In the interest of full disclosure, I must first say that I am a lifelong fan of the Dallas Cowboys. They have been to 8 Super Bowls in their history, of which they have won 5 of them. This year, we find the Pittsburgh Steelers (5-1 record in the Super Bowl) and the Arizona Cardinals (proverbial doormat which has never been to the Super Bowl).
I am pulling for the Cardinals, and I do believe that they have a chance to win. They have a potent offense and a serviceable defense. The game will be won not with the Cardinals offense or the Pittsburgh defense. It will be won with either the Pittsburgh offense or Cardinals defense.
Keep in mind, the Giants were not supposed to even play a close game last year, much less win. Also, I do not want to see another team get to 6 Super Bowl wins before the Cowboys.
Cardinals 24
Steelers 17
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Octuplets, anyone?
What would cause a single mother of 6 children (ages 2-7), who lives at home with her parents, to want to be implanted with embryos in order to have more children? I can say from experience that having three children is a chore, and I am married. I cannot imagine even being a single father of three, much less being a single parent of 6 with another 8 coming at one time.
While it is not my position that we should be involved in telling others what decisions they should make and how many children they should have, I would think that the people close to her would have counselled her more wisely before undertaking this endeavor. Children are a blessing, but we should be prepared to care for the children that we wish to have, and do so responsibly.
She now is the single mother of 14 children, all of them 7 years and younger. Stop and think about that. Her judgment does need to be questioned. We can only hope and pray that she will be a good mother. I give her credit for not aborting any of them during her pregnancy, even though she was given the opportunity to do so. She plans to breastfeed them, a decision that my mind cannot comprehend.
I have been fascinated by the Duggar family (which can be seen at times on TLC), who are in stark contrast to that new mother of octuplets. They have 18 children, from 19 years old and recently married, all the way down to a newborn. The mother and father (he is the father of all the children) are married. He has a job and is able to support the family. They have a rather large home for their children. All the kids seem to get along and they have chores to do around the house. While I question the sanity of 18 children, they have done things the right way, and they have a loving family to show for it.
What I find interesting in this whole saga are the comments of Arthur Caplan, the bioethics chairman at the University of Pennsylvania. He believes that this mother is wrong in what she did because it will cause insurance premiums to go up and it will cause an increase in the need of some social services, among other things.
Basically, this bioethics guy is promoting the limiting of the human population because it will be too much of a cost for society to handle (sounds a little like Nancy Pelosi). This situation only allows his views to possibly get a little more time in the debate that is happening on the public stage. I guess my question is how did this guy get a job as a bioethics chairman at an Ivy League school when it sounds as if he is for population control? What does that say for our education system today.
While it is not my position that we should be involved in telling others what decisions they should make and how many children they should have, I would think that the people close to her would have counselled her more wisely before undertaking this endeavor. Children are a blessing, but we should be prepared to care for the children that we wish to have, and do so responsibly.
She now is the single mother of 14 children, all of them 7 years and younger. Stop and think about that. Her judgment does need to be questioned. We can only hope and pray that she will be a good mother. I give her credit for not aborting any of them during her pregnancy, even though she was given the opportunity to do so. She plans to breastfeed them, a decision that my mind cannot comprehend.
I have been fascinated by the Duggar family (which can be seen at times on TLC), who are in stark contrast to that new mother of octuplets. They have 18 children, from 19 years old and recently married, all the way down to a newborn. The mother and father (he is the father of all the children) are married. He has a job and is able to support the family. They have a rather large home for their children. All the kids seem to get along and they have chores to do around the house. While I question the sanity of 18 children, they have done things the right way, and they have a loving family to show for it.
What I find interesting in this whole saga are the comments of Arthur Caplan, the bioethics chairman at the University of Pennsylvania. He believes that this mother is wrong in what she did because it will cause insurance premiums to go up and it will cause an increase in the need of some social services, among other things.
Basically, this bioethics guy is promoting the limiting of the human population because it will be too much of a cost for society to handle (sounds a little like Nancy Pelosi). This situation only allows his views to possibly get a little more time in the debate that is happening on the public stage. I guess my question is how did this guy get a job as a bioethics chairman at an Ivy League school when it sounds as if he is for population control? What does that say for our education system today.
An open letter to President Obama concerning the economy
Mr. President,
I am sure that I am not the only one in this country who disagrees with you on how to get this country through the economic difficulties that we now face. With house prices retreating, house and car sales falling, unemployment increasing, and overall hesitation about the American economy as a whole, the last thing we need in this country is more government spending.
You mentioned this week that this is not the time for companies to be making huge profits. I would vehemently disagree with you. This is exactly what we do need. You see, when companies make profits, it not only benefits the executives (which you think are being paid too much money), it also benefits the employees, as they will not need to lose their jobs, and it may even lead to job creation within that company. It also benefits stockholders in the form of dividends. It is the growth of business that has helped make this country great. It is not this country that has made its corporations great by dictating to them what their financials should be.
Also, I have heard it bandied about that the pay of top executives should be limited. This is also a bad idea. While we may look at these executives and think they make too much money, we are doing so in comparison to our own salary. My problem is that if the government says executives are only allowed to make a certain amount of money, where will it stop? It would open the door for the government to tell more people how much they can and cannot make in the form of salary. It is a slippery slope that we should stay as far away from as possible.
I would also like to say that tax cuts are a good thing. However, to cut something that someone does not pay anyway is really a handout (or welfare, in this case), it is not a tax cut. Welfare only makes people more reliant on the government and takes away their ambition. Tax cuts should be directed at those who actually pay taxes. It should be aimed at small businesses, at corporations. They are the instruments that keep this economy rolling through the hiring of employees, through offering their goods and services on the open market. It is not the time to put more obstacles in front of them. Rather, it is the time to get out of their way and let them do what they do best.
Federal spending will not get us out of the current economic situation. In my view, it will only dig us deeper. Throughout the 8 years of President Bush, many Democrats criticized the President and the Republicans for running up the deficit. (As a sidebar, it is Congress's deficit, not the President's. The Congress spends the money, all the President does is sing the bill). Anyway, the criticism for running up the deficit is justified (except in the case of national defense). Anyway, where are these same deficit hawks from your side of the aisle now? They have conveniently used the deficit as a political ploy, not caring about it at all and using it for their own political advantage. You you are guilty of this same thing during the general election cycle. Yet, no one in Washington is willing to cut spending anywhere in order to balance the budget.
Where is the government going to get more money to spend? If people are losing their jobs, then there is less money finding its way into the federal government's coffers. If there is less money flowing toward Washington, how can they spend more? The answer is that they can print their own. Yet, this floods the market with U.S. Dollars and has the side effect of devaluing the dollar on the open market, thus increasing the cost of goods and causing inflation to occur.
We have examples throughout history where we see where government spending will not help us out of recessionary times. The Great Depression is a prime example. While unemployment did decrease to a certain extent during the New Deal era, it was not until World War II that the U.S. came out of the Depression. The New Deal did not get us there. The Great Society did not do anything to help us out as a country. It only served to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves to go out and earn a living and pay their bills. Ronald Reagan inherited huge tax rates and high unemployment from Jimmy Carter. It was not until he was able to pass tax cuts that America was able to dig out an economic abyss.
We have banks that rewarded people with mortgages for more than they could afford. This was done so that they could continue to receive funds and not be penalized. Basically, the government was sponsoring predatory lending. And leaders of Congress were in on it. At times, some members of Congress (but not nearly enough of them) tried to reform this, but some prominent Democrats stood in the way. This was a unique way for them to buy votes, and nothing was done to stop it.
As I see it, it is your goal to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves. It is government's responsibility to protect us so that we can live freely. It is not government's responsibility to tell us how to live. But that is where you are leading us. What I do not understand is why. We see that this government controlled lifestyle (i.e. Socialism) did not work for the Soviet Union. It is not working in China. Venezuela is trying it, and their economy is tanking as Hugo Chavez works to nationalize everything. Cuba has managed to sustain socialism, but they are so far behind the rest of the world that they really do not matter.
Our founding fathers realized that it would be the people in this country that made the country great. It would not be the country that made our people great. That is why they limited the powers of the federal government and relegated much of the power to the states. However, over time, the federal government has usurped that authority and the states have done nothing to stand in the way. It is only by returning power to the people that this country will rise again to its prominent position as the leading player on the world stage. Why will you no let the happen? Are you afraid of that? Do you really want us to be great again? Or would you rather us cede power over to the U.N. and become just another country? I would rather us be a leader and not a follower.
Why do you seek to silence your critics? You say that you want bipartisanship in Washington. I do not understand where this came from, as you were nowhere close to wanting this while President Bush was in office. And bipartisanship means meeting in the middle, not getting everyone to be on your side. There is both give and take in the process, not just take. And your smokescreen of reaching out to conservatives is not working. If you were really interested in reaching out, you would have reached out to true conservatives, not Washington elite media members. While the people who voted for you might be too stupid to see through this, the rest of us do.
One more thing: You need to stop allowing your media arm to twist the words of political commentators and start reporting the news correctly. MSNBC is constantly attacking Fox News. Perhaps, they could learn from Fox News in order to get people to watch them. They could occasionally have a conservative on their shows to counter the ultra liberal arguments put forth by their hosts and guests. They could report news, not give their political twist on it. They could fire Keith Olbermann, the moveon.org talking head.
Also, do not go after Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he does have a loyal following, and we are by no means some kind of political robots. We are able to think things out logically and see the harm that you are doing. We are passionate about our beliefs and the greatness of this country. Perhaps it would do some good for you to listen, instead of taking his words out of context and twisting them to try and gain an advantage with an under informed public. You know he said that if you were able to implement your liberal policies that he wanted to see you fail in that respect. It was directed at your policies, and not directed to you as a person (after all, it was your party that started the 'We support the troops but not thier cause' argument). You know what he said and meant and your people know this, too. Stop lying to the general public about it. Rush has close to 20,000,000 listeners, of which probably 98.3% agree with him. That is a large chunk of the population that you choose to marginalize.
I realize you will most likely not read this letter, but it comes from the heart. America is great because it is a country built on sweat, blood, and the hard work of its people. It is not great because of clever laws that the government has chosen to make over time. We need to continue to be a leader in this world. If other countries do not like us in this leadership, that is their problem. We should not be loosening our standards in order to come down to their level. We need to do what we can to bring them up to our level.
Thank You.
Adam Matesevac
Concerned Citizen
I am sure that I am not the only one in this country who disagrees with you on how to get this country through the economic difficulties that we now face. With house prices retreating, house and car sales falling, unemployment increasing, and overall hesitation about the American economy as a whole, the last thing we need in this country is more government spending.
You mentioned this week that this is not the time for companies to be making huge profits. I would vehemently disagree with you. This is exactly what we do need. You see, when companies make profits, it not only benefits the executives (which you think are being paid too much money), it also benefits the employees, as they will not need to lose their jobs, and it may even lead to job creation within that company. It also benefits stockholders in the form of dividends. It is the growth of business that has helped make this country great. It is not this country that has made its corporations great by dictating to them what their financials should be.
Also, I have heard it bandied about that the pay of top executives should be limited. This is also a bad idea. While we may look at these executives and think they make too much money, we are doing so in comparison to our own salary. My problem is that if the government says executives are only allowed to make a certain amount of money, where will it stop? It would open the door for the government to tell more people how much they can and cannot make in the form of salary. It is a slippery slope that we should stay as far away from as possible.
I would also like to say that tax cuts are a good thing. However, to cut something that someone does not pay anyway is really a handout (or welfare, in this case), it is not a tax cut. Welfare only makes people more reliant on the government and takes away their ambition. Tax cuts should be directed at those who actually pay taxes. It should be aimed at small businesses, at corporations. They are the instruments that keep this economy rolling through the hiring of employees, through offering their goods and services on the open market. It is not the time to put more obstacles in front of them. Rather, it is the time to get out of their way and let them do what they do best.
Federal spending will not get us out of the current economic situation. In my view, it will only dig us deeper. Throughout the 8 years of President Bush, many Democrats criticized the President and the Republicans for running up the deficit. (As a sidebar, it is Congress's deficit, not the President's. The Congress spends the money, all the President does is sing the bill). Anyway, the criticism for running up the deficit is justified (except in the case of national defense). Anyway, where are these same deficit hawks from your side of the aisle now? They have conveniently used the deficit as a political ploy, not caring about it at all and using it for their own political advantage. You you are guilty of this same thing during the general election cycle. Yet, no one in Washington is willing to cut spending anywhere in order to balance the budget.
Where is the government going to get more money to spend? If people are losing their jobs, then there is less money finding its way into the federal government's coffers. If there is less money flowing toward Washington, how can they spend more? The answer is that they can print their own. Yet, this floods the market with U.S. Dollars and has the side effect of devaluing the dollar on the open market, thus increasing the cost of goods and causing inflation to occur.
We have examples throughout history where we see where government spending will not help us out of recessionary times. The Great Depression is a prime example. While unemployment did decrease to a certain extent during the New Deal era, it was not until World War II that the U.S. came out of the Depression. The New Deal did not get us there. The Great Society did not do anything to help us out as a country. It only served to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves to go out and earn a living and pay their bills. Ronald Reagan inherited huge tax rates and high unemployment from Jimmy Carter. It was not until he was able to pass tax cuts that America was able to dig out an economic abyss.
We have banks that rewarded people with mortgages for more than they could afford. This was done so that they could continue to receive funds and not be penalized. Basically, the government was sponsoring predatory lending. And leaders of Congress were in on it. At times, some members of Congress (but not nearly enough of them) tried to reform this, but some prominent Democrats stood in the way. This was a unique way for them to buy votes, and nothing was done to stop it.
As I see it, it is your goal to make people more reliant on government and less reliant on themselves. It is government's responsibility to protect us so that we can live freely. It is not government's responsibility to tell us how to live. But that is where you are leading us. What I do not understand is why. We see that this government controlled lifestyle (i.e. Socialism) did not work for the Soviet Union. It is not working in China. Venezuela is trying it, and their economy is tanking as Hugo Chavez works to nationalize everything. Cuba has managed to sustain socialism, but they are so far behind the rest of the world that they really do not matter.
Our founding fathers realized that it would be the people in this country that made the country great. It would not be the country that made our people great. That is why they limited the powers of the federal government and relegated much of the power to the states. However, over time, the federal government has usurped that authority and the states have done nothing to stand in the way. It is only by returning power to the people that this country will rise again to its prominent position as the leading player on the world stage. Why will you no let the happen? Are you afraid of that? Do you really want us to be great again? Or would you rather us cede power over to the U.N. and become just another country? I would rather us be a leader and not a follower.
Why do you seek to silence your critics? You say that you want bipartisanship in Washington. I do not understand where this came from, as you were nowhere close to wanting this while President Bush was in office. And bipartisanship means meeting in the middle, not getting everyone to be on your side. There is both give and take in the process, not just take. And your smokescreen of reaching out to conservatives is not working. If you were really interested in reaching out, you would have reached out to true conservatives, not Washington elite media members. While the people who voted for you might be too stupid to see through this, the rest of us do.
One more thing: You need to stop allowing your media arm to twist the words of political commentators and start reporting the news correctly. MSNBC is constantly attacking Fox News. Perhaps, they could learn from Fox News in order to get people to watch them. They could occasionally have a conservative on their shows to counter the ultra liberal arguments put forth by their hosts and guests. They could report news, not give their political twist on it. They could fire Keith Olbermann, the moveon.org talking head.
Also, do not go after Rush Limbaugh. Yes, he does have a loyal following, and we are by no means some kind of political robots. We are able to think things out logically and see the harm that you are doing. We are passionate about our beliefs and the greatness of this country. Perhaps it would do some good for you to listen, instead of taking his words out of context and twisting them to try and gain an advantage with an under informed public. You know he said that if you were able to implement your liberal policies that he wanted to see you fail in that respect. It was directed at your policies, and not directed to you as a person (after all, it was your party that started the 'We support the troops but not thier cause' argument). You know what he said and meant and your people know this, too. Stop lying to the general public about it. Rush has close to 20,000,000 listeners, of which probably 98.3% agree with him. That is a large chunk of the population that you choose to marginalize.
I realize you will most likely not read this letter, but it comes from the heart. America is great because it is a country built on sweat, blood, and the hard work of its people. It is not great because of clever laws that the government has chosen to make over time. We need to continue to be a leader in this world. If other countries do not like us in this leadership, that is their problem. We should not be loosening our standards in order to come down to their level. We need to do what we can to bring them up to our level.
Thank You.
Adam Matesevac
Concerned Citizen
Friday, January 23, 2009
35 years and 50,000,000 unborn children later...
At what point in time do we, as people, say that enough is enough? How can we continue to allow a genocide to occur in front of our faces with our eyes wide open and yet say nothing or do nothing about it? What does it say about us that we would allow the taking of some 50,000,000 innocent lives and we do not stand in the way and stand up for these poor, helpless souls? Better yet, how can people stand up for the practice of taking these lives all in the name of convenience and the right to choose?
Well, it all goes back to January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court made a new law stating that abortion is a constitutional right of a woman. It is her right to do with her body whatever she believes is right. No one can tell her what to do. It was back then that Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, sued for the right to have an abortion. She had previously given birth to 2 children, who she subsequently gave up for adoption. Not wanting to go through that same ordeal with a 3rd child, she fabricated a story that she was raped. After that, the doctor and a few lawyers ran with it, and now we see what it has turned into.
Anyway, Norma McCorvey is no longer an advocate of abortion. In fact, she is exactly the opposite. She is a proponent of the rights of the unborn. In a 2001 interview, she admits that she felt used by the pro-abortion groups. They used her as a means to advance their cause. They would stop at nothing to have abortion legal and readily available. They really did not care about her, only the issue.
We are now living in a day 35 years later where the pro-abortion groups have tried to morph into groups labeled as pro-choice (because it does not sound as bad). They now say that they do not want abortions to be commonplace. Rather, they need to be available, just in case the need arises for a woman to have an abortion (and these are usually brought up as cases of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is in danger).
While I do not know anyone that has ever been in any one of these ‘special needs’ cases, I am sure that there are a lot of ideas running through one’s mind in such times. In the cases of rape and incest, there is physical and emotional pain to be dealt with. There is much psychological trauma that one goes through. However, to have an abortion is not the answer. As the old adage goes, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right.’ To take your anger out on an innocent 3rd party cannot remove the grief and agony of what one is going through. It can only add to it.
Concerning the life of the mother being at risk, we have made so many medical advances over the years that this is very uncommon. There are many medical ways, now, that a woman, experiencing some medical difficulties, can have a child without putting her life at risk. I would encourage you to read the book Legislating Morality by Dr. Norman Geisler for further information regarding this.
As far as the act of abortion, most are done due to the mother not wanting to be pregnant. The main reason we hear is that women should have a right to do with their body whatever they want to do. However, I have a problem with this. They already have done with their body what they wanted to do. That is why they are in this position in the first place. The real issue is that they do not want to deal with the consequences of their actions. They think that by having an abortion they can get rid of the consequences. However, more often than not, it does not. It only creates greater problems, whether physically, or more importantly, emotionally and psychologically. How many women have been talked into having an abortion, and now regret it? My guess is that this number would be fairly substantial.
Some abortions are done because of a detection of a birth defect. People will tell you that they want their kids to be ‘normal’ children. A birth defect will only limit that ability. It will also upset their own life, as the child will have special needs which will upset the apple cart that we consider to be our own perfect little lives. The problem with this excuse is that we decide to play God. Who are we to decide who should be born and who should not be? That is not for us to decide. God gives life. Who are we to decide that this unborn child should not have a chance to live? God has a reason for allowing this to happen, and we should trust in Him.
Yet others would say that abortion should be necessary because some people cannot afford to have children. Well, if that is the case, don’t engage in behavior that could lead to becoming pregnant. The child may be born into a home where they will not be loved. I admit that this is a problem, but abortion is not the answer. There are many out there who are willing to adopt because they are not able to have children. To witness the pain and agony of a couple who wants to have a child but cannot become pregnant, or worse yet, they become pregnant, only to end up having a miscarriage, is heartbreaking. Yet women out there, every day, get pregnant and discard their yet-to-be-born children through the act of abortion – this is wrong.
Some would say that there are not enough people out there willing to adopt these unborn children, which very well may be true. However, first and foremost, it is the responsibility of the couple that becomes pregnant to take care of that child. My wife and I are responsible for our 3 children. I am not responsible for other people’s children. They are responsible for them. They should be taking responsibility, not looking to duck it.
May people today criticize Abstinence Only types of sex education. People like to point out that many girls going through this type of program still become pregnant. The reason for that is that these girls (and guys, too) do not practice what they have learned. Abstinence works. You will not get pregnant if you do not have sex. You just have to make it part of your lifestyle.
Others would say that the fetus is not a viable life form. Well, after my wife and I have had 3 children, I can say that this is a viable life that is within the womb of the mother. I have been to several ultrasound appointments (with my wife), where I was able to see the movements of the child in the womb. I could see that outline of a human body. I could hear the heartbeat. I could feel the baby kicking. This is life, not just mere tissue.
I saw a commercial for a special to be run on the National Geographic Network about cats and dogs and life in the womb for these animals. I was captivated by the images of ultrasounds on these animals. Then it made me think: would the pro-abortion crowd perform abortions on these animals because they do not want to see more animals end up in shelters or they do not have the room in their house for a litter of dogs or cats? Most likely, the answer is no. Then why would we consider doing this to an unborn child? Are the lives of dogs and cats more valuable to us than the life a human being?
We hear news stories about a woman giving birth in a bathroom stall or in a bedroom or a hotel room somewhere who does not want to keep the child. They throw the child away or leave that child behind in hopes that it will die and they can walk away. First, they can never get away from the inner struggle and the guilt of their actions. Second, we as a public, are generally outraged when events like this occur. We ask ourselves how someone could possibly do this. Yet, if they would have had an abortion 10 minutes before the child was born, then we would think nothing of it. This would then be a legal act. Tell me, what is the difference in that 15-20 minute span? The only thing I can think of is the location of the baby in relationship to the womb.
Let’s stop and think about this: Abortion has been legal in the U.S. now for 35 years. Approximately 50,000,000 children have been aborted over that time. If the U.S. population is approximately 305 million, then this would be equal to about 16.4% of the population. Imagine if we had those children with us today. We would have doctors and researchers trying to find cures for different diseases, business leaders, political leaders, educators. Yet we have chosen a different path, all in the name of convenience, in the name of choice.
Yes, this is a genocide, more specifically, infanticide. It bothers us when we hear accounts of children being killed in accidents, by the actions of a parent, in the face of war. As a nation, we look at places like Darfur and Somalia and their ongoing genocides, brought on by their tyrannical leaders. Are these wrong? Yes, they are, and there are not many, if any, who would disagree. The people are guilty of nothing but living in a country where their leaders rule with an iron fist and suppress every possible human right and privilege that they possibly can.
How then is abortion any different? What are these unborn children guilty of? Did they do something wrong? No, they did not. Rather, they are a mere inconvenience to someone looking to run away from the consequences of their own actions.
Well, it all goes back to January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court made a new law stating that abortion is a constitutional right of a woman. It is her right to do with her body whatever she believes is right. No one can tell her what to do. It was back then that Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, sued for the right to have an abortion. She had previously given birth to 2 children, who she subsequently gave up for adoption. Not wanting to go through that same ordeal with a 3rd child, she fabricated a story that she was raped. After that, the doctor and a few lawyers ran with it, and now we see what it has turned into.
Anyway, Norma McCorvey is no longer an advocate of abortion. In fact, she is exactly the opposite. She is a proponent of the rights of the unborn. In a 2001 interview, she admits that she felt used by the pro-abortion groups. They used her as a means to advance their cause. They would stop at nothing to have abortion legal and readily available. They really did not care about her, only the issue.
We are now living in a day 35 years later where the pro-abortion groups have tried to morph into groups labeled as pro-choice (because it does not sound as bad). They now say that they do not want abortions to be commonplace. Rather, they need to be available, just in case the need arises for a woman to have an abortion (and these are usually brought up as cases of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is in danger).
While I do not know anyone that has ever been in any one of these ‘special needs’ cases, I am sure that there are a lot of ideas running through one’s mind in such times. In the cases of rape and incest, there is physical and emotional pain to be dealt with. There is much psychological trauma that one goes through. However, to have an abortion is not the answer. As the old adage goes, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right.’ To take your anger out on an innocent 3rd party cannot remove the grief and agony of what one is going through. It can only add to it.
Concerning the life of the mother being at risk, we have made so many medical advances over the years that this is very uncommon. There are many medical ways, now, that a woman, experiencing some medical difficulties, can have a child without putting her life at risk. I would encourage you to read the book Legislating Morality by Dr. Norman Geisler for further information regarding this.
As far as the act of abortion, most are done due to the mother not wanting to be pregnant. The main reason we hear is that women should have a right to do with their body whatever they want to do. However, I have a problem with this. They already have done with their body what they wanted to do. That is why they are in this position in the first place. The real issue is that they do not want to deal with the consequences of their actions. They think that by having an abortion they can get rid of the consequences. However, more often than not, it does not. It only creates greater problems, whether physically, or more importantly, emotionally and psychologically. How many women have been talked into having an abortion, and now regret it? My guess is that this number would be fairly substantial.
Some abortions are done because of a detection of a birth defect. People will tell you that they want their kids to be ‘normal’ children. A birth defect will only limit that ability. It will also upset their own life, as the child will have special needs which will upset the apple cart that we consider to be our own perfect little lives. The problem with this excuse is that we decide to play God. Who are we to decide who should be born and who should not be? That is not for us to decide. God gives life. Who are we to decide that this unborn child should not have a chance to live? God has a reason for allowing this to happen, and we should trust in Him.
Yet others would say that abortion should be necessary because some people cannot afford to have children. Well, if that is the case, don’t engage in behavior that could lead to becoming pregnant. The child may be born into a home where they will not be loved. I admit that this is a problem, but abortion is not the answer. There are many out there who are willing to adopt because they are not able to have children. To witness the pain and agony of a couple who wants to have a child but cannot become pregnant, or worse yet, they become pregnant, only to end up having a miscarriage, is heartbreaking. Yet women out there, every day, get pregnant and discard their yet-to-be-born children through the act of abortion – this is wrong.
Some would say that there are not enough people out there willing to adopt these unborn children, which very well may be true. However, first and foremost, it is the responsibility of the couple that becomes pregnant to take care of that child. My wife and I are responsible for our 3 children. I am not responsible for other people’s children. They are responsible for them. They should be taking responsibility, not looking to duck it.
May people today criticize Abstinence Only types of sex education. People like to point out that many girls going through this type of program still become pregnant. The reason for that is that these girls (and guys, too) do not practice what they have learned. Abstinence works. You will not get pregnant if you do not have sex. You just have to make it part of your lifestyle.
Others would say that the fetus is not a viable life form. Well, after my wife and I have had 3 children, I can say that this is a viable life that is within the womb of the mother. I have been to several ultrasound appointments (with my wife), where I was able to see the movements of the child in the womb. I could see that outline of a human body. I could hear the heartbeat. I could feel the baby kicking. This is life, not just mere tissue.
I saw a commercial for a special to be run on the National Geographic Network about cats and dogs and life in the womb for these animals. I was captivated by the images of ultrasounds on these animals. Then it made me think: would the pro-abortion crowd perform abortions on these animals because they do not want to see more animals end up in shelters or they do not have the room in their house for a litter of dogs or cats? Most likely, the answer is no. Then why would we consider doing this to an unborn child? Are the lives of dogs and cats more valuable to us than the life a human being?
We hear news stories about a woman giving birth in a bathroom stall or in a bedroom or a hotel room somewhere who does not want to keep the child. They throw the child away or leave that child behind in hopes that it will die and they can walk away. First, they can never get away from the inner struggle and the guilt of their actions. Second, we as a public, are generally outraged when events like this occur. We ask ourselves how someone could possibly do this. Yet, if they would have had an abortion 10 minutes before the child was born, then we would think nothing of it. This would then be a legal act. Tell me, what is the difference in that 15-20 minute span? The only thing I can think of is the location of the baby in relationship to the womb.
Let’s stop and think about this: Abortion has been legal in the U.S. now for 35 years. Approximately 50,000,000 children have been aborted over that time. If the U.S. population is approximately 305 million, then this would be equal to about 16.4% of the population. Imagine if we had those children with us today. We would have doctors and researchers trying to find cures for different diseases, business leaders, political leaders, educators. Yet we have chosen a different path, all in the name of convenience, in the name of choice.
Yes, this is a genocide, more specifically, infanticide. It bothers us when we hear accounts of children being killed in accidents, by the actions of a parent, in the face of war. As a nation, we look at places like Darfur and Somalia and their ongoing genocides, brought on by their tyrannical leaders. Are these wrong? Yes, they are, and there are not many, if any, who would disagree. The people are guilty of nothing but living in a country where their leaders rule with an iron fist and suppress every possible human right and privilege that they possibly can.
How then is abortion any different? What are these unborn children guilty of? Did they do something wrong? No, they did not. Rather, they are a mere inconvenience to someone looking to run away from the consequences of their own actions.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What do the Republicans need to do?
Many of the media elite and liberals, in general, think that the Republicans need to cater to the center, the moderates, in order to win elections. I do not think that this is true. Look at who our candidate was this year. It was John McCain, someone who would sell out his own mom if it benefited him politically. He was a media darling. Yet he did not win. It was not really even close.
The Republicans need to go back to their roots. They need to get rid of the moderates leading the parts and kick them to the curb and let them join the Democrat Party, as that is where their heart is anyway. The need is to return to the foundations of the Republican Party: low taxes, conservative principles, American exceptionalism, pro-life principles. That is what will re-invigorate the party. This is what we are looking for in our leaders.
It is time to bring out a new generation of Republicans to lead the party, not the same old people we have now who are selling out their priniciples in order to remain popular to those who never voted for them in the first place.
The Republicans need to go back to their roots. They need to get rid of the moderates leading the parts and kick them to the curb and let them join the Democrat Party, as that is where their heart is anyway. The need is to return to the foundations of the Republican Party: low taxes, conservative principles, American exceptionalism, pro-life principles. That is what will re-invigorate the party. This is what we are looking for in our leaders.
It is time to bring out a new generation of Republicans to lead the party, not the same old people we have now who are selling out their priniciples in order to remain popular to those who never voted for them in the first place.
Obama vs. Reagan
As we have finally reached Inauguration Day 2009, I look at the things that President Obama has proposed over the campaign and in these weeks leading up to the inauguration. Given a slowing economy and rising unemployment, he has proposed new government programs to give people jobs. He has proposed tax cuts and rebates for people who already do not carry a tax burden. He would like for us, as Americans, to rely on the government to fix the problems we face. Apparently, he thinks that we, as individuals, are capable of righting the ship, of turning things around, of returning America to the place of prominence that we have been for such a long time. We should rely on inept government bureaucratic agencies to pull us out of a short-term economic slide. To President Obama, government is the solution.
I would like to compare this to the Inaugural address given by President Ronald Reagan at his first inauguration in January, 1981. I heard this speech on C-Span yesterday. I was impressed by his down to earth approach. He was going to be the leader of the free world. He was taking over a country that was facing high unemployment and double-digit inflation. There was punitive taxation on those who were successful. It was definitely a worse economic environment than what we face today. There were hostages in Iran. There was an ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union. There was a declining sense of American exceptionalism. Yet Reagan new the answer was in the American people, not the government, to solve these problems.
While I encourage you to read the full text of the speech, I would like for you to see some excerpts of this wonderful speech.
"...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
"We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines...They are, in short, "we the people," this breed called Americans."
"We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."
"...it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
"If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth."
"It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams...I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing."
"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
"The crisis we are facing today...does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans."
I am sure we will not here this from our new President.
I would like to compare this to the Inaugural address given by President Ronald Reagan at his first inauguration in January, 1981. I heard this speech on C-Span yesterday. I was impressed by his down to earth approach. He was going to be the leader of the free world. He was taking over a country that was facing high unemployment and double-digit inflation. There was punitive taxation on those who were successful. It was definitely a worse economic environment than what we face today. There were hostages in Iran. There was an ongoing Cold War with the Soviet Union. There was a declining sense of American exceptionalism. Yet Reagan new the answer was in the American people, not the government, to solve these problems.
While I encourage you to read the full text of the speech, I would like for you to see some excerpts of this wonderful speech.
"...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
"We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines...They are, in short, "we the people," this breed called Americans."
"We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."
"...it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
"If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth."
"It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams...I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing."
"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
"The crisis we are facing today...does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans."
I am sure we will not here this from our new President.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Bush Legacy
Webster's defines the word legacy as "something handed down from an ancestor or from the past." In other words, it is something handed down to younger generations that causes us to remember someone or something that came before us.
There is a considerable rush at this time to state what the Bush legacy is going to be. Many foreign papers today are stating that Bush was an abject failure as President. This is also the feeling of most papers within the U.S.
The international community does not like President Bush because of his single-handed approach to fighting the terrorist threat that faces us on a daily basis. He did not want to do it their way. He was a renegade. They are also now fond of blaming him for the current financial situation. It will not be long before they blame him for the plane that landed in the Hudson last week.
Liberals and the media elite in the U.S. do not like him because he has ruined the American goodwill with other nations. He is not an environmental zealot. He had the audacity to try to protect the U.S. from being attacked again. He was a divider, not a uniter.
According to recent polls (which I am sure are bias-free), the majority of people view President Bush as the worst President ever. It is hard to believe that anyone could have forgotten about Jimmy Carter, but we tend to cloud our view of history with what we see going on in the present.
With all this being said, let me offer my opinion: You cannot judge a man's legacy at the time he is leaving office. Only history will be able to tell us how good of a President that Mr. Bush has been. I believe that history will be kind to him, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01. He saw to it that we went after the terrorists; he did not want to wait for them to come back at us. As time goes by, people will understand that this was the right thing to do.
The American people want to see America remain a superpower. They do not want to cede that power to other countries, or especially to the UN. Other nations are upset with us because we are taking the leadership role, and they want to drag us down. They use the UN as a collective body to try and pull the U.S. down from its leadership position. President Bush would not let that happen, and for that he deserves our gratitude. The only other thing he possibly could have done that would have benefited us more would have been to jettison the UN from New York City and level the place.
Other nations complain about our leadership position in the world, yet they know where to come when they face a crisis. Do we remember the tsunami in Indonesia? It was the U.S. people that gave millions of dollars. It was the U.S. government that gave millions of dollars. The U.S. government has given billions of dollars to help fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. The U.S. has been so generous to other countries through the 2 terms of President Bush. Yet, he receives no accolades for this, nor does he seek them. And the international community conveniently forgets the times we have bailed them out.
We hear about the budget surpluses that existed when President Bush became President and the deficits that he has created since being President. One thing people fail to remember is that it is not the President that spends the money for the U.S. government. It is Congress. Because of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990's, we had surpluses. It was not President Clinton. He happened to be the President at the time, so he gets the credit. Likewise, President Bush is not the cause of today's government deficits (although some of his policies have led to higher spending). It is due to Congress not being able to control spending. They need to be held accountable for that.
Even some liberal causes that Bush helped to further were snubbed by the liberals: No Child Left Behind, immigration, bailouts, health care. There are areas where he tried to reach out, yet the liberals were not willing to meet in the middle. They had an utter disdain for this man. They give him credit for nothing. And the media reports these things as Bush failures, not as the failures of liberal ideas.
They also like to blame President Bush for ruining the bi-partisan goodwill after 9/11. If I recall, it was the liberals who started to attack this man because he actually wanted to go after the terrorists who were determined to attack us. Actually, they never stopped attacking him for winning the 2000 Presidential election. It was not the President who went after the liberals. Rather, he stayed true to his beliefs, his principles, his ideals. He did not waiver. The liberals (including the media) attached the President.
President Bush is a good man. Yes, he has his faults, as we all do. He proposed things that I did not (and still do not) agree with. However, he is a man of principle and character. He did not make up his mind based on the latest opinion poll. He stayed true to what he thought was right, whether or not other people agreed with him. That is what I want in a leader. A true leader does not change his ideas based on the political climate. Rather, he remains true to his ideas. That is what I will remember and appreciate about this President.
There is a considerable rush at this time to state what the Bush legacy is going to be. Many foreign papers today are stating that Bush was an abject failure as President. This is also the feeling of most papers within the U.S.
The international community does not like President Bush because of his single-handed approach to fighting the terrorist threat that faces us on a daily basis. He did not want to do it their way. He was a renegade. They are also now fond of blaming him for the current financial situation. It will not be long before they blame him for the plane that landed in the Hudson last week.
Liberals and the media elite in the U.S. do not like him because he has ruined the American goodwill with other nations. He is not an environmental zealot. He had the audacity to try to protect the U.S. from being attacked again. He was a divider, not a uniter.
According to recent polls (which I am sure are bias-free), the majority of people view President Bush as the worst President ever. It is hard to believe that anyone could have forgotten about Jimmy Carter, but we tend to cloud our view of history with what we see going on in the present.
With all this being said, let me offer my opinion: You cannot judge a man's legacy at the time he is leaving office. Only history will be able to tell us how good of a President that Mr. Bush has been. I believe that history will be kind to him, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01. He saw to it that we went after the terrorists; he did not want to wait for them to come back at us. As time goes by, people will understand that this was the right thing to do.
The American people want to see America remain a superpower. They do not want to cede that power to other countries, or especially to the UN. Other nations are upset with us because we are taking the leadership role, and they want to drag us down. They use the UN as a collective body to try and pull the U.S. down from its leadership position. President Bush would not let that happen, and for that he deserves our gratitude. The only other thing he possibly could have done that would have benefited us more would have been to jettison the UN from New York City and level the place.
Other nations complain about our leadership position in the world, yet they know where to come when they face a crisis. Do we remember the tsunami in Indonesia? It was the U.S. people that gave millions of dollars. It was the U.S. government that gave millions of dollars. The U.S. government has given billions of dollars to help fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. The U.S. has been so generous to other countries through the 2 terms of President Bush. Yet, he receives no accolades for this, nor does he seek them. And the international community conveniently forgets the times we have bailed them out.
We hear about the budget surpluses that existed when President Bush became President and the deficits that he has created since being President. One thing people fail to remember is that it is not the President that spends the money for the U.S. government. It is Congress. Because of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990's, we had surpluses. It was not President Clinton. He happened to be the President at the time, so he gets the credit. Likewise, President Bush is not the cause of today's government deficits (although some of his policies have led to higher spending). It is due to Congress not being able to control spending. They need to be held accountable for that.
Even some liberal causes that Bush helped to further were snubbed by the liberals: No Child Left Behind, immigration, bailouts, health care. There are areas where he tried to reach out, yet the liberals were not willing to meet in the middle. They had an utter disdain for this man. They give him credit for nothing. And the media reports these things as Bush failures, not as the failures of liberal ideas.
They also like to blame President Bush for ruining the bi-partisan goodwill after 9/11. If I recall, it was the liberals who started to attack this man because he actually wanted to go after the terrorists who were determined to attack us. Actually, they never stopped attacking him for winning the 2000 Presidential election. It was not the President who went after the liberals. Rather, he stayed true to his beliefs, his principles, his ideals. He did not waiver. The liberals (including the media) attached the President.
President Bush is a good man. Yes, he has his faults, as we all do. He proposed things that I did not (and still do not) agree with. However, he is a man of principle and character. He did not make up his mind based on the latest opinion poll. He stayed true to what he thought was right, whether or not other people agreed with him. That is what I want in a leader. A true leader does not change his ideas based on the political climate. Rather, he remains true to his ideas. That is what I will remember and appreciate about this President.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Come, and Worship...............the President-elect
I am sure we are all familiar with the Christmas song Angels From the Realms of Glory. The chorus invites us to "...come and worship, worship Christ, the newborn King." He is to be the object of our worship.
However, what I am seeing a lot more of at this point in time is the media inviting us to come and worship the President-elect. They follow his every move. It is all they can do to contain themselves today concerning this train ride from Philadelphia to Washington. "This is the same thing that Lincoln did when he was nearing his inauguration'" they say. The only thing that Lincoln and Obama have in common is that they are tall and from Illinois. The similarities stop there.
Not sure about you, but I am completely nauseated by this media orgy surrounding President-elect Obama's inauguration. Can these people be objective at all? Can they stop bowing down to this man? When will they figure out that this man is all symbolism, and no substance? Do they know the danger of putting faith in man rather than putting faith in God?
It reminds me of another Bible story. Please recall with me the account of King Nebuchadnezzar building a rather large image of himself. He commanded the kingdom to come together and bow down to this image. There were three who would not: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. For defying the king and refusing to do so, they were thrown into the fiery furnace. Yet God would not let them die. They would not bow down to someone other than God, and he saved them from the fire.
I see many similarities to today. While Obama has not made an image of himself, the media and liberal elites have done so for him. They are asking one and all to come and worship at the feet of our soon-to-be President. When we do not do so, they try to pressure us by calling us racist, intolerant, un-American, and any other disparaging remark they can think of. While there is no furnace to be thrown into, we are treated as outcasts, members of a right-wing fringe.
With all this being said, the man is going to be our President, not our Savior. He came many years ago to save us. We ought not to put our faith in this man (or any other). The object of our worship ought always to be our Savior. He will control the rest.
However, what I am seeing a lot more of at this point in time is the media inviting us to come and worship the President-elect. They follow his every move. It is all they can do to contain themselves today concerning this train ride from Philadelphia to Washington. "This is the same thing that Lincoln did when he was nearing his inauguration'" they say. The only thing that Lincoln and Obama have in common is that they are tall and from Illinois. The similarities stop there.
Not sure about you, but I am completely nauseated by this media orgy surrounding President-elect Obama's inauguration. Can these people be objective at all? Can they stop bowing down to this man? When will they figure out that this man is all symbolism, and no substance? Do they know the danger of putting faith in man rather than putting faith in God?
It reminds me of another Bible story. Please recall with me the account of King Nebuchadnezzar building a rather large image of himself. He commanded the kingdom to come together and bow down to this image. There were three who would not: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. For defying the king and refusing to do so, they were thrown into the fiery furnace. Yet God would not let them die. They would not bow down to someone other than God, and he saved them from the fire.
I see many similarities to today. While Obama has not made an image of himself, the media and liberal elites have done so for him. They are asking one and all to come and worship at the feet of our soon-to-be President. When we do not do so, they try to pressure us by calling us racist, intolerant, un-American, and any other disparaging remark they can think of. While there is no furnace to be thrown into, we are treated as outcasts, members of a right-wing fringe.
With all this being said, the man is going to be our President, not our Savior. He came many years ago to save us. We ought not to put our faith in this man (or any other). The object of our worship ought always to be our Savior. He will control the rest.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Milk Chocolate contains............Milk!
Who knew? Cadbury is putting this information on a new warning label on its products that contain milk chocolate. They say it is being done to comply with a law concerning allergens present in food products.
My question: Is this really necessary? You would think the name 'Milk Chocolate' would tip off the consumer that milk is present in the product. However, in this overly litigious society in which we live, we will continue to see absurdities such as this.
Maybe it will even help to fend off lawsuits in the future. I guess Cadbury will now be covered should someone go into anaphylactic shock after consuming milk chocolate all the time knowing that they had a milk allergy.
If McDonald's had only told people that their coffee was hot, maybe they would not have been hit with a lawsuit. That did not, however, work for tobacco companies. They complied with all of the laws that made them put warnings on their products. Yet, they were still sued, and lost.
I am not a fan of lawyers, for reasons such as this. When will we wake up and get some common sense?
My question: Is this really necessary? You would think the name 'Milk Chocolate' would tip off the consumer that milk is present in the product. However, in this overly litigious society in which we live, we will continue to see absurdities such as this.
Maybe it will even help to fend off lawsuits in the future. I guess Cadbury will now be covered should someone go into anaphylactic shock after consuming milk chocolate all the time knowing that they had a milk allergy.
If McDonald's had only told people that their coffee was hot, maybe they would not have been hit with a lawsuit. That did not, however, work for tobacco companies. They complied with all of the laws that made them put warnings on their products. Yet, they were still sued, and lost.
I am not a fan of lawyers, for reasons such as this. When will we wake up and get some common sense?
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sermons about the President-elect
The Library of Congress would like to create a collection of memorabilia, service audio/video, collectibles from churches regarding the election of Obama. They can then create a collection for their records about this 'historic' election.
I have many problems with this, which I will outline below.
I have many problems with this, which I will outline below.
- All elections are historic. This is not the first time we have had an election. They happen every four years in this country. They are all historic.
- This election was all about race, and still is. The only reason that they are doing this is because President-elect Obama is not white and he is a Democrat. If this were John McCain (or Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or John Edwards) in this position, the Library of Congress would not be making a public appeal for this type of product.
- The ACLU is extremely inconsistent (as are Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as other atheist groups). If this were a white Republican, they would have their talking heads on every news channel, on every show on those channels, decrying such activity. The government should not be soliciting churches for this type of information. In fact, the churches should not be talking politics at all. At least this is what we normally here from them. Where are they now? Nothing but utter hypocrisy on their part.
- It is not the role of the church to preach politics. Before the November elections, my pastor preached a series of messages on how the Bible tells us to vote. They included what we should look for in a leader, what we should base our vote on, the Biblical commands to go and vote and involve ourselves in the process. He did not endorse anyone. He did not campaign. His messages were about what the Bible says, not what he says. The role of the church is to bring honor and glory to God. It is not there to bring honor, glory, and worship to man. Yet that is what many liberal churches are doing now. They are worshipping the man that will be our President, not worshipping the God that is in control of the world, that created us, that demands our worship, that forgives us and loves us.
- If churches are preaching politics from the pulpit, why are their IRS tax exemptions not being revoked? With a supposed separation of church and state (I say supposed because that never appears in the Constitution), should these churches not be abstaining from making political statements? We see people like the illustrious Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaching his love for one candidate and his hatred for everything else, yet nothing happens. We then read headlines during prime election years about the IRS going after churches for preaching politics. They are generally churches that preach the Gospel and endorse conservative, Republican candidates. Yet we constantly see liberal Democrat candidates speaking in churches. They are not even preaching; rather, they are giving campaign speeches. Rank hypocrisy? Yes, it is.
- We are in for a long 4 year term. It is quite nauseating to see how the media fawns over a man who is not qualified to lead the local Lions Club, much less be President of the United States, the leader of the free world (though not if he has his way), and the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces. They attacked a governor who was running for VP because she lacked experience (even though she ran the largest state in the country), but a man who was a community organizer thug and a part-time Senator was perfectly qualified. Am I missing something? There is a national media orgy (led by Chris Matthews and his tingly leg) over this man. He is nothing spectacular. He cannot speak unless he has a prepared statement or prepared speech in front of him. Again, if he were white and a Republican, would he get this kind of attention, love, and adoration (refer to point #2 above)?
- We need to pray for the President-elect. Just because I did not vote for the man and because I do not agree with any of his policies does not mean that I can remove myself from this one. God tells us to pray for our leaders, that they may be good leaders, that they know how to lead, that they make wise decisions. Remember, God is still in control. We may not be able to see it at this time. We may not understand His purpose now. But God reigns supreme.
A tax cut for the middle class
It has come out in the press that President-elect Obama would like to offer a substantial tax cut to the middle class. While I am for cutting taxes, I am trying to figure out how you can cut someone's taxes who does not pay taxes. Would this not end up as nothing more than a handout?
You see, this tax cut is being offered to the middle class. The problem is that most people in the middle class do not pay anything in taxes. Yes, we have money pulled from our paycheck every time we get paid. However, when we file our tax returns, we generally get that back. Therefore, the net effect is that we pay little, if any, taxes on our income. Yes, it would benefit me. However, I would then be accepting a government bailout of sorts since it is money that I did not pay into the treasury in the first place. It is an ethical dilemma.
The bulk of the taxes that the government collects are from those who make more than $250,000. Yet, we want to tax them more. These are the people who should have their tax burden alleviated. By allowing them to have control over where their money is spent, instead of the government, they will stimulate investment in private industry, which can only be a good thing.
I would rather have individuals stimulating the economy than having the government do it. That is not their role. They are there to keep the government out of the way and allow people to prosper. They are not there to get in the way and take away the role of private industry.
Yet I see pundits in the media asking if a tax cut is the right thing at this time. That will take money away from the government, just when they need more. Why, we have an increasing national debt (thanks to Congress). We have all of these bailouts that need to be paid for (whose fault is that?). Some people just make too much money and should not get a tax cut.
Here is my question to them: If people are losing their homes (as you constantly report), if people are losing their jobs (as you constantly report), if the economy is in such poor shape, then how can you take money out of people's hands (that have money) so they cannot pay their bills?
You see, this tax cut is being offered to the middle class. The problem is that most people in the middle class do not pay anything in taxes. Yes, we have money pulled from our paycheck every time we get paid. However, when we file our tax returns, we generally get that back. Therefore, the net effect is that we pay little, if any, taxes on our income. Yes, it would benefit me. However, I would then be accepting a government bailout of sorts since it is money that I did not pay into the treasury in the first place. It is an ethical dilemma.
The bulk of the taxes that the government collects are from those who make more than $250,000. Yet, we want to tax them more. These are the people who should have their tax burden alleviated. By allowing them to have control over where their money is spent, instead of the government, they will stimulate investment in private industry, which can only be a good thing.
I would rather have individuals stimulating the economy than having the government do it. That is not their role. They are there to keep the government out of the way and allow people to prosper. They are not there to get in the way and take away the role of private industry.
Yet I see pundits in the media asking if a tax cut is the right thing at this time. That will take money away from the government, just when they need more. Why, we have an increasing national debt (thanks to Congress). We have all of these bailouts that need to be paid for (whose fault is that?). Some people just make too much money and should not get a tax cut.
Here is my question to them: If people are losing their homes (as you constantly report), if people are losing their jobs (as you constantly report), if the economy is in such poor shape, then how can you take money out of people's hands (that have money) so they cannot pay their bills?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)