Category Archives: politics

The Health Care Joke Continues

Posted on January 25, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Mr. David Zanotti

This has to be a comedy. There is no other way to grasp the hysterical claims of those advocating, now defending the nationalized health care take over. Picture clowns with big red noses and giant floppy feet trying to sell a child a balloon. That’s about the size of it. You can only laugh. For example:

  • The Secretary of HHS is out front claiming hundreds of thousands of people will be thrown on the street and left for dead because of pre-existing conditions. Really? This is one problem that states have been successfully working to fix for years. Does the Secretary really think that Congress would roll back this progress or not pass a “replacement” bill to make sure the problem stays fixed.
  • The Secretary, who under this plan becomes one of the most powerful bureaucrats in American history, is certain that repealing this measure will cost billions. So how does the math on that one work? If the government doesn’t spend trillions of NEW money in a field they don’t belong — it will cost the government more money. Explain that one to your kids. Oh, we know the Administration’s logic on this one. There is just one problem: the only way you can cover more people and spend less money is to ration care.
  • A funny thing happened this week: The British Prime Minister is calling for an overhaul of the British Nationalized Health Care system. Great Britain desperately needs to break down their bureaucracy and bring Doctors and non-profits back into the center of health care services. Hmmm… that would be the exact opposite of the current American Administration plan.
  • And of course, the prize joke of the day: Some members are calling for hearings and amendments to the Republican repeal effort in the House. These are the same members who one year ago passed a 2200-page health care bill that would (and did) choke a few elephants. There were no substantive hearings because no one saw the bill until it was time to vote. No one read the bill then and most likely NO ONE has read the bill to this very day. So why would they want to start actually reading legislation now?

This whole thing would be a joke but for two real dangers. First, people will die because of all this clown-town drama in Washington, D.C. And if that isn’t horrid enough, we can already see this Administration playing the oldest, most corrupt game in politics. They are claiming they gave us something that we cannot live without and blaming their opponents for trying to take it away. The old “taking candy from the baby” strategy. The design of the Administration is to paint opponents as evil and hateful and willing to take the “precious” health care away from millions.

The truth is that dastardly deed has already been done. No one in the media or the Administration or most of the Congress has read the news or the bill. Thus they are as clueless as a circus clown — or just pretending to be.

From the American Policy Roundtable’s For the Common Good blog, January 18, 2011.

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, health care, politics

U.S. government commits avian holocaust with mass poisoning of millions of birds

Posted on January 24, 2011 by | Leave a comment

by Mike Adams, Editor of Natural News

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is engaged in what can only be called an avian holocaust through its Bye Bye Blackbird program that has poisoned tens of millions of birds over the last decade. The USDA even reports the number of birds it has poisoned to death in a PDF document posted on the USDA website.

This document shows that, just in 2009, the following bird populations were poisoned and killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, using taxpayer dollars:

(Listed as “Intentional” and “Killed / Euthanized”)

Brown-headed cowbirds: 1,046,109
European Starlings: 1,259,714
Red-winged blackbirds: 965,889
Canadian geese: 24,519
Grackles: 93,210
Pigeons: 96,297

…plus tens of thousands of crows, doves, ducks, falcons, finches, gulls, hawks, herons, owls, ravens, sparrows, swallows, swans, turkeys, vultures and woodpeckers, among other animals.

The chart even shows that the USDA “unintentionally” euthanized one Bald Eagle.

Also murdered in 2009 by the USDA are victims of other species:

27,000 beavers, 1700 bobcats, 81,000 coyotes, 2,000 gray foxes, 336 mountain lions, 1900 woodchucks, 130 porcupines, 12,000 raccoons, 20,000 squirrels, 30,000 wild pigs, 478 wolves.

See the list yourself at: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/USDA-Bye-Bye-Blackbird.pdf

Keep in mind that murdering animals is an act of violence. Yet in the wake of the recent Giffords shooting, we have U.S. government officials running around screaming about how much they disavow violence, saying things like “violence should never be used to resolve problems.”

But their actions say something different: Violence against non-human life forms is not only tolerated and approved by the federal government, but even encouraged. Through these mass killings of birds, cougars, ducks and other animals, the United States federal government is actively engaged in widespread acts of violence against nature, murdering literally millions of animals on an annual basis.

Keep in mind that the numbers shown above are only for 2009. A similar number of animals were killed by the USDA all the other years, too, going all the way back to the 1960’s when the “Bye Bye Blackbird” program was first initiated.

By my estimates, the USDA has actively murdered at least 100 million animals in America over the last four decades, putting this on the scale of an animal holocaust and a crime against nature.

In the politically correct language-muzzled aftermath of the Giffords shooting, the mere mention of the term “crosshairs” is enough to evoke an on-air apology on network news programs. Now you can’t say someone is a “straight shooter,” either.

But if you work for the USDA, you can murder animals by the tens of millions and virtually no network news outlet even covers the story. It’s not enough, apparently, that humans have already caused widespread destruction of animal habitat across North America; now our own government is actively murdering literally millions of animals every year.

And for what? What is the justification for these actions? According to the USA, these animals are a “nuisance” to farmers.

I have great admiration for farmers, and I understand that there are times when predators can get out of control and cause a lot of damage. Coyotes can get into the chicken coop and kill your chickens, so on most farms and ranches, coyotes are considered live target practice at every opportunity. That’s why nearly all U.S. ranchers own rifles as tools which are used for sniping at groundhogs and moles which tend to take more than their fair share of garden vegetables.

I know one rancher who was trying to plant an orchard and woke up one morning to find his newly planted trees had all been destroyed by a small band of hyperactive beavers. Needless to say, those beavers ended up right in the crosshairs of a utility 22 rifle.

I also understand that wild pigs (feral swine) can root up valuable crops in their search for food. There are times when certain types of animals can become very difficult for ranchers and farmers to deal with. Although I personally don’t enjoy the thought of it, I can at least understand that there might be an economic justification in the minds of farmers and ranchers to kill certain animals which are destroying their crops (or chickens, or orchards). I’ve never met a farmer or rancher who simply killed animals for the fun of it. The ammo is too expensive, and farmers don’t have that kind of time to waste in the first place. Most farmers, by the way, have a very high respect for life and only kill when they feel they have no available alternative.

But since when did sparrows, starlings and blackbirds ever pose a real threat to anyone? They’re not going to fly off with your cow, and to blame these birds for eating the grain being fed to the cows is ridiculous in the first place because cows aren’t supposed to eat grain.

Cows are supposed to eat grass. If you are running a cow operation where the birds are eating your grain and you think the birds are the problem, the real problem is that you’re feeding cows the wrong food! If you raise your cows on grass, the birds don’t get into the grain and you don’t have to poison the birds.

You see, when one ecological element gets out of balance (feeding grain to cows, for example), it then causes another problem that must be dealt with in some other destructive way (such as poisoning the birds). This cycle of disharmony continues and escalates until entire ecosystems are out of whack. Then the USDA shows up with a pickup truck full of poison bait and goes to work poisoning animals.

The solution isn’t to keep poisoning animals and trying to control populations through toxic chemicals but rather to return to holistic web-of-life farming methods that work in harmony with nature rather than treating nature as the enemy.

Then again, we are talking about the U.S. Department of Agriculture here. And while the USDA has a great number of truly useful programs (such as their USDA organic label, which is a high-integrity program), the agency as a whole remains steeped in the conventional agricultural mythology of pesticides, GMOs and “poisoning varmints.”

All of this really makes me wonder about the whole argument of Big Government versus small government. The argument of those who say we should all pay our taxes is that the government needs your money to “build roads and schools.”

What they don’t bother to mention is that the government is also using your money in very destructive ways, too, such as poisoning animals and pushing GMOs into European nations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html).

Personally, I am ethically and morally opposed to my money being used for such destructive purposes. And even though I continue to pay my taxes, I do so under strong protest to the reality that my own government is committing an avian holocaust — a crime against nature — with the help of the dollars I reluctantly send to Washington.

The very thought of it makes me sick. I would be more than happy to contribute money to actually building schools and roads. But to see my hard-earned dollars used by the USDA to murder innocent animals is extremely offensive, and it is a violation of my own ethics and principles. My main purpose in serving as the editor of NaturalNews.com has been to protect life. And in my mind, that protection extends beyond human life. I believe we also have a reasonable obligation to protect the life of the animals around us — and the very ecosystems upon which we ultimately depend.

Although I can understand certain rare cases in which eliminating an animal may be the only logical choice for a farmer who is losing his crops and whose livelihood is at stake, it seems that the current killing of animals by the USDA is wildly indiscriminate and lacks proper moral or even economic justification.
It also brings up the bigger question that I posed in a previous article on this topic: If the U.S. government thinks nothing of murdering tens of millions of birds and mammals who have become a “nuisance,” then what happens when the human population becomes “too large” and needs to be controlled, too?

Will they simply feed us poison and hope we die off like the birds?

I might suggest that program is already under way. It’s called water fluoridation. Food additives. Vaccines. Pharmaceuticals.

And the government doesn’t call it murder, by the way. They refer to it as “euthanasia.”

The only difference is they’re killing the humans more slowly.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031084_bird_deaths_holocaust.html#ixzz1BnN9DYi0

Leave a comment

Posted in health, news, politics, taxes

Tagged , , ,

Abortion, a Constitutional Right? (38 Years of Roe v Wade)

Posted on January 22, 2011 by | Leave a comment

by Daniel Downs

Today, January 22, 2011, America remembers the Supreme Court decision that inaugurated abortion as legally protected privacy right. Pro-abortion supporters celebrate this day while devotees of pro-life oppose its existence.

A majority of Americans believe abortion is a constitutional right. In a Quinnipiac poll, 60% of Americans agreed Roe v Wade established a women’s right to abortion. I noticed most polls present abortion right as an established Constitutional right and proceed asking whether respondents want an amendment to ban it. Interestingly, 70% of Americans believe Supreme Court justices base their decisions on politics and not law according to the above poll. (Quinnipiac National Poll, April 21, 2010)

In a brief speech today, President Obama commemorated the Roe v Wade decision as establishing a women’s constitutional right to abortion. He said, “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” (USA Today)

Yes, most Americans believe in abortion as a constitutional right, but where is found in the U.S. Constitution? It is missing in the Supreme Law of the Land.

How then did the majority of Supreme Court justices discover it? They found a woman’s right to abortion in several places. First, natural law states that individuals have an absolute right over their own bodies. Second, they saw this natural law right positively in the 4the Amendment clauses forbidding government intrusion into private matters. Third, and last, they founded a technicality in the disagreement among academics and so-called professionals about when life begins. This technicality was their justification to permit abortions until “society” establishes such a consensus agreement, which they knew was likely to be never. They knew for such a consensus definition to occur secularists and traditionalist or moralists and liberal and conservatives, humanists and religionists would all have to come to an agreement that life begins at conception.

The problems with the Roe v Wade decision are many. Several worth stating are as follows: (1) Roe v Wade violates the law that prohibits individuals from harming their own bodies or others. Our laws allow officials arrest and detain people who seek to destroy their own body parts. (2) Human life is the result of the behavior of two people, not one. The court only recognizes the right of the women. In practice, the man has no right to his body part contributed to the newly conceived person. (3) At every stage, a baby develops as a separate entity apart from the women whose body is made to nourish and nurture the new person. A baby at the blastocyte, fetus, or any other stage is still a developing human being. (4) Lastly, the Constitution is supposed to protect the right to life. That two-letter word has more meaning than most people realize. If the right was a “right of life,” however human life may be defined, all Americans have a right to right possess it. However, the right is to life, which indicates a process of obtaining what human life is. And, human life is a process of becoming as well as a state of entropy. Human life is an inheritance of the past and a development toward a future, and a present state of being.

Because human life is an inherited interrelational, historical, and futuristic process, Roe v Wade should be regarded as a political act of violence against all human life. No way can it be constitutional.

Leave a comment

Posted in history, news, politics

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

President Obama Announces “New” Regulatory Strategy, SBE Council’s Kerrigan Responds

Posted on January 20, 2011 by | 1 comment

President Obama released a new regulatory strategy today, which hopefully will lead to less regulation on small business owners and more accountability in the regulatory agencies said a national small business advocate. According to Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan, an effective strategy would immediately take steps to reform or scale back both existing and proposed regulations.

“The new and improved regulatory approach outlined by President Obama in his Executive Order and Presidential Memorandums will certainly recognize the staggering cost burdens inherent in the new health care law, for example, and other initiatives underway at EPA and the Department of Labor,” said Kerrigan. “That being the case, we await a new attitude across the entire federal government in listening to small business concerns and offering alternatives or exemptions,” she added.

SBE Council’s Kerrigan sees an opportunity for the White House and Congress to work together on reducing regulation and advancing reforms to modernize and alter the regulatory process. For example, the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform is embarking on an initiative to identify both existing and proposed regulations that are an impediment to job creation, small business growth and economic recovery. Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) also plans to study various reform ideas to accomplish what the President hopes to do through his Executive Order and twin Memorandums.

“If the President and his team are genuine in what they want to accomplish for small business, and we believe that to be the case, then he and Chairman Issa are on the same page,” said Kerrigan.

President Obama’s new regulatory strategy includes several things, including a commitment to enforce existing law with regard to the obligations that government department and agencies have to small business when new regulations and proposed; more transparency, access and reporting from Federal enforcement agencies as they relate to investigations and compliance; and, a “to do” list for regulatory agencies focusing on how they will go about streamlining the regulatory process, identifying outmoded or duplicative regulations, improving the effectiveness of regulations, and lessening burden, among other directives.

“The President expressed a commitment to small business owners in announcing his new regulatory strategy. He must execute on this promise,” said Kerrigan. “Entrepreneurs remain on edge about the costs of new laws and other regulations coming down the pike. They are expecting more costs and red tape from Washington. Given that set of expectations, they will not add jobs or aggressively invest in the growth of their businesses,” she concluded.

1 Comment

Posted in news, politics

Tagged , ,

What’s Lacking in Israeli Politicians and Why?

Posted on January 19, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Paul Eidelberg

Year after year opinion polls indicate that 80-90 percent of the public in Israel regards the Knesset, hence Israeli politicians, as “corrupt.” What is primarily meant by “corrupt” is that Knesset Members are primarily animated by personal and narrow partisan interests rather than the public interest or the common good. David Ben-Gurion said as much in his Personal Memoirs where he deplored the lack of constituency elections in Israel, where Members of the Knesset are not individually accountable to the voters. Just think of the current break-up of the Labor Party. Who does Labor’s erstwhile chairman Ehud Barak now represent by forming the new Independent Party? A cute piece of self-aggrandizement! What a mockery of Proportional Representation, Israel’s inept mode of electing MKs.

But even a well-designed mode of election such as preferential voting, which would mitigate corruption, is not a substitute for virtue. And that is primarily what is most lacking in Israel—and of course elsewhere—namely, the lack of virtue in politicians. Remember when 29 MKs hopped over to rival parties before the 1999 elections?

If the Knesset is a virtual cesspool, as many citizens think, what is the cause of this despicable state of affairs? Do MKs succumb to self-aggrandizement only upon becoming members of Israel’s parliament? Haven’t they been habituated to good behavior in their childhood and subsequently by their education in the public schools and colleges of their country?

Ponder this: Plato’s Republic is first and foremost a book on education, perhaps the greatest ever written. The purpose of education is to cultivate good character, above all the cardinal virtues of moderation, justice, courage, and wisdom. Leaving aside Israel’s religious academies, do the public schools and colleges in Israel cultivate the moral as well as the intellectual virtue?.

It was not only the Lubavitcher Rebbe that warned religious youth not to study the social sciences and humanities in the colleges and universities of America, since these academic disciplines are permeated by moral relativism, a doctrine ensconced in Israeli universities. The late professor Allan Bloom exposed this pernicious doctrine in his book The Closing of the American Mind.

This is not merely an academic issue. Relativism erodes national identity and wholehearted dedication to a nation’s cause. This makes relativism a public issue which can’t be obscured by the mantra of “academic freedom.” Given this morally neutral doctrine, there are no rational grounds for preferring a regime of liberty to one of tyranny. In fact, a publication of the American Council of Learned Societies entitled Speaking for the Humanities maintains that democracy cannot be justified as a system of government inherently superior to totalitarianism; it is simply an “ideological commitment” that the West has chosen to make.

We need to emphasize the fact that universities more or less depend on governmental support, hence on the taxes of citizens. Academics have no right to use their classrooms as platforms for propaganda­—the pedagogy of Arab academics. They have no right to subvert the primary purpose of a university, which is to foster rational discussion and civilized debate in the pursuit of truth. Allow me to repeat part of a previous report of mine on Caroline Glick’s experience at Tel Aviv University.

Ms. Glick addressed some 150 political science students at TA University where she spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet the general attitude of her audience was expressed by a student who asked, “Who are you to make moral judgments?”

Now ponder this exchange between Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:

Student: “How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?”

Glick: “Because it is better to be free than to be a slave.”

Student: “How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?”

Glick: “Did you learn that in Russia?”

Student: “No, here.”

Glick: “Here at Tel Aviv University?”

Student: “Yes, that is what my professors say.”

Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal—i.e. secular—Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists who indoctrinate their students and ban “politically incorrect” publications. The deadly consequences are clear: “A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that] … a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, whereas 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity.” Ms. Glick concludes: “Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?”

But this lack of a strong sense of national identity clearly underlies the government’s long-running policy of “territory for peace” and its ignominious desire to negotiate with Arab terrorists who have murdered and maimed some ten thousand Jews. What does this tell us about the leaders of this government? Simply this: they lack virtue.

Alas, I am beginning to feel almost like Nietzsche did back in the 1870s, when he recommended that most universities in Germany be closed down. Perhaps some of their multicultural counterparts in Israel and America should be transformed into domiciles for the homeless?

Leave a comment

Posted in education, politics

Tagged , , , ,

Relativism: From Israel to Einstein

Posted on January 13, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Paul Eidelberg

One can only wonder how a Jewish state, surrounded by hostile Arab-Islamic regimes, can survive when the educators of its political and military elites do not believe in the absolute justice of Israel’s cause. Professor Harkabi, who once served as head of the Israel Army Staff and Command College, concludes Arab Attitudes to Israel with this demoralizing remark: “The study of the [Arab-Israel] conflict reveals the relativity of the attitudes of the parties.” Influenced by such relativism, former General Ehud Barak, during his campaign for Israel’s premiership, was quoted as saying (in the United States) that had he been born an Arab, he would have been a terrorist!

Raised and educated in this decadent atmosphere, Tel Aviv University professor of philosophy Asa Kasher, under the authority of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and with the acquiescence of then Chief of Staff Barak, erased the words “Judaism” and “Zionism” as well as “Eretz Israel” from the Soldiers Code of Ethics! Who but minds afflicted by demophrenia would want to transform the Jewish state into a multicultural “state of its citizens”?

Israel is not multicultural America, the most powerful nation on earth. There relativism can permeate every level of education without immediately endangering that democracy’s existence—especially with benign Canada and feeble Mexico on its borders. But minuscule Israel, with Arab-Islamic dictatorships as neighbors, can hardly afford a diet of moral relativism. Yet this has been the fare of countless Israeli students.

Thus, in his book The Middle East, Israeli political scientist Yair Evron teaches: “Only by avoiding questions of right and wrong and also by limiting oneself to an analysis of patterns of behavior and strategies in conflict, can we approach this complex [Arab-Israel] conflict not in any emotional or apologetic way but scientifically and analytically.” We see here a tension between the apparent needs of “science” and the needs of society. To persevere in the Arab-Israel conflict, the people of Israel require steadfast belief in the justice of Israel’s cause. But for academics to preserve their “scientific,” i.e., academic credentials, they must adopt a morally neutral attitude toward that conflict. But wait! Evron’s book was published in 1973. To appreciate the pernicious impact of his relativism, come with me to the year 2003, and let us see what has happened to students attending Israeli universities.

Caroline B. Glick, an editor and gifted writer of The Jerusalem Post</em., addressed some 150 political science students at Tel Aviv University, where she spoke of her experience as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division during the Iraq war. Any person not corrupted by moral relativism would favor, as she did, the U.S. over the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Yet the general attitude of her audience was expressed by a student who asked, “Who are you to make moral judgments?” Now ponder this exchange between Ms. Glick and a student who spoke with a heavy Russian accent:

Student: “How can you say that democracy is better than dictatorial rule?”
Glick: “Because it is better to be free than to be a slave.”
Student: “How can you support America when the U.S. is a totalitarian state?”
Glick: “Did you learn that in Russia?”
Student: “No, here.”
Glick: “Here at Tel Aviv University?”
Student: “Yes, that is what my professors say.”

Ms. Glick spoke at five liberal Israeli universities. She learned that all are dominated by moral relativists who indoctrinate their students and ban “politically incorrect” publications. The deadly consequences are clear: “A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that] … a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity.” Ms. Glick concludes: “Is it possible that our academic tyrants have something to do with the inability of 42% of Israelis to take pride in who they are?”

One might think that moral relativists would adopt a neutral attitude in the conflict between Jews and the Palestinian Arabs—as political scientists like Yair Evron might have done back in 1973. To the contrary, today’s relativists have demonized Israel. Never mind the well-known fact that Arabs use their own women and children as human bombs. Because moral relativists—typically liberals—cannot acknowledge the enormity of evil, they not only ignore the genocidal intentions of Israel’s enemies, but they identify Jews as the cause of the conflict! Moral relativism has thus produced moral reversal!

Moral Relativism and Relativity

The relativism of the physicist differs profoundly from that of the moral relativist or pluralist. The theory of relativity denies the classical notions of absolute space, absolute time, and absolute motion; it does not deny the absolute. Far from excusing an easygoing pluralism, it appeals to scientists by virtue of what Einstein calls its comprehensive simplicity. The theory would explain “all events in nature by structure laws valid always and everywhere.” Indeed, “Without the belief that it is possible to grasp reality with our theoretical constructions, without the belief in the inner harmony of our world, there would be no science.”

As for Einstein himself, one may find in his philosophical ruminations expressions of moral relativism, but not in his sober and somber moments. In Out of My Later Years, first published in 1950, he writes:

I am firmly convinced that the passionate will for justice and truth has dome more to improve man’s condition than calculating political shrewdness which in the long run breeds general mistrust. Who can doubt that Moses was a better leader of mankind than Machiavelli?

But two pages later one reads:

I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds.

Evident here is the influence of logical positivism on Einstein, who wrote those words only five years after Hitler and his followers had murdered six million Jews and almost six million non-Jews. It was as if positivism had erased everything in the vastness of his rational mind with which to condemn this evil. And yet he did condemn this evil, moreover, in words the government of Israel should heed in dealing with Hitler’s successors! Thus, in a message honoring the heroes of the Warsaw ghetto, Einstein declared:

The Germans as an entire people are responsible for the mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book [Mein Kampf] and in his speeches made his shameful [genocidal] intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Gay Lobby’s View of Your Non-Liberal Representatives

Posted on January 12, 2011 by | Leave a comment

Like most organizations seeking donations in order to balance their financial accounts, the gay lobby, Human Rights Campaign, seeks to fire up the gay community and its supporters to contribute some more cash. The view most members are expected to share is that all members of the “right-wing” are bigots, destroyers of equality rights, and haters of gays.

Here are a few excerpts:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” may no longer be the law of the land, but the bigotry behind it is alive and well – in our schools, in our workplaces, and, perhaps most unfortunately, in the halls of Congress.

January will bring anti-gay leadership to the helm of the House of Representatives. The right-wing political machine – committed to destroying marriage equality everywhere – will be emboldened and aggressive.

We need your help to keep fighting back in 2011 and to protect our gains.

The million dollar question is how can anyone destroy what never existed–marriage equality? This is merely an extention of the same erroneous claim that gays are a naturally discrimiated-against minority requiring protection by special class rights. Because being gay is supposedly a inborn aspect of their nature, homosexual relations must also be natural. Consequently, marriage should also be a natural culmination of such relations.

The same counter-position still holds: Color, race, ethnicity, sex, and disability are all natural and inherent characteristics of biological and physiological human nature, but homosexuality is a chacateristic of sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is a biological given, but homosexual behavior is contrary to normative sexual relations among the different sexes. It is against nature and nature’s God, and therefore, it is against humanity.

The idea that gay consensual sex should be a constitutional right doesn’t add up either. No one can consent to being black, a woman, or blind at birth. People can consent to a law, to the proposition that the universe created itself, to doing violence to someone, having a doctor euthanasize themselves, or giving and receiving gifts. Consent lies in the domain of belief and behavior. Consent does not make a wrong right. Consent to wrong behavior is still wrong. All human behavior is relational in some way or another.

Leave a comment

Posted in politics

Tagged , , , , ,

111th Congress Wrap-Up

Posted on January 11, 2011 by | Leave a comment

By Rep. Steve Austria

As we embark on a new year, it is important to reflect on the many challenges our nation has faced and the lessons we can apply from the past year. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives concluded its legislative business for the year with the passage of a two year extension of the Bush tax cuts and a continuing appropriations resolution to keep the government funded through March.

I continue to have serious concerns about the outrageous amount of government spending and look forward to the new Congress and the opportunity to begin addressing our fiscal and economic challenges. Below is a brief summary of the major legislative and policy issues that came before the 111th Congress.

Spending and Debt

Last year, our nation witnessed the passage of several pieces of sweeping and costly legislation that I opposed, including the $791 stimulus, the second half of the $700 “bailout” bill, and a $400 billion omnibus bill that included over 10,000 earmark projects. The runaway spending we witnessed last year, and that has continued this year with the passage of the $1 trillion government health care reform bill, is simply unsustainable. The national debt is now approaching $14 trillion with each American’s share currently surpassing $44,000. Yet Congress adjourned the 111th legislative session with the passage of yet another nearly $1 trillion appropriations measure to keep the government operating through March of next year.

Jobs and the Economy

Despite exorbitant government spending, we continue to experience unacceptably high levels of unemployment. Just this past month, unemployment rose to 9.8 percent.

Unfortunately, the past two years there were few legislative accomplishments to improve the lagging economy and high unemployment. Instead, we witnessed the opposite – with the passage of the so-called stimulus bill, unemployment rose from 8 percent to nearly 10 percent. One of the more pervasive shortcomings was Congress’s failure to enact a budget resolution or appropriations measure this year. Legislation was once again focused on short-sighted policies, including only temporary extensions of the Bush tax cuts and Medicare reimbursement for physicians.

In the absence of any meaningful, long-term action on these issues, we continue to perpetuate a climate of uncertainty with negative implications for all Americans from small businesses to farmers to families.

The Local Economy

While the nation’s economy continues to struggle, there has been substantial progress in helping our local area get back on track with the formation of the Blue Ribbon Commission and the creation of new missions at the Springfield Air National Guard Base.

The new missions will help support both the current National Air and Space Intelligence Center mission at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in addition to the Springfield Air National Guard Base.

The Blue Ribbon commission made substantive progress with its release of recommendations on how the community can enhance regional economic opportunities through partnerships with the business community, academia and government in the Dayton area. You can learn more about the commission by visiting my web site.

Health Care

After a year-long debate and a series of backroom deals, in March Democrats were able to garner the support they needed to pass the nearly $1 trillion health care bill into law. While I agree that we must find a way to lower health care costs and improve access to physicians, this new law equates to a massive government intrusion into our health care system. Many in Congress have called for the repeal of the portions of the bill that will limit health care options and increase pressure on financially strapped states.

What Lies Ahead

The conclusion of the 111th Congress, brings with it a new opportunity to curb the unprecedented spending that is endangering the future economic growth and prosperity of our nation. In 2011, we must be focused on less Washington spending, reducing our nation’s debt and most importantly, creating economic growth with new jobs.

As a newly appointed member of the House Appropriations Committee, I understand the difficult spending decisions that will need to be made as we seek to address these important issues. I look forward to addressing the challenges that lie ahead in the New Year.

Leave a comment

Posted in economy, health care, politics, taxes

Tagged , ,

2011 UN Agenda: Same As It Ever Was

Posted on January 10, 2011 by | 1 comment

By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.

UN-watchers expect the new year’s agenda to include youth, demography, reproductive health, the homosexual agenda, and the global economic crisis.

Last summer the UN announced the International Year for Youth that runs for a year. UN leaders expected commitments for a global conference on youth slated for sometime next summer, but the General Assembly failed to approve a final plan. Even so, wary conservatives expect some aggressive action on youth in the new year.

In particular, social conservatives expect a massive push to sexualize young children, something made explicit at the World Youth Conference in Mexico last August, as well as in a UN report calling for radical sexual education for young children last Fall.

Global demographic meltdown also concerns UN Member States. Governments around the world bemoan below replacement fertility rates and crashing social welfare systems. The UN says 70 countries have fertility rates that are below replacement level. According to many economists, states with below replacement level fertility will not be able to sustain their social benefit systems, with too few new workers to pay for the benefits of rapidly ageing populations.

The demographic crisis challenges the decades-old emphasis by UN agencies and Western countries in pushing population control in the guise of reproductive health and sustainable development on the developing world. The UN Commission on Population and Development this year deals with the directly related issues of fertility and development.

One of the most contentious issues since the 1990’s, UN agencies, UN commissions and left-wing advocacy groups use the term reproductive health to push for a right to abortion. Advocates expect a pitched battle this year over the reproductive health agenda and a serious push back from pro-life quarters.

Just this month, the journal Contraception published a study from Spain that found that although contraceptive use increased 60%, the abortion rate doubled. This directly contradicts the widely-accepted dogma that increased use of contraception reduces the number of abortions.

Member States also face serious concerns over the deepening financial crisis. Western governments face massive deficits and are moving in the direction of austerity budgets. Newly elected Republicans in the US intend to follow Canada’s lead to defund Planned Parenthood, as well as other programs that push abortion and controversial issues.

With most of the major international donors experiencing severe fiscal problems, development aid and obtaining additional funding commitments will be a major emerging issue in 2011.

The homosexual agenda will be pervasive in many international negotiations in 2011, partly due to the Obama administration making it a primary focus of its foreign policy. Expect to see several attempts to incorporate the undefined terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into as many UN documents as possible.

Finally, UN Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon is up for reelection this year. Social conservatives complained about his outspoken support in December for the homosexual agenda and the appointments of many pro-abortion advocates to high level UN positions under his watch.

Originally published in Friday Fax, January 6, 2011. Friday fax is a publication of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).

1 Comment

Posted in politics

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Christmas and World Peace

Posted on December 23, 2010 by | Leave a comment

By Daniel Downs

“Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:12)

During the days of Jesus, Augustus Caesar was the acclaimed prince of peace. This praise was without critical comment. Peace in the Roman Empire was not won by reasoned negotiation but by the power of the sword. In the book of Revelation, John sees a rider on a white horse. The rider went conquering and to conquer. This vision describes Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and many other leaders whose peace was packaged for subjugated peoples in terms of existence. Peace meant “my way or else.” A more accurate way of putting it would be don’t make me come back to deal with rebellion or with disruption of the flow of taxes or trade. Maintain law and order as well as tax payments and all will be well. That was the peace of Pax Romana.

In our modern Pax Americanus, the substance behind rhetoric of world peace is often about conflict over trade and disputes about the flow of goods like wheat, oil, and weapons. It is true that concern about the health and well-being of others is debated and money spent to resolve perceived problems. Yet, such concerns remain secondary to the kind of peace necessary for the continued growth in the global economy.

The issue of Middle East peace is one example. The on-going conflict between Israel, Palestinians, and Arabs may be religious and territorial in nature but our contemporary Caesars see the problem as an unnecessary disruption to the flow of goods regionally and globally. The not-so-powerful see the achievement of peace in the Middle East as an end to poverty among Palestinians. Others see poor Palestinians as one weapon of war against the continued existence of the Zionist state, which also means Arabs could have ended Palestinian poverty long ago.

In Pax Americana, liberal special interest groups often criticize Christian conservatives for focusing on politics rather than on the moral reform of individuals in society. Although valid to a point, the criticism is based on the belief that religion is not relevant to public policy affecting all aspects of daily life. The source of this belief is humanism or enlightenment rationalism exemplified by French intellectuals. This view was not held by most early Americans, which is one reason the liberal belief is erroneous. Because religion is both a world view encompassing life now and hereafter as well as a means to resolving problems, religion is crucial to politics.

In fact, religion is likely the only source to genuine peace.

Some will find such as statement outrageous because they see religion as one of the primary sources of violent human abuses, global conflicts, and war. Yet, the same can be said of secularists who have followed Marx such as communist leaders around the world. To the credit of secular statists, hundreds of millions of citizens as well as enemies have been tortured, maimed, and killed.

The mantra of secularists has been “you cannot legislate morality,” which by the way is the basis of peace. The opposite was held by the founders who regarded legislating immorality as an anti-law act. America’s inheritance of the rule of law concept goes back at least to the biblical accounts of the legal and consensus covenant between God and Israel and the development of their law codes and governing institutions. These in turn influenced the development of constitutional law in the American colonies.

The American experiment was the application of previous centuries of the Protestant (Puritan) struggle for religious freedom constituted by culture and law. The testimony of history is religion and bureaucratic power always result in human injustice, institutional led violence, and war. As noted above, the problem is not limited to religion but to ideologies instituted through power of governance. As the horrible news reported daily by the media proves, Calvinist-Puritans are still right about inherent depravity of humanity. It was this self-evident truth that led to the development of written legal compacts of which the US Constitution is one part and contract laws.

As the early Americans understood, peace is achieved by doing what is right according to the law of God and of nature. When laws, public policy, and behavior conform to this law, the result has to be peace. Only then will there be peace on earth and perpetual good will toward men, women, boys, and girls. International terrorism, wars, domestic violence, poverty, greed, envy, revenge, and the like will subside. Goods and services naturally will flow unhindered and without imperialist manipulations. Populations will control themselves without a death culture operated by paternal elitists.

That is exactly why the human race requires salvation by the only real prince of peace—Jesus Christ. Jesus entered the world on a peace mission. Many then and now see his death as mission failure. However, his death accomplished terms of reconciliation between God and humanity that know one else could achieve. His death paid the eternal price required to satisfy God’s justice concerning all of our moral crimes. He was raised from death in order to officiate over its implementation for every human. By accepting God terms of peace, each and all people will learn the way of peace. That is the reason Jesus commissioned his apostles to make disciples of all nations. Only then could there possibly be lasting peace on earth.

Many religions pursue peace as at least one, if not, the primary goal. However, most religious never really obtain peace with God. They miss the requirements of divine justice by only focusing on the necessary behaviors for right standing under God’s rightful rule. The problem is God cannot acquit (forgive) moral crimes committed any more than human judges do. The penalty for crimes committed must be paid. Good behavior before or after a moral crime is not sufficient to pay for the crime committed against God’s law. As the prophets and apostles proclaimed, “The soul that sins it shall die.” That is the price Jesus paid. His lordship guarantees the resources necessary to live right before God and thereby achieve the peace we all desire. Peace with God–the starting point to world peace.

To those who seek peace, Merry Christmas.

Leave a comment

Posted in history, politics, religion

Tagged , , , , , , ,