PALIN: As much as I like what Sarah Palin stands for, and I generally support her (but would not vote for her to be president - she is not ready), I am sorely disappointed in her endorsement of John McCain in his Senate campaign.
Like Lindsey Graham, John McCain is a progressive, and wants amnesty for 12-20 million illegals. That is contrary to what conservatives believe. So I found it disturbing that the de facto leader of the Tea Party would endorse him. I do understand loyalty, and perhaps she is simply repaying a debt because McCain put Palin onto the national stage. And loyalty is fine - up to the point where it begins to compromise your core values. That is where the line should be drawn.I don't believe Sarah really wants to endorse McCain. I think the McCain camp boxed her into it. But I would have greater respect for her if she were to say "no", and tell McCain that, to repay her debt, she would not actively work AGAINST him.
ANOTHER DIRTY SECRET: Something almost no one knows about - included in the new health care law is a completely new "Social Security" type plan to drive America further into debt AND taking money out of YOUR pocket with every paycheck. Beginning in 2012, your employer must automatically deduct from your paycheck an average of $146-$240 each and every month, for life. Supposedly, this will provide you with $75 a day in long term care when you get old. The figures, however, show that, like Social Security, it will not have the funds necessary to pay out when the time comes. Meanwhile, you will lose at least $1500 every year (subject to increases) out of your paycheck. Didn't know that, didja? Neither did the people who supported this bad bill. Yes, it is possible to opt out, if you learn how, and don't forget about it between now and 2012. (For those of you who voted for Obama, don't expect thanks any time soon.) I've been watching the lamestream media - they all are calling this "CLASS Act" a "great benefit", and describe how it helps pay long-term care. But not one tells you that YOU will be paying about $50 a week for it for the rest of your lives. They conveniently leave out that little tidbit of information (except FOX News - they actually tell the WHOLE story).
Oh, and didn't they tell you? Beginning in 2014, the health care bill REQUIRES you to have electronic medical records - and they will be posted online, where any doctor or hospital can access it. We all know how insecure that information online can be. And any medical person, even if not your own doctor, will have access to your medical records. And that means that every person on Earth can get that information about you and every member of your family. The information can now, by law, be used and shared without your permission. (For those of you who voted for Obama, don't expect thanks any time soon.)
[Some of you will refuse to believe these things are in the bill, but they definitely are. And as time passes, I suspect we will find a lot more. The Congress spent a year repeating two measly pages of talking points describing what is in a 2700 page bill, all the while telling us the other 2,698 pages are nothing - don't worry about them. Now we start to discover what is in those other pages - and why they kept them secret]
ARMS CONTROL: Obama and his liberal friends believe there is strength in weakness. They actually believe that if you get rid of your defenses, the bad guys will leave you alone. But any school kid knows better - the weak are the ones the bullies pick on most. That's because it is natural and instinctive for the strong to prey upon the weak. The first law of nature is "survival of the fittest."
When a wolf follows a herd, which member of the herd does he target? The weakest. This is how a species is made and kept strong - predators remove the weak. That is how it should be. And always will be.
Obama and the liberals should learn one fact of life - you either eat or get eaten. Nothing - and I literally mean nothing - can live without consuming something else. Nothing lives but what something else must first die. And there is no way around it.
When Obama says, as he did, that he wants to be free of nuclear weapons, and that it will make for a safer world, he is being foolish and ignorant. Reducing our arms makes us weaker. Period. And the very minute that an enemy believes us to be significantly weaker than they are, that is when they will go to war with us. The predator preying on the weak.
In 1941, Americans were complacent. The Japanese mistook that complacency for weakness and attacked us - they thought they were stronger, and we were seen as weak. The mistake they made was that we were asleep, not weak. And they awoke an angry and strong nation.
But in the case of arms control, Obama and the liberals are actually making America weaker. It matters not if Russia agrees to do the same, for two reasons: the Russians cannot be trusted to do their part, and there are nuclear countries that are NOT going to sign on. North Korea and Iran will continue building nuclear arsenals. By reducing our defenses, we strengthen the enemy without them having to lift a finger.
Here's the short take - liberals actually believe the parable about the lion and the mouse. But in the real world, even if the mouse pulls the thorn from the lion's paw, the lion will still EAT THE MOUSE.
HEALTH CARE: It is a fact that Hugo Chavez is a socialist, and he makes no bones about it. And it is a fact that Fidel Castro is another form of socialist - a communist. And BOTH of those individuals are praising America's new health care plan as the best piece of socialist legislation they have seen since they took over their own nations. Yet, liberals here in America do not see it as socialism. I guess that's because we never see ourselves as others see us. But if it flies like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...
FORECLOSURES: Natural laws prove that hardships and failures makes us stronger, which is a good thing. Yet, once again, liberals in congress plan on protecting fools from having to pay the price for their foolishness. Banks and Congress will be giving major, costly breaks to homeowners who bought more home than they could afford. Being deemed "too small to fail", the Obama administration is now bailing out more irresponsible people, rather than allow them to take responsibility for their choices. So, those people will not get stronger. They will get weaker. The trouble is, a nation is only as strong as its people, and our people are being made weak by bleeding-heart liberals who mistakenly believe that pain and hardship are bad things. They are not. They are the fire that tempers the steel.
LEGALIZING DRUGS: As a Libertarian primarily, I believe every person should be free to live as they please, as long as it harms no one else or precludes anyone else from doing the same. On the other hand, I believe drugs are bad - very bad - and need to be regulated. So I have a suggestion: legalize, but regulate, and make it expensive. A person who wants to waste their life stoned should have the same right as the guy who wants to spend his life drunk. But like the drunk, if the stoner causes harm, he is punished. Also, make them responsible for their choices - since substance abuse is a choice a person makes, they should not have any right to use the tax dollars of others to support their habit, nor pay for any damages incurred.
In other words, if you choose to abuse substances like alcohol and drugs, you will not be eligible for free or subsidized health care - you cannot destroy your body by your own choice and expect everyone else to pay for repairing it. If you work at killing yourself, don't expect me to give you CPR when you succeed.
Further, drug users should not be eligible for any kind of welfare, and anyone found "under the influence" while driving or engaging in any other dangerous activity would be subject to jail time.
What it boils down to: each of us should be able to make our own choices, but we should also be held responsible for whatever choices we make. If you want to dance, you gotta pay the band.
GAY MARRIAGE: Marriage was originally a religious rite. It came to be, wrongly, a state's right.
Much anger exists over this issue - an issue that need not be an issue at all, if states had not breached the wall of separation between church and state, and stayed out of the marriage business. So here's an easy fix: states remove themselves from the marriage business and put it back into the hands of the church. States would then instutute Civil Unions. Any couple - regardless of sexual orientation - would enter a Civil Union if they want to receive the legal rights and benefits usually (and previously) associated with marriage. For religious people who ALSO want to be joined in the eyes of their chosen God, they would petition their church to be MARRIED. This would be in addition to the Civil (legal) Union. Marriage would incur no special benefits or privileges from the state or government - it is a union in the eyes of the church, only.
In this way, any couple can enter into a legal union and enjoy the benefits derived from it. And those who are religious and want God's blessing may enter into the separate union, marriage, by church decree.
Could gays still "marry"? First, there would be no need, as they have the same rights as heterosexuals - they may enter a Civil Union, and they may petition their church for a God-sanctioned marriage. The church would reserve the right to authorize or decline the request for marriage - even among heterosexuals. If a specific church wants to recognize a union of marriage among gay couples, that is the choice for that church. Since "marriage" would have no legal status, being denied marriage would be a personal issue between the couple and the church, and not a matter for the states nor the courts. Separation of church and state. No different from saying, "Yeah, you can come and visit in my house, " or "No, you are not welcome in my house." And everyone gets what they want.
/
No comments:
Post a Comment