us.  While health care, czars, and national issues are of major importance, we cannot, we must not, forget foreign affairs.

This Administration is destroying our position in the world.  Our super power status is not slipping every day - it is hurling down a hill.  Here is quotation from the linked article:

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.

This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil – yet again turning the region's conflicts into a battle for great power supremacy. 

That is absolutely what it is!  And while China is out to destroy us, the Empire lights up with its colors, the White House appeases, and America sells more of itself away.  Please read the UK news link via Drudge.

Link

Will The REAL China Please Stand Up?

Everybody loves a parade.  My three year old, loves a parade.  The bands, the candy, the floats, the entertainment - the weapons of mass destruction, tanks, and enough infantry to make the West take notice.  Okay, so this particular parade my three year old would not like.

But the world noticed this "special" parade held yesterday.  (It reminded us of those warm fuzzy feelings of the May Day parades during the Cold War.)

The Empire State Building even turned the colors of Red and Yellow to mark this special parade.  (Just months after the national flag of China flew at the White House - to mark this "special day.")  And of course I am talking about the Sixtieth Anniversary celebration of the bloody communist overthrow in what is now called - The People's Republic of China.

What a contradiction in terms: the People's Republic of China.  Does the country really belong to the people?  Hardly.  If it did it would be called - freedom.  And yet, many on the left, have marked the day as special.  I did a little research on the track record of government leaders - in the People's Republic by reading just two articles printed yesterday.

Bloomberg reported the following truths on their Economics:

Economic growth and rising global influence have come at the cost of domestic expression. Opposition to Communist Party rule is banned while dissent, including the 1989 student demonstrations in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, is crushed.

As many as 800 million Chinese, 60 percent of the population, still live in the countryside, and rapid development has left millions of them behind. Still socialist in name, China has a wider income gap than Taiwan and South Korea have now, or had during their export-led industrializations.

On Ethnic Tensions, Bloomberg reported:

The worst riots in six decades broke out in the past two years in Tibet and the Uighur’s homeland of Xinjiang, two provinces on China’s western fringe, spurred by income gaps along ethnic and religious fissures.

On the Environment, Bloomberg continued with:

 The world’s most populous nation has also become the largest consumer of commodities and one of the biggest energy users. China last year passed the U.S. as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, and widespread pollution of its atmosphere and waterways is rarely checked by public opposition.

The smog that enveloped Beijing for three days before today’s parade lifted overnight after a light rainfall and the parade took place under clear blue skies.

And Britain jumped into the truth telling game concerning the massive celebration of Communist China (who uses capitalism to fund its militaristic government and society.)  On the economy of China, the Daily Mail writes:

 But beneath today's orgy of celebrations that marks the anniversary lurksa disturbing reality. Mao's successors may have embraced cut-throat capitalism to a degree that makes even Western economists blanch. But the arrangements for the parade are a reminder that China remains a deeply authoritarian society.

 

On Ethnic tensions, the Daily Mail reports:

 Tibet has also been closed off to foreigners for the duration - a reminder of China's expansionist ambitions, and of the threat it could pose to world peace in years to come.

 

On Education, the Daily Mail comments:

Since Chinese history is rarely taught in our schools and universities, it is not surprising that most Britons have only the foggiest notion of what goes on in the world's most populous nation. 

When the Communists seized control in 1949, China was a poverty-stricken basket case, ravaged by famine, ethnic tension and feuding between rival warlords.  And in the years that followed, Mao's policies of forced industrialisation and collective farming, as well as his murderous purges of the middle classes, accounted for millions of deaths.

 

On the Brutality of the Chinese government, Daily Mail writes:

 One scholarly estimate suggests that in 40 years, almost 80 million Chinese were slaughtered or died as a result of government policy - making the regime the biggest killer in history.

 

But now, of course, all that is conveniently forgotten. And British politicians are more likely to pay tribute to China's economic renaissance than to draw attention to the undemocratic brutality of its Communist regime.

 

And on World Domination, the Daily Mail concludes:

 With some $800 billion of U.S Treasury securities, China now has a hold over the American economy that would have seemed unthinkable a few decades ago.

 

Yet there is a dark side to China's revival - a disturbing instinct for sabre-rattling and neo-imperialism that arguably poses the biggest threat to world peace since the Cold War.

 

What we often forget about China is that it is not an ordinary nation-state like any other. It is a rigid, highly militarised and intensely nationalistic empire, in which 1.2 billion Han Chinese dominate dozens of other ethnic groups, by force if necessary.

In Conclusion:

And while the Chinese government manipulated the weather to make it sunny for their parade, the above facts, only taken from two news articles printed yesterday - truly rains on any parade.  Maybe the folks over at that Empire State Building, the White House, our Presidential Administration - should have read the above articles.

Welcome - to the new Cold War, yet another communistic, socialist, Evil Empire.

Read Bloomberg Article

Read Daily Mail Article

Palin Thankful for Top Spot

It is a beautiful day in the news when the following happens.  Politico ran a story on Sarah Palin's new book, depicting the co-author as:

Sarah Palin's most consequential choice since leaving the Alaska governor's mansion may be her co-author - a staunch conservative, devoted evangelical Christian, and intensely partisan Republican from far, far outside the Beltway.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27777.html#ixzz0SeNrGtZ9

Heaven forbid.  

Right underneath the article was a second article which bears the title:

Palin 'grateful' for top spot

Her book is number one seller on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com.  It is not released until November 17.

Could it just be that nobody really cares about the views of her coauthor?  Or could it just be, the country is still politically positioned - center right?

Link