The Left's War on Christianity and Phil Robertson

The recent uproar about comment made by Phil Robertson, is really nothing more than the lefts continued war against Christianity. While homosexual advocates have tried to redefine Christianity into some amoral and all accepting belief system, Christians recognized Phil Robertson was simply quoting bible scripture (Romans 1:26-32). Further liberals, as a group, are incredibly intolerant;  any belief system other than theirs is targeted for destruction. As an example, homosexual groups are defining Phil Robertson and his bible scripture as intolerant, rather than identifying harmful behavior, because the left simply doesn't know the difference and can't fathom real tolerance; in their world tolerance means acceptance. In other words, the left is so intolerant they simply don't understand the concept of real tolerance is even possible. It is unimaginable to a leftists that you would allow a belief different from yours without trying to destroy it.

Christianity is very tolerant as it teaches judgement should be left to god (this is certainly an area where  Christians often fall down, but this simply demonstrates that they are no better than anyone else);  but that doesn't mean you can't love your neighbor, and simultaneously  identify what has been identified in the bible as unacceptable behavior; or as Rick Warren said "You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." Further Christianity separates people from their actions; "love the person and hate the sin". During the GQ interview Phil Robertson listed behavior that is condemned by Christianity; it was not a comparison, it's a list; and he follows it up with, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?” (The left knew it was just a list, they just wanted to turn it into something they could make a big stink about; further part of Phil Robertson's ministry is he lived the behavior included in the list and reformed) Again this is impossible for the left to understand for they judge everyone by their belief system, not by what Martin Luther King Jr's called the content of their character. .

The teachings of Christ have never changed, but wayward followers often stray as they try and create a belief system that is more in line with their contemporary mores. These new age sects all eventually fail, while a relationship with the Jesus Christ of the bible, a savior that was all human and all god continues to thrive. The anti-Christians like to point to the Crusades and other atrocities done in the name of Christianity as an example of Christian hypocrisy, but again these were actions carried out by imperfect governments and religious leaders masquerading as Christians and Christianity and define "using the lords name in vain".

The left has been trying to re-direct Christians to worship the state for a 100 years; one way is to redefined Christianity as an amoral, all accepting religion and then judge anyone with real Christian values as non-Christian. The left's weapon of choice is mis- and dis- information, plus in the case of Christianity relativism.  But since the Jesus of the bible is written down and hasn't changed, the left always eventually fails in this regard.When all is said and done people will always return to the Jesus of the Bible; a Jesus of Faith, Peace and Love who told us the way to follow him is to, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind", and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus never said to accept the sinful ways of your neighbor, but commanded you love them regardless. This is the way of the Jesus of the Bible and Christianity. 

Resurrecting the Anti-gun Militia Argument

Back in January 2013, I wrote an article attacking the notion that are founding fathers never intended for the 2nd Amendment to include anything other than the weapons that were known in there time The Second Amendment for Muskets? Today I'll be looking at what I call the "Militia Clause" argument, which was settled in the Supreme Court decision of Washington DC vs Heller, but like other anti-gun rhetoric it is and will continue to be resurrected from the dead hoping someone will listen. The following letter was written to the Santa Cruz Sentential Dec 18, 2013. It is a great letter as it not only contains, "Militia Clause" argument, but it also shows the real intention of the left is to disarm the entire citizenry.  

Tom Snell; Why is it that no one mentions the opening words of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." Bearing arms was specifically so our nation could have a well-regulated militia, not so we could pretend that by owning lots and lots of guns, we can somehow defend ourselves from each other. Be careful gun owners -- the super wealthy gun industry wants you to be very scared so you will buy and they will profit. But I contend that more guns are more dangerous, not less so. To keep our communities safe, I challenge us all to have the courage to give up our guns with the possible exception of a hunting rifle. And for those people, they and their guns should be licensed and trained the way we license automobiles and require a periodic driver's test.

My response; Tom, why do people like you think you can logically define the contextual meaning of a word or phrase, in a vacuum of legal findings and historical context. This from the Case Brief  of the Holding of the Supreme Court case Heller vs Washington DC http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc..."The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Further,  Scalia wrote for the majority,  "The prefatory clause'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

You can challenge Americans all you want, but you live in a cloistered bubble if you think gun ownership and the NRA are all about the super wealthy gun industry; the more the left wants to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans, the more guns they buy. Further most Americans believe that there are a lot more important issues than additional gun restrictions (gun restrictions always rate very low when the citizenry is polled about what they want from government http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.... Crime rates continue to plummet as do gun crimes, except in areas like Chicago and Washington DC where the local government have disarmed the citizenry yet ignore federal gun restrictions; in other words new gun restrictions are a solution looking for a problem. In California there are laws that allow the police to track down criminals and mental patients and take away their guns ; but these laws continued to be unenforced (they are backed logged to the tune of 20,000 illegal gun owners) as the legislature continues to come up with laws that further restricts firearms to law abiding citizens. http://articles.latimes.com/20...

More gun control is simply a liberal issue that does nor resound with most Americans; but they certainly don't like being lied to about their healthcare. If you want to argue an issue important to you, you should at least do a little research before you base an argument on the way you interpret some wording you really don't understand.

Without Medicaid Expansion ObamaCare Would Increase Uninsured

Is it possible the purpose of ObamaCare was to federalize the states Medicare systems?

When all is said and done, it is the expansion of Medicaid that does all the heavy lifting of ObamaCare, while the ObamaCare exchanges are simply too expensive to help the remaining uninsured.* Here are the startling numbers. Democrats estimated there are 46 million people currently uninsured in the US Those Without Health Insurance 46 million, non-citizens in the US including illegal aliens account for 9.7% or 10 million of the uninsured leaving 36 million. The Obama Administration estimates slightly lower 44 million uninsured,ObamaCare Facts and says nearly half or 21.3 million of uninsured will be covered by ObamaCare's expansion of Medicaid ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion What we end up with then, if ObamaCare simply implemented just the expansion of Medicare, the number of uninsured that would be helped  is 21.3-22 million of the 36 million eligible (60%), leaving 14 million uninsured. The CBO now tells us that this 14 million will not only remain unisured but will more than double to 30 million by the end of this decade CBO ObamaCare will leave 30 million Uninsured, mainly because  these uninsured will not be able to afford ObamaCare. With 250 million Americans currently Insured and only 14 million uninsured after the expansion of Medicaid,  it also means that President Obama and the Democrats have taken control and turned the US Health Insurance Industry upside down, under the guise of unsuccessfully trying to insure the 5% of the uninsured.  So ObamaCare simply grows government without helping any one get affordable insurance.

*The end result of the expansion of state Medicaid by ObamaCare, where federal government will pick up 90-100% of the increased cost, is really nothing more than a federal take over of the Medicaid system. There is also a law that allows state medicaid agencies the right to seize all assets of a recipient after they die to pay for the medical services provided by Medicaid. "When the Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid System) recipient dies, the state may (and often does) seize remaining assets to reimburse the state for the Medi-Cal benefits paid during their lifetime. In many cases, this includes the recipient’s primary residence if they don’t have a surviving spouse. This provides a cost effective way to offset state and Federal costs". Medicaid Definition. If the states allow the federal expansion of Medicare, the federal funding and control of it's services will be for all purposes federalized the state Medicaid systems, which will eventually cost recipients everything they own to offset state and Federal costs.

A Warning to Pope Francis; Socialism is the Tail That Wags the Dog

This a follow-up to my recent article Pope Francis Ignores the Lessons of Collectivism The purpose of this article is to better explain what is meant by my remark that socialism always has unwanted consequences, which is why, no matter how good it sounds, it always fails While Pope Francis may want an altruistic planned economy, what he will get is the unwanted consequences of socialism. In his definitive work on free market economics, The Road to Serfdom: (Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition; The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) Hayek explains that stated goal by Pope Francis of a planned economy to combat poverty, suppresses the wants and needs of the individual in the name of the collective; which by definition is the tyranny the Pope Francis attributes to the free market (or as Hayek would say, "the road to serfdom").

The “social goal,” or “common purpose,” for which society is to be organized is usually vaguely described as the “common good,” the “general welfare,” or the “general interest.” It does not need much reflection to see that these terms have no sufficiently definite meaning to determine a particular course of action. The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations. It cannot be adequately expressed as a single end, but only as a hierarchy of ends, a comprehensive scale of values in which every need of every person is given its place. To direct all our activities according to a single plan presupposes that every one of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be complete enough to make it possible to decide among all the different courses which the planner has to choose.

One avenue often used by those that propose a planned economy is freedom from economic matters. However it is how we approach our economic issues that gives us the freedom to pursue our individual wants and needs. When the government controls these economic issues, they will in essence define what wants and needs you our allowed to pursue.

The so-called economic freedom which the planners promise us means precisely that we are to be relieved of the necessity of solving our own economic problems and that the bitter choices which this often involves are to be made for us. Since under modern conditions we are for almost everything dependent on means which our fellow-men provide, economic planning would involve direction of almost the whole of our life. There is hardly an aspect of it, from our primary needs to our relations with our family and friends, from the nature of our work to the use of our leisure, over which the planner would not exercise his “conscious control.”

While the Pope Francis stated his belief that a planned economy free from global economic system,  would lead politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and health care." Pope Francis Attacks 'Tyranny' of Unfettered Capitalism, 'Idolatory of Money , it is the individuals dignity that will all but disappear in with the collective state; work, education and healthcare will be one size fits all with the wants and needs of the odd man out is purposely ignored.   

Conditions will be without exception what in some measure they inevitably are in a large organization—or rather worse, because there will be no possibility of escape. We shall no longer be free to be rational or efficient only when and where we think it worth while; we shall all have to conform to the standards which the planning authority must fix in order to simplify its task. To make this immense task manageable, it will have to reduce the diversity of human capacities and inclinations to a few categories of readily interchangeable units and deliberately to disregard minor personal differences.

So much for dignified work, education and healthcare

The Beginning of the End of Personal Sovereignty

On Wednesday December 4th, The UK Telegraph ran one of the most troubling stories I have ever read. It turns out a pregnant Italian tourist had a psychotic attack from not taking her medication for a bi-polar condition. The woman was placed in a  psychiatric hospital, and after it was determined by the Essex County Social Services the woman would not make a good mother, she was drugged and her baby was forcefully taken by Caesarian Section (and is now up for adoption). Child Taken From Womb by Social Services  The idea that the State would have this much power over a personal autonomy defies the morality of any civilized society. While it would seem acceptable in similar circumstances to take the child after it was born, the idea of surreptitiously cutting the baby out of a woman's womb is beyond belief (yes it was done in a medically accepted manner, but again it was done without advising the mother, even if her approval was not necessary!); can you imagine the mental anguish of a mother that has carried a child to near full term and awakening to discover it was surgically removed with no warning or explanation?  In Britain abortion laws are more strict  than the US, requiring a doctors approval; which is rarely denied.And as in the US, pro abortion/ pro-choice advocates base the right to abortion on the woman's right to choose  "Control over whether, when and how many children to have is crucial to control over every other aspect of a woman’s life." The Abortion Law Women Need .

With this understanding, you would think that liberal progressives would be outraged regarding the state taking over complete control of the woman's body and forcefully taking a child that the woman has chosen  to voluntarily carry, but no, there are some on the left that have become apologists for this barbarous act. In a web site  Opinion;Child Taken From Womb By Social Services. Really?  the "Liberal Democrat Voice", the writer Evan Harris attempts to mitigate this violation of a woman's body by questioning the validity of the article! Even though Harris' knowledge of the incident appears to come solely from the article, so anyone that reads the article would be just as informed as Harris, she reasons that the report is not accurate.

Evan Harris: These facts (from the below response Essex County Council) blow a hole in the allegations in the press (it is unclear exactly what allegations the writer is talking about as she has no argument with the facts of the case).

The Essex County Council response: As the mother was deemed unable to consent to that by virtue of being sectioned, then the very least you would expect is for a court order to be obtained before that major surgery was carried out.

Evan Harris: Yet this is exactly what was done. The clinical necessity and the clinical judgement of best interests would have been tested by the courts in this case. As opposed to selected facts being tested by the editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

Again, the writer has no argument with the facts of the case, only that it was supposedly done prescriptively (I say supposedly as there is a serious question as to if a court order was sufficient for such a personal intrusion). One would think that this attack on the most fundamental and basic personal sovereignty would at least warrant a court hearing, so all arguments could be aired out (the reason of course is because it would never have bee sanctioned). Add to this that Britain social services should have no domain over a non-Britain citizen or the child of a non-British citizen, where there is no evidence that the child has been made a British citizen (in these cases the child can only be made a British citizen at the discretion of the British Home Office), the incident can only be defined as a Draconian power grab over a personal autonomy by the State. Further, because the victim is an Italian citizen, this incident  has been elevated to an  international incident.

 The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers. Child Taken From Womb by Social Services

What this  incident shows is the left's promotion of personal autonomy, articulated by the "Pro-Choice" argument, is really a shame. Apparently  "Pro-Choice" only goes as far as the State allowing one to abort a child, not to keep one. This even though one would think that the right of the State to remove a child from the womb is a far greater violation of personal sovereignty, than the "Right to Choose" to abort. As usual with the left it is simply the continued march toward a totalitarian regime.