With the election of the current Socialist-in-Chief the latest form of protest is a rash of petitions on whitehouse.gov for states to "peacefully" secede from the United States. So I thought I'd weigh in on this subject...
First is the question of whether or not it is Constitutional. The argument against it is a Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White 1868, that ruled it unconstitutional and, of course, the Civil War that put secession down by force. In argument for its Constitutionality is the simple fact that the surrender of the South was force, not law. There is no actual law stating that it is illegal/unconstitutional. True the Court did rule, but as we see now with Obamacare, the Court can make a mistake and rule in the wrong direction.
Also, how can the Court rule on the Constitutionality of an issue that is not discussed in the Constitution? The document makes no statement about secession, one way or another. In this case I would refer to the Constitution's preference for the States over the Federal Gov't. The 10th Amendment gives all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Govt, and not prohibited to the States, to the States themselves or the People. I would say the the ability of a State to secede would fall into that category.
Also, I would submit that the Constitution is not a despotic document. It was adopted in each state only after a consensual vote of its citizens. It did not force anyone to vote for it. If it was not adopted against any one's will, why should we interpret it to keep a state in that manner?
That being said, I think these petitions are a stupid idea!
First, they carry no weight. People are not proposing legislation. The Federal Govt has no obligation to even read them. What it does do is put every one's name, who is unhappy and angry at Obama and his administration, on easy to read lists that also have other information such as IP addresses. All you are doing is saving Obama the time of weeding out dissenters.
Actual secession can only be declared formally by the Legislature of each individual state. And such an action should not be taken lightly nor without fully understanding the consequences. If there is anything that history tells us it is that nothing less than civil war will achieve secession. Just like the previous attempt, the Federal Govt will bring the full weight and force of its resources to bear on the state in question. The only difference is that this time, a civil war would be much much worse. In the 1800's the Federal Govt was fighting to preserve the Union. This time, the Govt would be fighting to suppress the condemnation of this budding Socialist "utopia" that such an action would represent. Also, they would see it as taking resources from their already hemorrhaging social welfare programs.
If any state declares secession, the Govt will swoop down swiftly and mercilessly to crush them.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Forward....
Well, the results are in. Barack Obama is re-elected for 4 more years. Liberals are jubilant, conservatives are de-moralized. However, the time for mourning is passed. It is time to fight for the country we love! We conservatives, the Tea Party, those of us that believe that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are the most sacred documents outside the bible ever written...we ae the ones that have inherited that revolutionary spirit of our Fore Fathers. We who favor the "animating contest of liberty" over "the tranquility of servitude"...are we ready to fight?!? I say yes. Just because a socialist still occupies the White House has no bearing on my ideals.
So, what should we expect in the next 4 years? Here is my predictions:
-There is hardly any chance that Obamacare will be repealed now. Along with Dodd-Frank, it will be implemented in full. Where before they merely caused "uncertainty" in the market pending the election, now the Market knows what to expect. And what to expect are higher taxes, more regulations that cost money to comply with, and a mandate to provide all inclusive healthcare for every employee that will increase the cost of hiring new employees. Job growth, which was anemic at best, will most likely flat line before job losses rise.
-As the cost of Private Healthcare rises, as even the Obama Administration has admitted will happen, employers will begin to drop coverage for employees as the costs become too much to cope with. Falling wages will prevent individuals from affording it n their own as well. Healthcare providers will begin to fail and file for bankruptcy. The whole industry will be decimated if not out-right destroyed, taking millions of jobs with them.
-After businesses halt hiring, as a last ditch effort to cut costs, the cost of complying with excessive regulation will become too much too handle. While big businesses are able to absorb these costs in the short term, small businesses will begin to shutdown as they do not have the capital to comply.
-As businesses begin to close, the unemployment rate will rise and rise quickly. Obama will try to cover this up by continuing to use the U3 number which only includes workers that are on unemployment and those that have looked for work in the last 4 weeks. The U6, which is the real unemployment rate and includes the U3 people plus those that have given up looking for work and those that are marginally empoyed, is currently around 14-15% and will rise into the 20's. This will tip us over the point where there are more people taking from the Government than are putting into it.
-Obama and the EPA will further restrict gas and oil exploration. Permits on federal land will slow to a trickle and the EPA will start persuing legislation prohibiting exploration on private lands. ANWAR and the outer continental shelf will continue to be off limits to our own people while permits for these areas for other countries will be rushed through. Gas prices will rise to $6+/gallon, driving up the price of goods and service all through the Market.
-The Obama-EPA alliance will continue its plan to bankrupt the coal industry and close nuclear power plants shifting the burden of the US power grid on unproven and woefully inadequate green energy such as wind/solar/geothermal. Home enegry costs will skyrocket into the hundreds.
-The Fed, with Obama's blessing, will continue to print money for "quantitative easing" and more stimulus legislation will be implemented. This will kick off a period of hyper-inflation which will severly weaken, if not collapse, the value of the US dollar further rising costs of goods and services across the Market
-Harry Ried and the Democrat controlled Senate will continue to refuse to pass a federal budget continuing yearly trillion dollar deficits, ballooning the national debt. Refusal to reign in spending combined with no plan to reduce the debt will result in more credit downgrades until this situation changes.
-As job disappear and unemployment compensation runs out, the Federal Government will aggressively expand the welfare rolls. This will further tip the scales where even more people will be taking from the federal coffers than are paying into them.
-All these will culminate in the collapse of the US economy. It will begin in January with "Taxmeggedon" when the Obamacare tax combines with ending tax cuts and new taxes to increase taxes by an average of $4000/household.
-As the economy declines and hardships increase, violence and chaos across the country will climb. Obama will side-step the Republican controlled House to acquire more authority and power to himself by Executive Fiat, shredding the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, in the name of "keeping the peace." As more power is centralized in the Federal Government, Individual rights will be trampled and discarded "for the greater good."
-The US will find no help from other countries as most of Europe is already holding fast to this same road to ruin. And those that are considered allies have seen how The Obama Administration sells out their firends and stab them in the back. Israel, now further isolated, will hold out against its enemies for a while. However, with the certainty that Obama will not stand beside them, and the real threat of a nuclear Iran, Israel will eventually be overrun and destroyed by its Muslim neighbors.
-By the end of his second term, Obama will have solidified enough power behind him to make his final push for "change." He will throw out as much of the Constitution as he can and implement European Socialism. Finally, before the next election Obama will try and circumvent the "two-term rule." We will hear pleas and testimony that he needs more time, and we can't change horse in the middle of the stream...just four more years and Obama can fix everything. Mark my words...before Nov. 6, 2016 Obama will try and install himself as Pres. for life.
-Obama will be aided in all of this by a biased media that will lie, cover-up and screen him from any real scrutiny.
If nothing changes, and changes big, this is the path I forsee for the next four years. I pray that I am wrong...
So, what should we expect in the next 4 years? Here is my predictions:
-There is hardly any chance that Obamacare will be repealed now. Along with Dodd-Frank, it will be implemented in full. Where before they merely caused "uncertainty" in the market pending the election, now the Market knows what to expect. And what to expect are higher taxes, more regulations that cost money to comply with, and a mandate to provide all inclusive healthcare for every employee that will increase the cost of hiring new employees. Job growth, which was anemic at best, will most likely flat line before job losses rise.
-As the cost of Private Healthcare rises, as even the Obama Administration has admitted will happen, employers will begin to drop coverage for employees as the costs become too much to cope with. Falling wages will prevent individuals from affording it n their own as well. Healthcare providers will begin to fail and file for bankruptcy. The whole industry will be decimated if not out-right destroyed, taking millions of jobs with them.
-After businesses halt hiring, as a last ditch effort to cut costs, the cost of complying with excessive regulation will become too much too handle. While big businesses are able to absorb these costs in the short term, small businesses will begin to shutdown as they do not have the capital to comply.
-As businesses begin to close, the unemployment rate will rise and rise quickly. Obama will try to cover this up by continuing to use the U3 number which only includes workers that are on unemployment and those that have looked for work in the last 4 weeks. The U6, which is the real unemployment rate and includes the U3 people plus those that have given up looking for work and those that are marginally empoyed, is currently around 14-15% and will rise into the 20's. This will tip us over the point where there are more people taking from the Government than are putting into it.
-Obama and the EPA will further restrict gas and oil exploration. Permits on federal land will slow to a trickle and the EPA will start persuing legislation prohibiting exploration on private lands. ANWAR and the outer continental shelf will continue to be off limits to our own people while permits for these areas for other countries will be rushed through. Gas prices will rise to $6+/gallon, driving up the price of goods and service all through the Market.
-The Obama-EPA alliance will continue its plan to bankrupt the coal industry and close nuclear power plants shifting the burden of the US power grid on unproven and woefully inadequate green energy such as wind/solar/geothermal. Home enegry costs will skyrocket into the hundreds.
-The Fed, with Obama's blessing, will continue to print money for "quantitative easing" and more stimulus legislation will be implemented. This will kick off a period of hyper-inflation which will severly weaken, if not collapse, the value of the US dollar further rising costs of goods and services across the Market
-Harry Ried and the Democrat controlled Senate will continue to refuse to pass a federal budget continuing yearly trillion dollar deficits, ballooning the national debt. Refusal to reign in spending combined with no plan to reduce the debt will result in more credit downgrades until this situation changes.
-As job disappear and unemployment compensation runs out, the Federal Government will aggressively expand the welfare rolls. This will further tip the scales where even more people will be taking from the federal coffers than are paying into them.
-All these will culminate in the collapse of the US economy. It will begin in January with "Taxmeggedon" when the Obamacare tax combines with ending tax cuts and new taxes to increase taxes by an average of $4000/household.
-As the economy declines and hardships increase, violence and chaos across the country will climb. Obama will side-step the Republican controlled House to acquire more authority and power to himself by Executive Fiat, shredding the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, in the name of "keeping the peace." As more power is centralized in the Federal Government, Individual rights will be trampled and discarded "for the greater good."
-The US will find no help from other countries as most of Europe is already holding fast to this same road to ruin. And those that are considered allies have seen how The Obama Administration sells out their firends and stab them in the back. Israel, now further isolated, will hold out against its enemies for a while. However, with the certainty that Obama will not stand beside them, and the real threat of a nuclear Iran, Israel will eventually be overrun and destroyed by its Muslim neighbors.
-By the end of his second term, Obama will have solidified enough power behind him to make his final push for "change." He will throw out as much of the Constitution as he can and implement European Socialism. Finally, before the next election Obama will try and circumvent the "two-term rule." We will hear pleas and testimony that he needs more time, and we can't change horse in the middle of the stream...just four more years and Obama can fix everything. Mark my words...before Nov. 6, 2016 Obama will try and install himself as Pres. for life.
-Obama will be aided in all of this by a biased media that will lie, cover-up and screen him from any real scrutiny.
If nothing changes, and changes big, this is the path I forsee for the next four years. I pray that I am wrong...
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Obamacare
So, SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. At first I was quite pissed about this. Obamacare is, and remains, a horrible piece of legislation that is unconstitutional. However, upon reading exerts from Chief Justice Roberts opinion, I have to admit there may be a silver lining to this cloud. Now it could be that Roberts totally abandoned conservatives and changed his views, or it could be a shrewd political move meant to out-flank Obama and his socialist cadres. Or maybe I am just grasping at straws...
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Friday, February 3, 2012
"Freedom to choose" means choose them
Ever notice that all these people/organizations that speak of choice support anything but? To the Left, "choice" means their choice only. Lets looks at a few examples:
"Pro-choice"-One of the most heated topics of debate in this country at present is the topic of abortion. The pro-life side believes that life happens at conception and that growing life deserves all the protections and chances that everyone else gets. The pro-choice side believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and that a baby is not a life, merely a fetus, until it has a "reasonable chance to survive outside the womb." I will admit fully and proudly that I am a pro-life person. And I, like most people that are, believe is the sanctity of life and will fight vociferously to outlaw abortion. However, I also am loyal to the constitution and, while I do not agree, as long as it is legal if you wish to have an abortion that is your right. I would try to convince you to do otherwise, and will pray for you not to, but ultimately that is your choice as long as it is legal.
On the other side of the issue you have people that identify themselves as pro-choice. They feel that it is their own personal choice, and right, to end their pregnancy when and how they wish. Their continual defense is the argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one." Their actions tell a far different belief system. When these two sides meet and clash it are the "choice" people that insist that they get preference. When legislation is passed that makes no judgement on the legality of the issue, merely to cut off public funds that come from people who do not agree with abortion, they claim their rights are being infringed. They hit the streets and airwaves calling pro-life adherents "fascists," bigots," and "Nazis." They demonize women who do not choose abortion labelling them as narrow minded idiots, basically saying "we are for choice, as long as you choose our way."
They even frame the debate as such. I, and those like me, refer to this issue as "pro-life vs pro-choice." The Left on the other hand, label it "pro-choice vs anti-abortion." The subtle manipulation is repulsive.
This issue has been brought into the fore again recently by the decision of the Susan G. Komen foundation's to not fund Planned Parenthood anymore. Again, they make no assertion on the validity or legality of the issue. They simple said they would not support the organization anymore. The Left was immediately in the streets and on the air complaining. They said this violated their rights, completely forgetting that Komen is a private organization and can do what it wants with its own money. They Planned Parenthood touted increased donations to support their claim that the public disagrees with Komen, again ignoring that they are not a public company, while Komen reported a 100% increase in support. And, as usual with liberals, as soon as things don't go their way, they call for indictments and investigations.
"Feminism"--For the past 30 years the Feminist movement has been striving for "equality in gender." Their mantra is typical of the Left: equality and fairness for all. Men and Women should be treated the same and that women, especially children, should be free to choose how they want to act, what the want to like and do, and how society should see them. However, just like everything else, what they mean is hat you should be able to choose as long as you choose their way. Feminists say that a little girl should be able to choose, and should be encouraged, to play with army toys and toy weapons and that a little boy should have access to dolls. In reality, they vilify any children, and their parents, who conform to gender rolls. If a girl chooses dresses and Barbie they try and sue the parent for child abuse because they "did not let their child choose their own identity."
Lego felt the full force of the Left's lack of choice recently when the announced their new tow line. Lego is now producing a line of play sets specifically marketed to girls. The building sets are pink and frilly and are things like hair salons and daycares and the lego people are no longer the squat blocky design but something distinctly feminine. Their reasoning for this was nothing sinister. The fact is that the market is there for these toys. Little girls, and their parents, over-whelmingly still choose and gravitate towards princesses, the color pink, and activities such as doing their hair and playing house.
And what is the Left's reaction? Feminists groups have denounced the beloved toy company as "pandering to traditional values," "limiting women's right to choose," and so on.
"Politics"--Liberals love to support democracy and the will of the people until it doesn't go their way. When the vote goes against them. They insist that they know better than the people and do what they want. Take the recent election in Wisconsin. The people of the state, by a large margin, voted in Gov. Walker. In the short time he has been in office he turned a budget deficit into a surplus, allowed most municipalities and school districts to rise into the black, decreased property taxes and inceased wages. But since this came at the expense of Democrats and bloated unions, the Left is now attempting a recall election for him and four other senate seats they lost. Obamacare? The majority of Americans did not want it passed into law, as is seen by the number of states filling lawsuits against the federal government and having their own state-wide votes against it, yet the Left passed it anyway. Immigration? Several states now have put anti-illegal immigration laws in place with mass support from the their citizens. Liberals don't like it so the DOJ is now procecuting the states.
For the past 70 years, Liberals, the Left, Progressives, whatever you want to call them. Have envoked the "will of the people" and their right to choose their own path until they choose not to support them. When that happens the people no longer know whats best for them, only government does.
In this thinking the err severly. History has shown that time and again the American people do not like being told what to do. If there is one flaw to the American people it is comlacency. We are slow to action. As long as our lives are not too adversely affected we are willing to put up with many hardships and injustices. In 1941, the Japanese admiral responisble for Pearl Harbor, Isoroku Yamamoto, called the US "the sleeping giant" and they feared that all they did with the attack was to awaken that giant and "fill him wit ha terrible resolve." In our 236 year history, others have mistaken that complacency. The "giant" of the American people has already started to toss and turn as has been seen in the Tea Party and the number of states bucking the assumed authority of the federal government. The transgressions of the Liberals are reaching the point of becoming unbarable.
The American people may be slow to action, but once roused they will be satisfied with nothing less than every single Liberal, in both parties, being run out of Washington.
"Pro-choice"-One of the most heated topics of debate in this country at present is the topic of abortion. The pro-life side believes that life happens at conception and that growing life deserves all the protections and chances that everyone else gets. The pro-choice side believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and that a baby is not a life, merely a fetus, until it has a "reasonable chance to survive outside the womb." I will admit fully and proudly that I am a pro-life person. And I, like most people that are, believe is the sanctity of life and will fight vociferously to outlaw abortion. However, I also am loyal to the constitution and, while I do not agree, as long as it is legal if you wish to have an abortion that is your right. I would try to convince you to do otherwise, and will pray for you not to, but ultimately that is your choice as long as it is legal.
On the other side of the issue you have people that identify themselves as pro-choice. They feel that it is their own personal choice, and right, to end their pregnancy when and how they wish. Their continual defense is the argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one." Their actions tell a far different belief system. When these two sides meet and clash it are the "choice" people that insist that they get preference. When legislation is passed that makes no judgement on the legality of the issue, merely to cut off public funds that come from people who do not agree with abortion, they claim their rights are being infringed. They hit the streets and airwaves calling pro-life adherents "fascists," bigots," and "Nazis." They demonize women who do not choose abortion labelling them as narrow minded idiots, basically saying "we are for choice, as long as you choose our way."
They even frame the debate as such. I, and those like me, refer to this issue as "pro-life vs pro-choice." The Left on the other hand, label it "pro-choice vs anti-abortion." The subtle manipulation is repulsive.
This issue has been brought into the fore again recently by the decision of the Susan G. Komen foundation's to not fund Planned Parenthood anymore. Again, they make no assertion on the validity or legality of the issue. They simple said they would not support the organization anymore. The Left was immediately in the streets and on the air complaining. They said this violated their rights, completely forgetting that Komen is a private organization and can do what it wants with its own money. They Planned Parenthood touted increased donations to support their claim that the public disagrees with Komen, again ignoring that they are not a public company, while Komen reported a 100% increase in support. And, as usual with liberals, as soon as things don't go their way, they call for indictments and investigations.
"Feminism"--For the past 30 years the Feminist movement has been striving for "equality in gender." Their mantra is typical of the Left: equality and fairness for all. Men and Women should be treated the same and that women, especially children, should be free to choose how they want to act, what the want to like and do, and how society should see them. However, just like everything else, what they mean is hat you should be able to choose as long as you choose their way. Feminists say that a little girl should be able to choose, and should be encouraged, to play with army toys and toy weapons and that a little boy should have access to dolls. In reality, they vilify any children, and their parents, who conform to gender rolls. If a girl chooses dresses and Barbie they try and sue the parent for child abuse because they "did not let their child choose their own identity."
Lego felt the full force of the Left's lack of choice recently when the announced their new tow line. Lego is now producing a line of play sets specifically marketed to girls. The building sets are pink and frilly and are things like hair salons and daycares and the lego people are no longer the squat blocky design but something distinctly feminine. Their reasoning for this was nothing sinister. The fact is that the market is there for these toys. Little girls, and their parents, over-whelmingly still choose and gravitate towards princesses, the color pink, and activities such as doing their hair and playing house.
And what is the Left's reaction? Feminists groups have denounced the beloved toy company as "pandering to traditional values," "limiting women's right to choose," and so on.
"Politics"--Liberals love to support democracy and the will of the people until it doesn't go their way. When the vote goes against them. They insist that they know better than the people and do what they want. Take the recent election in Wisconsin. The people of the state, by a large margin, voted in Gov. Walker. In the short time he has been in office he turned a budget deficit into a surplus, allowed most municipalities and school districts to rise into the black, decreased property taxes and inceased wages. But since this came at the expense of Democrats and bloated unions, the Left is now attempting a recall election for him and four other senate seats they lost. Obamacare? The majority of Americans did not want it passed into law, as is seen by the number of states filling lawsuits against the federal government and having their own state-wide votes against it, yet the Left passed it anyway. Immigration? Several states now have put anti-illegal immigration laws in place with mass support from the their citizens. Liberals don't like it so the DOJ is now procecuting the states.
For the past 70 years, Liberals, the Left, Progressives, whatever you want to call them. Have envoked the "will of the people" and their right to choose their own path until they choose not to support them. When that happens the people no longer know whats best for them, only government does.
In this thinking the err severly. History has shown that time and again the American people do not like being told what to do. If there is one flaw to the American people it is comlacency. We are slow to action. As long as our lives are not too adversely affected we are willing to put up with many hardships and injustices. In 1941, the Japanese admiral responisble for Pearl Harbor, Isoroku Yamamoto, called the US "the sleeping giant" and they feared that all they did with the attack was to awaken that giant and "fill him wit ha terrible resolve." In our 236 year history, others have mistaken that complacency. The "giant" of the American people has already started to toss and turn as has been seen in the Tea Party and the number of states bucking the assumed authority of the federal government. The transgressions of the Liberals are reaching the point of becoming unbarable.
The American people may be slow to action, but once roused they will be satisfied with nothing less than every single Liberal, in both parties, being run out of Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)