9/11 Memorial
I have been extremely remiss in not bringing this to your attention before now. In the wake of the 9/11 tragedies, it was proposed to create a memorial for the victims to honor and remember them. In one of the most vile displays I've ever seen, there has been a steady and coordinated effort to subvert the memorial and turn it into a monument to the terrorists themselves. I know it sounds unbelievable, but I kid you not. You really need to go check out the details for yourself. I promise I will be better about updating my blog with news of this topic in the future!
Democrats' True Colors
The Democrats are showing their true colors on two fronts in one move: earmarks and censorship. In a move to hold accountable Democrats' promises to end earmarks, Republicans in the House posted a website to be a central hub of information about earmark reform. It was approved several months ago, but that approval was suddenly revoked a few days ago after the website actually went up. Minority leader John Boehner appealed the directive and issued a statement:
"[The] reversal comes just days after an independent report revealed that the freshman Democratic class in the House has been 'showered in pork' by the leaders of the current majority," he continued. "[The] reversal comes just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) – who as leader of the Democrat-controlled House has the power to shut down the earmark process in our chamber immediately – declined to join me and more than 150 other House members in supporting a total moratorium on all earmarks."
So, not only are the Democrats fighting against true earmark reform, but they are willing to censor Republican efforts to hold them accountable to their own promises! This is inexcusable and shameful!
The UMC vs. Israel
I personally find this very disturbing, as I attend a United Methodist Church. I'm aware that this is a very liberal denomination (yeah, I know, it's curious that I'm even a part of it, but that's another story...), but this really bothers me on a couple different levels.
Joseph Puder writes an extensive story at American Thinker that illustrates just how anti-Israel the UMC has become as a denomination. He points out numerous officials and statements who have been distinctly critical of Israel, even to the point of saying Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory (despite the historical fact that there never has been such a thing) and divesting denominational holdings from companies that do business with Israel. In truly vile fashion, "The UMC's General Board on Global Mission Women produced a Mission Study for 2007-2008, endorsed by the national church, which refers to Israel's creation as "original sin," and likens the birth of Israel to the Holocaust and Israeli practices to those of the Nazis." This is almost unbelievable, especially coming from a Christian church! Puder says:
This undisguised venom towards the Jewish State by the UMC leadership is reminiscent of the pre-Holocaust anti-Semitic replacement theology that rejected the covenant between God and the Jewish people -- replacing the Jews with the Church (or the Palestinians, as some liberal-leftist Protestant denominational leaders see it) and similarly denying the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel.
This is some scary stuff when one considers the historical impact of it! One cannot deny the fact that no matter what Israel has given up, it has not resulted in peace of any sort, yet the UMC appears to be supporting terrorist thugs who seek the complete annihilation of Israel as a nation and as a people. They claim this support is in the name of human rights and peace, but that is also a sign of immense hypocrisy in the UMC:
If the leadership of the UMC is sincere about bringing peace to the Arab (Palestinian)-Israeli conflict, it should decry and condemn the teaching of hate and the instigation of violence by the Palestinian religious and government authorities. Dangerous and oppressive regimes like those of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt are beyond UMC scrutiny. If the UMC leadership is concerned about human rights why have they not spoken out against the dreadful persecution of Egypt 's Coptic-Christians? or the ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Syria by the Assad dictatorship? Where are the concerned voices of the UMC regarding the persecution of Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Azeris, Bahais, Christians and Jews by the Iranian theocratic dictatorship? And why has the UMC not called for divestment from Egypt, Syria or Iran?
An excellent point!
If you're a regular reader of my blog, you know that I believe we're heading toward a war between Israel and a coalition of Arab nations led by Iran and Russia, and that the U.S. will not be a factor in that war. It is signs like these -- the clear distancing of a mainstream Christian denomination from Israel -- that lend credence to that belief. It saddens me that any Christian would fall so low as to look at Israel in such a way, and it bothers me that this war appears to be coming sooner rather than later. I hope I'm wrong, but the fewer Israel supporters there are in the U.S., the more likely it seems to me that we'll turn our backs on our close ally altogether, racing even more rapidly toward the Biblical prophecy Joel Rosenberg talks about in Epicenter.
The Truth About Nationalized Health Care
Maggie Gallagher writes a terrific column about universal health care that you need to read. It begins with Hillary poking holes in Obama's plan in their last debate. Gallagher points out:
Obamacare can't possibly work, because it doesn't make sense to buy insurance when you are young and healthy if you are guaranteed access anyway when you are older and sicker.
And that's the problem.
The exchange between the two Democrats highlights the dirty little secret that not even Hillary will tell you about a universal government health insurance program. The problem with our current system that mandatory national health insurance will solve is not that people don't get health care -- it's that they don't pay for it.
This has always been one of the misunderstandings about universal health care - it has to be paid by someone. She goes on:
But even The New York Times cannot admit the real "free rider" problem here. It's not that the health care needs of uninsured twentysomethings are bankrupting the system. It's that not enough twentysomethings are paying for the health care of fortysomethings and older. That's the only way insurance makes sense: We pay into it when we are young and healthy, and we get something out of it when we are older and more likely to get sick.
But wait, there's more:
Here's the other dirty little secret: National health insurance is going to cost Brandy and other taxpayers a whole lot more than either Hillary or Obama admits. Just ask Gov. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, where just two years into operation, the state's mandatory health insurance plan is already costing $400 million more than budgeted.
Meanwhile we have a Medicare system that is going to go bankrupt.
Gallagher poses a very important question:
Here's a question neither Hillary nor Barack will answer: How can we justify spending billions to insure the [twentysomethings] of the world, when we haven't yet secured the health care financing for our existing promises to senior citizens?
That's an answer that universal health care supporters won't answer because they can't answer it. They don't want you to focus on the actual implementation of the plan, they just want you to focus on the warm fuzzies of giving 'everyone' health insurance. I hate to break it to you, but health care is not a right, it's a service that is purchased with your hard-earned dollars by choice! Thinking health insurance is a 'right' is one of the worst manifestations of the entitlement mentality in this country, and it will lead us to health care ruin if we don't stop it.
Universal health care is not the answer to any of our health care problems. It will only make things much, much worse.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment