As amazed as I am, I am told this letter will be published in the liberally slanted Salt Lake Tribune in the coming days (probably on Saturday).
There sure seems to be a lot of those who simultaneously support every agenda and initiative of Big Government yet believe that their own lives will somehow go untouched. It is as though they believe that they will be rewarded for their unconditional loyalty. Here’s the question we must ask ourselves: Am I willing to be the first to allow my freedoms to be limited, assuming that becomes necessary? If I am going to ask my fellow Americans via the government to pay for the welfare of all, I must stand ready to make the sacrifices that are asked of me. If I am not willing to be first in line for that duty, I cannot ask my neighbor to fund these programs. We all must understand that our country, in spite of its reckless fetish for spending, does not have unlimited means. There is always a day of reckoning and we will pay for our loose purse with our wealth, blood, or freedom. Make no mistake: freedom is not free.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Obama's Religious Fervor for Health Care
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: "There's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness. These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another."
Is President Obama right? Sort of.
Yes, we do have a moral obligation to take care of each other. We are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers.
At the same time, I cannot take money from you to pay for my brother's medical care. That is immoral. The morality of not stealing from my neighbor for any reason at all trumps the morality of providing medical care for by brother. Sorry, that is just the way it is.
I don't think President Obama agrees with that.
To him, though, I don't think this is about providing medical care to the poor in the first place. It is a great cause to campaign upon. It has been that way for a long time. Please understand I am not a proponent of the poverty or suffering of my fellowman. Yet I believe that those poor and unfortunate uninsured or underinsured souls continue to be used as a pawn in a political game whose goal is to amass power and wealth for the rich rulers.
If Obama really believed in the moral obligation to provide life, health, and comfort to others, why wouldn't he be giving his millions to that very cause rather than standing at his pulpit and preaching to us of our moral obligation to do it. (Oh, and by the way, you should trust us, the government, to handle the transaction because we handle your money so responsibly).
President Obama, do not stand there and tell me what my moral obligation is. You don't like me telling your people of their moral obligation to protect life against frivolous abortions. Yes, let's make a deal. You stick to your constitutionally defined role of protecting my life, liberty, and property and I will stick to my divinely mandated role of taking care of my brother (which I do very well on my own, thanks). If he starves or freezes to death or dies of a curable disease because of my neglect, my consequence for that is surely an unpleasant one. But neither I nor God will hold you, President Obama, responsible for being derelict in my duty.
You can be absolutely sure, Mr. President, that God will hold you accountable for abusing your power in making what is not your duty the tool for enriching yourself and those who put you there. That, my friend, is called corruption. We Americans don't look kindly on that sort of thing, so tread carefully.
Is President Obama right? Sort of.
Yes, we do have a moral obligation to take care of each other. We are our brothers' (and sisters') keepers.
At the same time, I cannot take money from you to pay for my brother's medical care. That is immoral. The morality of not stealing from my neighbor for any reason at all trumps the morality of providing medical care for by brother. Sorry, that is just the way it is.
I don't think President Obama agrees with that.
To him, though, I don't think this is about providing medical care to the poor in the first place. It is a great cause to campaign upon. It has been that way for a long time. Please understand I am not a proponent of the poverty or suffering of my fellowman. Yet I believe that those poor and unfortunate uninsured or underinsured souls continue to be used as a pawn in a political game whose goal is to amass power and wealth for the rich rulers.
If Obama really believed in the moral obligation to provide life, health, and comfort to others, why wouldn't he be giving his millions to that very cause rather than standing at his pulpit and preaching to us of our moral obligation to do it. (Oh, and by the way, you should trust us, the government, to handle the transaction because we handle your money so responsibly).
President Obama, do not stand there and tell me what my moral obligation is. You don't like me telling your people of their moral obligation to protect life against frivolous abortions. Yes, let's make a deal. You stick to your constitutionally defined role of protecting my life, liberty, and property and I will stick to my divinely mandated role of taking care of my brother (which I do very well on my own, thanks). If he starves or freezes to death or dies of a curable disease because of my neglect, my consequence for that is surely an unpleasant one. But neither I nor God will hold you, President Obama, responsible for being derelict in my duty.
You can be absolutely sure, Mr. President, that God will hold you accountable for abusing your power in making what is not your duty the tool for enriching yourself and those who put you there. That, my friend, is called corruption. We Americans don't look kindly on that sort of thing, so tread carefully.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Good Article from the WSJ
I thought this article by Dorothy Rabinowitz was a good one. It speaks for itself, but I wanted to emphasize the end point. It is the quiet listeners outside the action who government should really fear. I hope that those quiet listeners will not tune out, but will step in when it counts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342653428074782.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342653428074782.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)