Government Healthcare Will Eventually ‘Control the People’

Rep. Dingell Says ObamaCare Will Eventually ‘Control the People’

From WJR’s Paul W. Smith show, a Freudian slip from Rep. John Dingell. Smith asked why we’re waiting for 2014 to cover people.  Dingell said this in his defense:

“Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

He’s right.  This is what the Health care bill is all about.  It’s not about health.  It’s about control.  Government’s job is not to control the people, it is to LISTEN to the people, and represent them, their interests and their needs.

Interesting slip of speech isn’t it?

—Beetle Blogger

Freedom Demands Action

The Statue of Liberty: Edward Moran

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” —George Washington

There are no words I can use to adequately describe my horror at the vote which transpired last night.  It was a vote which flew in the face of the expressed will of the people, and threw aside the very principles of democracy.  That vote was nothing less than a declaration of war on the freedom of the American people, and the constitution which guarantees and protects that freedom.

While I may be at a loss for words, those over at Hot Air, aren’t.  In fact, they said it so well, I cheered when I read it.  Yes!  That is it!:

“As the voters of the United States ponder what to say, it would profit us to think long and hard about the freedom Democrats are trying to take from us tonight, and what freedom demands.

Yes, it makes demands. Freedom is not a gift. It is not given to you by the government, in a precise dosage that can be adjusted to match a politician’s diagnosis of what ails the body politic. Your forefathers won an impossible Revolution against an invincible foe to declare the self-evident truth that your rights descend from your Creator. Whether that Creator is a transcendent God, or a random combination of genetic material in the primordial soup, it is a power that existed before the first king assumed his throne, or the first president was elected. Liberty burns in your imagination, flows through your veins, and rings through your words.

This radiant idea has burned through all the bloody clouds of the last three centuries: you are not clay to be sculpted by the will of another. You are not a racially inferior inconvenience, to be marched into a concentration camp. You aren’t a class enemy to be exiled by dictators. You are not a disposable cog in the machinery of collectivist economics, or a mouth to be starved by the failure of collective agriculture. You are an American, and through a dereliction of their duty as elected representatives, the Democrats have forced you to choose whether you will retain the full measure of the honor and dignity your Constitution asserts for you. “

read all of this incredible article here:

Freedom demands action.  Our nation hangs by a thread. Let’s get to work!

—Beetle Blogger

Well That Explains It

Dem Congressman: “There Are No Rules Here … We Make Them Up As We Go Along”

Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS: Nationalized Health Care Will ELIMINATE Private Insurance

Obama Declares War on Capitalism and American Insurance Companies

Single payer socialized medicine.  Government-run health care— all the efficiency of the DMV, all the humanity of the IRS.  Is there even a question that the President of the United States is advocating here?

“Are we going to let the special interests win again? Or are we going to make this vote a victory for the American people?” — White House status update

I am not a special interest.  I am an American citizen who believes in democracy and free enterprise, and I am not alone.   The D.C. switchboard on Capitol Hill has been slammed past capacity for four days straight with the frantic and outraged calls of concerned Americans wanting to know why their representatives are not listening to the people.  An overwhelming majority of the American people are against this bill.  Are they special interests too?  The only special interest I have is in the personal well being of my nation, my family and my children.

Socialism is a broken system.  I do not want the health of my family dependent on a system run by the government, and neither apparently, do the rest of the American people.

—Beetle Blogger

School Prom, School Choice

School Prom, School Choice

Is prom night now a human right? Can schools be forced to have prom night?

In Mississippi, a teen who identifies herself as “lesbian” challenged school standards and dress code rules when she petitioned the school district to allow her to wear a tuxedo and escort her girlfriend to the school prom.  The school refused and responded by canceling the dance for all students rather than let the school prom become a platform for political shenanigans.

The girl, backed by her parents and GLSEN, are now suing the school district to force them to hold prom night:

“A lot of schools actually react rather than do the research and find out what the rights of these students are,” said Presgraves.

McMillen says she hopes her fight will make it easier for gay students at other schools facing discrimination.

“I want other kids to know that’s it not right for schools to do that,” she said on CBS’s “The Early Show.”

In 2002, a gay student sued his school district in Toronto to allow him to attend a prom with his boyfriend. A judge later forced the district to allow the couple to attend and stopped the district from canceling the prom.  —Associated Press

Forcing the school to hold prom night?  Do schools owe students prom night?  Or is prom night simply one activity among many offered by the school at their discretion?

Personally, I think the school did the right thing in this case.  If they couldn’t allow a breech of their standards for all students, then they shouldn’t allow it for one student.  In this political environment where upholding standards is merely another wall to be broken down, their choice to avoid the confrontation altogether by canceling the dance is an unfortunate, but equal response.

They aren’t telling her that only she can’t go, they’re telling her that no one can go if standards cannot be upheld.

Is equal treatment enough?  Apparently not.

Forcing the school to not only have prom, but to break their standards in order to do so goes against the freedom of the school and community to decide what standards their children will be subject to in their own community.

There is nothing keeping this girl and her parents from arranging an alternative prom.  People in our area do it all the time.  In many public schools the standards are already so low that parents don’t want their kids attending, and alternatives to proms are popping up all over as public school norms continue to degrade.

With all the alternatives out there, once again it’s obvious that for gay activists, acceptance is the goal— not equality.

—Beetle Blogger

Democracy’s Voice

This is an ad recently put out by NYFRF, I realize it’s New York centric, but it reminds me that no matter where we are, family issues have to continue to matter to our politicians.  We are the only ones who can make the changes that need to happen in local and national government.

Democracy is our voice, no matter where we are, let’s use it to stand for faith, life and families.

–Beetle Blogger

United States Supreme Court Weighs Against Judge Walker’s Anti-Prop8 Extremism—Again.

protester-_antimormon

I guess all that “No More Mr. Nice Gay” type tolerance backfired.

The anti prop 8 antics from last year, the anthrax threats, the jobs threats, the death threats and vandalism all came home to roost in a big way today as the highest court slammed Judge Vaughn Walker’s extremism once again.

“Given the importance of the issues at stake, and our conclusion that the District Court likely violated a federal statute in revising its local rules…

“…While applicants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the trial is broadcast, respondents have not alleged any harm if the trial is not broadcast. The issue, moreover, must be resolved at this stage, for the injury likely cannot be undone…”  —U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that there will be no broadcast of prop 8 trial video, thus protecting the witnesses testifying from what the court described as “irreparable harm”.

“putting Prop 8 supporters on the witness stand and broadcasting their testimony worldwide would virtually guarantee a serious risk of harm threatened by anti-Prop 8 extremists.”   –ADF

There’s no reason for Judge Vaughn Walker to allow the persecution of witnesses.  It’s against federal court rules and against common sense.  Judge Walker’s continued efforts to turn his courtroom into a circus only further betrays his bias.

—Beetle Blogger

People of Faith Under Persecution in “Tolerant” UK

The same sex marriage fight has brought several things to the forefront as I watch the various news threads go by.  The war between secularism and faith is increasingly real.  In a perfect world, we would all be able to live as we choose, believe as we choose…. right?  As long as it doesn’t hurt another, the right to believe as we choose is a treasured right and privilege—one that has been treasured here in the U.S. for generations.  In fact, our nation was built on the premise that people had a basic right to believe how they chose.

Given that understanding, how can the “enlightened” nations increasingly favor the religion of secularism to the detriment of all others?  Consider this story out of the UK:

British Christian Teacher Sacked after Offering to Pray for Ill Student

LONDON, January 4, 2010, (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Christian teacher in the UK has been added to the long and growing list of British Christians who have faced disciplinary or legal action for expressing their beliefs. Olive Jones, 54, is being defended by the Christian Legal Centre after she was sacked for offering to pray for a student suffering from leukaemia.

Jones, a home-visit teacher, gave lessons in mathematics to children who are too ill to attend school. When on a visit with a sick student, she spoke to the child’s mother and offered to pray for the daughter. When she was told that the family were not believers, she dropped the subject, but the mother complained and Jones lost her job with Oak Hill Short Stay School and Tuition Service in Nailsea, North Somerset.

Her employers said that the offer of prayer could have been regarded as “bullying.” Jones now fears that the incident has marked her and will damage her future employment prospects.

Jones said that her offer of prayer is being treated like “a criminal act”: “It is like a black mark against my name and character when it comes to getting a reference for another job, just because I shared my testimony.”

“If I had done something criminal, I believe the reaction would have been the same,” she said. She said she is angry at the interpretation of the company of freedom of speech.

“I am amazed that a country with such a strong Christian tradition has become a country where it is hard to speak about your faith.”

When those on the other side of the same sex marriage debate deride the idea that Christians and other people of faith are and ought to be concerned and protective of their rights, my warning flags wave.  The onslaught of anti-religious thought is not of a live and let live nature.  That sectarianism and gay activism go together as two ends of the same stick is not a new reality.

Be aware.  The will to suffocate one side of the debate is out there, and comes out in many ways.  It happens even among the “enlightened” and we’d be fools to imagine it’s not happening here.

–Beetle Blogger

Copenhagen and Communism

Check out these flag-waving communists and socialists marching in Copenhagen to stop global warming. . .

This isn’t about saving the world, it’s about controlling it.  Listen to the modern communists in Copenhagen today.  They’re telling it how it is.  Are we listening?

—Beetle Blogger

Nothing is Inevitable.

“I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.”

–William Ernest Henley

One of the most common things I’ve heard in the marriage debates here and elsewhere is the thought that gay marriage is the future, it is inevitable, it is unavoidable and those who disagree are going to find themselves “on the wrong side of history”.

As we look back on the massive wins of Proposition 8 in California, Question 1 in Maine, and the ripple effect those wins had in New York and now in New Jersey, it’s quite obvious that “inevitability” is what we make of it.

I read today on Maggie Gallagher’s site:

Maggie’s Top Eight Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Not Inevitable

1. Nothing is inevitable.

2. Young people are not as unanimous as most people think.

In California, the young-adults vote split 55 percent to 45 percent. Is it so hard to imagine 5 percent of those young people changing their minds as they move through the life cycle?

3. The argument from despair is bait and switch.

They are trying push the idea that gay marriage is inevitable, because they are losing the argument that gay marriage is a good idea.

4.  Progressives are often wrong about the future.

Progressives told me abortion would be a dead issue by today, because young people in 1975 were so pro-choice. They told me there would be no more homemakers at all by the year 2000, because of the attitudes and values of young women in 1975. Some even told me the Soviet Union was the wave of the future. …

5.  Demography could be destiny.

Traditionalists have more children. …Religous groups are increasingly focused on the problem of how to transmit a marriage culture to the next generation (see the USCCB’s recent initiatives).

6. Change is inevitable.

Generational arguments tend to work only for one generation: Right now, it’s “cool” to be pro-gay marriage. In ten years, it will be what the old folks think. Even gay people may decide, as they get used to living in a tolerant and free America, they don’t want to waste all that time and energy on a symbolic social issue, anyway. …Inevitability is a manufactured narrative, not a fundamental truth.

7. Newsflash: 18-year-olds can be wrong.

Should we really say “Hmm, whatever the 18-year-olds think, that must be inevitable,” and go do that? I mean, would we reason like that on any other issue?

8. New York’s highest court was right.

From Hernandez v. Robles:
“The dissenters assert confidently that ‘future generations’ will agree with their view of this case (dissenting op at 396). We do not predict what people will think generations from now, but we believe the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives. …”

The first and the last on the list are my favorite.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “He that waits upon fortune is never sure of a dinner.”  Nothing is inevitable.  Everyone gets the chance, and the responsibility to choose.

—Beetle Blogger

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.