Today is a great day for America. Today the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights activists will no longer have to argue this point when fighting gun grabbers trying to impose draconian gun control laws on Americans.
The ruling is the result of the Court reviewing Washington D.C.'s extreme handgun law which made it impossible for D.C. citizens to own a handgun legally. As is the case with all gun control laws, D.C.'s criminals had no problem getting handguns or any other kind of firearms. The capital has, and has had for a long time, one of the highest murder rates in the country. In fact, the lawsuit that ultimately came before the Court was filed by D.C. resident Dick Heller after the city denied his application to keep a handgun in his home for protection. "I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller exclaimed upon hearing the ruling. Amen brother!
While affirming an individual's right to bear arms this ruling doesn't mean that all restrictions on gun ownership are now unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, stated that their decision in no way "cast[s] doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or [on] laws forbidding the carrying of firearms [into] sensitive places such as schools or government buildings." I suspect gun control advocates won't find that reassurring. Too bad.
Today the Supreme Court got one right, which is an all-too-rare occurrence. And it not only got the law right, it also got a worldview right. By striking down D.C's handgun ban and affirming the people's right to keep arms for personal protection, the Court was unmistakeably repudiating the loony left view that inanimate objects, e.g. guns, and not people cause crime. As mentioned above, Washington D.C.'s handgun ban did nothing to reduce crime. That's because crime originates in the hearts and minds of human beings, not in the objects they use to carry it out.
Blaming lifeless, will-less, tools for the anti-social ends to which they are put is the mother of all cop outs. Liberals cling to it, I believe, because it allows them to retain their utopian view of human nature. Being largely unChristian, liberals deny man's innate capacity for evil and instead blame evil on a corrupt environment. If that environment includes guns, this thinking goes, violent crime is the result. Remove the gun and, supposedly, the urge to commit crime vanishes as well. Crazy, I know. And five of the nine Supreme Court Justices know that, too. Thank God, and long live the Second Amendment!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Common Sense Comes To Washington
Finally, some common sense from a politician!
In this video Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) gives the House a hilarious but spot on tongue lashing over its plan to force Americans to replace all of our incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs. Mercury containing fluorescent light bulbs made in China, the country that gave us contaminated pet food and dangerous toys.
Rep. Poe does a terrific job exposing the utter stupidity of Congress' light bulb switching plan. And check out Tom Tancredo in the background. His reaction alone is worth the 5 minutes it takes to watch this video. So pull up a chair, relax, and watch in amazement as, for once, common sense comes to Washington.
(And when you're done here check out the miniature belly dancer on my blog Hammer Folk Woman. See what kind of "family values" THEY teach their kids.)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Propaganda Not Truth
I can't believe what I saw on The O'Reilly Factor tonight. The Factor did a segment on a couple of political ads made by the liberal group MoveOn.org, and I couldn't believe how viscious, hate filled, and utterly dishonest they were. Oh, wait, I can believe it. After all, this is MoveOn.org we're talking about.
One of the ads was premised on a shameless distortion of John McCain's statement about America being in Iraq for 100 years. In the ad a hip young mother has her cute baby boy, Alex, on her lap. She talks lovingly about the baby for a minute then gets gravely serious when she tells McCain that he "can't have [Alex]" to send to Iraq. Come on!
McCain has explained what he meant by being in Iraq for 100 years. He was talking about America having a military presence there, similar to the ones we have in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. He was NOT talking about fighting in Iraq for a 100 years. MoveOn.org and the rest of the left knows that, yet they continue to engage in rank dishonesty in order to smear McCain and instill fear of Republicans in American voters. As bad as the Alex ad was, though, the second one was worse.
Ad number two was a stark revelation of how liberals really view Republicans/conservatives. In this ad the left's hatred toward the right was laid bare for all to see. The ad consisted of a series of people telling why they wanted to vote Republican. One was a soldier saying he wanted to vote Republican so he could stay in Iraq forever. Another was a toy gun wielding little boy who said he wanted to vote Republican so he could invade Iran. But the really offensive parts of this ad were the pastor and the white guy.
The pastor, sounding quite wicked, said he wanted to vote Republican because women had no right to make decisions about their own lives, ever. Of course, this was a reference to abortion. This part of the ad was premised on the notion that only Republicans are pro-life; it totally ignored the existence of pro-life Democrats. Yet there ARE pro-life Democrats, Senate majority leader Harry Reid being the most prominent example. But according to MoveOn.org's ad, being pro-life is a misogynist, Republican position. This reveals the progressives' disturbing attitude toward pro-life Dems: they shouldn't exist. What exactly should be done with pro-life Dems the ad doesn't say, but by portraying support for the unborn as a strictly Republican cause it's pretty clear that progressives don't want them in the party. Despite Reid's election as leader of Senate Democrats I suspect that pro-life Dems will soon feel a cold wind blowing. Can you say purge?
The white guy was next. What he had to say was the most offensive to me personally. The white guy said he wanted to vote Republican because he didn't want a cure for AIDS or breast cancer. Why not? Because the victims of those diseases were "just gays and women". I almost hit the tv when I heard that. My mother and grandmother both had breast cancer. Granny died after a heroic five year battle; Mama, thankfully, is a survivor. For some sanctimonious, far-left jerk to say that, because I vote Republican, I don't want a cure for the disease that killed my beloved grandmother is obscene beyond words.
This politicizing of compassion is one of the left's most despicable characteristics, and I'm not falling for it. I want a cure for breast cancer, but not because it primarily strikes women. I want a cure for AIDS, but not because it primarily strikes gays. Rather, I want a cure for these and all other deadly diseases because they strike people, and cause horrible suffering to my fellow man. Why should I want a cure for breast cancer more urgently than I want a cure for abdominal cancer, which killed my father? Is my father's death less tragic, less of a loss, because he was a man? Is heart disease, the number one killer in America, less worthy of a cure than AIDS simply because its victims aren't overwhelmingly gay? I think not.
The left-wing loons who made the ads described above just showed how much contempt for truth and the intelligence of the American people they really have. That's all their ads accomplished. John McCain has no intention of waging war in Iraq for 100 years; pro-lifers come in both Democrat and Republican flavors, and the desire to see mankind freed from the clutches of deadly illnesses transcends ideology. Americans know this. That many "progressives" apparently don't is frightening indeed. God help us.
One of the ads was premised on a shameless distortion of John McCain's statement about America being in Iraq for 100 years. In the ad a hip young mother has her cute baby boy, Alex, on her lap. She talks lovingly about the baby for a minute then gets gravely serious when she tells McCain that he "can't have [Alex]" to send to Iraq. Come on!
McCain has explained what he meant by being in Iraq for 100 years. He was talking about America having a military presence there, similar to the ones we have in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. He was NOT talking about fighting in Iraq for a 100 years. MoveOn.org and the rest of the left knows that, yet they continue to engage in rank dishonesty in order to smear McCain and instill fear of Republicans in American voters. As bad as the Alex ad was, though, the second one was worse.
Ad number two was a stark revelation of how liberals really view Republicans/conservatives. In this ad the left's hatred toward the right was laid bare for all to see. The ad consisted of a series of people telling why they wanted to vote Republican. One was a soldier saying he wanted to vote Republican so he could stay in Iraq forever. Another was a toy gun wielding little boy who said he wanted to vote Republican so he could invade Iran. But the really offensive parts of this ad were the pastor and the white guy.
The pastor, sounding quite wicked, said he wanted to vote Republican because women had no right to make decisions about their own lives, ever. Of course, this was a reference to abortion. This part of the ad was premised on the notion that only Republicans are pro-life; it totally ignored the existence of pro-life Democrats. Yet there ARE pro-life Democrats, Senate majority leader Harry Reid being the most prominent example. But according to MoveOn.org's ad, being pro-life is a misogynist, Republican position. This reveals the progressives' disturbing attitude toward pro-life Dems: they shouldn't exist. What exactly should be done with pro-life Dems the ad doesn't say, but by portraying support for the unborn as a strictly Republican cause it's pretty clear that progressives don't want them in the party. Despite Reid's election as leader of Senate Democrats I suspect that pro-life Dems will soon feel a cold wind blowing. Can you say purge?
The white guy was next. What he had to say was the most offensive to me personally. The white guy said he wanted to vote Republican because he didn't want a cure for AIDS or breast cancer. Why not? Because the victims of those diseases were "just gays and women". I almost hit the tv when I heard that. My mother and grandmother both had breast cancer. Granny died after a heroic five year battle; Mama, thankfully, is a survivor. For some sanctimonious, far-left jerk to say that, because I vote Republican, I don't want a cure for the disease that killed my beloved grandmother is obscene beyond words.
This politicizing of compassion is one of the left's most despicable characteristics, and I'm not falling for it. I want a cure for breast cancer, but not because it primarily strikes women. I want a cure for AIDS, but not because it primarily strikes gays. Rather, I want a cure for these and all other deadly diseases because they strike people, and cause horrible suffering to my fellow man. Why should I want a cure for breast cancer more urgently than I want a cure for abdominal cancer, which killed my father? Is my father's death less tragic, less of a loss, because he was a man? Is heart disease, the number one killer in America, less worthy of a cure than AIDS simply because its victims aren't overwhelmingly gay? I think not.
The left-wing loons who made the ads described above just showed how much contempt for truth and the intelligence of the American people they really have. That's all their ads accomplished. John McCain has no intention of waging war in Iraq for 100 years; pro-lifers come in both Democrat and Republican flavors, and the desire to see mankind freed from the clutches of deadly illnesses transcends ideology. Americans know this. That many "progressives" apparently don't is frightening indeed. God help us.
Friday, June 06, 2008
D-Day, The 6th Of June
D-Day. One of the single greatest days in American history--and I'm sure half the people reading this have no idea what it is. I'll tell you.
D-Day was the day America committed her finest young men to the task of defeating her enemy in Europe once and for all.
D-Day was the day the American eagle chose to continue to be an eagle and not a sitting duck.
D-Day was the day America realized that you defeat your enemies by fighting them with grim determination, not by deserting the battlefield in the middle of the fight.
D-Day was and remains the day that epitomizes everything that today's liberals despise: patriotism, steely resolve, and copious bravery.
June 6, 2008 marks the 64th anniversary of the day that was a baptism of fire for hundreds of thousands of American and other Allied troops and secured victory in Europe. Please take the time to remember those young men whose courage and sacrifice on that momentous day ensured the preservation of our free and precious way of life. Please join me in saying a heartfelt "Thank you!" to all those fine young men. God bless them and God bless America.
D-Day was the day America committed her finest young men to the task of defeating her enemy in Europe once and for all.
D-Day was the day the American eagle chose to continue to be an eagle and not a sitting duck.
D-Day was the day America realized that you defeat your enemies by fighting them with grim determination, not by deserting the battlefield in the middle of the fight.
D-Day was and remains the day that epitomizes everything that today's liberals despise: patriotism, steely resolve, and copious bravery.
June 6, 2008 marks the 64th anniversary of the day that was a baptism of fire for hundreds of thousands of American and other Allied troops and secured victory in Europe. Please take the time to remember those young men whose courage and sacrifice on that momentous day ensured the preservation of our free and precious way of life. Please join me in saying a heartfelt "Thank you!" to all those fine young men. God bless them and God bless America.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Frag The Traitors!!!!
Ok, I've had it! I've had it up to here with the left-wing, America hating scum infecting our nation and working overtime to destroy her from within. Whatever America's faults there was no excuse to curse her as "the greatest sin against God" as Barack Obama's spiritual mentor, Michael Pfleger, did at Obama's now former church. I can care less if Obama has finally quit Trinity United Church of Christ. The problem of leftist fifth columnists goes further than the loud mouths at TUCC.
The sad and frightening truth is that Michael Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Brian de Palma, Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill and their ilk have infected every corner of American society. From the pulpit, in films, in classrooms, and in our streets these vermin systematically tear down our pride in our nation and ourselves and seek to infect us with a debilitating self-hatred. They rush to believe and disseminate the worst about America. They spit on our vets and military recruiters; they call our soldiers baby killers and portray them as raping, murdering thugs. They burn Old Glory but proudly carry the flags of our enemies through our streets. They teach our children that our president is another Hitler. They endlessly berate America for slavery but never praise her for ending it. Indeed, they won't recognize any of this nation's positive accomplishments , yet they have the audacity to call themselves patriots!
These left-wing malcontents are no patriots. They are fifth columnists embarked on a campaign of psychological sabotage meant to destroy our will to fight and thereby ensure victory for our enemies. They are ideological termites eating America from within. They are a political autoimmune disease attacking the very "body" that protects them. And they MUST BE STOPPED!!!!
When you join our armed forces you recite an oath that recognizes the existence of enemies "foreign and domestic". America has domestic enemies, and they are no less deadly than her foreign enemies. Consequently, our internal foes should meet the same end as our external ones. The time for debate has passed. The liberal fifth columnists won't be dissuaded by words; they are too entrenched and too dedicated for persuasion to work. A national cleansing has to take place. It's time for the radicals, for the bombers and the shooters and the kidnappers and the killers, to get a taste of their own medicine.
Don't frag an officer like the "peace" activists advised; rather, frag a "peace" activist. Frag a fifth columnist. Frag a traitor. Wait until after the election, so there won't be any negative blowback for the patriotic candidate, then take your pick. Personally, I think Michael Pfleger would be a good one to start with. But that's just my opinion. Whoever is first, I'll serenade his and all other "cleansings" with the immortal words of Queen: And another one gone, and another one gone, and another one bites the dust! Oh yeah!!
The sad and frightening truth is that Michael Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Brian de Palma, Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill and their ilk have infected every corner of American society. From the pulpit, in films, in classrooms, and in our streets these vermin systematically tear down our pride in our nation and ourselves and seek to infect us with a debilitating self-hatred. They rush to believe and disseminate the worst about America. They spit on our vets and military recruiters; they call our soldiers baby killers and portray them as raping, murdering thugs. They burn Old Glory but proudly carry the flags of our enemies through our streets. They teach our children that our president is another Hitler. They endlessly berate America for slavery but never praise her for ending it. Indeed, they won't recognize any of this nation's positive accomplishments , yet they have the audacity to call themselves patriots!
These left-wing malcontents are no patriots. They are fifth columnists embarked on a campaign of psychological sabotage meant to destroy our will to fight and thereby ensure victory for our enemies. They are ideological termites eating America from within. They are a political autoimmune disease attacking the very "body" that protects them. And they MUST BE STOPPED!!!!
When you join our armed forces you recite an oath that recognizes the existence of enemies "foreign and domestic". America has domestic enemies, and they are no less deadly than her foreign enemies. Consequently, our internal foes should meet the same end as our external ones. The time for debate has passed. The liberal fifth columnists won't be dissuaded by words; they are too entrenched and too dedicated for persuasion to work. A national cleansing has to take place. It's time for the radicals, for the bombers and the shooters and the kidnappers and the killers, to get a taste of their own medicine.
Don't frag an officer like the "peace" activists advised; rather, frag a "peace" activist. Frag a fifth columnist. Frag a traitor. Wait until after the election, so there won't be any negative blowback for the patriotic candidate, then take your pick. Personally, I think Michael Pfleger would be a good one to start with. But that's just my opinion. Whoever is first, I'll serenade his and all other "cleansings" with the immortal words of Queen: And another one gone, and another one gone, and another one bites the dust! Oh yeah!!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Conscientious Objector: The Desmond T. Doss Story
Hey blogging friends! Remember my post a few weeks back on Desmond Doss, the first conscientious objector in American history to win the Medal of Honor? Well, the poignant documentary on Doss' story will air tomorrow at 9pm CST on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. I have no idea what channels TBN is aired on around the country or what time the film will show in different time zones, so please check your local tv guide so you won't miss this very moving film. I almost cried when I first saw this film and was disappointed that I didn't get to see it all. This time I'm going to record it so I'll always have it and watch it whenever I want. Please make sure you see "Conscientious Objector: The Desmond T. Doss Story". It's one small way to remember our vets and their sacrifice this Memorial Day.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Pray For Ted Kennedy
I've just learned that Senator Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. I'm floored. I don't like Ted Kennedy's politics at all but I'm asking everyone who reads PGZ to pray for him. Cancer is a demon. I've lost two family members to that monster and I feel for anyone who's stricken with it, and I feel for their families. So please put aside your political animus and pray for Ted Kennedy. He's a human being battling a dread disease; this is no time for schadenfreude. Compassion is what's needed now. May God bless you and keep you, Mr. Kennedy. In Jesus' name, amen.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Company He Keeps
Poor Obama! He just can't seem to get away from unsavory associations.
First, there was his infamous 20 year friendship with America hater Jeremiah Wright. Then came an endorsement from the New Black Panther Party, followed by the revelation of his schmoozing with unrepentant, left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, the Palestinian terror group Hamas voiced it's support for an Obama presidency. And now a pro-Obama phone bank in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. You read that right. In almost every primary a group of Palestinians has called Americans urging them to vote for the big O. What's Obama to do?
Of course, no candidate can control who will endorse him. I'm sure there are violent extremists of one sort or another phone banking for Hillary Clinton and John McCain, too. Still, Obama's track record of attracting disagreeable people to his cause should raise some eyebrows, don't cha think? I mean, the fact that people who hate and kill Americans believe they have something to gain from an Obama victory is telling, is it not? Just what do they know about the senator from Illinois that we don't? Talk about things that make you go, hmmmmm.
First, there was his infamous 20 year friendship with America hater Jeremiah Wright. Then came an endorsement from the New Black Panther Party, followed by the revelation of his schmoozing with unrepentant, left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, the Palestinian terror group Hamas voiced it's support for an Obama presidency. And now a pro-Obama phone bank in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. You read that right. In almost every primary a group of Palestinians has called Americans urging them to vote for the big O. What's Obama to do?
Of course, no candidate can control who will endorse him. I'm sure there are violent extremists of one sort or another phone banking for Hillary Clinton and John McCain, too. Still, Obama's track record of attracting disagreeable people to his cause should raise some eyebrows, don't cha think? I mean, the fact that people who hate and kill Americans believe they have something to gain from an Obama victory is telling, is it not? Just what do they know about the senator from Illinois that we don't? Talk about things that make you go, hmmmmm.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thwarted Again
It's happened again. Yesterday four members of California's Supreme Court flipped the bird to the people of that state and ruled that gay marriage must be allowed, despite the voters' rejection of it. When is this going to stop? When are activist judges going to return to their role as interpreters, not makers, of law? When are they going to stop spitting on the will of the people?
I'm sick of this! From gay marriage to illegal immigration we, the American people, are being spat on by judges and/or elected officials who think their job is to impose their "enlightened" views on us. The issue really isn't gay marriage, illegal immigration, or other things. The issue is the perversion of the American way of government by liberals who are committed only to their agenda, not to the political rules or moral heritage of our Republic.
Throughout America's history there have been people who wanted to change things. The movements against slavery and for women's suffrage are prime examples of that. And that's fine. If you want to change something in this country you're perfectly free to try, but there are rules to follow. If you want to repeal or add a law you lobby the legislature, and if you don't get your way you don't then get the courts to impose your change for you. That, however, has been the strategy of liberals, on both the state and federal levels, ever since Roe v. Wade. And it's kept this country in a state of constant ideological conflict.
Take Roe v. Wade for instance. It was the unconstitutional way the law was imposed, and not just revulsion against abortion, that has fanned the flames of the abortion controversy. If the fight over abortion was returned to the states like capital punishment was it would be a much less bitter and divisive issue. It's the same with gay marriage. In state after state gay marriage activists have failed to persuade most people to their point of view. But rather than redouble their efforts to change the public's mind they opt for the Left's usual tactic in the face of defeat: using the courts to impose their agenda.
It's amazing to me that liberals don't understand how much ill will this strategy has earned them. Many people who might be willing to accept gay marriage if it's voted in fairly are turned off by the courts shoving it, or anything else, down their throats. Liberals don't care. They are committed to "enlightening" us lunch pail folks, from the top down if need be. It's for our own good, don't cha know. This paternalistic attitude is one reason why I oppose liberalism.
I believe in persuading people to a point of view. I believe the legislature makes laws and the judiciary interprets them. I believe the Constitution is a "living" document only when it's amended the way the Founding Fathers intended. I DON'T believe in perverting our system in order to impose laws, policies, ideas, or values on the people when the people have already declared they don't want them. Sorry, liberals, but not everyone thinks your views are progressive; in fact, many of us find them downright corrupt, and forcing them on us after we've said "No!" only alienates us more. So, the California Supreme Court's decision may be a hollow victory for gays and their allies. The people of California have seen their will treated with total contempt. When they speak again it won't be pretty for the Left. I can't wait.
I'm sick of this! From gay marriage to illegal immigration we, the American people, are being spat on by judges and/or elected officials who think their job is to impose their "enlightened" views on us. The issue really isn't gay marriage, illegal immigration, or other things. The issue is the perversion of the American way of government by liberals who are committed only to their agenda, not to the political rules or moral heritage of our Republic.
Throughout America's history there have been people who wanted to change things. The movements against slavery and for women's suffrage are prime examples of that. And that's fine. If you want to change something in this country you're perfectly free to try, but there are rules to follow. If you want to repeal or add a law you lobby the legislature, and if you don't get your way you don't then get the courts to impose your change for you. That, however, has been the strategy of liberals, on both the state and federal levels, ever since Roe v. Wade. And it's kept this country in a state of constant ideological conflict.
Take Roe v. Wade for instance. It was the unconstitutional way the law was imposed, and not just revulsion against abortion, that has fanned the flames of the abortion controversy. If the fight over abortion was returned to the states like capital punishment was it would be a much less bitter and divisive issue. It's the same with gay marriage. In state after state gay marriage activists have failed to persuade most people to their point of view. But rather than redouble their efforts to change the public's mind they opt for the Left's usual tactic in the face of defeat: using the courts to impose their agenda.
It's amazing to me that liberals don't understand how much ill will this strategy has earned them. Many people who might be willing to accept gay marriage if it's voted in fairly are turned off by the courts shoving it, or anything else, down their throats. Liberals don't care. They are committed to "enlightening" us lunch pail folks, from the top down if need be. It's for our own good, don't cha know. This paternalistic attitude is one reason why I oppose liberalism.
I believe in persuading people to a point of view. I believe the legislature makes laws and the judiciary interprets them. I believe the Constitution is a "living" document only when it's amended the way the Founding Fathers intended. I DON'T believe in perverting our system in order to impose laws, policies, ideas, or values on the people when the people have already declared they don't want them. Sorry, liberals, but not everyone thinks your views are progressive; in fact, many of us find them downright corrupt, and forcing them on us after we've said "No!" only alienates us more. So, the California Supreme Court's decision may be a hollow victory for gays and their allies. The people of California have seen their will treated with total contempt. When they speak again it won't be pretty for the Left. I can't wait.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Happy Mothers' Day!
"When ever I held my newborn babe in my arms, I used to think what I did and what I said to him would have an influence, not only on him, but on everyone he met, [and] not [just] for a day or a year, but for time and for eternity." Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, mother of one war hero, one senator, one attorney general, and one president.
I've long felt that this quote from Rose Kennedy was an elegant testimony to the profound power, for good or ill, of motherhood. Please, mothers, use it for good. Happy Mothers' Day to all the moms out there who are shaping eternity for the rest of us.
I've long felt that this quote from Rose Kennedy was an elegant testimony to the profound power, for good or ill, of motherhood. Please, mothers, use it for good. Happy Mothers' Day to all the moms out there who are shaping eternity for the rest of us.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Universal Health Care Explained
I've always been against universal health care but could never really explain why in a simple, effective way. Below is an article that does just that. It was written by my blogging friend Roadie who blogs at Roadhouse; check him out in my blogroll. Roadie was nice enough to let me reprint his article on PGZ. Once you read this you'll understand perfectly why universal health care is a bad, bad idea.
Universal Health Care Explained
by Terry Leasure, aka Roadie
"There's no such thing as a free lunch." One of many old sayings that have proven to be very accurate. This concept can be applied to many things in life, but none quite as important as life itself and, to a lesser extent, health care. As I watch the presidential candidates try to out-liberal each other on the "health care crisis" I can do little else than shake my head in disgust.
First of all, there is no "health care crisis". Yeah, I said it. Is health care expensive? Yes. Does that constitute a crisis? No. Cars are expensive. College is expensive. Coffee, cable, and blue jeans are expensive, but we don't refer to them as crises. A health care crisis is when there are no doctors to be found. Or when hospitals shut down. Ironically, this will be the result of the liberals' plan for universal health care. Let me explain.
Health care is a service, an important service, but a service nonetheless. It could also be considered a product. For this reason I can use the following analogy. Think of our health care system as the fast food business. Because we have the power to eat at McDonald's or Wendy's, Burger King has to make sure they make a better burger and offer better service than the other two. Arby's has to make sure it offers something even better by virtue of the Beef & Cheddar. Then Subway steps in and offers an even better deal than any of the others. This is called "competition", the end result of which is constantly improving quality, constantly expanding options, and competitive prices for the consumer.
Now, what if the government stepped in and offered free cheeseburgers for everyone? At first, everyone would rejoice. Then we'd notice a few changes. First, we'd notice McDonald's stores closing down, followed by Wendy's and Arby's. After all, no one is buying their products any more. Then we would notice a persistence drop in the quality of our government issued burgers. After all, why does the government need to worry about quality control when they are the only game in town? Menu options? Think again. Extra mayo? Not a chance. Fries? Don't even think about it.
You see, now the people we rely on to make our burgers are government employees. You know, like the friendly folks down at the DMV or the IRS. As long as they don't stick out in the crowd their job is safe. Now that the government has taken the profit out of the food business why bother with ten years of cheeseburger college just to punch a clock for Uncle Sam? Where's the incentive? Who wants to be a burger chef now? Certainly not the cream of the culinary crop. In fact, few people jump at the chance to do the job at all now that the money is taken out of the equation. This leads to burger shortages due to lack of production. Yet the demand increases due to the fact that the burgers are free now, and everyone wants one whether they need it or not.
To get your "free" burger you are put on a waiting list. Six weeks later, you have the cheeseburger you were promised. It is issued to you at a government facility and it resembles exactly what you would think a government issued cheeseburger would look like. If they forget the cheese just fill out the appropriate forms and someone will review your case in six to eight weeks.
Oh, you don't like cheeseburgers? You wanted a Big Mac, or a hoagie? Too bad.
Remember folks, it's one thing to sacrifice the quality and expediency of a cheeseburger for its cost, but what about your child's heart surgery? Do you want free health care or good health care for your child? You can't have both.
Bravo and amen, Roadie!
Universal Health Care Explained
by Terry Leasure, aka Roadie
"There's no such thing as a free lunch." One of many old sayings that have proven to be very accurate. This concept can be applied to many things in life, but none quite as important as life itself and, to a lesser extent, health care. As I watch the presidential candidates try to out-liberal each other on the "health care crisis" I can do little else than shake my head in disgust.
First of all, there is no "health care crisis". Yeah, I said it. Is health care expensive? Yes. Does that constitute a crisis? No. Cars are expensive. College is expensive. Coffee, cable, and blue jeans are expensive, but we don't refer to them as crises. A health care crisis is when there are no doctors to be found. Or when hospitals shut down. Ironically, this will be the result of the liberals' plan for universal health care. Let me explain.
Health care is a service, an important service, but a service nonetheless. It could also be considered a product. For this reason I can use the following analogy. Think of our health care system as the fast food business. Because we have the power to eat at McDonald's or Wendy's, Burger King has to make sure they make a better burger and offer better service than the other two. Arby's has to make sure it offers something even better by virtue of the Beef & Cheddar. Then Subway steps in and offers an even better deal than any of the others. This is called "competition", the end result of which is constantly improving quality, constantly expanding options, and competitive prices for the consumer.
Now, what if the government stepped in and offered free cheeseburgers for everyone? At first, everyone would rejoice. Then we'd notice a few changes. First, we'd notice McDonald's stores closing down, followed by Wendy's and Arby's. After all, no one is buying their products any more. Then we would notice a persistence drop in the quality of our government issued burgers. After all, why does the government need to worry about quality control when they are the only game in town? Menu options? Think again. Extra mayo? Not a chance. Fries? Don't even think about it.
You see, now the people we rely on to make our burgers are government employees. You know, like the friendly folks down at the DMV or the IRS. As long as they don't stick out in the crowd their job is safe. Now that the government has taken the profit out of the food business why bother with ten years of cheeseburger college just to punch a clock for Uncle Sam? Where's the incentive? Who wants to be a burger chef now? Certainly not the cream of the culinary crop. In fact, few people jump at the chance to do the job at all now that the money is taken out of the equation. This leads to burger shortages due to lack of production. Yet the demand increases due to the fact that the burgers are free now, and everyone wants one whether they need it or not.
To get your "free" burger you are put on a waiting list. Six weeks later, you have the cheeseburger you were promised. It is issued to you at a government facility and it resembles exactly what you would think a government issued cheeseburger would look like. If they forget the cheese just fill out the appropriate forms and someone will review your case in six to eight weeks.
Oh, you don't like cheeseburgers? You wanted a Big Mac, or a hoagie? Too bad.
Remember folks, it's one thing to sacrifice the quality and expediency of a cheeseburger for its cost, but what about your child's heart surgery? Do you want free health care or good health care for your child? You can't have both.
Bravo and amen, Roadie!
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
The Anti-Wright
Look at the picture of the handsome man to the left. Know who he is? He's Dr. Benjamin Carson, one of the world's preeminent neurosurgeons. He rose to fame in 1987 when he performed the first successful separation of Siamese twins joined at the back of the head. Dr. Carson shows how far any American can go, and what any American can achieve when they put their mind to it. Dr. Carson's story is remarkable, that's why I call him the anti-Wright.Dr. Benjamin Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1951, when in-your-face racism still stalked America. His father left the family when Carson was young so he and his brother Curtis were raised by their mother, Sonya. Sonya sometimes worked three jobs to support her sons. Rebellious, hot tempered Benjamin was on his way to becoming the stereotypical Black male failure until his mother stepped in.
Seeing the bleak future facing her troubled son, Mama Carson limited tv time for both Benjamin and Curtis and required them to read and write a report on two library books every week. The boys had to turn in the reports to their mother. That was the beginning of Dr. Carson's salvation. For years he'd hated and done poorly in school. Then one day his teacher asked his class a question about rocks. Carson was the only child who knew the answer, an answer he'd learned from the books his mom had made him read.
Suddenly, Benjamin Carson realized that he COULD LEARN! And with that realization came a thirst for knowledge that propelled him through middle school, high school, and university and eventually landed him in that operating room separating those little twins. And what really makes this story amazing is that Benjamin's mother, who'd required him and his brother to turn in book reports to her, had only a third grade education and COULD NOT READ. The book reports had been for her sons' benefit, not hers. By making them read books and write about them Sonya Carson was making her boys learn AND making them love to learn. She was also teaching them the discipline they'd need to be successful in all of life, not just school.
Dr. Carson, who survived a bout with cancer in the '90's, continues to distinguish himself in medicine and has also become a successful speaker and author. He especially seeks to inspire young people to achieve their intellectual potential and develop high character. To that end Dr. Carson created a "creed" which he calls Think Big. Follow this "creed" and you stand a good chance of being a successful and moral human being. Here it is*:
Think Big
T is for Talent. God has given you intellectual talent. Develop it and think of the careers where it will be useful.
H is for Honesty. Live an honest life and you won't have to worry about skeletons coming out of your closet at the worst time.
I is for Insight. Learn from the experience of people who've already gone where you want to go.
N is for Nice. Be nice to others and they will be nice to you.
K is for Knowledge. Knowledge makes you a valuable and needed person whom others will pay to keep.
B is for Books. Books, not television, are where you get knowledge.
I is for In-Depth Learning. Learn for the sake of learning, not just to impress people.
G is for God. Never get too big for your Creator.
This is the stuff Rev. Wright should be teaching in his church, not that the-government-is-out-to-get-you junk. All of us has a choice. We can choose to Think Big and become an inspirational success like Dr. Benjamin Carson, or we can think small and become a loud mouth high priest of the cult of grievance like Rev. Wright. I choose to Think Big. I choose to be an anti-Wright. What's your choice?
*This is a paraphrase from the info on the website http://www.achievement.org/.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Crackpot. Politician. Fool.
On the way home from running errands I was listening to the Michael Medved show on the radio. Medved was talking about Barack Obama's press conference yesterday where the candidate finally denounced his racist, anti-American pastor unequivocally. Like me, Michael Medved was skeptical of Obama's new found disdain for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Like me, Medved wondered how Obama could've sat in Wright's church for twenty years without knowing the man held such radical views. Medved offered three possible reasons for how Obama could've missed his pastor's hateful opinions. I'd like to share those reasons here because, as far as I'm concerned, they're right on the money.
Reason One
The first reason Medved offered for Obama's comfort with Wright is that he shares the man's crackpot worldview and is just hiding it. Obama's left-wing voting record lends credence to this speculation.
Reason Two
The second reason Medved offered for Obama's committment to Rev. Wright and his church is that it was a shrewd political move. Having been raised out of state Obama needed some political street cred to make it in Illinois and Chicago which could then propel him to national success. Joining Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ was the way to get that street cred. Obama knew about Wright's beliefs but calculated that they wouldn't be a problem because the country would never find out about them. He was wrong.
Reason Three
The third reason Medved offered for Obama missing his pastor's radicalism is that he was just too stupid to notice it.
There you have it folks. Crackpot, politician, or fool. The most plausible reasons for how Obama could attend a church for 20 years and not know about the pastor's off the chart radical theology. None of these reasons bode well for the senator from Illinois. Reasons one and three, if true, would end Obama's candidacy immediately. Patriotic and clear thinking Americans of all races won't vote for a racist, America hating radical. They won't vote for a fool, either. Reason two, though, could be the most problematic for Obama because it undermines his campaign's theme of change. If Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church just to advance himself politically then he's no different from virtually every other politician. His strong denounciation of Wright, coming only after his rhetoric began to significantly hurt his campaign, also marks Obama as just another politician willing to do anything to get elected. So much for change.
Personally, I think reasons one and three both explain Obama's closeness with Rev. Wright and TUCC. Political expediency is the main reason but I suspect there was and still is more than a little agreement between Obama and his spiritual mentor. You can't know someone for 20 years and consider him family without being comfortable with his whole persona. Yes you can disagree with your family and friends, but a fundamental disagreement on issuses like race and politics often means people go their separate ways or maintain only a distant relationship. If you overlook your relatives' or friends' beliefs it's probably because you find them to be within the realm of acceptability. I believe Obama found and finds Rev. Wright's beliefs to be within the realm of acceptability, and that's why Obama is NOT in the realm of my acceptability. I, and all of America, deserves better.
Reason One
The first reason Medved offered for Obama's comfort with Wright is that he shares the man's crackpot worldview and is just hiding it. Obama's left-wing voting record lends credence to this speculation.
Reason Two
The second reason Medved offered for Obama's committment to Rev. Wright and his church is that it was a shrewd political move. Having been raised out of state Obama needed some political street cred to make it in Illinois and Chicago which could then propel him to national success. Joining Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ was the way to get that street cred. Obama knew about Wright's beliefs but calculated that they wouldn't be a problem because the country would never find out about them. He was wrong.
Reason Three
The third reason Medved offered for Obama missing his pastor's radicalism is that he was just too stupid to notice it.
There you have it folks. Crackpot, politician, or fool. The most plausible reasons for how Obama could attend a church for 20 years and not know about the pastor's off the chart radical theology. None of these reasons bode well for the senator from Illinois. Reasons one and three, if true, would end Obama's candidacy immediately. Patriotic and clear thinking Americans of all races won't vote for a racist, America hating radical. They won't vote for a fool, either. Reason two, though, could be the most problematic for Obama because it undermines his campaign's theme of change. If Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church just to advance himself politically then he's no different from virtually every other politician. His strong denounciation of Wright, coming only after his rhetoric began to significantly hurt his campaign, also marks Obama as just another politician willing to do anything to get elected. So much for change.
Personally, I think reasons one and three both explain Obama's closeness with Rev. Wright and TUCC. Political expediency is the main reason but I suspect there was and still is more than a little agreement between Obama and his spiritual mentor. You can't know someone for 20 years and consider him family without being comfortable with his whole persona. Yes you can disagree with your family and friends, but a fundamental disagreement on issuses like race and politics often means people go their separate ways or maintain only a distant relationship. If you overlook your relatives' or friends' beliefs it's probably because you find them to be within the realm of acceptability. I believe Obama found and finds Rev. Wright's beliefs to be within the realm of acceptability, and that's why Obama is NOT in the realm of my acceptability. I, and all of America, deserves better.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Remember The Protest!
Hey friends! I just wanted to remind you about the protest against illegal aliens this weekend, Cinco de Mayo weekend. I can't believe the time is upon us already! Remember, don't eat out from Friday to Sunday to protest restaurants supporting illegal immigration. If we can send a strong enough message to the restaurant industry maybe we can also influence other industries that support illegal immigration. American workers are the backbone of America's economic might yet we're constantly dissed by businesses which think they owe their profits to the cheap illegal labor many employ. This protest is to let restaurants and other businesses know that they owe their profits to Americans buying their products and that if we stop doing that their profits will dwindle no matter how many illegal aliens they use. And we may be getting some unexpected help.
I saw on The Glenn Beck Show a few days ago that some restaurants are starting to hurt from the rising cost of food and fuel. Fewer people are eating out for purely economic reasons; this is forcing restaurants to try things like serving less toast, serving smaller pieces of cake, and charging for formerly free extras like extra packets of ketchup. If this keeps up restaurants will take a hit to their bottom line more painful than one weekend protest can inflict. So even if people aren't avoiding restaurants specifically to protest illegal immigration they're still avoiding them and that could be a very good thing for us.
And here's another idea to register your disgust with illegal immigration and our government's failure to do anything about it. Cinco de Mayo is on a Monday this year. If you have children send them to school in patriotic clothes. Deck them out in the stars and stripes. Make it known that you believe in American nationalism, not Mexican nationalism in America. A couple of weeks ago, in the wake of the Absolut ad showing the southwest as part of Mexico again, it was revealed that nearly 60% of Mexican nationals believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico and that they are entitled to go there illegally. For them the border doesn't exist. But it does exist for me and for you. And we need to let the powers that be know that.
Patriotic Americans must get over our fear of defending our nation. We must get over our fear of being called racist, xenophobic, and/or fascist. Defending our country's sovereignty is none of that. Boycotting restaurants for one weekend and upholding American nationalism over Mexican nationalism is our declaration that America and her borders, language, and culture are worth defending and preserving. This is OUR country; come this weekend we need to act like it.
I saw on The Glenn Beck Show a few days ago that some restaurants are starting to hurt from the rising cost of food and fuel. Fewer people are eating out for purely economic reasons; this is forcing restaurants to try things like serving less toast, serving smaller pieces of cake, and charging for formerly free extras like extra packets of ketchup. If this keeps up restaurants will take a hit to their bottom line more painful than one weekend protest can inflict. So even if people aren't avoiding restaurants specifically to protest illegal immigration they're still avoiding them and that could be a very good thing for us.
And here's another idea to register your disgust with illegal immigration and our government's failure to do anything about it. Cinco de Mayo is on a Monday this year. If you have children send them to school in patriotic clothes. Deck them out in the stars and stripes. Make it known that you believe in American nationalism, not Mexican nationalism in America. A couple of weeks ago, in the wake of the Absolut ad showing the southwest as part of Mexico again, it was revealed that nearly 60% of Mexican nationals believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico and that they are entitled to go there illegally. For them the border doesn't exist. But it does exist for me and for you. And we need to let the powers that be know that.
Patriotic Americans must get over our fear of defending our nation. We must get over our fear of being called racist, xenophobic, and/or fascist. Defending our country's sovereignty is none of that. Boycotting restaurants for one weekend and upholding American nationalism over Mexican nationalism is our declaration that America and her borders, language, and culture are worth defending and preserving. This is OUR country; come this weekend we need to act like it.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Theme For Our Soldiers
Here's a very sweet tribute to our brave and decent fighting men in Iraq. The photo at the end will make you cry.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
I Wanna Be Oppressed Like This!
Take a look at this house. It's a $1.6 million dollar, 10,000 square foot minimansion being built in a ritzy Chicago suburb. Dig that entry way! And it's got a cool $10 million dollar line of credit attached to it. Oh, and did I tell you it belongs to Jeremiah Wright? Yes, THAT Jeremiah Wright.It seems that Obama's former pastor is as big a hypocrite as Jimmy Swaggart. While preaching Black liberation theology and denouncing "middle classism", the dear reverend is quite happy to retire to a tony house in an overwhelmingly White gated community. I guess he couldn't find a Black neighborhood good enough for him. Apparently, it's ok to live with rich White people so long as you trash them in your sermons, thereby showing that your heart is still with the homies in da 'hood.
Ok, I'll be fair to Rev. Wright. This house isn't technically his; it's being built for him by his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. But still, this is the man whose "gospel" is that America is irredeemably racist and Blacks suffer great oppression here. Indeed, all Black folk's problems are the fault of Whites. Rev. Wright preaches this belief in spite of the glaring fact that his own life contradicts it. But why let a little thing like truth get in the way of the lucrative trade of race hustling? Obama's pastor will enjoy every inch of his home's 10,000 square feet. He'll enjoy every stroke on the golf course with his new, pale neighbors. And I'm sure he'll enjoy that $10 million dollar line of credit. Ahhhhh! Oppression never felt so good!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A Tribute To Our Troops
Here's a moving tribute to our fighting men and women from Kendra, who blogs at A Superhero, Princess & Monkey. Her words echo perfectly what's in my heart for our troops. I'm sure they echo what's in your hearts, too. Thank you, Kendra, for your "thank you" to our brave forces and for letting me post it on my blog.
Thank You
Since we just marked five years in Iraq I thought it would be appropriate to address the American Soldier.
To the Soldier:
Whatever reason inspired you to serve our country I just want to say, "Thank you". Thank you for being brave, for voluteering to serve our country. Thank you to your family whose sacrifices are what make it possibe for you to serve. Thank you for cherishing freedom and protecting me and those I love.
I can not begin to imagine what it must be like to be away from your family and friends, or what life must be like when you leave all that you know and love behind. I do not know you personally but I admire you for what you do and I am so very thankful.
To the family whose child did not return home, my heart breaks for you and I am forever grateful for the sacrifice you made. I will not forget them or you. To the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children who serve our country, I can not imagine what it must be like to be apart from those you hold so dear to your heart. Please return home safely.
I salute you and I thank you.
Thank You
Since we just marked five years in Iraq I thought it would be appropriate to address the American Soldier.
To the Soldier:
Whatever reason inspired you to serve our country I just want to say, "Thank you". Thank you for being brave, for voluteering to serve our country. Thank you to your family whose sacrifices are what make it possibe for you to serve. Thank you for cherishing freedom and protecting me and those I love.
I can not begin to imagine what it must be like to be away from your family and friends, or what life must be like when you leave all that you know and love behind. I do not know you personally but I admire you for what you do and I am so very thankful.
To the family whose child did not return home, my heart breaks for you and I am forever grateful for the sacrifice you made. I will not forget them or you. To the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children who serve our country, I can not imagine what it must be like to be apart from those you hold so dear to your heart. Please return home safely.
I salute you and I thank you.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The Dems (Try To) Get God
Ok, I admit it. I didn't watch Clinton's and Obama's little town meeting on faith that aired tonight on CNN. I know. It would've made a great post, but I just couldn't bring myself to sit through it. I couldn't bring myself to endure what I suspected would be a blatantly obvious political ploy to win over religiously conservative voters, a ploy Dems have been using for a while now.
Dems have been trying hard to get religion ever since they lost the presidential election in 2004. Before then, the Democratic party had been staunchly secular. It was the party of choice for most unchurched voters, polls showed, as it supported a host of liberal causes rooted in a rejection of traditional, Judeo-Christian values. The defeat in '04, attributed to the overwhelming support "values voters" gave Republicans, forced the Dems to rediscover their collective soul. God became acceptable to them again...to a point.
While wanting to make inroads into the (conservative) faith community Democrats, especially liberal ones, didn't want to get too touchy feely with the divine. Rather than actually changing their fundamentally secular worldview Dems sought to convince the faithful that it was compatible with their God-centered one. And to a large extent they've succeeded. In the '06 midterm elections the Democrats received a larger than expected share of the White, evangelical vote and they stand to do the same in '08. The trick has been to get people of faith to "broaden" their concern from their usual hot button issues, i.e. abortion or gay marriage, to include such things as protecting the environment and caring for the poor.
I find this strategy insulting. It assumes that religious conservatives were backward, one dimensional voters until shown the way by enlightened liberals. Of course, this is garbage. Conservative people of faith have been concerned about a wide range of issues, especially helping the poor, for many years; they just haven't been inclined to view government as the solution. That's why the issues they actually voted on were rather narrowly defined. It had nothing to do with being narrow minded, ignorant, or uncaring. Religious conservatives don't need to be "enlightened" by anyone.
Still, the Dems' success in convincing a portion of the conservative faithful to rethink their political allegiance can't be denied, and tonight's forum is an attempt to solidify those gains. Will it work? Will Hillary and Obama be successful? I'm not sure. As disappointed and even disillusioned many people of faith are with the Republicans they also know that the Democrats haven't exactly been their friends. Hillary and Obama will have to walk a fine line trying to woo a lot of still skeptical "values voters" while reassuring their secular base they haven't gotten too cozy with the faithful. Watching the Dems trying to stay on that tightrope during the entire election season is going to be very funny.
Dems have been trying hard to get religion ever since they lost the presidential election in 2004. Before then, the Democratic party had been staunchly secular. It was the party of choice for most unchurched voters, polls showed, as it supported a host of liberal causes rooted in a rejection of traditional, Judeo-Christian values. The defeat in '04, attributed to the overwhelming support "values voters" gave Republicans, forced the Dems to rediscover their collective soul. God became acceptable to them again...to a point.
While wanting to make inroads into the (conservative) faith community Democrats, especially liberal ones, didn't want to get too touchy feely with the divine. Rather than actually changing their fundamentally secular worldview Dems sought to convince the faithful that it was compatible with their God-centered one. And to a large extent they've succeeded. In the '06 midterm elections the Democrats received a larger than expected share of the White, evangelical vote and they stand to do the same in '08. The trick has been to get people of faith to "broaden" their concern from their usual hot button issues, i.e. abortion or gay marriage, to include such things as protecting the environment and caring for the poor.
I find this strategy insulting. It assumes that religious conservatives were backward, one dimensional voters until shown the way by enlightened liberals. Of course, this is garbage. Conservative people of faith have been concerned about a wide range of issues, especially helping the poor, for many years; they just haven't been inclined to view government as the solution. That's why the issues they actually voted on were rather narrowly defined. It had nothing to do with being narrow minded, ignorant, or uncaring. Religious conservatives don't need to be "enlightened" by anyone.
Still, the Dems' success in convincing a portion of the conservative faithful to rethink their political allegiance can't be denied, and tonight's forum is an attempt to solidify those gains. Will it work? Will Hillary and Obama be successful? I'm not sure. As disappointed and even disillusioned many people of faith are with the Republicans they also know that the Democrats haven't exactly been their friends. Hillary and Obama will have to walk a fine line trying to woo a lot of still skeptical "values voters" while reassuring their secular base they haven't gotten too cozy with the faithful. Watching the Dems trying to stay on that tightrope during the entire election season is going to be very funny.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Abortion Does NOT Protect Women's Rights
I got to hear John McCain's appearance on The View today. While asking McCain a question Joy Behar, one of the show's liberal hosts, said something that ruffled my feathers. She claimed that overturning Roe v. Wade, which McCain apparently wants to do, would take away women's rights. As a pro-life person nothing makes me madder than this enormous falsehood that legalized abortion promotes/protects women's rights. It doesn't.
First of all, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it would NOT mean the end of legal abortion. It would only mean that abortion would become a state issue, decided by the states as they see fit. Considering that legal abortion has been the norm for over a generation I seriously doubt if any state would outlaw it entirely. I do see at least some states putting more severe restrictions on the practice, though.
But even if abortion was outlawed in all fifty states it wouldn't mean the end of women's rights. The idea that it would is one of the pro-choice movement's most successful weapons against pro-lifers. When we march against Roe or against abortion in general we are routinely, even hysterically, accused of marching against women's rights. The fact that women are the backbone of the pro-life movement doesn't deter the accusation. But women's rights are bigger than abortion nonetheless. The accusation is false, and I'll tell you why.
The simple truth is that abortion has been legal in times and places where the rights of women were few or nonexistent. In colonial America, for instance, abortion was legal so long as it was performed before "quickening", the time when the mother could feel her baby move. The practice was common but this didn't translate into a high legal or social status for women. Society defined marriage and motherhood as their primary roles in life (anathema to feminists). They were not educated as much as men, if at all, and when married became legal dependents of their husbands. They had no legal right to their own children who went to the father in the event of a divorce. Clearly, the rights of women in colonial America left much to be desired in spite of legal abortion. And the same is true elsewhere in the world.
The Japanese legalized abortion in 1948, a full 25 years before it was legalized in America. Few feminists, however, would consider post-war Japan a hotbed of women's liberation. The same is true of India, which legalized prenatal infanticide one year after the US did. Far from protecting women, legal abortion is used to eliminate them. As many as 50 million females are reported to be missing from India's population, a holocaust due almost entirely to abortion. Rather than going through pregnancy only to end up with a worthless girl, many Indian women use ultrasound to find out their babies' sex and then abort their daughters.
A similar situation arose in China after that country instituted it's one-child policy. The practice got so bad that the Chinese government was forced to amend the policy and allow parents whose first child was a daughter to legally try for another one, hopefully a boy. But this only created another problem. Chinese women who wanted two children began aborting their male babies because the birth of a daughter ensured them the right to have another child. At first glance the abortion of boys in favor of girls seems like a pro-female act, but it's not. The reason Chinese women whose first child is female are allowed to try for another one is because sons are considered vital to the family whereas daughters are not. If the first child is a boy there's no reason to try for another one. Abortion fails to protect women again.
There are other examples I could site but I think you get the picture. Legal abortion does NOTHING to protect, enhance, or promote women's rights. Things such as the right to vote, own land, get custody of children, enter the professions, or go to school are not dependent on the "right" to abortion. The early American feminists were committed to suffrage, not abortion. Many of them, including Susan B. Anthony, were staunchly against the practice. Indeed, they saw the outlawing of abortion, which began in America in the mid 19th century, as progressive reform.
We pro-lifers, then, shouldn't be intimidated by the charge that we're against women's rights. It's a baseless accusation which reveals the ignorance of those who make it. Rather, we should hold our heads up high and continue in the long and proud tradition of fighting for the weakest among us, no matter what Joy Behar says.
First of all, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it would NOT mean the end of legal abortion. It would only mean that abortion would become a state issue, decided by the states as they see fit. Considering that legal abortion has been the norm for over a generation I seriously doubt if any state would outlaw it entirely. I do see at least some states putting more severe restrictions on the practice, though.
But even if abortion was outlawed in all fifty states it wouldn't mean the end of women's rights. The idea that it would is one of the pro-choice movement's most successful weapons against pro-lifers. When we march against Roe or against abortion in general we are routinely, even hysterically, accused of marching against women's rights. The fact that women are the backbone of the pro-life movement doesn't deter the accusation. But women's rights are bigger than abortion nonetheless. The accusation is false, and I'll tell you why.
The simple truth is that abortion has been legal in times and places where the rights of women were few or nonexistent. In colonial America, for instance, abortion was legal so long as it was performed before "quickening", the time when the mother could feel her baby move. The practice was common but this didn't translate into a high legal or social status for women. Society defined marriage and motherhood as their primary roles in life (anathema to feminists). They were not educated as much as men, if at all, and when married became legal dependents of their husbands. They had no legal right to their own children who went to the father in the event of a divorce. Clearly, the rights of women in colonial America left much to be desired in spite of legal abortion. And the same is true elsewhere in the world.
The Japanese legalized abortion in 1948, a full 25 years before it was legalized in America. Few feminists, however, would consider post-war Japan a hotbed of women's liberation. The same is true of India, which legalized prenatal infanticide one year after the US did. Far from protecting women, legal abortion is used to eliminate them. As many as 50 million females are reported to be missing from India's population, a holocaust due almost entirely to abortion. Rather than going through pregnancy only to end up with a worthless girl, many Indian women use ultrasound to find out their babies' sex and then abort their daughters.
A similar situation arose in China after that country instituted it's one-child policy. The practice got so bad that the Chinese government was forced to amend the policy and allow parents whose first child was a daughter to legally try for another one, hopefully a boy. But this only created another problem. Chinese women who wanted two children began aborting their male babies because the birth of a daughter ensured them the right to have another child. At first glance the abortion of boys in favor of girls seems like a pro-female act, but it's not. The reason Chinese women whose first child is female are allowed to try for another one is because sons are considered vital to the family whereas daughters are not. If the first child is a boy there's no reason to try for another one. Abortion fails to protect women again.
There are other examples I could site but I think you get the picture. Legal abortion does NOTHING to protect, enhance, or promote women's rights. Things such as the right to vote, own land, get custody of children, enter the professions, or go to school are not dependent on the "right" to abortion. The early American feminists were committed to suffrage, not abortion. Many of them, including Susan B. Anthony, were staunchly against the practice. Indeed, they saw the outlawing of abortion, which began in America in the mid 19th century, as progressive reform.
We pro-lifers, then, shouldn't be intimidated by the charge that we're against women's rights. It's a baseless accusation which reveals the ignorance of those who make it. Rather, we should hold our heads up high and continue in the long and proud tradition of fighting for the weakest among us, no matter what Joy Behar says.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Time To Protest!
In a previous post I wrote about how we conservatives seldom act en masse in support of any of our causes except opposing abortion. We complain loudly about the gun grabbers, the America haters and the illegal aliens but we do nothing about them. It pains me to say this, but it seems that we conservatives, while talking tough, have little stomach for even the mildest sacrificial action. Well, I hope to change that, at least a little bit. For the last two years I've an idea for a protest against illegal immigration, but I wasn't sure it would work. I'm still not sure, but if enough people join in it just might. What's this protest, or collective action, that I have in mind?
I propose that on the first weekend in May, Cinco de Mayo weekend, all patriotic Americans should "boycott" every restaurant in this country. Why do that? To send a message to businesses, which usually support illegal immigration, that their profits don't come from the illegal labor they employ but from the American worker/consumer buying their products. Nothing angers me more than hearing some libtard politician, activist, or economist claiming that illegal aliens are the backbone of America's economy. An anti-illegal immigration bill was recently defeated in Idaho because of economic fears.
Whenever I hear talk like that I feel personally insulted, as should you. Illegals make up barely 5% of the American workforce; the other 95% is made up of you and me. WE are the backbone of this nation's economic might. WE are the engine pulling this nation's economic train. Yet our contribution, our sweat and effort, is callously ignored by businesses--and politicians and activists--more concerned with profits and image than truth. If you listen to their propaganda you'd swear that illegal aliens are the only people in America who work. Well, if they're going to ignore our labor I say we ignore their cash registers.
Many industries choose to rely heavily on illegal labor but the restaurant industry is one of the most visible and easily targeted. Everyone knows where restaurants are and who's working there. In many eateries the illegal labor is blatanly obvious. If we, the totally dissed American worker/consumer, stop spending our money on them their income will come to a screeching halt. Facing a whole weekend of empty tables and dimished receipts will force restaurants and other businesses to realize just who's buttering their bread. Hopefully, that will translate to a very different stance on the illegal immigration problem.
Participating in this collective action won't be hard. All you'll have to do is not eat out for three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). If you think this'll be a problem for you start planning for it now. For instance, cook up and freeze some extra food now so you'll have "fast" food then. If you've scheduled little Johnny's birthday party at McDonalds for that weekend cancel it. Get creative and whip up an awesome party for him at home. Not only will this probably save you some money but Johnny will get a great lesson in the need to sacrifice for what you believe in.
It's not enough to whine and complain about illegal immigration. We have to DO something about it. We have to put our money where our mouths are. This "boycott" is a simple thing but it could have a big effect if enough people do it. I'm writing this post to get the word out to my friends in the blogosphere. Hopefully, you will then spread the word to your friends, who'll spread the word to their friends, till it's gone around the country. Those of you who are members of forums and/or Yahoo! groups can get the word out there, too. I've already done that. But however we spread the word it must be spread. This won't work unless we all work together. Are you with me?
I propose that on the first weekend in May, Cinco de Mayo weekend, all patriotic Americans should "boycott" every restaurant in this country. Why do that? To send a message to businesses, which usually support illegal immigration, that their profits don't come from the illegal labor they employ but from the American worker/consumer buying their products. Nothing angers me more than hearing some libtard politician, activist, or economist claiming that illegal aliens are the backbone of America's economy. An anti-illegal immigration bill was recently defeated in Idaho because of economic fears.
Whenever I hear talk like that I feel personally insulted, as should you. Illegals make up barely 5% of the American workforce; the other 95% is made up of you and me. WE are the backbone of this nation's economic might. WE are the engine pulling this nation's economic train. Yet our contribution, our sweat and effort, is callously ignored by businesses--and politicians and activists--more concerned with profits and image than truth. If you listen to their propaganda you'd swear that illegal aliens are the only people in America who work. Well, if they're going to ignore our labor I say we ignore their cash registers.
Many industries choose to rely heavily on illegal labor but the restaurant industry is one of the most visible and easily targeted. Everyone knows where restaurants are and who's working there. In many eateries the illegal labor is blatanly obvious. If we, the totally dissed American worker/consumer, stop spending our money on them their income will come to a screeching halt. Facing a whole weekend of empty tables and dimished receipts will force restaurants and other businesses to realize just who's buttering their bread. Hopefully, that will translate to a very different stance on the illegal immigration problem.
Participating in this collective action won't be hard. All you'll have to do is not eat out for three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). If you think this'll be a problem for you start planning for it now. For instance, cook up and freeze some extra food now so you'll have "fast" food then. If you've scheduled little Johnny's birthday party at McDonalds for that weekend cancel it. Get creative and whip up an awesome party for him at home. Not only will this probably save you some money but Johnny will get a great lesson in the need to sacrifice for what you believe in.
It's not enough to whine and complain about illegal immigration. We have to DO something about it. We have to put our money where our mouths are. This "boycott" is a simple thing but it could have a big effect if enough people do it. I'm writing this post to get the word out to my friends in the blogosphere. Hopefully, you will then spread the word to your friends, who'll spread the word to their friends, till it's gone around the country. Those of you who are members of forums and/or Yahoo! groups can get the word out there, too. I've already done that. But however we spread the word it must be spread. This won't work unless we all work together. Are you with me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)