Tag Archive for politics

The Healthcare Bill Isnt That Bad…Right?


“The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”

– Albert Camus

I’m sure that there are many well-meaning people out there who are asking, “Whats so bad about the government helping poor people have health insurance”? In truth, there is nothing wrong with wanting to help poor people providing the money used to do it is voluntarily given and those receiving it are truly deserving and that it is given in an efficient and responsible manner (which i might add the federal government is incapable of doing). Leaving those concerns aside, the healthcare bill that our President just signed into law uses your tax dollars to fund abortions.

But what about Stupak and the Hyde amendment? Well, you know what they say, Stupak is as Stupak does, or in other words the Stupak show was nothing but that-a show. The wording of this law and the farcical executive order that followed it have done nothing to enforce any genuine prohibition on spending tax dollars for elective abortions. Matthew Anderson at First Things has brilliantly demonstrated this point in a post entitled A Final FAQ on Healthcare and Abortion:

But isn’t this bill covered by the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortions?

If it was, what is all the wrangling about? You could be assured that Stupak wouldn’t have held out for months for redundant language in the bill. But as John McCormack (an invaluable source) points out:

But the Hyde amendment does not say that “none of the funds channeled through HHS” may pay for elective abortions; it says “none of the funds appropriated by this act” may pay for elective abortions. A Hyde-like amendment needs to be included in each different act authorizing public health programs, or the programs will end up paying for abortions, just as Indian Health Services did long after the Hyde amendment was on the books.

In other words, no. The bill isn’t subject to the Hyde amendment.

So Stupak solved this with the Executive Order, right?

If you want to think that, you go ahead. But you’ll be lonely. No one, Left or Right, agrees with you. Including Bart Stupak.

But if you’re still not convinced, there are three problems with it:

1) It’s not clear that the language actually adds anything to the bill itself. Ezra Klein (a lefty commentator) thinks that it essentially promises to enforce the bill…as it’s written. Which is a pretty plausible reading of it.

2) While executive orders may have the force of law, they cannot alter the laws on the books.

3) Again, given Beal v. Doe, the federal government is 0bligated to provide abortions as a part of comprehensive health services in the absence of laws prohibiting it. Given that the Executive Order is not in fact the law, a court challenge will have to nullify the Executive Order in favor of the bill as its written. And if you don’t expect that court challenge to come quickly after the appropriations are received, you’re dreaming.

So is this law bad? Well, if you believe that the blood of the unborn is a fair payment for insurance coverage then you should be tickled pink. For the rest of you like me who see the horror of this law, we have a big fight ahead of us and this is no time for the sunshine patriot. Yes, Mr. Paine said it best when he penned the immortal words, These are the times that try mens souls.”

HT: Justin Taylor

Philosophical Dominoes

“Most modern people appear to resent the past and seek to deny its substance for either of two reasons: (1) it confuses them, or (2) it inhibits them. If it confuses them, they have not thought enough about it; if it inhibits them, we should look with a curious eye upon whatever schemes they have afoot.”

– Richard Weaver in Ideas Have Consequences

There is a line of philosophical dominoes that have fallen throughout history. Humanity has observed, been influenced by and in many cases accepted the tenets of these dominoes. Consider how the following ideas have had a domino-like relationship and how that has shaped the philosophical landscape we have before us today:

Darwinism (1859) – The beliefs of Charles Darwin and his interpretation of biological development were published in his magnum opus On the Origin of the Species. The tenets he proposed in this and other works came to be known as Darwinism. Darwinism cast a shadow on the truth that mankind was created in the image of God. It called into question the value of life and opened the door for “survival of the fittest.”

Eugenics (1865) – Charles Darwin’s views had a profound influence on his cousin Sir Francis Galton. Galton proposed that through selective breeding less desirable traits of humans could be reduced or eliminated. His ideas were further developed into the pseudo-science Eugenics. Eugenics also came to be known as “self directed” human evolution.

Communism (1917) – V.I. Lenin, who was a student of Marx, finds opportunity in the crumbling of the government of Imperial Russia to lead a revolt of Russian workers and peasants. His “October Revolution” laid the foundation for the Communist government which would be fully ensconced shortly thereafter. Lenin is followed by Stalin who institutes mass murders of political enemies that rivals that of Adolf Hitler in Germany.

National Socialism (1919) – Influenced by Darwin, Nietzsche, and Marx, Adolf Hitler transitioned the German Workers party into the National Socialist Party or Nazi Party. Hitler’s doctors and scientists in an attempt to further the pseudo-science of Eugenics perform forced sterilizations, abortions, and other inhuman experiments on political prisoners.

American Progressivism (Early 20th Century) – American Progressives adopt the philosophies of Darwin, Marx, Galton, and others while eschewing the violent tendencies that has resulted from these philosophies. American progressives see that in order to establish economic and social equity the power of the state must inevitably grow. President Woodrow Wilson was a leading political progressive who believed that the Constitution was outdated and needed to be revised to reflect changing political and social sympathies. Wilson was quoted as saying,

“Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin.”

These dominoes have all fallen and lie neatly at the feet of modern “liberal” movement. One of the greatest ironies is that modern liberals are not liberal at all in the historic sense. They are really progressives under a different name. They hold to the same philosophies as their fore-fathers. They support the institutions (i.e. Planned Parenthood, ACLU, NAMBLA, etc.) that have resulted from the philosophies of their founders.

Glenn Beck has recently done a documentary illustrating the line of succession of these philosophical dominoes. His work is an eye-opening examination of how these modern “progressives” are a real threat to the future of our republic. If you are interested in getting more information you can check out Glenn’s website here.

Quo Vadis Honesty and Transparency?

No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself, and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be true.

– Nathaniel Hawthorne

Dishonesty in politics is not new. It is no accident that politicians are described as tossing their hats into the ring only to spend the rest of their careers talking through them. We are conditioned to take everything we hear from politicians with a grain of salt.

Barack Obama was supposed to be different. He rode into Washington on a wave of optimism fueled by a message of “hope” and “change”. Now that he has been in office for more than a year, how are things different? Unfortunately, business as usual in Washington is still business as usual in Washington but now it is dominated by the left wing of the Democrat party.

One of the best examples of a lack of “hope” and “change” is the health-care debate. If there is one thing that this debate has done has been to illustrate the integrity of the participants. President Obama when he was still a candidate for President made the following statements:

As of the writing of this post, President Obama, and Nancy Pelosi have refused to allow C-Span to televise their closed-door health-care meetings. This despite pleas by C-Span to allow the cameras inside. Be warned, when honesty and transparency become victims of a political agenda you and your family are next.

What Is A Good Trade For Liberty?

coins“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

– Benjamin Franklin

Is your insurance premium worth the sacrifice of your liberty? By the words and actions of some in this country one might be inclined to think so. The very thought that American citizens would trade their essential liberties for a government run health care system is mind-blowing. We would do well to remember the Bible lesson of Jacob and Esau. In this Old Testament lesson, Esau traded his birthright for a bowl of stew. He allowed his hunger cloud his judgment and in so doing he despised the great inheritance that was by birth his. As Americans, we have been given a great inheritance too. We have one of the freest, most prosperous countries in the history of mankind and instead of sustaining that freedom many of our leaders in Washington desire to dish out the stew hoping to catch us at a weak moment.

So what will we do? Will we have this poisoned pottage or will we have the fortitude to resist this subtle undermining of our liberties? I honestly don’t know. I have been encouraged with the outpouring of opposition to this health care plan but the fight is not over. If we are to protect our inheritance, we need to remove from power those who would use fear and trickery to undermine the foundation of liberties. We must sustain this groundswell of opposition that we see at the town halls and see it carry us to the polls in 2010. Only when we have leaders who respect our freedoms and our heritage can we breathe a little and even then as flawed human being they too must be held accountable. Liberty is too precious to be lost by idleness and complacency.

What would you be willing to trade for it?