I was reading the blog post “Hypocritical, Irresponsible and Seriously Profane” over at “Sacred & Profane“. Like my last post, Heidi was talking about the Hypocrisy of pro-choice people towards those who choose to have large families. One of the readers posted a comment that to some degree argues the “other side” of this argument. So I thought I would offer a few thoughts regarding the readers comment.
“But, if I’m remembering correctly, you want your choice, but you don’t necessarily want to allow others their choices in the cases of abortion… No one is trying to stop you from having more children, but there are certainly people trying to stop others from having (completely legal) abortions.”
First, I am not a pro-life person who supports killing doctors or blowing up buildings. I do believe abortions are wrong and even believe it was bad law constitutionally speaking, but I do not believe that justifies killing doctors or those seeking abortions. And, even though I believe Roe vs. Wade was bad law, it is still currently the law as the commenter points out.
As to the claim that “No one is trying to stop you from having more children” I would say that is false. Currently it may not be a major movement, but there is a movement and a desire by a growing group of people to limit other peoples family size. The current trend is based mostly around the environmental movement. I think after what we have seen our elected officials do over the last year we should all realize that the ability to regulate family size is not all that far fetched. The health care (Obama Care) law alone gives potential power and reason to the Federal Government as well as our fellow citizens to limit family size. Now that we all have to pay for everyone else’s health care, it will be much easier to complain about the family of 3, 5 or more. Never mind that we actually need much larger families to support the every growing demand for Government services and mounting debt. And lets not forget that President Obama has brought in advisers (czars) John Holdren – Science czar, and Cass Sunstein – regulator czar, both who have been documented as proponents of the population control movement. Mr. Holdren has gone as far as to promote population control through our food and water supply.
Now, regarding not allowing others to choose abortion I would simply like to highlight the breakdown of choice between the two points of view. If abortion was outlawed, women would still have choice. But, if the choice to have children or the quantity of children is regulated then there is no choice but simply the law. So, even if you take abortion away there is still far more choice then if society or Government starts regulating women’s fertility.
Lately I have been acknowledging (to myself) the high level of hypocrisy from the left. “They” want the right to criticize others, but how dare you criticize or question them. “They” want freedom of speech, but how dare you think you are entitled to the same freedoms. “They” want America to leave other countries alone, to not force our way of life on them, to not get involved, but “THEY” want to force their views of population control, and abortion on these other countries. Odd isn’t it? Sounds like typical leftist hypocrisy to me. Ya, Ya I know, it’s not just liberal Democrats that are hypocritical. But still, I do believe it tends to be liberal politicians who display more dangerous societal hypocrisy. Cheating on your spouse while running a “family values” campaign is hypocritical, but not damaging to society to the extent of attacking peoples freedoms, undermining other peoples and other countries family values, etc. We should all be free to choose, so long as we do not choose life. After all, who in their right mind would choose life over abortion? Choose many kids over one, two or even none at all?
Anyhow, here is another video from the Population Research Institute highlighting the attempt to force other countries to legalize and promote on demand abortions.
KPHO is reporting the Arizona House of Representatives have initially voted for a provision that would require “all” presidential candidates in 2012 to show their birth certificate in order to be placed on the Arizona ballet.
Can someone please tell me why the United States has very specific laws regarding who can legally become the President of the United States but only requires someone to “promise” they are legal citizens? This is absurd! There should be a law that requires anyone filing for public office to provide verification of their legal right to run for public office.
I think there are many Americans who cannot believe that Obamacare was passed. I think many Americans just could not believe their elected officials would ignore them or public opinion. And yet they did. Were they ignorant or belligerent? Well, I think I have the answer for you, it’s both!
I think by now it is pretty obvious that Americans have been electing belligerent and egotistical men and women to server as our representatives. But the following two Bill O’Rielly video clips also show what appears to be just plain ignorance on the part of Representative Anthony Weiner (D) New York. Now I realize some people will want to credit Rep. Weiner with being a good actor, but I have a hard time buying that. After watching the video I must say his ignorance was very believable.
The ignorance on display Debate:
The Reality:
I am so “tired” of our Governments Hypocrisy! Both parties offer plenty of it and one does not need to look to far to see it either. How about the Presidents comment that he doesn’t want to own / run businesses? Let’s see, he (technically we the tax payer) owns 60% of GM, fired the President of GM, forced the closure of profitable dealerships and recently hired a former AT & T guy who knows nothing about the auto industry to be his stooge inside of GM. He owns part of Chrysler and has forced a sale of part of Chrysler to the foreign company Fiat. Here too he has been instrumental in yanking the rug out from under dealerships. Oh, and did you notice how this Obama Government trampled on the legal rights of Bond holders costing people and the pension funds of hard working Americans a lot of money? How about the Obama Governments take over of the banking industry and now we find out the money that has been returned was not returned to the Treasury, but put back into the TARP account so they can re-spend it again! But wait, Obama is not done yet. Now he is after the health industry. Once the Government gets their hands on the medical industry they will never let go. Truth be told, they most likely will never let go of GM either and I question them getting completely out of the banking industry. But at least I can feel good about this because Obama has assured us all that he doesn’t want to own or run any of these businesses.
How about one more example. I just love how the Government collects tons of cash from the Tobacco industry. They like to rail against it and tell us all how much they care about the tobacco related illnesses that people suffer. Supposedly they keep raising taxes on Tobacco to “help” Americans to give up Tobacco products. We now fund children’s health care and there has been talk about funding the nationalized health system as well from tobacco money. Today I read our Government is probably going to give the FDA a whole bunch of power to regulate the Tobacco industry and their products and advertising. I got an idea, if Tobacco is so bad and so evil then BAN THE DAMN PRODUCT! Of course they can’t do that because they would have to raise taxes through the roof and would have tax payer mutiny on their hands. But hey, at least they would like to see people give up tobacco products.
Like many Americans this morning, I picked up my local newspaper and read an AP story about Justice Souter announcing his soon retirement and Obama’s vision for a replacement. In this article was a quote from Obama regarding the type of person he is looking for and although this, I am sure will brand me as some right wing whack job, I am concerned…a lot concerned. Obama said:
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives,”
The problem I have with this quote is the desire to direct legal decisions around the daily realities of people’s lives. The daily realities of people lives right now is not that great for some. Tough times, no jobs, unemployment benefits running out, homes being taken away from families, all causing some folks to consider desperate measures to turn things around. So should these circumstances change the penalty for robbery? How about the pet darling Democrat issue of Abortion? If most of America identified themselves personally as pro-life (for themselves only) then should this be taken into account regarding the legality of Roe v. Wade? The left would say no, they would say that the constitution protects that legal right and daily realities should not impact it. But they would also have no problems using daily realities to strip Americans of their constitutional right to own and bear arms.
Since Obama and many others in power view the Constitution as a living, breathing document subject to the whims of public opinion, this type of statement concerns me. We don’t need a progressive constitution and quite frankly this statement implies to me a desire to rule based more on feelings then constitutional interpretation and past legal presidents. But what do I know, after all my political viewpoints rarely if ever align with the progressive movement which I guess just goes to show how unenlightened I really am.
One of the “big” talking points right now is the whole “cap-and-trade” discussion regarding green energy. Recently the GOP was claiming that if enacted, cap-and-trade would cost the average house hold an additional $3,128 per year in increased bills. As a result of this claim by many of the GOP, John Reilly who is one of the MIT Professors who was involved in the study, came forward claiming the GOP was not correct and was misrepresenting his (John Reilly) numbers. Professor Reilly claimed this would only cost the average house hold $215.05 per year (I am sure all of you can absorb that increased cost eh?). This in turn kicked off a media and blogger frenzy ripping the GOP a new one for their faulty fear mongering math. So far, many of you (the 2 1/2 people who read this blog) probably have some vague memory of hearing or reading about this. But, here is what you probably have not read or heard and is rather hard to find reported.
Professor Reilly has admitted that he screwed up his Excel spreadsheet and it would actually cost $800 per year for an average house hold (again, I am sure all of you can absorb that cost too right?). Now, $800 is a far cry from the GOP claim of $3,100 smacks but the story doesn’t end there, it gets even better! Apparently, Professor Reilly believes it will only cost $800 dollars IF companies do not pass on their increased cost (taxes) to their customers – i.e. the companies will eat their loss in revenue. Ya, ask the unemployed, fur lowed and those who have been forced to take pay cuts how well businesses are willing to absorb losses in revenue! He also feels that the GOP should not focus on the increased tax revenue and it’s correlating impact on the economy but should instead focus on Government giving back the tax revenue to all of us, the impacted Americans.
Let’s recap, Professor Reilly’s math is only accurate IF businesses do not pass on their increased costs and IF Government gives back the collected tax revenue. Does anyone else see the flaw in this numb nuts thinking? We are more likely to see the porn industry go out of business then see either one of those options take place. But wait, it gets even better.
According to Professor Reilly, not only would it cost $800 smacks per year per house hold, but if the above assumtions did not become reality, then the actual cost to you and I would be the GOP stated figure of $3,128 PLUS his (Professor Reilly) $800 dollar figure. So if businesses and Government act as they normally do, then all of us could / should see an increase in yearly energy realted expenses to the tune of nearly $4,000!
Now I suppose that since the Obama administration wants to use this energy tax to fund socialized medicine (universal health care), that we should all see our costs break even or go down once we no longer have to pay any health care / insurance costs. I am also confident that neither the Obama administration or any other future administration (GOP or Demecrat) will ever need more revenue to fund socialized medicine beyound the $4,000 per family generated from this energy tax. I don’t know about you, but I don’t intend to hold my breath none…I’m affraid I might pass out.
Here is some follow-up reading:
The Washington Post has a new Op-Ed piece by Charles Krauthammer called “The Great Non Sequitur“. In it Mr. Krauthammer points out how bogus President Obama’s stimulus agenda really is and how truly magician like the President has passed it by the American people. Remember in the President’s speech how he indicated 2 trillion dollars in identified savings? Well according to Krauthammer, the President’s budget director has since acknowledged that 1.6 trillion of that money only existed if the United States were to keep the surge in Iraq until 2019. According to this article, that is “11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.” Another wards, it’s a sham designed to make you feel good – do you feel good yet?
But the biggest magician act yet is the Presidents claim that the lack of energy independence (something he and his party are largely responsible for), education and lack of universal health care are the real reasons our economic system has imploded. Notice, it was not the power hungry stupidity of our elected leaders who lowered and also refused to re-enact restrictions on the housing industry (largely the Democratic Party including the then Senator Obama), it’s not the highly educated wall street CEO’s who played the “get rich quick” games at the expense of American’s or the fuel companies sticking it to us because they can, no it is our need for carbon cap’s (increased taxes), universal healthcare, and more federal dollars pumped into the education system.
There are several things that have played a major role in the collapse of our economy and employment market, and from where I am sitting those three bullet points of President Obama’s focus really are not related to the problem nor are they now the fix. To be honest, I don’t consider the individuals who played key roles in the economic collapse to be the best characters in fixing our economy – but I guess that is why I am blogging about it and not sitting in Washington passing legislation that ultimately will bring about the $10 dollar loaf of bread.
Read Charles Krauthammer’s Op-Ed piece here (you may need to register for free with the Washington Post to read it).
I recieved an email with a link to Fred Thompson explaining the economic bailout. I must say, I could write and write forever in an attempt to tell you what I think. But after watching Mr. Thompson explain it, I decided there just is not much more to say. So enjoy!
OK, I wasn’t going to post anything about the VP debate tonight but I changed my mind. My mind, my blog, I can do what I want. We all knew it was going to happen, who won and who didn’t. Well I am going to argue that looking for a winner and a loser out of this debate is a stupid way to spend your time. They both won! And now I am going to tell you why (I know, you were holding your breath).
I really don’t believe any of the ”undecided” really found themselves making up their mind off of these two. Furthermore, there was no one from either party saying “WOW, he/she did so good, I think I will switch sides”, nor will they. They both did their job and did it fine. Neither one damaged their candidate beyond all recognition.
Now here is what I am taking out of his debate. Personally I believe we are voting for a couple of clowns. We have four clowns standing before us and we are going to pick two out of the four. Take for example the charge (which Palin did not argue against) that McCain wants to tax our health coverage. WHAT? You have got to be kidding me! Folks this man is not a tax cutting conservative. I personally don’t trust him but I see nothing to help me trust Obama either. How will this insurance tax hurt you? What about your employer? Will they have to pay on their part of your coverage and you on yours? What about if the company pays 100% of your insurance will they pay the tax still? What about the small business owner that offers real crappy but better than nothing insurance coverage, will they have to kill the coverage or will the cost not be worth it for you the employee?
One thing is for certain (to me), no matter which set of clowns get elected, we as Americans are going to have to fight them every step of the way or we will pay dearly. I just don’t see how either of these candidates are really good for America, the solution to the problems we are faced with.