In the age of immediate satisfaction via the marvels of modern technology, a woman, married or otherwise, has a choice of carrying a baby to term, or ending its life through one of the seemingly safe and legal methods of abortion. Thus, we enter the debate.

A dilemma comes when a woman finds herself with child. The married woman, more often than not, enjoys an immediate support group in her husband, parents, in-laws, and others. The bonds of matrimony are often strengthened by the onset of a new life.

The single woman, however, knows no similar pleasure. She is often alone, facing a choice that will affect the rest of her life.

The “pro-choice” group argues, quite obviously, in favor of a woman’s “right to choose.” They say “a woman has a ‘right’ to choose what to do with her body.” Under a good many circumstances their argument is valid.

When the issue is a procedure to remove plaque from arteries, a hip replacement, or possibly some cosmetic concern, the choice is easy and certainly legitimate. The woman who is making the choice is affecting only her own body and it is her choice. Many questions arise, however, when the subject turns to abortion.

In choosing an abortion, the woman’s “choice” affects not only her own body, but that of the child as well. In this circumstance, the second body suffers the fullness of “choice” effects, not the woman.

At this point the argument routinely turns to the “when life begins” debate. Pro-life advocates argue that life begins at conception, while the pro-choice advocates will often argue that life begins when the fetus fully exits the womb and begins breathing on its own, citing scriptures and pointing to where God “breathed” life into Adam.

Isn’t it more than a bit odd that these same advocates of choice also have many arguments they offer to invalidate the precepts of the very same Bible? Curious that.

The pro-choice aficionados often claim that in the early stages of a pregnancy, what is conceived is nothing more than a “mass of cells” and is not really a human being.

While this claim may be true to a certain extent, it must be noted that the individuals making these claims are, themselves, nothing more than masses of cells, intricately organized in such a way as to be a nuisance or a blessing to those around them; opinions will most certainly vary.

The “pro-life” crowd advises carrying the child to term, and perhaps raising the child or giving the young one over to a willing and capable family. This option offers the pro-choice group another promising argument.

This argument states basically that a child offered up for adoption is, in many cases, sent from one miserable, ill equipped foster home to the next. The child comes to know only pain and heartache and is subsequently scarred and permanently damaged. Then, when the age of majority is reached, the child-now adult, is set loose upon society only to become its menace.

These events are often reported in the media and with the 24/7 news cycles, we are then saturated with images and stories of how society has failed these individuals. The underlying conclusion is that this is the norm rather than the exception.

What is not seen is the vast majority of other children adopted into healthy and stable homes and who go on to lead very productive lives, becoming “butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers”, subsequently becoming true assets to society. These stories don’t make the news.

From another point of view we see the premise of the life of the new mother being ruined and forced into the welfare system creating yet another member of the “welfare lifestyle.” Media talking heads draw attention to these as well.

What is not seen are the positive effects of raising a child by a mother who was previously on a road to self destruction, deciding that she wants the best for her child. She achieves that goal by redirecting her life in a totally new direction, finding work and seeking a better education in order to better provide for her new child. These accounts are never brought to light by the main stream media.

When unable to give a valid reason for the termination of innocent life, the argument of the pro-choice group turns to that of rape or incest. In this argument the woman, or victim, of rape or incest should not be forced to raise the child. The option for adoption goes unmentioned, or the pro-choice advocate points to the failing foster home argument.

It must first be noted that the event of rape or incest is certainly horrifying and should not go unpunished. In no way should these monsters be free to walk the streets, unleashed to execute these acts on an ongoing basis. In this Examiner’s opinion, capital punishment in this circumstance is a just punishment.

It must also be noted that the rape/incest event accounts for only 1% of all abortions.

Still, the pro-choice advocates fail in their justification for abortion when asked to give a logical reason for the gratuitous murder of an innocent life. They can never point to what sin or what evil the child committed to deserve such an untimely and inhumane execution.

Now we’re seeing some advocates of abortion (who have the President’s ear) leaning toward the permissibility of the termination of life up to the age of self awareness. They claim that it’s a-ok to kill a child prior to its reaching the age of self-awareness. “Abortion is the killing of a human being”, says one proponent of infanticide, “but is not immoral because the child does not meet the self-awareness test…”

As with the “when life begins” debate, the “age of self-awareness” assertion is one of some controversy. At what point do we really know that we are alive? Is it the same age for all, or like so many other things, unique to the individual? How does one determine such things if not out of personal expediency?

These sorts of arguments serve for lively philosophical debates, but much more care must be taken when actual human lives hang in the balance. Certainly it is better to err on the side of life when deciding whether or not to act on a philosophical conclusion, particularly when there remains substantial room for doubt.

There is, however, one point that is never mentioned.

Popular translations of the Bible point to a “saving” that takes place through childbearing. That “saving” can, in some respects, be likened somewhat to a sort of teaching. That teaching is such that the mother comes to know what it really means to put the needs of another ahead of her own.

This in itself is the seed of unconditional love; an unconditional acceptance of others, no matter what; a sort of multiculturalism in all its purity; no room for hate, or racism, or religious bigotry or any of the other societal problems we suffer today.

Isn’t this what the progressives in political realms are clamoring for; the need to be each other’s keepers? Isn’t this exactly what the President is clamoring for on the campaign trail? How can this be achieved if, at the same time, they’re advocating an attendance to the needs of self first through abortion?

It makes no sense that our leaders are insisting on certain behaviors on the part of “We the people” and then forcing through policies that take us in the opposite direction.

The time is long past due for a return to the values and instruction found in the biblical text; a return to a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.

Because a thing is legal doesn’t mean it is right. This is never truer than when considering an abortion.

  Here in Michigan we’ve recently seen a small, somewhat incremental step toward totalitarianism with the passage, and signing into law by Governor Granholm, a bill that bans smoking in public places, which took effect on May 1. The aim is to reduce the second-hand smoke effect which has been blamed for cancer popping up in non-smokers.

We’ve see the same done with a law that bans “texting while driving” (slated for a July 1 implementation) which may or may not prove effective in reducing traffic accidents (other states have employed similar laws and have witnessed no decline).

What is baffling is the necessity for such laws.

With freedom comes responsibility; the two go hand in hand.

Our society has enjoyed freedom and prosperity for a good many years, but it seems we’ve reached a tipping point. We’ve come to a place where many in our society simply don’t know how to properly handle freedom. Far too many simply don’t know what to do with themselves in terms of assuming responsibility.

F. A. Hayek, in his classic work “The Road to Serfdom”, draws the correct conclusion that liberty enjoyed long enough will descend into socialism due to the fact that society will inevitably fail in the arena of personal responsibility. Everyone today enjoys the freedom to do as they please, but they reject the responsibility that comes with that liberty.

The failure to consider the consequences of our action then requires a “higher power” to intervene and politicians at all levels step in to assume the “higher power” status. We need others to direct us on how to behave properly in relation to others. That is, we need others to force, by means of law, us to accept responsibility for our actions.

Does any smoker truly believe that blowing smoke into the face of a non-smoker is an acceptable behavior? Because that is what they are doing, in essence, when they smoke in public places.

 Is there anyone who believes that sending a meaningless text message while barreling down the road at sixty miles per hour in a four-thousand pound vehicle is sensible? We see it on the roads every day.

The answer to these questions is an emphatic “no”, but we do these things anyway. Thus, the need for legislation aimed at controlling our behavior; a legislation of morality, if you will. This, rightly named “legislation of morality” is the direct result of our denying any responsibility for our actions.

Perhaps we’re now due for a descent into socialism as we’ve apparently enjoyed freedom for too long a time. It seems we’ve lost the ability to discern right behaviors from wrong ones.

The elites in academia and the media have conditioned the masses such that the “do as you will and damn the consequences” mentality now reigns. From all outward appearances, it seems we’ve lost the capacity to behave in a manner that promotes our own well being (and that of our neighbors) and are now on a path to self destruction.

The trouble with the legislating of any morality is that it will come from the same politicians who wrote laws opening the floodgates of credit for far too many who lust after material goods but lack the means to repay. We know all too well how that turned out.

God, in the Bible, required the Hebrews to wander in the desert for a generation so that subsequent generations would learn to follow His decrees rather than those of the Egyptian kings. The aim was to remove any doubt that following God was (and is) the right thing to do. Following the decrees of God leads to freedom while following the decrees of kings leads to slavery. The decrees of God lead to us loving one another.

Perhaps it truly is time for a few generations to suffer the cattle-like existence of a planned society. Maybe that’s the only way “We the People” will learn again to appreciate the liberty afforded us by our Founding Fathers.

One thing is certain; we’ll have what we deserve, like it or not.

 

It never ceases to amaze, the odd behavior of today’s politician, or the ridiculous justifications they offer, and expect us to accept, for their oddities.

In many households it can be seen that finances are regulated via an “envelope system.” That is, there exists a series of envelopes each marked with an intended purpose for budgeting. One maybe marked “mortgage” or “rent.” Others may be marked “gas”, “electric”, “cable television”, and even perhaps “health insurance.”

Each pay period a calculated percentage of household income is apportioned into the various envelopes in order to make sure the money is there to cover the bills. It’s a very simple and effective method of controlling home finances.

Of course, with today’s advanced technologies, the envelope system now looks a little different. It may look more like an Excel spreadsheet, but the intended purpose and the goals achieved are the same.

 Our federal government also has a sort of “envelope system” into which our tax dollars are distributed. Their envelopes are marked a bit differently though, they have names like “national defense”, “social security”, “Medicare”; the list goes on ad infinitum.

Now, in spite of an outpouring of public resistance, they’ve added another envelope to the system. Let’s call it “health care for all.”

 This new “health care for all” envelope is structured to fund a six year entitlement with ten years of taxes which will begin now, but will not reap any substantial benefits until, according to some reports, 2014.

Now keep in mind that the federal government has envelopes of differing sizes. One of the bigger envelopes is titled “general fund” and serves to fund many and varied functions too numerous to list here.

Years ago the politicians in Washington saw that the “social security” envelope was being stressed to its limits by an excess amount of cash. They decided that it would be better if the “social security” envelope, or at least its contents, were moved to the bigger “general fund” envelope. The social security set asides were then used for all sorts of other purposes.

Now, because of the infinite wisdom of politicians in Washington, we see that the social security system is in the proverbial red and set to fail if something isn’t done (means tax increases or benefit reductions to you and me).

The question now is, “will the new tax hikes be re-apportioned, as were the social security taxes, when the ‘health care for all’ envelope shows signs of stress from an abundance of cash before they can be used for their intended purpose?”

Perhaps these new taxes will go to buy Speaker Pelosi a new jet or, at the very least, serve to expand her office’s budget for alcohol.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out, but one thing is certain; today’s politician is an oddity indeed.

 

To blame Rep. Bart Stupak for the House passage of the Senate bill would be unfair and unreasonable. He was simply doing what democrats do, that is, he caved in to pressure from the Party. It comes as no surprise that a democrat would vote along party lines since that’s what they do. Members of the Democratic Party are simply not allowed to be free thinkers. Star Trek aficionados would call it the Borg mindset.

As Wikipedia points out, “The Borg manifest as cybernetically enhanced humanoid drones of multiple species, organized as an interconnected collective, the decisions of which are made by a hive mind, linked to subspace domain.” This is quite similar to the Democratic Party’s ideology; adopt the collective mindset; “resistance is futile.”

The worst Stupak can be accused of is bluffing and blustering in order to get face time on the lobotomy box and thus boosting his name recognition (this always helps the politician in his re-election bid). In addition he can be accused of attempting to deceptively attach his name to any sort of pro-life stance. Democrats are unmistakably not pro-life, not if they will ultimately be forced to support the Party platform.

As revealed in the DNC 2008 Party platform: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

Stupak is merely a humanoid drone of the Democratic Party incapable of independent thought.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 

This past weekend House Speaker Pelosi commented on the necessity of passing “health care” for the American people. Her choice of words reveals a misunderstanding of her position as a representative of the people.

A transcript of an interview Pelosi gave to ABC News shows in stark, glaring clarity that she sees herself and her cohorts in DC as wiser than the “common man” and must do on our behalf that which extends beyond our sphere of understanding.

“We’re here to do the job for the American people” states Pelosi (emphasis added). What seems lost on the Speaker is that she was elected to do the will of the people, not to do for the people something a decided majority does not want. That’s what being a representative of the people means, doing what the people want and nothing else.

Pelosi’s attitude is a classic example of the attitude of many representatives and senators in Washington today. It is the attitude of the career politician. Theirs is the idea that they’re better educated and wiser than those they represent. In many instances the representatives deem themselves better judges of the needs of people they’ve never met, do not know the circumstances of, and are, in most cases, living thousands of miles away from, and in an entirely different culture.

When politicians like Speaker Pelosi determine your needs, it’s a sure bet you’ve lost freedom and that’s never a good thing. Either they’re telling you that you need a certain entitlement and it’ll cost you “x” amount to be deducted from your paycheck, or they’re telling you, as recent proposals suggest, that you must buy an insurance policy that has minimum requirements that may not apply to your circumstance. Either way you lose freedom; the freedom to do with your own resources what is in your own best interest.

In a recent press conference, Pelosi rightly called the “nuclear option” a “simple majority”, but that simple majority does not reflect the will of the people. What she is suggesting is allowing a simple majority in the legislature to urinate on the will of a simple majority of the people. This attitude flies in the face of our Founder’s intent and cannot be considered representative government.

The time for true change is upon us and it’s up to us to implement that change.

 

It seems reasonable that anyone who has “skin in the game” should have a say in how the rules of that game are devised, as well as who would be making those rules. Today, as society “evolves”, the game is changing. Those who are relieved of any risk or have no financial interest other than “benefits received” are growing to a point where they will soon be in the majority, that is, if we’ve not already reached that point.

This growing segment of our population is comprised of those who are being relieved of their duty to pay a fair share of taxes. They have no “skin in the game”, so to speak.

In this country’s embryonic stage the rallying cry was “no taxation without representation.” What we’re seeing today is a growing portion of the populace having representation without the responsibility of taxation.

As the popular saying goes, “if you’re planning to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can pretty much count on Paul’s support.” When politicians seek out favor with the lower classes, they tend to offer “benefits” paid for by the upper classes, which in older times would have been considered bribes. Through the “dumbing down” of society via the continued lowering of standards in our educational system, the task of bribing by politicians is made easy. Oddly enough our educational standards are set by the politicians; are there dots here that need connecting?

Campaign finance regulations were implemented to limit corporate donations or corporate backing of preferred candidates for public office. From a certain perspective this makes sense. The “little man” is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the ability to finance the candidate of his or her choice, while corporations by comparison seem to have bottomless pockets filled with money.

It can also be argued that corporations are not people and with that being the case they should not have a say in the political process. But corporations do pay a lion’s share of the local, state, and federal tax bill. Their provisions of goods and services offer us better, more comfortable and convenient lives. Contributions to charitable concerns by corporations also serve as an example to all, their interest in the betterment of society.

The question then becomes one of justice. Is it just for the portion of society that pays the bills to be silenced, while those who contribute little or nothing have the greatest voice?

The recent decision by the Supreme Court to reinstate the political voice of corporations is correctly made. Those who pay their share should not have their voices silenced simply because of the depth of their pockets. Nor should those who contribute nothing be given power to control outcomes in elections.

In the Bible the apostle Paul instructs that if one does not work, then one does not eat. By that reasoning if one does not pay taxes, then one should be denied voting rights. Only those with “skin in the game” should have voting rights.

Let the rallying cry be: “No representation without taxation!”

  As I look at the state of the nation today I am reminded of a true story of a young girl who resisted her mother’s attempts at a proper upbringing. The young girl was rebellious to the extreme in all aspects of life. The mother advised “get an education”; the daughter dropped out of school. The mother advised “don’t get pregnant”; the daughter was soon with child. The mother advised “get a job”; the daughter refused to hold a job. The mother advised “save your money”; the daughter spent her money- all of it- as she went. The mother advised “marry a good man”; the daughter married a habitual drug user. And the cycle repeated in many other areas.

When time came for the new family (daughter, habitual drug using husband and child) to set up housekeeping, the daughter turned to her mother to finance the transition to an apartment. When bills came past due, the daughter turned to her mother to clean up the mess. When the daughter and her new husband came to their differences, the daughter wanted to move back home. The mother would faithfully go over and help the daughter gather her things and move them back home. By the time the move was complete the daughter had mended the difference with her new husband and wanted to move back. This became a weekly event.

The story continued in this pattern until one day a life changing event took place. When the daughter came to ask the mother for help in another crisis, the mother said “no” and a funny thing happened. The daughter found another way. At the next crisis, the daughter attempted to persuade her mother to come to her aid and again the mother said “no.” The daughter found another way. This cycle repeated a number of times and the result was that the daughter found that she could in fact manage her life without a continued dependency on her mother. The daughter soon found that the way in which her mother tried to raise her was in fact proper and right. The daughter soon adopted the mothers’ value system and they are now the best of friends.

This tale is now being played out today on a national scale. The mother is the government; the daughter is the vast and continuously increasing number of people with an entitlement mentality. The government once said “work, save, invest, and provide for your family’s future” (at the founding of this nation), but the entitlement minded said “no” and soon they became homeless. The government then set up a “temporary” welfare system to help the entitlement minded over their “rough patch” and the entitlement minded recognized a new way of life sans the necessity of laboring for their reward. The ranks of the entitlement minded grew until they became the majority of citizens, thus voting themselves multiple increases in benefits at the expense of the government (read producing citizens since the government can provide nothing that it hasn’t taken from the producers).

The entitlement minded people are now demanding a health care benefit to help perpetuate their self destructive lifestyle at the expense of the young, the productive, and the elderly. The time is now long past due for the government to tell the entitlement minded “NO” so that they, like the daughter in the story, can find another way. Perhaps they’ll find that by working, saving, investing, and providing for their family’s future is indeed a better way in terms of financial stability, societal respect, and self esteem. Does the government have the “sand” to tell the entitlement minded “NO”; not in the progressive culture in which we now live. The government desires to perpetuate the dependency lifestyle of the entitlement minded; they feel it gives them great power to control the lives of a weak willed people.

We have gone to great lengths to reverse travel on the path our Founding Fathers have laid before us. They came from a domineering, powerful central government and gave to us a system of government rooted in liberty and opportunity for all. We are now destroying that freedom by placing our lives in the hands of an incompetent but powerful central government. We are now wasting all the shed blood of those who’ve fought for our freedom since our founding as a nation. We should all be ashamed.

By the way, the daughter has removed the habitual drug user from the role of husband. She is now working at a steady job and planning to continue her education. She is also now married to a military man who is voluntarily defending the liberty of the entitlement minded; will the entitlement minded make the most of that liberty or will they choose a slave-like dependency on the mother government?

The daughter and her family are now looking forward to the purchase of their first home.

 

Why does it always cost so much money for Congress to pass legislation? If they’re doing their job, they’re only passing laws that, “regulate commerce… between the several states”, why does it always cost astronomical sums of money that inevitably result in higher taxes? When they finally achieve their goal of robbing us of one hundred percent of our incomes and that still isn’t enough to support all their social programs, what will they do? Just exactly how much money is enough?

And why are they allowed to vote themselves raises? Shouldn’t “We the People” be the ones who determine their worth and how much they’re paid? There must be something in the Constitution; I’ll have to look it up. Not that any of our elected officials would trouble themselves with adherence to a document deemed by them as antiquated and meaningless as the Constitution. But then, what of their oath of office? Seems they are, to the last, liars.

If our elected representatives in Government want to insist that we “sacrifice” during these “difficult times” shouldn’t they lead by example? If they were forced to lay off their ponderous teams of aids and interns, they would then be required to actually write the legislation they vote on. This is one way to get them to “read the bill.” The words of John Conyers, representative from my own district, come to mind as I write. The time has indeed come for “change.”

*****************************************

There are a good many people out there who are adamant about not buying American made automobiles. Many of a conservative bent are against the help offered to and taken by the auto companies and their argument contains some degree of merit. I think the means by which the government stepped in and dictated the course of events was wrong; it could have been done many other ways and more economically for taxpayers. It would have been better, I think, to let the bankruptcy process run its course without the prior injection of taxpayer money. The results of such a measure would have proven more just for all concerned. The investors would have been better protected and the union would have taken a much deserved beating, since they are in no small way responsible for the state of the industry. In addition, a reduction in corporate tax rates to help ease the financial burdens on these manufacturers would have proved beneficial in the long term.

I think its fine for people to stand on principal, but there is a practical side to the matter as well. If we all jump on the band wagon and buy foreign cars thereby letting our manufacturing base fall to ruin, who then will build the military machine when the time comes to go to war? What would happen should the Chinese decide they’re ready to release their pent up aggression against us? I think its common knowledge that they’re building their military and they’re not doing it “just for fun.” Will they provide the equipment we would need to defend ourselves? Will the Russians? Perhaps we could turn to our Muslim friends in the Middle East.

During the events that lead to the founding of this country, I’m sure there were many who were, by principal, against the idea of violent revolution. But in the process of thinking things through, they decided that their love of liberty took precedence over their principal of peace. What good are principals when we’re locked in a gulag somewhere, without reason, and for an undetermined length of time? Should we stand on principal and let the manufacturing base disintegrate thus losing our means of providing for a national defense and subsequently our freedom to debate these issues? Where is the wisdom in this type of thought?

What good does it do for me to stand on my conservative principals and let my next door neighbor fall to poverty by supporting his foreign competitor? He will then join the ranks of the unemployed, and from there transition to the welfare rolls and I would then be paying his way. Can I realistically expect him to then support my industry; would he? When he is no longer able or willing to support my industry, what will come of me and my prosperity? There are things we can do to help in reducing the welfare state in this country and buying American is one of them. Remember the “Golden Rule!”

We desperately need to support our manufacturing base in this country if only to maintain a means for defending ourselves as a nation. In doing so we also help our neighbors in their quest for the prosperity we all desire. The frequently seen term “Buy American” has incredible meaning these days; in more ways than we are sometimes aware. There are times when we must cast aside our petty differences and stand united as a sovereign nation. Let us not succumb to the unintended consequences of our principals; we must think these things all the way through. Our survival as a nation hangs in the balance!