Abortion is a very selfish and cowardly act that affects both men and women.
First of all, once the baby is conceived, the father has no choice whether his potential son/daughter survives and whether his responsibility of fatherhood begins. It is only the woman's choice. Abortion laws only give the mother a choice, not the father.
Secondly, the vast majority of abortions are solely for the convenience of a pregnant woman. Most often abortions are performed because an unplanned pregnancy will interfere with the mothers schooling, career plans and/or dating and romantic life. IMHO, I think it is selfish and cowardly to deny life to your potential child because of those reasons. Could a man site those reasons for refusing to pay child support?
Even in today's day and age of moral equivalencies, most people understand that abortion is wrong and should only be used as a last resort. However, today's popular culture often glorifies, celebrates and embraces things that are wrong while they shun, mock and attack positive and noble lifestyles and institutions.
Adultery is clearly wrong, yet it is being celebrated and embraced by today's movies and TV shows. Our former president Clinton gained popularity after being "caught in the act" of adultery.
Divorce, which often results from adultery, affects a majority of today's married couples. Divorce is clearly wrong because it breaks a sacred promise between two people. However, divorce is no longer something to be ashamed of. Divorce is clearly one of the biggest failures that one can have in one's life, yet it is completely accepted by society without the slightest hint of stigma.
Why are liars and cheaters in business and politics despised, while liars and cheaters in marriage are not? If children are societies most valued asset, why are they utterly devalued by divorce and abortion?
Gang-bangers are celebrated and embraced. Today's popular culture imitates these psychotic outlaws in dress, language attitude and music. At the same time, Christianity, the Boy Scouts and the military are mocked and attacked by today's popular culture, the media, the arts and by universities.
In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, putting personal happiness first, thrill seeking and self esteem.
Clearly, the main reason for abortion has nothing to do with privacy. The main reason why 50 million potential souls were snuffed out through abortion in this country is because "girls just want to have fun".
In this atmosphere, right and wrong become indistinguishable and unimportant. That is why there is no public dialogue on abortion. If this attitude was prevalent 50 years ago there would have been no civil rights movement. If this attitude prevailed 150 years ago, there would have been no abolition of slavery.
The civil rights movement and abolition of slavery began in the Church, not in academia. Reverend Martin Luther King was a Minister first and a PHD in theology second.
The civil right movement was not based on a struggle between fun and restraint. The abortion issue is. That is the reason why abortion proponents are reluctant to discuss this issue. It is because they must hide the main reason why they are pro-abortion. That reason being: "girls just want to have fun"
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Socialized Health-Care Will Lead To Rationing Treatment and Euthanasia
President Obama said that his health-care plan will reduce the overall cost of medical treatment. What he didn't tell you was how that goal will be attained. Obama said that the government will cut inefficiencies and focus on prevention in order to cut costs. While prevention does save some money, it is a small fraction of the savings that death will bring. Denying certain costly procedures to those deemed by bureaucrats as "unlikely to benefit from them", will bring about the lions share of savings in a government run health-care program.
Most people spend most of their health-care dollars in the final years of their life. Imagine how much savings could be achieved if we simply did not treat people who are deemed to be "unlikely to benefit from treatment" because they are elderly. Cost savings could also be achieved by limiting care to those who contributed to their own maladies with unhealthy behavior such as excessive drinking, narcotics abuse, smoking, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle. Bureaucrats, not families, doctors or patients, will make these tough decisions if the government takes over our nations health-care system.
This approach will be totally justifiable when tough choices must be made by government bureaucrats, not individuals, about how to spend our limited health-care dollars. Procedures and surgeries for younger patients, with many more years of life expectancy potential, will obviously be a better investment than for treatment 80 year old infirm patients or chronic alcoholics.
Desperate times will call for desperate measures. Already our medicare and social-security systems are headed for bankruptcy. The best way to relieve this strain on an overburdened system is to ration care to the elderly and those who require a disproportionate share of medical care do to their lifestyle choices and unhealthy behavior.
Under Obama's proposals, euthanasia will eventually become an option. The government will run PSAs advising people that euthanasia is the patriotic thing to do for those who have no longer have the wherewithal to "give back" to their country in other ways.
There is no doubt that the cheapest form of health care is allowing patients to die. This has become part of health-care system in other countries with socialized medicine. Allowing patients to die will undoubtedly become part of an American socialized health-care system.
I have never seen a well intentioned liberal program that did not have "negative unintended consequences" that hurt the very same people that they were trying to help. In this case, nationalized health-care will limit expensive treatments to the elderly and to the poor the most.
Most people spend most of their health-care dollars in the final years of their life. Imagine how much savings could be achieved if we simply did not treat people who are deemed to be "unlikely to benefit from treatment" because they are elderly. Cost savings could also be achieved by limiting care to those who contributed to their own maladies with unhealthy behavior such as excessive drinking, narcotics abuse, smoking, poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle. Bureaucrats, not families, doctors or patients, will make these tough decisions if the government takes over our nations health-care system.
This approach will be totally justifiable when tough choices must be made by government bureaucrats, not individuals, about how to spend our limited health-care dollars. Procedures and surgeries for younger patients, with many more years of life expectancy potential, will obviously be a better investment than for treatment 80 year old infirm patients or chronic alcoholics.
Desperate times will call for desperate measures. Already our medicare and social-security systems are headed for bankruptcy. The best way to relieve this strain on an overburdened system is to ration care to the elderly and those who require a disproportionate share of medical care do to their lifestyle choices and unhealthy behavior.
Under Obama's proposals, euthanasia will eventually become an option. The government will run PSAs advising people that euthanasia is the patriotic thing to do for those who have no longer have the wherewithal to "give back" to their country in other ways.
There is no doubt that the cheapest form of health care is allowing patients to die. This has become part of health-care system in other countries with socialized medicine. Allowing patients to die will undoubtedly become part of an American socialized health-care system.
I have never seen a well intentioned liberal program that did not have "negative unintended consequences" that hurt the very same people that they were trying to help. In this case, nationalized health-care will limit expensive treatments to the elderly and to the poor the most.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Liberal Agenda is Often a Racist Agenda
The political fallout that resulted from the recent shooting in the Holocaust Museum seemingly blames "right wing" racism as the culprit. Amazingly, the responsibility of the "individual" gunman is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media. This reaction serves to bolster my assertion that "collectivism" is a province of the left.
Collectivists often separate people into categories based on superficial differences such as race, income level, ethnicity and education. In my humble opinion, the important distinctions between people, are those of character and behavior. Collectivists often downplay or rationalize bad behavior, while emphasizing superficial differences of race and ethnicity.
Liberals find it hard to swallow that this deranged lone gunman acted on his own. News reports are trying to tie his actions to a white racist "collective". They are reporting that there is an increase of white supremacist racism in America. They are trying to connect imaginary dots to prove that he was just a pawn, that was "duped" into carrying out the dirty work of organized racist groups.
This is preposterous. White Americans have been cowered into showing extreme sensitivity toward all minorities, whether ethnic or racial. As a matter of fact, it has become so bad, that any criticism from the right on any person of color is considered as racist. Often criticism of Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor is deemed as racist based solely on the racial difference between them and their critics. Likewise opponents of illegal immigration are often labeled as xenophobes and racists. Also, opponents of gay marriage are often demonized as intolerant or bigoted.
Collectivist/Liberals look at one's race and ethnicity first, in an effort to categorize them and justify or criticize their behavior, and to demonize them or their critics. This is exemplified by affirmative action and racial quotas. On the other hand, most conservatives look at an individuals' behavior and character while completely ignoring his/her race.
In my experience, most racism in today's America originates from liberals and minorities themselves. A recent example is Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yesterday, when Rev. Wright was asked if he had been contacted by Obama recently, he said:
"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright said, according to Virginia's Daily Press. "They will not let him ... talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is."
Wrights response is indicative of someone who looks at "David Axelrod", (Obamas campaign manager and top aid) and other top ranking officials in the Obama administration as "Jews" rather than an individuals. Rev. Wright is clearly a racist who can't see the Forrest for the trees. This "us against them" mentality is prevalent among liberals. When today's civil rights leaders preach with this attitude, they do a disservice to those who they claim to support.
We need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. Racial differences are superficial and are only taken into account by shallow, narrow-minded people. Often racists, disguised as civil rights leaders, try to stir up the pot of racism, hoping that they will end up on top. Many of them make careers out of "race bating". A good example is "Al Sharpton",
Reverend Martin Luther King was one of the greatest civil rights leaders of all time. He did not preach messages of racial disparity or divisiveness. Instead, Martin Luther King said, "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but judge by the content of of one's character. This message applies to whites, blacks, and people of all colors. According to King's words, there is no such ting as "reverse discrimination". All people should be color blind and judge people solely on their character and behavior. The time for racial divisiveness is over and new era based on behavior, and character has begun. Although King also holds a PHD in theology, often, today's liberals downplay that he was inspired by God and not by academia.
Unfortunately, race baiters like, Sharpton, and Wright and many so-called liberals, still cling to politics that emphasize racial and ethnic differences rather than emphasizing the meaningful differences that differentiate us. These meaningful differences include character, behavior and personal choices.
Collectivists often separate people into categories based on superficial differences such as race, income level, ethnicity and education. In my humble opinion, the important distinctions between people, are those of character and behavior. Collectivists often downplay or rationalize bad behavior, while emphasizing superficial differences of race and ethnicity.
Liberals find it hard to swallow that this deranged lone gunman acted on his own. News reports are trying to tie his actions to a white racist "collective". They are reporting that there is an increase of white supremacist racism in America. They are trying to connect imaginary dots to prove that he was just a pawn, that was "duped" into carrying out the dirty work of organized racist groups.
This is preposterous. White Americans have been cowered into showing extreme sensitivity toward all minorities, whether ethnic or racial. As a matter of fact, it has become so bad, that any criticism from the right on any person of color is considered as racist. Often criticism of Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor is deemed as racist based solely on the racial difference between them and their critics. Likewise opponents of illegal immigration are often labeled as xenophobes and racists. Also, opponents of gay marriage are often demonized as intolerant or bigoted.
Collectivist/Liberals look at one's race and ethnicity first, in an effort to categorize them and justify or criticize their behavior, and to demonize them or their critics. This is exemplified by affirmative action and racial quotas. On the other hand, most conservatives look at an individuals' behavior and character while completely ignoring his/her race.
In my experience, most racism in today's America originates from liberals and minorities themselves. A recent example is Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Yesterday, when Rev. Wright was asked if he had been contacted by Obama recently, he said:
"Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office," Wright said, according to Virginia's Daily Press. "They will not let him ... talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is."
Wrights response is indicative of someone who looks at "David Axelrod", (Obamas campaign manager and top aid) and other top ranking officials in the Obama administration as "Jews" rather than an individuals. Rev. Wright is clearly a racist who can't see the Forrest for the trees. This "us against them" mentality is prevalent among liberals. When today's civil rights leaders preach with this attitude, they do a disservice to those who they claim to support.
We need to hold individuals accountable for their actions. Racial differences are superficial and are only taken into account by shallow, narrow-minded people. Often racists, disguised as civil rights leaders, try to stir up the pot of racism, hoping that they will end up on top. Many of them make careers out of "race bating". A good example is "Al Sharpton",
Reverend Martin Luther King was one of the greatest civil rights leaders of all time. He did not preach messages of racial disparity or divisiveness. Instead, Martin Luther King said, "Judge not by the color of one's skin, but judge by the content of of one's character. This message applies to whites, blacks, and people of all colors. According to King's words, there is no such ting as "reverse discrimination". All people should be color blind and judge people solely on their character and behavior. The time for racial divisiveness is over and new era based on behavior, and character has begun. Although King also holds a PHD in theology, often, today's liberals downplay that he was inspired by God and not by academia.
Unfortunately, race baiters like, Sharpton, and Wright and many so-called liberals, still cling to politics that emphasize racial and ethnic differences rather than emphasizing the meaningful differences that differentiate us. These meaningful differences include character, behavior and personal choices.
Labels:
holocaust museum,
martin Luther king,
racism,
Wright
Monday, June 8, 2009
Is Shame and Stigma a Necessary Part of a Healthy Society?
I was amazed when I heard a radio commercial for the "Ashley Madison Agency" this morning.
The Ashley Madison agency is an online dating web-site that specializes in finding dates for married people. I clicked on the site and found out that they charge $249.00 for a three month membership. They guarantee that you will have an "affair" or you get your money back. They claim to have nearly 4 million members. I didn't bother registering to find out more information. A limited amount of information can be gleaned from their home-page. here is the link: http://www.ashleymadison.com/
I find it amazing that advertisements that promote adultery are on main-stream talk radio stations. Adultery used to be illegal, now it is being marketed, promoted, packaged and sold shamelessly.
I understand that we are all imperfect and many people cheat on their spouses. However, it is infuriating that cheating has become accepted, celebrated and embraced by mainstream Americans. People literally can not tell right from wrong. This is the same feeling that I got during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I was Angry at Americans who accepted President Clinton's perjury and televised lies, rather than shaming him for it.
I understand that we are all imperfect and fall short at times. This is exactly why we often need help staying on the right track. Why is there no shame anymore? Isn't shame and stigma a nessisary part of a healthy society? Doesn't shame and stigma provide the nessisary motivation for us to do what is healthy and positive for ourselves, our families, our society and our nation?
I guess that there is some shame and stigma left in today's popular culture. Unfortunately it is used against conservatives, Christians and honorable Americans with traditional values.
The Ashley Madison agency is an online dating web-site that specializes in finding dates for married people. I clicked on the site and found out that they charge $249.00 for a three month membership. They guarantee that you will have an "affair" or you get your money back. They claim to have nearly 4 million members. I didn't bother registering to find out more information. A limited amount of information can be gleaned from their home-page. here is the link: http://www.ashleymadison.com/
I find it amazing that advertisements that promote adultery are on main-stream talk radio stations. Adultery used to be illegal, now it is being marketed, promoted, packaged and sold shamelessly.
I understand that we are all imperfect and many people cheat on their spouses. However, it is infuriating that cheating has become accepted, celebrated and embraced by mainstream Americans. People literally can not tell right from wrong. This is the same feeling that I got during the Clinton impeachment hearings. I was Angry at Americans who accepted President Clinton's perjury and televised lies, rather than shaming him for it.
I understand that we are all imperfect and fall short at times. This is exactly why we often need help staying on the right track. Why is there no shame anymore? Isn't shame and stigma a nessisary part of a healthy society? Doesn't shame and stigma provide the nessisary motivation for us to do what is healthy and positive for ourselves, our families, our society and our nation?
I guess that there is some shame and stigma left in today's popular culture. Unfortunately it is used against conservatives, Christians and honorable Americans with traditional values.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Why Life's Obstacles Are a Necessary Part of Our Spiritual Life
A fundamental flaw in liberal thinking is that many liberals believe that all obstacles, in the road of life, are bad. I strongly disagree. I believe that God put obstacles in all of our paths to help us grow spiritually. IMHO, spiritual growth is the reason for being. Therefore, obstacles, sorrow, misfortunes, failures and even tragedies, are a nessisary part of our spiritual life, just as food and water are a nessisary part of our physical life. Often overcoming obstacles and dealing with them in accordance with universal spiritual principles, leads to spiritual growth, improves our eternal souls, and brings us closer to God.
I once saw an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a horrific low-life gangster died and was immediately sent to the "afterlife". In this afterlife, his every wish was granted and his every desire fulfilled. He lived in a luxurious mansion. He was surrounded by beautiful women who were willing to fulfill all of his fantasies. He had servants, fancy cars, luxurious clothing and he was very popular. Everyone laughed at his jokes and when he gambled, he always won.
At first he was overjoyed at his good fate. However, he was a bit surprised that an evil man like himself would end up in heaven.
As time went by, he became bored with all of his luxuries and good fortune. Pretty soon his boredom tuned into discontent, anger, displeasure, and torment. As strange as it seemed, he could no longer tolerate his good fortune. Everything was too predictable. He asked to lose occasionally when he gambled. But this only infuriated him more, because he knew that when he lost, it was because he had asked for it to be that way.
Finally, at the end of the program, he told the man in charge that he was no longer happy. He demanded to be happy. He said that he was supposed to be happy in heaven. The man in charge looked at him and laughed heartily. He said, "heaven, what made you think that you are in heaven?". This is the other place.
My point is that if liberals got everything that they thought would make an ideal world, they would be miserable and spiritually depraved. This is exactly what we are witnessing in today's popular culture.
I once saw an episode of "Twilight Zone" where a horrific low-life gangster died and was immediately sent to the "afterlife". In this afterlife, his every wish was granted and his every desire fulfilled. He lived in a luxurious mansion. He was surrounded by beautiful women who were willing to fulfill all of his fantasies. He had servants, fancy cars, luxurious clothing and he was very popular. Everyone laughed at his jokes and when he gambled, he always won.
At first he was overjoyed at his good fate. However, he was a bit surprised that an evil man like himself would end up in heaven.
As time went by, he became bored with all of his luxuries and good fortune. Pretty soon his boredom tuned into discontent, anger, displeasure, and torment. As strange as it seemed, he could no longer tolerate his good fortune. Everything was too predictable. He asked to lose occasionally when he gambled. But this only infuriated him more, because he knew that when he lost, it was because he had asked for it to be that way.
Finally, at the end of the program, he told the man in charge that he was no longer happy. He demanded to be happy. He said that he was supposed to be happy in heaven. The man in charge looked at him and laughed heartily. He said, "heaven, what made you think that you are in heaven?". This is the other place.
My point is that if liberals got everything that they thought would make an ideal world, they would be miserable and spiritually depraved. This is exactly what we are witnessing in today's popular culture.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Why Multiculturalism is Bad For America
Multiculturalism is the exact opposite of what our great American culture was founded upon. Most American Coins have the words "E Pluribus Unum" stamped on them. This means: "Out of many, One". America has always been a melting pot in which many diverse cultures are mixed together and have been transformed into a single great American culture in the end.
Our unique American culture has led us to be the freest, wealthiest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This is NOT due to cultural diversity, but to the contrary, this was due to our founding principles and concept of "the American melting pot".
Freedom from religious persecution is one of our founding principles. Of course religious freedom is part of the American culture. However, a moral and religious people is required for self governance.
In today's day and age, Christianity is often ridiculed, mocked and discredited. Diverse cultures, that often lack faith in God and sometimes are incompatible with Jedeo-Christian principles, are often celebrated, embraced and encouraged by today's schools, the media, popular culture and the government. In my humble opinion, this trend needs to be reversed if we are to survive as a nation and a culture.
Our first founding document, The declaration of Independence states:
This simple document eventually led to the idea of self-governance as outlined in our constitution and our bill of rights. These ideas eventually led to the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement which set an example for the rest of the world. The experiment of American self-governance by a moral and religious people has brought charity, freedom and security to all corners of the globe. The American experiment has culminated in what later became the unique American culture.
Historically, many people have fled persecution, oppression and poverty to build a better life for their families in America. People from diverse cultures came to America with hopes and dreams of melting into our culture and raising American children who would have opportunities that were not available in their homeland. They left their old cultures behind to become Americans.
America became stronger when foreigners became Americanized. Immigrants took on American sounding names, they learned English, they sent their children to American schools, they dressed like Americans, they celebrated American holidays, they took pride in being American and they became part of the rich and wonderful American culture. For the most part, they left behind the culture, language and most of the customs of the land that they fled. This was true for my own grandparents and for most grandparents of my generation.
When we encouraged immigrants to take pride in America and become Americanized, we built a stronger, wealthier and freer nation.
If we encourage Americans to celebrate the various, cultures, languages and customs of the nations that these immigrants fled, America will inevitably become less united, weaker, poorer, more corrupt and less free, like the nations that these immigrants fled from in the first place.
Immigrants came here to seek a better life in the greatest nation that this world has ever seen. The more Americanized they become, the better they will be able to avail themselves of the boundless opportunities that America has to offer. We do ourselves and our immigrants a disservice if we do not insist on unity and pride in America's, culture, language and rich heritage.
United we stand, divided we will fall. Multiculturalism tends to divide, categorize and highlight the differences among people and cultures. Multiculturalism asks us to accept things that are not always in the best interest of America. The unique American culture has led us to prosper and grow and be a beacon of freedom and inspiration for the rest of the world. America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This can only be diminished by diluting our rich culture, language and noble heritage with multiculturalism.
Our unique American culture has led us to be the freest, wealthiest, most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This is NOT due to cultural diversity, but to the contrary, this was due to our founding principles and concept of "the American melting pot".
Freedom from religious persecution is one of our founding principles. Of course religious freedom is part of the American culture. However, a moral and religious people is required for self governance.
In today's day and age, Christianity is often ridiculed, mocked and discredited. Diverse cultures, that often lack faith in God and sometimes are incompatible with Jedeo-Christian principles, are often celebrated, embraced and encouraged by today's schools, the media, popular culture and the government. In my humble opinion, this trend needs to be reversed if we are to survive as a nation and a culture.
Our first founding document, The declaration of Independence states:
............We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".................
This simple document eventually led to the idea of self-governance as outlined in our constitution and our bill of rights. These ideas eventually led to the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement which set an example for the rest of the world. The experiment of American self-governance by a moral and religious people has brought charity, freedom and security to all corners of the globe. The American experiment has culminated in what later became the unique American culture.
Historically, many people have fled persecution, oppression and poverty to build a better life for their families in America. People from diverse cultures came to America with hopes and dreams of melting into our culture and raising American children who would have opportunities that were not available in their homeland. They left their old cultures behind to become Americans.
America became stronger when foreigners became Americanized. Immigrants took on American sounding names, they learned English, they sent their children to American schools, they dressed like Americans, they celebrated American holidays, they took pride in being American and they became part of the rich and wonderful American culture. For the most part, they left behind the culture, language and most of the customs of the land that they fled. This was true for my own grandparents and for most grandparents of my generation.
When we encouraged immigrants to take pride in America and become Americanized, we built a stronger, wealthier and freer nation.
If we encourage Americans to celebrate the various, cultures, languages and customs of the nations that these immigrants fled, America will inevitably become less united, weaker, poorer, more corrupt and less free, like the nations that these immigrants fled from in the first place.
Immigrants came here to seek a better life in the greatest nation that this world has ever seen. The more Americanized they become, the better they will be able to avail themselves of the boundless opportunities that America has to offer. We do ourselves and our immigrants a disservice if we do not insist on unity and pride in America's, culture, language and rich heritage.
United we stand, divided we will fall. Multiculturalism tends to divide, categorize and highlight the differences among people and cultures. Multiculturalism asks us to accept things that are not always in the best interest of America. The unique American culture has led us to prosper and grow and be a beacon of freedom and inspiration for the rest of the world. America has grown to become the freest, wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation that this world has ever seen. This can only be diminished by diluting our rich culture, language and noble heritage with multiculturalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)