RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Turning “Follow the Money” into Heroic Leadership. Obama on Gay Marriage.

10 May

How is Time considered credible to anyone with garbage like this?

They say the arc of history bends toward justice.

Who says it? Who are you quoting, or rather, misquoting? It was the Republican Baptist Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. who made this quote by Theodore Parker famous. Parker, it seems, was referring to the end of slavery, a world wide immorality that characterized the entire world until movements of Christians in England and Republicans in the US changed everything. King would respond to the question of how long it would be until equal rights with “Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

So “Toure” starts by framing the argument on MLK’s belief that denial of people’s Declaration rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) would end, but misquotes King to remove the absolute morality (inserted “history” and removed “moral universe”), which was the basis of King’s statement.

If that’s true then as a nation we’re having a hard time bending on the issue of gay rights.

Ok… If the arc of history bends toward justice, we’re having a hard time bending on one issue. So if the arc of history doesn’t bend toward justice, then we’re not having a hard time bending on this issue? We’re only at sentence 2 and the writer’s ability to construct sentences is already in question.

“gay rights.”

This is a curious phrase to apply to a discussion of marriage. My marriage is a marriage and would be regardless of whether the state recognized it. People were married before the government granted marriage licenses, thus it doesn’t seem that the government’s distribution of certificates actually affects marriage.

What are rights, anyway? Looking back to the founding documents, we see rights to life and liberty, to speech, gun ownership, the press, etc.

  • The Right fights for the right to life, even for unborn humans and people in comas. The Left seeks death in both cases.
  • The Right fights for the right to liberty (to do what one wishes with one’s self and the product of one’s labor without infringing on these same rights of others) by pushing for less regulation and lower taxation. The Left believes the government can decide what to do with you (Obamacare) and your stuff (taxation and redistribution of wealth) better than you.
  • The Right fights for the right to the pursuit of happiness through pushing for private property ownership and less regulation. The left fights against this, believing you are too dumb to pursue happiness and can’t be trusted with tough choices such as what food to eat and what snacks your kids can buy.
  • The Right fights for the right to free speech and press by pushing back against Leftist policies like the fairness doctrine.
  • The Right fights for the right to bear arms. The Left consistently seeks to limit this right.
  • The Right fights for the free exercise of religion by working to preserve people’s ability to live out their religious beliefs. The Left has made it illegal to do so in many situations and with Obamacare are working to force religious hospitals and other businesses to either cease exercising their religion or cease providing health care.

Rights are consistently defended by conservatives, and consistently assaulted by progressives. Apparently they’re just seeking progress in taking away your rights.

But this week will be remembered as an historic turning point because President Obama threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics in announcing his support for marriage equality. “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Robin Roberts in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday.

After Joe Biden came out of the closet as a gay marriage supporter, news broke that several big dollar donors would stop supporting Obama unless he changed his position to support the same. That’s what the article’s author means when he “threw political caution to the wind and came out as the man who can put principle over politics” : He did what would get him more money. Wow. Caution to the wind, principle over politics. Reversing positions to get more money. That’s inspiring! It’s heroic!

With Obama’s declaration that he “personally” thinks one thing, and publicly thinks the opposite, believing the federal government should stay out of it, we have clarity: instead of still trying to hold both sides on the issue, he’s… trying to hold both sides on the issue. So, with his public policy as the president remaining exactly the same, what’s changed?

  • Obama’s earliest record on the issue was in 1996, when he answered questions, in writing declaring “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages” as he ran for Illinois Senate.
  • In 2008 he spoke on stage with Rick Warren, saying “For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union… God’s in the mix”

The only change here is that Obama’s temporary pro-traditional-marriage position was picked up when it would benefit his running for office to claim Christian values, and dropped when politically expedient as a fundraising effort for re-election.

The “Toure” article goes on to get facts wrong, contradict itself, and commit most logical fallacies you could name. If you enjoy pain, you can read the entire article. It’s disappointing that this type of poorly written inflammation of an article is considered reputable and worthwhile, but I’m not a leftist, so I’m not calling on people to destroy him and his employment as he has done with Rush Limbaugh.

 

Contraception Switcharoo, or Pregnancy is a Disease

10 Feb

The President and Kathleen Sebelius, director of Health and Human Services, just announced a switcharoo.

Obama’s healthcare law declared that employers have to include contraception services on their insurance plans.  Obama and Sebelius just explained why: preventative treatment. Preventing a disease is cheaper than dealing with the consequences of the disease.

Yes, the Obama view is that pregnancy and children are a disease to be prevented. This isn’t new, as he previously said that he didn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” if they “made a mistake” and got pregnant.

The president just announced a change in how the law is implemented, so that insurance will pay for the cost, so religious institutions won’t have to.  Nothing changed. Nothing.

Contraception is still required to be available on every plan. Americans that provide health insurance policies to employees, are legally bound to be paying for a plan that provides contraceptive services, many of which are abortive in nature.

Obama’s announcement of who pays for it changes nothing, for 2 reasons:

  1. Like all companies (think oil companies, banks, etc.), insurance companies’ costs are paid for by consumers. If the cost of providing insurance increases, premiums have to increase in order to pay for the costs.
  2. Sebelius, on an interview immediately following the press conference, said that offering contraceptives has no cost associated with it. That is, the insurance company won’t have to pay any increased costs.

This means that nothing at all has changed about employers having to pay for contraception. Nothing has changed, in our government’s pursuit of preventing the disease known as children.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Herman Cain for the Win!

17 Oct

Herman Cain, candidate for President

I’m a supporter of Herman Cain for president of the United States. In addition to his executive business experience, personal story, his conservative value and his personality, his movement up in the polls has been impressive to watch. He’s currently the only candidate that would beat Obama in the 2012 election.

Newt Gingrich is also steadily, though slowly, climbing in the polls. Perhaps we could actually see a Herman-Newt or Newt-Herman ticket for 2012!

Both Cain and Gingrich are criticized for holding conservative values. The thought is: If we picked the most liberal of the available Republican candidates, they’d be more likely to win.  This is what the Republicans tried with John McCain. He lost, conceded early, and went to bed.  We ought not have a repeat of that. Ronald Reagan won 49 states by expressing his conservative values, not by being mediocre and moderate. Conservative values are what wins elections. This is why even Obama campaigned on conservative values that he didn’t even believe in (see his video of saying national debt was bad before he set new records for increasing the debt).

Here’s the info about the poll from Rasmussen showing Cain alone would win over Obama.

At the moment, the Georgia businessman is the only Republican with a lead of any kind over Obama, although former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has held a similar advantage several times and is currently trailing the president by just two points.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows Cain attracting 43% support, while Obama earns 41%.

Given such a matchup, eight percent 8% prefer some other candidate, and another eight percent 8% are undecided…

Cain is tied with Romney for the lead in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.  Nobody else is even close at the moment.Last week,  Cain trailed Obama by three. The week before,  he was behind by five. “Cain now has the chance to make the case for why he should be the challenger to Mitt Romney,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports.

via 2012 Presidential Matchups – Rasmussen Reports™.

 
1 Comment

Posted in Politics

 

The Rich Need to Pay Their Fair Share

09 Sep
Photo of Obama at his Job Speech to the joint session of congress on September 8, 2011
Obama speaks to congress about the rich needing to pay their fair share.

As expected by many, Obama’s job speech last night consisted of recycled rhetoric and finger pointing. One of the key phrases he uses is:

The rich need to pay their fair share.

The ambiguity of this statement is astounding. Clarity is needed, not Ambiguity. As G. K. Chesterton said, “Evil always takes advantage of ambiguity.”

So the questions are:

Who are “the rich”?

“Rich” and “Poor” are arbitrarily defined by the government. President Obama picked a number $250,000. If you make that much or more in a given calendar year, you’re rich.

“Poor” is also arbitrarily defined.  I recently heard a reporter say that one out of seven Americans is “poor.” I don’t think the reporter was lying, but they are speaking according to whatever income dollar amount the federal government picked to define the poverty level.

There’s nothing to stop the government from saying that the “rich” are those who make a million dollars per year or those who make more than $40,000 per year. Likewise, there’s nothing to stop the government to adjust the numbers to show that 50% of Americans live in poverty.

The terms are meaningless. They are only used in order to create angst between American citizens and to create a class warfare of classes that the government arbitrarily picks to pit against each other for the benefit of the politicians in power.

What is a person’s “fair share”?

The consequence of falling into the group that Obama calls “the rich” is that you are to be despised by all other Americans. You are wronging all Americans by not paying your “fair share.” The problems that citizens experience are your fault.

What is the fair share of the rich? Let’s take a look at some numbers

The richest half of tax payers have 100% of the taxes. The less wealthy 50% pay nothing – in fact, they have  net gain from the government, usually through social programs where the taxes paid by the 50% that pay is paid to them through welfare, social security, etc. Is it fair that only half of the country pays taxes?

The richest 5%, those who made over $160,000, paid 59% of the taxes. 5% of people paid more than half the taxes in America.

It’s startling to look at the numbers and and realize the president thinks the top 5% paying about 60% of the total tax revenue is not their fair share. If they have to pay more to pay their fair share, how much would the top 5% have to pay?

Tomorrow: Tax Cuts for the Rich.

 
No Comments

Posted in Politics

 

You’ve bought the political lies.

23 Jul

How much of what you buy politically is totally disconnected from reality?

Today ends a week where the Democrats voted No on the second budget proposal put forth by the Republicans, which the President promised to veto anyway. The Democrats have had zero proposals so far. Today Obama gave a speech saying that the Republican party needs to decide if they can say Yes to anything. His speech is totally disconnected from reality, as he is now part of the Party of No.

Do you buy it?

It’s not just the President.There’s lots of lies we believe about politics:

  • All politicians are the same – corrupt liars
  • I can’t change anything
  • It’s acceptable to be uninformed and uninvolved
  • Republicans have no heart
  • Democrats are the party of equal rights
  • We can trust the Republican Party
  • We can trust the Democrat Party
  • If the media presents someone negatively, they’re unqualified for office.
  • The pursuit of profits is evil
  • Corporate Jets always are a waste of money
  • The New Deal helped the economy and Americans
  • Higher tax rates always means more revenue
  • When the country is in financial trouble the solution is to go further into debt.

Have you bought into any of these? What other lies about politics do we tend to believe?

 
1 Comment

Posted in Politics

 

Bad, bad, US Health Care

30 Nov

Proving the recent studies that say Cuba and other countries have better health care than the US, another international leader, the Saudi King, has traveled internationally for health care.

To Cuba? To the UK? France? Canada? Netherlands?

No. To the United States.

The problems with health care isn’t the treatment – we’ve got the best treatment in the world. Otherwise, perhaps the Saudi King, Canadian officials, and others, would perhaps stay in their own countries or head to Cuba.

The problems have been cost and an entitlement attitude of a large group of citizens.

Cost is high because of a few factors:

  • Cost of compliance with government regulation.
  • Cost of excess treatment to attempt to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed.
  • Cost of malpractice insurance and/or legal expenses to fight frivolous lawsuits that have been filed and which benefit trial lawyers (aka Democrat congressmen) more than anyone.

The entitlement attitude is not just among those on government healthcare. If the middle class didn’t feel entitled, we wouldn’t all be in so much debt, having “bought” things we cannot afford. What many Americans expect:

  • Someone else should pay for the health consequences of my behavior.
  • Someone else should pay for the elective treatments I receive.
  • Someone else should take financial care of my family and parents.
  • I deserve to keep the money I make for my work. Doctors that provide treatment and insurance employees that ensure it’s as affordable as possible do not deserve to be paid for their work.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid health plan does a few things to ensure all the problems get worse:

  • Dramatic increases in government regulation are raising the cost of health care.
  • Purposeful ignorance of the frivolous lawsuits has empowered trial lawyers (Democrat congressmen) to continue to file even more frivolous lawsuits which is raising the cost of health care.
  • Adults up to 26 years old have been told that legally they are not needing to be responsible for their own health care.
  • Everyone has been told that pre-existing conditions, often the result of behavioral choices are not their responsibility and someone else will pay for them.

The costs continue to rise, and the entitlement attitude is being encouraged.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid health care plan has successfully made the two main aspects of the problem worse.

 
 

RNC Pledge To America

24 Sep
Republicans and the Pledge to America

Photo credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

The Republicans have published a 21 page “Pledge to America“. I have only skimmed it so far, but some of the bullet points indicate a commitment to spurring economic growth by lowering taxes on the citizens and downsizing the government. This means that every business and every individual has more money, and the federal government spends less money.

Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are expected to announce the DNC response today: a 2,200 page document called “Hope for America” that no one has read, and we’ll find out what it contains after the Democrats are elected.

 
2 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Dr. Roger Starner Jones Muses On Crisis Culture : Fact.

17 Sep

emergency room doctor roger starner jonesWhen my cousin, a medical professional, shared this on Facebook, I assumed it was just an email forward telling a fictional story. It’s not.

Dr. Roger Starner Jones is an ER Doctor who works at UMMC and is currently selling this condo, featuring a central vacuum. Real guy. What he wrote below was published August 29th, 2009 and is currently making rounds on Facebook in a slightly modified version addressed to the President.

If he is correct, then the health care overhaul just made worse the problem that has caused the mess we’re currently in with health care. What do you think?

Dear Sirs:

During my last night’s shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B; tune for a ring tone.

Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid.

She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer. And our President expects me to pay for this woman’s health care?

Our nation’s health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture – a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

A culture that thinks I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me.

Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.

Starner Jones, MD
Jackson, MS

As a side note, I’m not the only one trying to find the source of this letter. The news paper that published this doesn’t have it archived on their website, but people are looking. 5 of the top 10 searches today are trying to find this story:

Clarion Ledger searches

 
 

Nancy Pelosi, Wicked Witch of the West: Why Party Trumps Person in Politics

13 Sep

We’ve often voted just for the individual politician that we like or agree with the most in elections. It’s usually a Republican because there’s some core issues of the Democrat party that are immoral (such as oppressing the poor through entitlement programs that keep them poor and oppressed, abortion, devaluing individuals by lessening individual rights) and Libertarians tend to be unqualified and silly ( with bios that sound like “I’m a kindergarten volunteer, I like the color pink, and I want to be governor and legalize pot!”)

But – at least in the legislative branch, and in a year like 2010, party trumps politics. Here’s the most creative ad campaign I’ve seen in a very long time:

YouTube Preview Image

John Dennis is taking on Nancy Pelosi with this ad, and throughout his website. Americans aren’t too happy with Congress right now. With good reason. The parties switched control of the legislative branch in 2006, and everything went wrong. Unemployment increased, repeated bailouts and stimulus packages were written into law, anyone who dares disagree is slandered and maligned. The economy took a downturn when Pelosi took leadership of the legislative branch, and things continue to move the wrong direction now, 4 years later.

But John Dennis isn’t the only one taking on Pelosi. Every Republican congressman is. Pelosi is in control of every committee and the agenda of what comes to the floor for a vote and when – because the Democrat party has the majority. The same is true with Harry Reid in the Senate. If you vote for a moderate Democrat, it’s a vote for the extreme left-wing ideologues like Pelosi who will both control the legislative branch and ignore the moderate Democrat you vote for.

Isn’t the same true of Republicans? While the Democrats say they want to expand government and do so, the Republicans say they want a smaller government, but during Bush’s presidency, they grew government just like Democrats.

The difference is that Democrats screwed things up right away. The Republicans took a long time to ignore their own platform and increase government intrusion into your life. We need a new change – different from the Democrat ‘echo Obama’ strategy. We the voters need to get rid of the Democrat control of the legislature, and we then need to force the Republicans to stick to conservative principles, or vote them out in the primaries when they’re up for re-election.

A vote for any Democrat, moderate or not is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid control of every law written in Washington.

 
3 Comments

Posted in Politics

 

Religious Extremists, Part 1

08 Sep
YouTube Preview Image

Since Rosie O’Donnell declared that Christian extremists were as dangerous as Muslim extremists, it seems to have become an official talking-point of American politics. I’ve heard media talking heads say that Christianity and Islam are the same: not all Muslims are terrorists, not all Christians proselytize.

Naturally, telling someone there’s a free gift of eternal salvation available to all is strikingly similar to blowing up yourself along with a bus load of people, or two trade towers. Why didn’t we see that before? In perspective, we can all now see that every Billy Graham event was as damaging to America as 9/11. Yet the American military doesn’t seem to be able to track down one old man in the mountains of North Carolina. I smell conspiracy. How did we not realize this when Graham called his events the most politically incorrect word: “Crusades!” Oh, the horror of extreme Christians!

George W. Bush promoted the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. What about that sneaky worldwide trend of violent extremists rising up within Islam? We’re told that every religion has extremists, but it is no reflection on the religion or the people who follow it. But especially Christians.

Today a Christian extremist is in the news again.

A small US church says it will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary.

The top US commander in Afghanistan warned troops’ lives would be in danger if the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida went through with the plan.

Muslim countries, the US government and Nato have also hit out at the plan.

But organiser, Pastor Terry Jones said: “We must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam.”

The US government, NATO, even General Petraeus have spoken against this man. Petraeus warned that the action could cause violence “not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world.”

The Huffington Post calls this “our own home-grown variety of dangerous extremism.”

The State Department calls him “un-American.”

I’m not arguing that this guy is correct – or that he’s incorrect – in what he’s doing. But I think it’s important that we get down to what is happening here. Like the conversations at Jim Taggart’s wedding reception, no one is willing to name what is going on here: Terrorism.

Muslims burn an effigy of Pastor Terry Jones who may burn a copy of the Koran

Crowds of Muslims in Afghanistan are chanting “Death to America,” and burned an effigy of the pastor – who as of yet, hasn’t done anything. The Obama administration has called on Americans to join these protests against this American pastor.

And yet, less than a year ago, there was a Bible burning that did not receive international or even presidential condemnation. What’s the difference? What’s the thought pattern in this case?

Everyone’s behavior should be modified out of fear of violence from a certain group of people.

Yet – isn’t that the very definition of terrorism? (Yes, it is: “the state of fear and submission produced by the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce.”)

Will this empower the enemies of America in Afghanistan? Perhaps. It already has, and nothing has happened.

Will this endanger American civilians in Muslim countries around the world? Possibly.

Is it foolish to tempt a bully that is threatening violence against you? Perhaps. And that’s why the bully stays the bully. That’s why the mob wins. That’s why terrorism works.

The government of the United States is one that will pay someone $15,000.00 to take and popularize photos of a crucifix in urine, that will ignore Bible burnings, yet speaks out against anyone who does not submit to at least some of the commands of Islam.

Regardless of Rosie’s talking point, anyone who argues that this guy is a dangerous Christian extremist is saying that only because of what Muslim extremists will do. Anyone who argues that he should stop because of potential violent Muslim reactions is saying there is a difference between Christian and Muslim extremists.