Category Archives: constitution

Selling Their Souls

Shameful Stupak: Selling babies out by the millions

Bart Stupak sold his soul and the lives of countless innocent babies for not even a bowl of porridge but the promise of a liar.

I’m proud to report that my representative, Congressman Dan Lipinksi, a Democrat whose pro-life stance stood firm in the face of what was reportedly intense pressure from the party leadership to support this particular pet project of the President, voted against the health care takeover and unconstitutional government power grab because he didn’t trust the promises of San Fran Nan’ and President Hope’nChange.

The battle isn’t over. After all, the sell-outs and pols who passed this know it’s not the right thing or the best thing. Why else would they push the implementation off for years?

Lipinski stuck to his principles

What they have accomplished is to paint massive targets on each and every one who voted Aye. Come election time fiscal conservatives will vote out those who levied hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt onto each and every one of us, our children, and our children’s children. And social conservatives will vote out those who signed on to the government sponsored slaughter of millions of innocents.

The Great American Genocide has only just begun, and the blood of millions of black and white, and hispanic and asian babies will cry from the dirt and garbage bins to the every listening ears of God.

Congressman Stupak, shame. Shame on you for selling your soul on the promise of a liar. Shame on you for selling out the countless babies who might have been born had it not been for your craven and cowardly act of supreme selfishness. Shame on you and your cronies who took a stand and abandoned it at the first hint of real trouble.

We, your electorate will indeed be coming for you come election time, but we’re not who you ought to fear. Fear a just and holy God who knows your heart and mind as well as we know your actions.

How did your representative vote tonight?

Samuel Adams penned these lines in response to those who would not stand and fight the necessary and good fights of his day:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Why Conservative, Christian?

Is America a Christian Nation?

Among those brothers and sisters who claim the name of Christ as their redeemer and Lord there are as many social ideas and political persuasions as there are sequins on a glam rockers vest. Or more.

Anybody who thinks all professed Christians believe a certain way about nearly any subject, even many subjects central to the faith, is misinformed or worse. They may be correct in believe that professing Christians ought to believe certain ways, but they are sadly mistaken if they think they actually do.

Especially in recent years, as traditionally more professedly secular ideologies have come to recognize the power and persuasion of faith-based arguments, no one political party or social movement or cultural idea can claim to be leading most Christians in it’s way.

However, there are many social ideas and political ideologies that Christians ought to agree on, and at least basically agree on their importance in the grand scheme of ideas.

First, we must agree that all aspects of life are related. That words mean things, that ideas have consequences, that actions are the outward manifestations of inward ideas, though they can be easily controlled and manipulated to give a wrong impression, positive or negative. We must agree that out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. We must agree that what one does in private is the truer measure of who they are than what they claim in public. We must accept that dishonesty in one part of a life will mean that person cannot be trusted in other ways either. This doesn’t mean we only accept perfection. It means, more than anything else, that we only trust God for those things that are rightfully His to do.

Second we must agree that there are standards of right and wrong, and they are not situationally or culturally defined. When Jesus said He was the only way to the Father, He wasn’t leaving options open. If you don’t believe Jesus is the only way, you’re very welcome to call yourself anything you please, except a Christian. We use labels to mean things and allow useful and necessary classification in order to function as a normal, healthy society. Co-opting a label that has meant one thing for centuries to mean something completely different is to no ones benefit except the deceiver. And referencing to point 1, such deception in more indicative of your own heart issues than any intolerance true Christians may or may not hold.

The same goes for other truths that are defined in human nature and through the Word of God. Killing of innocents is always unjust and immoral. It doesn’t matter if you’re all in a life raft and starving and the weak ones wouldn’t survive anyways. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to live with the consequences of your actions. It doesn’t even matter if the choice was taken from you and forced upon you by evil people doing evil actions. Taking a life never expunges the memories or heals the wounds. It only adds to the pain and grief and lays actual and real and deserved blame on yourself. Abortion is murder. There is no argument that can change that plain and simple and very obvious fact. And to subscribe to and support any ideology that holds otherwise is to accept a huge burden of responsibility for the ugly truth that is our societies acceptance of this hideous and unconscionable act.

Third, we must agree that in order for God to justly judge the actions and intentions of each and every person, each and every person must be allowed the maximum use of their own abilities to do with as they please. Acting according to conviction or spite, or duplicity or compassion, or cynicism or malice or justice or pleasure, it is each and every one of our prerogative what we shall do with our own resources, got by our own hand, multiplied by our own skill, maximized by our own discipline. If the government or any other group takes from the able to distribute to the needy, they are removing that able person’s ability to show their own character and quality to God and man. And they are, more often than not, removing a powerful motivator for the needy to raise themselves up through honest and accountable charity and use of those resources they do have. A system of mutual dependency removes the onus of responsibility both from those who have and those who need.

I subscribe to conservative social and political beliefs not because I want America to return to its roots as a Christian nation. I don’t hold to my standards and ideas because I hope to create a wondrous theocracy here in the United States of America. Useful theocracies perished with the coming of Christ. At that point the theocracy moved to the heart of each and every man and woman and child. The responsibility is no longer with the nation but with the individual how they will go and who they will serve. The nation bears responsibility for maintaining an atmosphere most conducive to individual expression of their own faith, preventing such beliefs from infringing on others beliefs, and punishing where such infringment occurs. The individual bears the responsibility for using what freedom they have to serve whom they will in what manner they deem best.

The philosophies and ideas our Founding Fathers used to build such a nation were predominantly those derived from the Christian worldview. Because God does not want automatons but people who have freely and willingly chosen Him, He give to us complete choice and builds a framework, a worldview that is most conducive to such freedom while accounting for the human predilection for sin. It is the Christian government that is most conducive to all religions coexisting as peaceably as they may.

I am not Christian because I am conservative. No, political ideas can only at best be results of deeper things. I am a conservative because I am Christian. To be Christian is a deeper thing.

I’m From The Government And…

Run away!

Vowing to “reverse the overall erosion in middle class security” President Obama is trying to reconnect with us poor plebes left out in the cold with all this uncertainty.

Probably because he’s had his pants handed to him more often than he’s done the handing this year, and mostly because of massive levels of policy-specific disapproval in the middle class, he’s trying to make good enough to not have it handed to him again in upcoming elections.

His pet projects to engender warm fuzzies in my quivering breast (Ok, that sounded a little weird): use my money to pay for every other poor schmucks child care, retirement, student loans, and elderly parents.

In other words, if you’re living outside your means such that you need more than one parent can make, if your primary retirement plan is to play the lottery, if you’re attending a college you can’t afford, and if your parents had the same problems, you get my money to square your books.

Yup. I’ve got all kinds of warm fuzzies here for you, Mr. President.

This is what’s called a buy out. President Roosevelt (Franklin Delano, to be exact) was master at this, pitting party against party, class against class.

The problem here is that I’m middle class and I’m not going to be taking advantage of any of these programs, which means, by default, I’ll be getting taken advantage of.

See where all these warm fuzzies are coming from? They’re certainly not Tribbles.

Here’s my (unsolicited) suggestions, Mr. President. Back off. Stay away. Shut my pocket book. Quit meddling.

Why don’t I like being meddled with?

People don’t like to be meddled with.
We tell them what to do, what to think.
Don’t run, don’t walk.
We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right.
We’re meddlesome.

Line 4 there folks, “we haven’t the right” (Thanks to River Tam and Serenity for the above wisdom).

I’m most comfortable when I’m left alone (by the government) to do as I ought. That is an important distinction from doing as I like. The government does have responsibility to constrain those who do as they like to the detriment of those who haven’t liked what was done to them. Government has no right to do as they like to those who’d rather be left to do as they ought.

Thankfully, I don’t believe Mr. President, for all his awesome rhetorical ability, is former President Clinton. He’ll not be able to communicate this program in any way that will make it appear less than it is to those who care.

President Clinton actually changed his policies when he say how the chips fell against him. He became downright conservative in his fiscal policies and beguiled enough to remain in power.

President Obama has too much blood in the game, is too invested in his Marxist ideology to change his policies, and so he is left only to dress them up. Which is something he can only do to himself with any success.

The New York Times highlights, of course, that this is nowhere near the levels of rainbows and unicorns promised during the campaign:

Mr. Biden rejected criticism that the proposals Mr. Obama was unveiling were relatively small-bore compared with the vast and sweeping measures he pushed during his first year in office. “They’re big-deal things if you’re just able to give some respite for a husband and wife, both working, to give a little bit of help,” Mr. Biden said.

So no one is happy with President Obama now.

Darn.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on how he’s concerned about the middle class. What about the lower class? What about the upper class? Aren’t they all American’s too? The middle class must be the biggest, most homogeneous voting bloc.

The Manhattan Declaration And The Joker

This is not Hugh O'Shaughnessy
This is not Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Sometimes the cynics are so ludicrous you can’t help but laugh. It’s the only thing you can do in the face of huffy and misguided rants such as this one:

No one who surveys the statistics of abortion in the US and the wider world can in conscience express anything but horror at the increasing casualness with which this action is being performed.

But must one not be equally horrified by the fact that the signatories chose to make no reference to the evident evil committed by the US government and its allies in their illegal invasion of Iraq?

Hugh O’Shaughnessy of the Times of London posts this piece of precious pomposity under the title “A Declaration Of Hypocrisy” and his (initial) aim is at what he considers the nefarious religious right and the the recently revealed Manhattan Declaration, which is an attempt to codify and unify support for the goals of protection of all human life, protection of traditional marriage, and protection of the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

The Manhattan Declaration appears to be a worthwhile document with a strong backing from such leaders as Charles Colson, Kay Arthur, Joel Belz, Dr. James Dobson, and many other leaders of the Catholic and protestant faiths.

Hugh’s connection of the Manhattan signers support of pro-life measures and their support for the war in Iraq appears to be entirely founded on the bug bears of Abu Graib and Fallujah:

Tell me, Your Eminences, why did you achieve nothing effective in “defence of life” during the illegal invasion of Iraq and its attendant massacres? Why, Mr Colson, did you do nothing “in defence of marriage … and freedom of conscience” when Iraqis were being deprived – temporarily or for ever – of their spouses and children of their parents at the hands of the torturers of Abu Ghraib?

Go ahead and read the whole thing, it’s not very long and none of it is very bright. But hey, you may laugh, it’s just that bad.

Government Successes

Obama's Health Care - You're going to get screwed
Obama's Health Care - You're going to get screwed

Socialized healthcare is just such a big target.

A good friend of mine a few weeks ago said his main argument against it is the historical argument: what programs has the United States government run successfully in the past that can serve as a model for the successful management of the entire healthcare system of the US?

It’s a good question.

I get echoes of “Bueller… Bueller… Bueller…?” in my head just thinking about it.

United States Senator Tom Coburn thinks it’s a very relevant question to, as he uses it to correct a lady who is asking for his support of socialized medicine in the US.

UPDATE: Neil from 4Simpsons says the health care bill does contain funding for abortion. His logic is the same we use to find black holes. If  you don’t find something you expected to find, there’s probably a good reason.