The True Cost of Universal Health-Care

“Alex Silva remembers the day well. He was a pack-a-day smoker… when his boss told him the news: CFI Westgate Resort employees… would be prohibited from smoking – not just on the job or on Westgate property, but anywhere, anytime.” (Harry Wessel, The Orlando Sentinel, published in the Kokomo Tribune, 1/3/08, p. A1) The reasoning behind the CFI decision is simple: “Employers are saying they can no longer afford to subsidize bad behavior.” The article cites that 50 to 70 percent of health-care costs are predicated on bad behavior.

So what do Americans think will happen if “universal” (meaning taxpayer funded) health-care is implemented? It will not be business digging into our personal behavior choices; it will be government. Facing huge “universal” health-care costs, government will have no choice but to force behavioral change on the entire population. And don’t think that tobacco use will be the only target: think trans-fats; think soft drinks; think any behavior that increases health-care costs. (For instance, see what coercive legislation The Center for Science in the Public Interest lobbyists already propose).

You may think that I’m over the top here, but I assure you I am not. I will most assuredly be one of those who will propose such bans to his/her elected officials. If I must be forced into socialism, then you can be certain that I will be a good socialist. If a government is given the “right” to pick my pocket for “universal” health-care, then it also has the “right” to coercively force behavioral changes in order to contain health-care costs.

The true cost for “universal” health-care is an erosion of our personal liberties – perhaps a faster erosion than we have ever experienced. The emotionalism of health-care for everyone sounds oh-so compassionate. But let us consider completely the true cost of state-sponsored, collectivist economic planning before deciding. If making your own personal lifestyle decisions is not important to you, then maybe “universal” health-care is just what the doctor ordered.

Sanctity of Life 2008

This year is the 35th anniversary of the Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions that mark the legalization of abortion in America. One logical consequence of these bad Supreme Court decisions is that a new industry would be spawned. That, indeed, has become the case as the abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, swelled during these 35 years. Imagine running a business that seeks to profit from the killing of one of the most defenseless members of our civilization – a child in the womb. Not only does abortion centers like Planned Parenthood intend to profit from this “service,” they also happily welcome tax revenue confiscated from the American public who is provided absolutely no choice when their hard-earned public funds are sought by these merchants of death.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood leadership and pro-abortion politicians are fond of calling articles like mine and those who gather and pray at abortion centers “extremist.” This is their language that frequently turns up in editorials and opinion columns. They are the ones killing babies, but we’re the extremists. I don’t get it.

So for anyone who wants to engage in the “extremist” act of opposing abortion and supporting life, here are a couple of website resources to get you going: Be a Voice (an outreach of Focus on the Family) and the American Life League (an outreach of the Catholic Church). Both provide some sobering facts about abortion, euthanasia, and other goals of the culture of death. Both provide some useful resources that anyone can use to oppose these debilitating atrocities.

http://www.heartlink.org/beavoice

http://www.all.org/

Above all, pray that the Spirit of our dear Lord will convict those engaging in these atrocities of their sin and cause them to turn to our precious Savior in repentance.

Happy New Year

May the Lord bless & keep you in the New Year!

Golden Compass not Pointing to Gold

Not only did the Christian community want to avoid The Golden Compass, so did the secularist community. In less than a month, the movie has dropped off the top ten movie list. By the last account I read, revenue is woefully behind the production cost. Most movie critic reviews have been unfavorable. On the day of its release, Ms. Christy Lemire, AP movie critic, rated it one and a half stars out of four. I have not seen a television ad for the movie for quite some time. Looks like this movie is on the fast track to DVD land.

So much for meaningful discussion about it. Not even secularists are interested in discussing it, except to comment about how they wasted their money to see it.

I will be interested to see if there will still be sequels regardless of the results of The Golden Compass. It will be quite telling if there are more movies based on Pullman’s trilogy. It would certainly confirm the director’s intent: "Whereas The Golden Compass had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can't be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books. ... I will not be involved with any 'watering down' of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films." —The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz, on his plans for preserving the strong anti-Christian messages found in the second and third installments of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, should they make it to the big screen. (PluggedIn online) More of his comments can be found here.

It is a shame that so much talent goes toward insulting the loving God who provides us our talents to begin with. And it is a shame that so many fail to grasp the lesson.

As for me, I’m waiting for the release of the new Veggie Tales movie, The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything. I imagine that it will be a hoot.

Merry Christmas!

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." – Luke 2:1-7


May you have a joyous Christmas!

December 7, 1941 – A Day of Infamy

Today is December 7th. It is the day to remember the devastating unprovoked attack on American forces at Pearl Harbor by the nation of Imperial Japan. It is the day to remember that Japan’s action plunged America into all-out military war with the evil forces of Imperialism, Fascism, and Nazism. It is the day to remember mournfully the tremendous sacrifice in lives that had to go into defeating these evil regimes. America confronted Pearl Harbor not with retreat, but with a determination to overcome totalitarian threats faced by the entire world. It is a day to remember that.

Oh, how I wish that the history of that day and the subsequent years would be remembered today. For America, and the world, once more faces the serious threat of murderous totalitarianism. For more than six years now, we have engaged deadly forces that would seek to place the world under their particular rule. Reality demonstrates the brutality that our current enemies use to maintain their control of regions under their domain. They are every bit as brutal, cruel, murderous, and dangerous as their Imperialist and Fascist predecessors.

On December 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress requesting declaration of war against Japan. In a short time, America also declared war on Germany and Italy because of their declarations of war against America. Americans waged unlimited warfare around the world – even in places that did not declare war on us – that would not end without the unconditional surrender of the enemy.

Today, we have a President who comprehends the threat to both America and the world. He is doing everything in his power to defeat that threat, but he is besieged with enemies within who seek to derail the necessary war efforts for the sake of playing partisan politics. In my opinion, there is a very good chance that the “war in Iraq” would be over by now if it were not for the continual interference and harassment from American fifth columnists (“Fifth Columnists Strike Again”)who hold out hope to an enemy that cannot win on the battlefield. They continue to sell their souls to our enemies.

Before the end of World War II, similar politics reared its ugly head. However, America was fortunate enough then to have a hero who chose to place the needs of his nation ahead of partisan politics and the political power it may have given him. I have written of Thomas E. Dewey before, and I still commend him to my readers as a true American hero. It would be encouraging to see similar heroism today.

Today is December 7, 2007, sixty-six years after the attack on Pearl Harbor. May Americans never forget that day in history, and may we always remember with honor those who responded to the call to keep our great nation free from the deadly tyrants who sought to subjugate the whole world. God Bless America!

(Photo: The USS Arizona succumbs to the lethal Japanese bombers during the Pearl Harbor surprise attack)

Golden Compass Rhetoric

As the day has drawn nearer for the release of “The Golden Compass,” I watched the film’s ads for clues confirming or rejecting the warnings about it. I have found confirmation. One ad featured an authority figure in the film declaring something to be “heresy.” Combined with other observations already made about the movie and novels, I believe this to be an indication that the “evil” in this film will be religious authority and the “good” will be those opposing the religious oppression.

Dare I draw such a conclusion from so little evidence? Might I not be wrong? I might be; however, as “V for Vendetta” was being released, I noticed the apparent religious (specifically Christian) symbols displayed in the previews and commented to my son that my belief was that religion would be portrayed negatively in the movie. He disagreed with me until he saw the movie; afterwards, he admitted that I was right.

Being well aware of world history, I know that oppression has been the result of and/or perpetuated by religious authority throughout some periods. Christianity has not been exempt from being so abused. Subsequently, I am not entirely opposed to literature and entertainment that tell of the “little guys” struggling against the oppression of even so-called “Christian” religious authority.

What disturbs me about the way it is being done these days is the deceitful manner of those telling the tales. In every instance I have noticed lately, they ignore completely the historical context in which real people have struggled. They like to create and extend an exaggeration that all Christian moral and ethical viewpoints are oppressive. They likewise ignore the historical reality that those opposing oppression from Christian religious authorities did not seek to obliterate Christian faith. Instead, they sought to reform it and return it to its proper biblical application. This is a significant distinction between reality and the fiction being paraded as forms of reality.

A reason that Philip Pullman, author of the trilogy of children’s books that include “The Golden Compass,” can pull off this charade is that our culture no longer takes the time to investigate historical context anymore. As a result, those who seek to create moral equivalency between religions, religious oppression, and the truth of the Christian faith are able to do so with impunity because of their audience’s lack of knowledge and their deceitful tactics.

As the rhetoric concerning “The Golden Compass” has heated up, more light has been shed on the backgrounds of both the movie and the novels. The more the light shines, the more the deceitful tactics are illuminated. A number of reviewers have taken Pullman to task for obscuring his true intent in the first book or two so as to draw young readers into his atheistic reasoning without their awareness. Janie Cheaney writes, “This writer has read Pullman’s trilogy and has written about it for WORLD (Jan. 27, 2001). The first two installments throw some anti-religious darts, but the third crosses from literature to propaganda and leaves no doubt that the author had God in his sights all along.” (Janie B. Cheaney, “Broken Compass,” WORLD, December 8, 2007, p. 11)

Perhaps even more alarming are the film director’s stated purpose: “"Whereas The Golden Compass had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can't be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books. ... I will not be involved with any 'watering down' of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films." —The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz, on his plans for preserving the strong anti-Christian messages found in the second and third installments of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, should they make it to the big screen. (PluggedIn online) Read more of his comments here.

I will conclude this post with a couple more links to reviews and comments about the movie. Not all are negative. It is my intent to leave the reader with information to make his/her own judgment. As for me, I am not going to support the errors of either the movie or the trilogy with my personal resources.

And, if anyone finds me in error concerning my observations and conclusions, I welcome any comments demonstrating my mistakes.

“Sympathy for the Devil” (a discussion of Pullman’s works & how he creates a rip-off of the C. S. Lewis Chronicles of Narnia series)
“Nicole Kidman's 'Compass' Points to Success” (a review of the movie by Roger Friedman of FOX news)

Hugo Chavez

What is it with this guy? What have we done to him?

“CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez urged supporters to approve constitutional changes that he said could keep him in power for life and threatened to cut off oil exports to the United States if it tries to meddle in Sunday's vote. (FOX news)”

“Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, facing a close vote in a referendum tomorrow to change the constitution, stepped up attacks against the U.S., Spanish banks and the media in an offensive aimed at winning over voters. Chavez told tens of thousands of supporters in Caracas he is prepared to stay in power until 2050 if voters pass his proposal, which includes eliminating presidential term limits. He vowed to seize Spanish banks and expel journalists from the country to defend his goal of turning Venezuela into a socialist state.”

Oh, I get it. He’s another two-bit thug tyrant who needs someone else to put the blame on for all the trouble and misery he brings his people.

I wonder if this means that New England won’t get their free heating oil from Venezuelan Citgo this year. Oh well.

The Remarkable Sources of the Pilgrims' Successful Survival

In spite of the historical dilution added over the years, every American raised in our school system no doubt believes he/she knows the story of the Pilgrims’ struggle and success in the New World. Images of that first Thanksgiving, similar to the picture here, flood our minds when we bother to think of it at all. In reality, most Americans probably know very little about this band of colonists who risked all for their freedom to simply obediently worship God.

The primary source of their successful survival was their reliance upon God. Regardless of their circumstance, the Pilgrims gave thanks to God. In his journal, William Bradford writes, "What could now sustain them but the spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and he heard their voice and looked on their adversity, etc. Let them therefore praise the Lord, because he is good and his mercies endure forever. Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord show how he hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry and thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them. Let them confess before the Lord his loving kindness, and his wonderful works before the sons of men." (The Heritage of America, Henry S. Commager & Allan Nevins, editors, p. 34)

The second source of their successful survival was the colony leaders’ change of course from a communal economy to a market economy of private ownership. Destitute and on the brink of starvation even after receiving assistance from the natives, colony leaders identified the source of their problem as a particularly vile form of what Bradford called “communism.” Michael Franc, vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation, writes about the fruitful results of the Pilgrim’s shift in 1623 from a failed, socialist agricultural system to a free-market system of private ownership of property. This is the story of the Pilgrims that, for whatever reason, fails to make it into our curriculum. Had they not shed the system of “taking away property and bringing [it] into a commonwealth” (Bradford), we would not have a legacy of the Pilgrims to tell. Concerning the market economy that the Pilgrims implemented, Bradford reported, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious... much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.” The famine of 1623 gave way to abundance.

America has been blessed with much abundance over the years. This is truly a reality worthy of our most humble thanks-giving.

(Photo: Depiction of Thanksgiving)

The Golden Compass

Shortly before posting a blog about the upcoming movie The Golden Compass, I received an interesting article presenting an alternative view. Since my intent is to base my decisions and opinions on the factual evidence available, I want my readers to be aware of this as well.

The background of the emerging controversy surrounding The Golden Compass is documented on both the Truth or Fiction and Snopes websites. The movie is based on the novel Northern Lights (The Golden Compass in the United States) by English author Phillip Pullman, an overt atheist who reviles, among other things, The Chronicles of Narnia series of children’s stories written by C. S. Lewis. Lewis clearly intended his series to be an allegory of the Christian faith. The Truth or Fiction article reveals that “many view Pullman's books as a response to ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ but with an emphasis on ‘scientific materialism’ over religion. Pullman has criticized ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ as ‘religious propaganda.’ In 2001 he told Guardian Unlimited ‘I hate the Narnia books, and I hate them with deep and bitter passion, with their view of childhood as a golden age from which sexuality and adulthood are a falling away.’”

The Golden Compass, scheduled for release on December 7, 2007, is considered by critics and observers to be a “watered down” version of Pullman’s novel, meaning that the film itself is an “innocent and interesting” children’s adventure story. The concern being raised is that this “innocent” cinematic introduction to Pullman’s novels will lead to increased exposure of the unadulterated hatreds he expresses toward the Christian faith with no regard for any alternative exposure to the truth of Jesus Christ’s righteous purpose of saving love. The e-mails currently circulating offer a warning about both this motion picture and Pullman’s novels.

To be fair, however, not all professing Christians are encouraging a boycott of the movie. In one article I received, Yvon Prehn writes, “Rather than boycotting it, I think the movie provides a challenging opportunity for Christian communicators to explain and engage.” Her article goes on to explain some mischaracterizations about Pullman’s novels that are circulating in the e-mail messages. Providing correctives to some of the mischaracterizations is the reason why I include the reference to her article in this blog.

I retain the conclusion, though, that Christians will be better served to not attend this movie or purchase Pullman’s books. In theory, I concur with Prehn’s challenge for Christians to use this release as an opportunity to engage in thoughtful dialogue with those who watch the movie or read the books. I agree that thoughtful dialogue must be rooted in first-hand reflections of the messages of the movie and books. To the extent practicable, this is exactly what I attempt in my approach to Christian apologetics on any topic.

In practice, though, I sincerely doubt that such engaging, thoughtful dialogue will occur on any significant scale. Christians have tried recently to engage secular society through motion pictures such as The Passion of the Christ, The Nativity, and The Witch, the Lion, and the Wardrobe. Personally, I appreciate the efforts of those who have brought these monumental works to life on the “big screen” and do not mind supporting them. In spite of all the good intentions, though, I have not observed any significant thoughtful dialogue resulting from these productions. Similarly, I have not observed any significant thoughtful dialogue resulting from media that overtly or covertly carry an anti-Christian bias and message. I certainly have no intention of using my limited resources to provide financial support to those producers and authors who want to eradicate Christian expressions of faith from our culture. I am willing to read the Pullman trilogy if the novels are available from a library or similar source that incurs no additional revenue to the author, but even that represents a use of my limited resource of time that could be better applied to positively engaging in ministry that pleases Jesus.

While I thank those like Yvon Prehn who provide further factual insight into this particular controversy, my conclusion remains unchanged: I think that Christians will be better served to not attend the motion picture or purchase Pullman’s novels. I think that we will be better served to use our resources of money and time to support and/or engage in some ministry that pleases our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Oh, one bit of good news I did discover in all of this: A second Narnia film, Prince Caspian, is scheduled for release in 2008.

(Illustration: Aslan, the allegorical Christ figure from The Chronicles of Narnia series)

We Still Serve

I attended a Veteran’s Day ceremony today. I have done so pretty regularly for a few years now. As I looked around those gathered at the county courthouse, I saw people I recognize from past gatherings. About a half dozen World War II era veterans present were recognized.

I also saw some younger faces. Some gathered still serve on active reserve or active duty. A few have not been in very long. I began thinking to myself, “Why are young American men and women still entering military service? Almost any member of our Armed Forces can be mobilized to Afghanistan or Iraq these days. Military service is all voluntary; there is no draft. Why are these young people still entering military service?”

I listened to the speakers remind us of the origin of Veteran’s Day – formerly Armistice Day – and I listened to them speak of the sacrifices made in order preserve our liberties. I was reminded of the oath that every member of the United States Armed Forces takes to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” In those moments, I reflected what those words have meant to me and countless others who have sworn this allegiance.

I did not swear to merely defend a piece of paper, no matter how historic this document is. It is the nation formed by that piece of paper. It is the power which that old document gives to all citizens of this nation to determine their government and, within boundaries of legal and moral obligations, to determine the course of their own lives. It is the belief that all Americans should enjoy the privilege of liberty and freedom. It is the unwavering truth that all of these principles of freedom are worth defending even to the very death. It is on this basis that all of the speakers talked about the honor of sacrifice that veterans have made. It is on this basis that young Americans continue to take up the mantle of sacrifice in order to preserve these vital liberties.

There are some today who scoff at this notion of honorable sacrifice. They make America and, hence, American servicemen and servicewomen out to be a conquering force bent on subjugating other less fortunate nations. Some are bent on spotlighting every mistake and failure made at every level of leadership during a war and making those out to be the defining nature of American military forces.

Why do young American men and women continue to serve? Because they know that suffering through the nonsense of those who denigrate their service and sacrifice, the mistakes and failures of our political leadership, and even the confusing sequences of orders issued by their senior military personnel is worth the real reason for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They know that in spite of every adversity thrown at them, that they want their parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters, wives and husbands, and sons and daughters to continue to live in the greatest, freest nation in the history of the world.

Thank you, each and every veteran who has served or is serving in defense of America!

Spooky

In “Anti-Halloween attacks are downright ghastly,” columnist Ellis Henican bemoans all the assaults on this “greatest kids’ holiday of the year.” Mr. Henican does list a surprising number of Halloween critics: “Fundamentalist Christians warn the celebration promotes devil worship. Prudes and feminists say the costumes have gotten too risqué. Civil-rights groups complain that too many Halloween ghosts resemble lynching victims. Even the witches feel aggrieved - and you probably thought Halloween was the witches' big night!” I was quite amused that those frightening “fundamentalist Christians” are no longer the only antagonists of Halloween as the ubiquitous political correctness continues to run amuck. Trick or treat!

What caught my attention, though, was Mr. Henican’s failure to include today’s primary criticism of Halloween celebration. With rising alarms over childhood obesity and diabetes, how can we possibly justify celebrating a holiday that has as its major component the doling out of mountains of candy to little trick or treaters? Certainly this is nothing short of child abuse perpetuated by big candy!

Since Mr. Henican missed this obvious worry (is he, perhaps, in league with big candy?), I offer my suggestions to rectify this critical concern. (1) Give only tofu bar and rice cake treats. (2) Give these treats only after the overweight little munchkins do wind sprints from door to door. (3) Implore the ACLU to bring a suit against big candy and adult co-conspirators who insist on perpetuating this form of child abuse. There has to be a Constitutional violation in here someplace.



Spooky, isn’t it?

House Fails to Override S-CHIP Veto

House Democrats were unable to muster enough votes to override the President’s veto of their expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) in spite of their emotional appeals using two children, Graeme Frost and Bethany Wilkerson, to front for their deceptions. This does not end the debate on the program, of course, as the confusing exaggerations continue.

I am confused, for instance, by the Associated Press coverage of the veto. “…The State Children's Health Insurance Program now subsidizes health care insurance coverage for about 6 million children at a cost of about $5 billion a year. The vetoed bill would have added 4 million more children, most of them from low-income families, to the program at an added cost of $7 billion annually…. But Democrats said the bill's original focus remained intact. States would be given bonuses for signing up low-income children already eligible for the program but not enrolled. ‘Under current law, these boys and girls are entitled to their benefits,’ said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. ‘Continuing to not provide them with coverage is a travesty.’”

Democrats continue to act as if the failure of their expansion plans for the program amounts to an elimination of the current benefits, which fails all truth detector tests. From the same AP article: “Bush has recommended a $1 billion annual increase in the program, bringing total spending over five years to $30 billion -- half the level called for in the bill that he vetoed.” Does that sound like someone intent on eliminating the S-CHIP program? Only if you live in the land of left-believe.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) typifies the confusing gobbledy-gook of the Democrat’s rationalizations to muster the votes needed to override the veto: “…But that does not include people earning $83,000 a year. So while some of you may use that as an excuse not to vote for this program, I hope you know intellectually that it is not a reason to vote against SCHIP. They are currently no children enrolled in SCHIP with family income of 400 percent of the federal poverty level, $83,000 for a family of four. In fact, 91.3 percent of the children enrolled in SCHIP are in families of four that make less than 200 percent of poverty. And 99.95 percent of them are in families under 300 percent of poverty…” (Use the Bethany Wilkerson link to view the transcript of Rep. Pelosi’s remarks).

As far as I can make out from her remarks, the current S-CHIP program already covers the families who Democrats imply will not be covered unless their expansion is approved. Only in the land of left-believe.

How to anger a conservative: Tell her a lie.
How to anger a liberal: Tell him the truth.

(Photo: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., right, meets with Dara Wilkerson and her daughter Bethany.)

Democrats Parade New S-CHIP Poster Child

Recognizing at last that the family of Graeme Frost has not evoked the sympathy they hoped for (perhaps due to the family’s two properties, three vehicles, private school, and reticence to validate their reported income), Democrats have once again paraded a new State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) poster child for public consumption. Bethany Wilkerson is a two-year-old with a heart defect. Her mother is a waitress, and her father works at the restaurant doing minor repairs and odd jobs. Their employer does not provide health insurance. They rent, drive one beat-up car, and have a combined income of $34,000. This sounds like a family with genuine need worthy of good, old-fashioned American compassion and worthy S-CHIP recipients. Writing for National Review Online, Mark Hemingway offers some further thoughts on this new S-CHIP family.

Whether or not Mr. Hemingway’s interview insights are accurate or not is not my main interest. It does seem that the Wilkerson’s, like great numbers of Americans today, expect their fellow citizens to pony up when their choices don’t pan out. What is more troublesome is that Democrats and their liberal cronies insist on using children to forward their deceptions. Whose heart isn’t going to melt with two-year-old Bethany holding up a crayon sign reading, “Don’t Veto Me”? The image is too cute and criticism would just have to be too mean-spirited.

Except that little Bethany has not been vetoed! Nor have any of the other little Bethanys or little Graemes. They are covered under the S-CHIP program today – before the veto and after the veto!

Only in the land of left-believe does one call not expanding a social program a “cut” or an “elimination” of benefits. President Bush told Congress plainly enough that he would accept a more modest expansion of the S-CHIP program, but would veto the full Democrat-proposed expansion which includes eligibility for families earning up to $83,000 and “children” up to age 25. When that bill reached his desk, he vetoed it.

Guess what, Democrats and liberals. The S-CHIP program is still out there covering little Bethanys and Graemes and anyone else you want to enlist to parade your falsehoods.

And guess what else, Democrats and liberals. Productive conservatives are still demonstrating their compassion on a daily basis. We are, after all, still paying for Graeme Frost’s and Bethany Wilkerson’s health care.

How to anger a conservative: Tell her a lie.
How to anger a liberal: Tell him the truth.

(image: Conservatives confront Democrats & liberals... again & again & again.)

Democrats Enlist Child to Espouse Falsehoods

Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, columnists – well, conservatives – are being assaulted across the board for openly criticizing the use of a twelve year old by the Democrat Party to espouse their falsehoods about the S-CHIP program. Democrat politicians recoil “in horror” that conservative “vindictiveness” would single out Graeme Frost to point out the discrepancies of the Democrats’ hyperbole.

Graeme Frost is the twelve year old who Democrats used to respond to President Bush’s veto of the children’s health care program expansion. The Democrats trot out anyone they please to be the mouthpiece for their falsehoods, then act oh-so self-righteous when their claims are challenged. Democrat liberals still fail to comprehend the difference between debating issues and assaulting character. They consistently fail at the former and make the latter their practiced art.

The fact is that young Master Frost is the recipient of the S-CHIP program as it is currently crafted. The Democrat message that he was coached to parrot – that the President’s veto prevents other children like him from receiving health care through the program – is patently false. The program works! He received health care coverage under the S-CHIP program! (Interestingly, Master Frost’s self-employed father opts to not purchase health care coverage. I suppose I can understand his decision. Why give up family vacations and such for some inconvenient necessity like health care coverage? After all, someone else can be coerced to pick up the tab). The President’s veto does not eliminate the current program. Indeed, the President would not have vetoed a bill calling for a more limited expansion. But Democrat leadership insists on expanding it to families who can afford health care coverage as well as to adult “children” as old as 25 years of age. Can we say “expanded entitlements” boys and girls?

Because of this veto, Democrats and their liberal cronies are howling their heads off about the lack of compassion among conservatives. Of course, this, too, is a falsehood. Productive conservatives demonstrate their compassion on a daily basis. We are, after all, paying for Graeme Frost’s health care.

How to anger a conservative: Tell her a lie.
How to anger a liberal: Tell him the truth.

(image: Conservatives confront Democrats & liberals... again.)

Terrorists Endorse Democrat Candidates

Once again, Democrats find themselves in a touchy debacle as the election season proceeds. They may not have been actively seeking this endorsement, but they have received it: terrorists are endorsing Democrats.

“In Schmoozing, every terrorist leader out of dozens interviewed stated they hope a Democrat becomes president in 2008. Some terror leaders explained their endorsement of [Sen. Hillary] Clinton is not necessarily at the expense of other Democratic presidential candidates, whose policies are not as well known to them. ‘All Americans must vote Democrat,’ stated Jihad Jaara, an exiled member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity.”
(www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57970)

Democrats and liberals are quick to cry “Foul!” when charged with being unpatriotic, yet the enemies of America love their messages and policies! So let us get this straight: anyone who advocates policies that America’s enemies endorse is a patriot. Does this seem even remotely logical? The leaders of the North Vietnamese army were given hope through the actions of liberals and their political party in the 1960s & 1970s. Obviously nothing has changed, except our new enemies have declared war on us and attacked us. I have asked before: when armed militant enemies of the United States endorse the campaign promises of one of America’s major political policies, don’t you think it might be time for that political party to review and reconsider their messages?

War Is War

I have not been watching the new Ken Burns production about the Second World War in its entirety. I have read and watched World War Two histories and documentaries before I was even a teenager; I doubt that there is anything too startlingly new even in this major series. Still, I have stopped to watch parts of it during breaks in other programs. So far I am right.

The portions I did see from the episode entitled “A Necessary War” caused me to reflect once more on the miraculous accomplishment of American forces in this war. I continue to be amazed at the results of the American military even when they faced a better equipped, better experienced, and numerically superior enemy. On both the European and Pacific Theaters, the German and the Japanese military were the most developed “fighting machines” in their day. The German Army slashed across the Polish and European frontiers with hardly a pause. The Japanese forces were victorious against Russia, China, and the Pacific forces of Great Britain and France. They had been actively engaged in military action for years. None of them believed that Americans had any willpower or resolve necessary to mount a major threat against them.

Yet, engage them we did. Undermanned, undersupplied, and undertrained, American military forces stood up to the best that the world could muster in the 1940s, and we beat them. We beat them with essentially civilian soldiers, not professional military forces. We beat them soundly. How?

First, our military forces and civilians on the home front knew we were right. We knew who was on the side of liberty and who was on the side of tyranny. Lest anyone be confused, I clarify: Allied forces (America, Great Britain, France, and some others) were fighting for liberty and freedom; Axis forces (Germany, Italy, and Japan) were fighting for tyranny. There was no significant debate about this.

Second, our forces were allowed to prosecute the war to its successful conclusion. No armies of silly lawyers and liberals running around whining about whose rights had been violated. The portion of “A Necessary War” episode I saw featured the Rangers in the Pacific. These elite members of the Army were sent into enemy occupied areas to harass them. The Rangers lived off the land and killed Japanese. They did not shout “Throw down your weapons!” before attacking. They did not take prisoners. They were there for one reason: kill the enemy.

War is war. In some ways, militants can conduct the war as civilly and humanely as possible, but if ethical behavior is really the main issue, then do not go to war. Accept defeat and take whatever comes – which will be immoral behavior, by the way. Our military personnel today are engaged in war just like the Rangers and other World War Two forces. But today, liberals condemn our military men and women for killing the enemy. At the same time, liberals try to convince me that they honor the legacy of our Armed Forces from World War Two. Puh-lease. As I wrote in my last post, liberals would no more support our military men and women in World War Two any more than they do today. Liberals are either pathetically ignorant of the historical reality of warfare or they are attempting to be cunningly deceptive in order to convince some that they exhibit any American patriotism. Take your pick. This is certain: no rational human being can claim to support our victorious military forces of World War Two and, at the same time, protest the conduct of war today. They do not mix.

War is war.

(Photo: an American G.I. using a flamethrower in WWII)

A Necessary War

Ken Burns has produced another monolithic historical series being aired on PBS stations. The WAR is a story about the Second World War told through the “personal accounts of men and women from four American towns.” The first episode of the series is entitled “A Necessary War.”

I am all for remembering and honoring the great struggles and sacrifices of World War II veterans and families. What confuses me is that the same politicians, entertainers, and media personalities who rush to honor the legacies of sacrifice and courage among World War II veterans turn around and vehemently protest American involvement in war now. What makes the Second World War “a necessary war” and today’s global war on terror (GWOT) an illegal?

I submit that American prosecution of the GWOT is more necessary than WWII. From the vantage of historical hindsight, it is doubtful that any of the Axis powers could have sustained any credible military operations on American territory. Today, however, the combination of weapons and tactics provides the enemy with plenty of capability to inflict enormous damage within American territory. A few box cutters and commercial airliners filled the bill in 2001. The deadly, dangerous fanaticism of the current enemy exceeds even that of the WWII Japanese Imperial Army and their military code of Bushido.

Yet, today, the same personalities who stumble over one another to salute the necessity of WWII likewise stumble over themselves to be at the front of today’s anti-war parades. What do they do with the historical reality that every one of their points of protest against today’s involvement in armed conflict occurred during the war they honor? There were times in combat when surrendering enemies were killed both unintentionally and intentionally. Non-combatant civilians of allied and enemy nations died from artillery barrages and bombing sorties. Nations were invaded even though they were not Axis powers. Specific civil liberties were curtailed at home, and citizens’ activities were subject to monitoring by various federal and state agencies. The President of the United States of America and other political leaders invoked the name of God and encouraged Americans to pray and worship repeatedly during the war.

In WWII, these realities are honored as necessary. In the GWOT, the same realities are protested as illegal. Even though I agree that every survivor of WWII, both military and civilian, deserve the honor they receive, it appears to me that those who honor the past conflict and revile the present conflict are not genuine in their intention. They are either outright dishonest or incredibly ignorant. If they were somehow translated back in time to the 1930s and 1940s, these same politicians, entertainers, and media personalities of the American left would attempt to obstruct the successful prosecution of war against the Axis powers and lead America to defeat just as they are doing with the GWOT today. Those who would call the Second World War “a necessary war” yet disparage the Global War on Terror today as illegal do not demonstrate their patriotism; instead, they expose their hypocrisy.

(Photos: Left, American troops land on Saipan. Right, American troops in combat, Iraqi Freedom)

No More False Pretense

During the week that many Americans remembered the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and General Petraeus provided his report of the progress in Iraq to Congress, the left found real reason to celebrate. They dropped what little pretense they had remaining about “supporting the troops.” Moveon.org placed a full page ad in the New York Times that accused the four star general of betrayal.

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp

Liberals no longer have to live the lie that they “support the troops.” They never have, and they never will. Oh, there may have been some who made an honest effort or actually mistook their leadership’s false façade for sincerity, but “supporting the troops” and “supporting America” have never been who liberals are. It is not part of their nature. In fact, it is antithetical to their nature. Their ideology does not support the foundational ideologies of America. Their ideology does not support a strong national defense of America.

At least they can now be honest in this area. They no longer have to wallow in their pitiful attempt to pretend that they “support the troops” – at least, not American troops. Of course, they can still openly express support for all the “freedom fighters” and tyrants seeking to harm American citizens. Only in the land of left-believe are terrorists the good guys. My tip of the hat goes to all those liberals who can now take a sigh of relief and make an honest return once again to their loathing condemnation of American heritage, ideology, and patriotism.

How do you anger a conservative? Tell her a lie.
How do you anger a liberal? Tell him the truth.

Six Years

I bet this will come as a surprise to most Americans: “I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing ‘God Bless America.’” President George W. Bush, addressing the nation and a joint session of Congress from the United States Capitol nine days after 9/11/2001 also declared, “My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong.”
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)

Those were heady days as we Americans pulled ourselves out of the devastation of an unprovoked attack, dealt with our losses, and vowed that we would never capitulate to tyrannical and maniacal terrorism. “United we stand” and “God bless America” sentiments plastered billboards, buildings, and airwaves. Like troubled times before when those some call the greatest generation faced a dark, uncertain future, Americans stood with steeled resolve that freedom would prevail.

Six years later, the time of unity and resolve I recapture here sound like a vaporous myth. If not for documented evidence that it actually did exist, I would be accused of substituting fantasy for fact. Who led us on this descent into disunity and discord?

After the initial emotional surge subsided, it was not long before the aclu resumed its objective to remove the expression of the Judeo-Christian faith from the public forum. Indeed, they had new targets to aim for since those terrible “God bless America” banners could certainly not be displayed in public schools and government buildings. As soon as it became apparent that rhetoric against the Taliban in Afghanistan would be backed up with action, anti-war protests popped up with the usual lineup of goofballs and wingnuts: some who paraded in the nude, some who set up their pro-socialist & pro-communist booths, some who burned the American flag, and some who demonized the President as the leader of a Nazi regime. Prominently displayed in this cacophony of disunity and anarchy were the signs of the protest organizers and monitors: moveon.org. These are the people and organizations that choose disunity over unity and chaos over faith. These are the people and organizations that choose to remember each 9/11 anniversary with assaults on every American attempt to defeat the enemies that so treacherously attacked us. These are the people and organizations that choose to act offended when they are accused of a lack of patriotism.

Six years ago, about 3,000 of our fellow American citizens died in a horrible, unprovoked attack by al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization pledged to impose the rule of Islam upon the world. This is just one of several terrorist organizations that believe that every infidel (non-Muslim) is a legitimate combatant target. This is a tough fight, folks. The disunity and chaos of the left will not win it. On this sixth anniversary of 9/11, I honor the day by revisiting the resolve that has seen us through before. United we stand! God bless America!