The Death of Democracy?

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a 2000+ page bill (that no one in that body could have read, much less understand) and have bestowed upon the American public 'Health Care Reform.'  This bill had nothing to do with granting health care to millions of uninsured Americans.  This bill had nothing to do with reform.  This bill had everything to do with the Democrats trying to buy their way into the hearts and minds of the American public.  This bill had everything to do with the government trying to get a little more control over the every day lives of Americans.  This bill had everything to do with a President in search of a legacy.  This passing of this bill shines a bright light on Congress and why the American public has contempt for them.

Congress showed just how dirty they really are.  There was a lot of vote buying that was going on, some of which we know about, much of which we will find out at a later time.  If I would try to influence votes in this way, it would be bribery.  If the Speaker of the House or the President does the same thing, then we call it politics.  It seems that there were several Congressman that initially took a stand against the bill, but when push came to shove, and a nice offer was dangling in front of them, they forsook any shred of principle that they had and they sold their vote.  We find others that may have voted against the bill, not because they believed in the cause, but rather because their political career depended on it.  We may not know for sure, but at least they took a stand.

The President and the Speaker of the House are touting this as a win for democracy.  I do not understand how they can say this.  Democracy is based on majority rules.  The majority of the American public was (and still is) against this bill.  Democratic principles would say that this bill should not have passed.  However, the Democrats (kind of an ironic name for them at this time) passed it anyway, even though Americans did not want it.  Their philosophy was that once the Americans find out what is in the bill, they will then be for it.  I am glad that they know what I want more than I know what I want.  Also, they passed this bill at this time because they think that the American public is stupid, that we will forget that this happened and that their re-election in November would not be harmed by this bill.  However, I have a feeling that the American people will not forget this anytime soon.  In fact, it was Pelosi that said they should vote for it, even though they may lose their office come November.  Arrogance?  You bet it is.

I do not have the time to write down all of the things that I find wrong with this bill.  However, I will share with you some of the major points that really disturb me.  Actually, if this kind of action continues, it should scare us that we let Congress get away with this kind of chicanery.

1. Nancy Pelosi says that health care is now a right - it is no longer a privilege.  I have read the U.S. Constitution, and I could not find where health care was granted to us as a right.  I have read many of our Founding Fathers' writings and they never listed health care as a right.  In fact, James Madison wrote that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government."  Government's duty is not to provide health care, but rather to remove the barriers that exist in getting good quality health care.  This is not an emotional issue, which the Democrats want it to be.  It has everything to do with our Constitution and how some in our government want nothing to do with it.
2. The Democrats continued the talking point that the Republicans had nothing to offer on the health care front.  This is nothing more than a lie, and they know it.  The Republicans wanted the government to remove barriers to health care, such as tort reform and portability of insurance.  They did not seek control.  They wanted to fix the problem, not make it exponentially worse.
3. The Democrats also accused their opponents of using talking points and not engaging in substantive debate.  The strange thing is that I have never heard the Democrats engaging in any kind of substantive debate on health care.  The only thing they ever did was use talking points and fabricated letters from non-existing constituents concerning supposed lack of health care.  This was debated in the media for months, but the debate on the House floor lasted for but a few hours.   And this short of a debate on a bill that would change 1/6th of the American economy?  On a bill that was over 2000 pages?  Deliberative democracy?  I don't think so.
4. Abortion is not health care.  I am not sure why it was even part of the bill.  Anyway, the alleged 'pro-life' Democrats voted for a bill that contains abortion as one of its provisions.  The President says that he will sign an executive order removing this provision, but an executive order can be revoked by the President at any time.  So what good is this?  And if health care is now a right, what about life?  Life is a right granted to us by the Constitution.  Unlike health care, it is actually in the Constitution.  So the Democrats want to take away the Constitutional right of an unborn child to live and replace it with something else?  That ground that is shaking is not an earthquake - it is the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.
5. The Democrats and liberal media can complain all day that this was not a bi-partisan bill.  The only bi-partisanship on this whole issue was the opposition.
6. The process is broken.  In the days leading up to this vote, we did not know if the Democrats were going to try to use a maneuver called 'deem and pass.'  In essence, they would vote on the reconciliation bill, and by doing so, it would be assumed that the underlying Senate health care bill would pass.  Many people on both sides found this too egregious, so they voted this down.  Still, the bill was over 2000 pages, and no one had a chance to read or understand the whole thing.  It was not posted on the internet long enough for people to read and understand it.  And they promised transparency and ethics?  I'd like to know what happened.
7. The insurance companies are not the enemy.   Could they do more when it comes to helping with pre-existing conditions and cost containment?  Yes, they could.  But let us keep in mind that insurance companies must remain profitable in order to remain in business and offer insurance.  Instead of beating up the insurance companies, perhaps the federal government should benchmark the insurance companies to find out how to manage costs and be profitable.
8. In the past, children were covered until they were done with their education.  Now, they will be covered until they are 26 yrs. old.  This is a huge problem.  These young adults need to go out and get jobs and get their own insurance, not stay at home and mooch from their parents.  This is yet another attempt by liberals to make people more dependent on government and remove the motivation to go out and be productive.
9. People will now be mandated to carry health insurance.  There are some who are out of work and cannot afford insurance.  I feel bad for them, but this is not the job of the government to provide this service.  There are some who choose not to carry health insurance - not because they cannot afford it, but because they view it as a bad investment of their money.  We should be worried when the government tells us we have to do something.  This is only a foot in the door.  The liberals definitely believe that this bill does not go far enough.  Pay attention, because there will be more on the way.
10. This health care provides the IRS with the money to hire an additional 16000+ workers.  Now, why would the IRS need to have this many additional workers?  The IRS will be in charge of enforcing mandatory insurance coverage.  Scary?  You bet it is.
11. Why do people think that the government can manage health care?  Social Security is going broke.  Welfare is out of control.  Health care for veterans is not in a good state.  The federal government is constantly failing at managing not only health care related programs, but they fail continually at managing all programs.  The answer is not government control.  The real answer is for the government to get out of the way, not to put up more roadblocks.
12. If we add more than 30 million people to a government-sponsored insurance plan, and we do nothing to increase the number of doctors, what is that going to do to the system?  It will be that much more difficult to get in to see the doctor (especially if some stop practicing medicine like they said they would do).  It will then lead to limited doctor's office visits, which will then lead to rationing, which is already a major problem in countries that have socialized medicine.  It is nothing more than the law of supply-and-demand at work.  If the supply of something remains constant, and the demand increases, then the cost will increase, and we will end up having a shortage of the service that people desire.  This will be one of the unintended consequence of this reform.
13. This kind of congressional action now paves the way for more 'social  reforms' that the liberals cherish, especially immigration reform.  If the Democrats have no problem bending and breaking rules for health care, they will do the same, and possibly more, for immigration reform.  After all, they may need the illegal immigrant community to vote for them in order to remain in office in November.
14. Elections have consequences.  In 2008, people voted for change.  The Republicans were spending more than the country had, and conservatives were unhappy with them.  The liberals already didn't like the Republicans  And the people who voted for the change are now seeing what change really means.  In 2010, we will see change again.  But that change is only as good as the people that we elect and the character and tenacity that they carry with them into office.

The list could go on-and-on.  Anyway, this bill does nothing to further democracy.  It actually stifles and inhibits growth.  As an electorate, we must hold our representatives accountable for not standing up to the leadership and ignoring the very people who put them into office.  We must tell them that this behavior is not acceptable, and that because of their actions, we will send them home, never to serve in office again.

Missions Conference 2010

I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to attend the Annual Missions Conference at Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA.  This will be a tremendous opportunity to here from missionaries who are working in countries around the world.  They will have exciting things to tell us about their ministry and how God is providing for them and working through them.

If you would like a list of speakers and events for the Missions Conference (as well as directions), please click here.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Does disagreement with the President constitute racism?

This seems like an odd question to ask. After all, can't we disagree on issues without being labeled as some sort of societal misfit?  If I disagree with my wife (which does happen on occasion), does that make me some sort of male chauvinist or wife-beater? No. It just means we disagree on something. So why can't I disagree with someone who is a different race than what I happen to be? After all, I am an adult, able to form my own opinions, and I am not so shallow as to base my thoughts, feelings, and opinions on race.

However, as I read yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot News, my attention was drawn to an editorial written by a registered nurse by the name of Elizabeth A.K. Williams. Basically, what she is saying is that people are opposed to President Obama simply because he is a minority. In her words, "Halting anything and everything proposed by President Obama, is in major part, based on race and borders on being a crime against all American citizens." Excuse me, but under President Bush, it was our right to disagree with our leaders. Now, we are not allowed to?  I thought the ability to disagree with our elected leaders was the hallmark of our democracy?  I guess that only applies when Republicans are in charge.

As if this statement was not outrageous enough, she goes on to say: "Oppression of President Obama, along with other minorities, continues as an accepted practice in our society. It’s called institutionalized racism." If I disagree with the President, how am I oppressing him? It is the government that oppresses the citizens, not the citizens who oppress the government.

She then goes on to say: "With that said, I will now be accused of playing the race card. I do not accept that accusation, but rather pass it on to a large segment of our society whose hatred for minorities is being provoked by right-wing radio and TV show hosts." So let me get this straight - she accuses those who disagree with the President of doing so because they are racist, without ever providing any facts that might even come close to proving her point, yet she says she is not playing the race card.  I would love to know, then, what it means to play the race card.  And then, as all liberals do, they blame talk radio and network news (most likely, she is referring to Fox News).

She then goes on to insult the local talk radio station because they put talk show hosts on the air that foment racism towards minorities (her words, not mine).  Without naming any talk show in particular, she is talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.  Most likely, she has never listened to any of these men (and in the interest of full disclosure, the only one I listen to with any regularity is Limbaugh - the other 2 get on my nerves).  However, I have never heard any of them say anything racist about Obama (or anyone, for that matter).  Their disagreements with the President are all based on policy, not on Obama as a person.  Sure, words are taken out of context and insults are hurled at them, but they have no validity.  Let's remember that Democrats insulted George Bush for 8 years on a personal level.  They were extremely cruel in some of their personal attacks.  Yet conservatives keep the debate on a policy level and they are somehow extremely mean and racist.  Go figure.

So, if I am a racist for disagreeing with the President, was Gov. Ed Rendell a racist for running against Lynn Swann for Governor of PA?  Were the white people of PA racist for voting against Swann?  Where was Ms. Williams when the pasty, white Senators in New England, as well as our current Vice President, were opposing Justice Clarence Thomas?  Where was Ms. Williams in defending Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell for serving in President Bush's Cabinet?  Why didn't she speak out when Jesse Jackson said that President Obama was not black enough?  And, which of the national parties actually has a minority leading the party?  That would be the Republican Party.  The Democrats had the opportunity, but selected a rather pasty white guy from Vermont, instead.  Apparently, it only suits her to bring out the race card at certain points in time.  And of course, she only needs to make the accusation, because that is all that matters.  She does not need to actually give any evidence.

I do not doubt that there are a few people in this country who do not like the President because of his skin color.  I would be naive to think otherwise.  However, the vast majority of those who disagree with the President are very concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this country is headed.  We want fiscal restraint.  We want to get rid of the government entitlements.  We want to get rid of the socialism that is creeping into our lives.  We are tired of being called names or being labeled because we disagree.  We are not the ones who are dwelling on the President's skin color.  It is his supporters who are constantly talking of his race.  Those who are against him draw attention to his policies.  And that is the difference between the two groups.  The supporters are concerned about symbolism, while those who are standing up against him are concerned about substance.