A Little Levity

Just too funny…

Another example of form over substance…

notprezyet2

Obama

…so much for gravitas. 

As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon!”

h/t DP

Advertisements

From the First Press Conference

officeofpresidentelect1

Soon to be President Obama:

The No. 1 priority, Obama said, is to get Congress to approve an economic stimulus plan that would extend jobless benefits, send food aid to the poor, dispatch Medicaid funds to states and spend tens of billions of dollars on public works projects. If the plan is not approved this month, in a special session of Congress, Obama said that “it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States.”

Translation:

The first thing I’m gonna do is spend the taxpayers’ money.  If you don’t have a job, I’m gonna get you more unemployment; if you don’t have food, I’m gonna get you food; if you can’t get Medicaid, I’m gonna get it for you so you can go to the doctor.  And last, but not least, I’m gonna spend tens of billions of tax dollars on public transportation so that if you don’t have a car, you can get where ever you need to go.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free…AND I’LL GET THEM UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BENEFITS.

But you have to vote for me in the next election…or I might have to hurt you.

Quote of the Day

blackcapitol21

“Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: ‘No man should have so much.’ The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: ‘All men should have as much.’ “

–Phelps Adams

Big Brother Home for Good in Mother UK

The Belfast Telegraph is reporting that new government efforts to curb terrorism will result in data collection of every internet hit or email delivery.

Read more here.

If you want to know what a girl is going to look like when she gets older, take a hard look at her mother.

And if you want to get a good look at Big Brother, read more Orwell. 

He was right.

Pulling the Plug on Religious Freedom

The battle rages on.

No, I’m not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan.

Fox News is reporting one battle for religious freedom taking place on the doorstep of the nation’s capital.  In Washington, DC the parents of a 12-year old boy are fighting the hospital’s efforts to remove him from life support after doctors declared him dead on Tuesday. 

In the District of Columbia, the law provides for hospitals to declare death when there is no brain activity.  The hospital is awaiting a ruling from the DC Superior Court to procede with its plan to disconnect the boy’s ventilator and discontinue the medical treatment that is keeping his heart beating.

But the parents, who are Orthodox Jews, argue that the hospital’s determination to remove life support infringes upon their freedom to exercise their religion.  Their attorney Jeffrey Zuckerman, spoke to the Washington Post: 

Under Jewish law and their faith, there is no such thing as brain death.  Their religious beliefs are entitled to respect. 

However, according to Sofia Smith, one of the boy’s physicians,  

“This child has ceased to exist by every medical definition,” adding that she and her staff members are “distraught at what is providing futile care to the earthly remains of a former life.”

Once again we find the conflict over what, or who, defines life.

Once again, the scientific medical community uses its definition to attempt to force people with faith-based views of life and death to accept its judgment and subsequent rationale for providing or witholding medical services.

This doctor is “distraught”?  The truth is that she is more concerned about her own feelings and the feelings of her staff as they continue to provide care to “a child [who] has ceased to exist…to the earthly remains of a former life.” 

Outrageous.  Highly insensitive.  But not surprising.

After all, an unborn child has become merely a “byproduct of conception”  until it is capable of surviving on its own outside its mother’s womb.

And now medical doctors are beginning to extend that definition to those who need life support…especially if those patients are never going to be like they once were…especially if they are going to need that support until they take their last breath. 

According to the doctor, this child has “ceased to exist.”

But the parents would disagree, arguing that they are required by their faith to provide care for their child until his life has ended. 

And by their definition, it’s not over.

Nonetheless, the doctor wants to exercise her choice to withhold care because she is uncomfortable about providing such “futile” treatment because it will not result in restoring the child to “life” by her definition.

So who gets to make this choice?  The doctor…or the people who loved and cared for this child for his entire existence?

We should all fear the answer to this question.  We should all fear becoming ill or dependent on anyone who has the power to define for us what life is… or isn’t.  

We should all fear that someone is going to pin the “earthly remains” or “former life” label on us should we ever become incapable of speaking or communicating.

And we have so much to lose if they do, both individually and corporately. 

They will use euphemisms like “earthly remains”, “byproducts of conception” and “choice” to shield themselves from selfish decisions that infringe on other’s rights.  And they will decide who lives…and who dies…based, as in this case, on the seeming futility of providing medical care for someone incapable of responding in a scientifically “appropriate” way.

And this is the real danger for all of us.  Because if we allow only science to create the definition of what life is, then by default, it can create the definition of what life isn’t.

The Nazis did. 

And The Holocaust continues to haunt us.

Because with science, the definitions always change.  What we know is always eclipsed by what we don’t know.  And the more we learn, the less we find we truly understand.

In short, scientific definitions evolve.  They can change with new discoveries. 

And they often do.  Technology continues to develop.  Who can say what we will know ten, twenty, fifty years from now that will enable us to reach beyond the seeming lack of brain activity to find evidence of life that we cannot discern today despite our great scientific advancements?

Today’s medical definition of life relies upon technology that becomes rapidly obsolete.

But faith does not.  

A spiritual definition of life provides hope and a sense of purpose, even when all appears to be lost…or dead.  And constant, unwavering faith practiced, even in the shadow of death, provides comfort and meaning to those who are grieving. 

And let’s not forget, miracles do, sometimes, occur. 

And when they do, they are often the result of prayer and faith.  But you won’t find those definitions in a medical dictionary.

However, you will find them both, in practice, on the battlefield.  And this is a battle to be sure. 

Losing the right to practice faith in death may well result in losing the right to practice it in life. 

But if that occurs, faith will not be the only casualty of science.

Singing the Blues Amerika Finds Itself in the Red

In today’s UKTimes, Daniel Finkelstein writes about the reasons why Americans voted for Barack Obama as President of the United States.  His primary premise is that America itself is richer, smarter and less white.

Let’s ponder that statement for a moment. 

Nope, I’m not buying all of it.

America on Election Day was decidedly poorer than it was in 2004 when George W. Bush was elected President.  In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Budget recently reported that U.S. budget deficit numbers hover near $1 trillion dollars.  According to an ABC News Report, this deficit represents the

highest level of federal red ink as a share of the overall economy of any US budget since the 1940s. For each household, this year’s deficit would pile on an extra $8,620 of federal debt.

So much for being us being richer.

As for being smarter, Americans chose to elect a man who, by his own admission, wants to “spread the wealth around.” 

But with a $1 trillion dollar deficit, there is not going to be much opportunity to use the tax code to create wealth here in America for a long time, especially with all of the economic promises made during the election cycle. 

And the sad fact is that many of the promises made during the campaign are sure to be broken as the harsh reality of our diminishing economy, and the global economy as a whole, become more and more evident to all of us.

Besides, our first priority should be to reduce government spending before we commit any additional federal dollars for new programs.  But we can only accomplish this task by cutting earmarks and reducing the size of government, two things which are unlikely to occur with overwhelmingly Democratic representation in both houses of Congress and in the Office of President.

The only way out is through economic growth, which cannot occur if capital gains taxes are not drastically reduced.  Without decreased taxation, American corporations are not incentivized to create new jobs.  And as the global economy continues its downward spiral, the American economy will also continue to suffer from lack of capital, increasing interest rates and growing deficits in international markets. 

We need to produce something the world wants.

And we need to figure out what that might be…quickly.  But the truth is that the entire world is in uncharted economic territory.  None of the stop-gap measures taken in any country have halted the economic skid. 

And nobody is buying anything right now.

But creating more government jobs is not a solution.  It is an act of inherent self-destruction. 

We tax ourselves more to create more jobs for which we tax ourselves more to keep our jobs.  Before long, we start to look a lot like…China…or Cuba.  Pick the communist country of your choice.

Which brings me to Finklestein’s last point:  America is less white. 

And I agree with him on this point: 

Amerika has become a red state.  She not only finds herself in the red financially, but she is in the red ideologically.   

Legislating and agressively promoting marxist economic policies, the Democrats have, in this election, purchased for themselves two years of our time and our money to use as they see fit with more Fannies, more Freddies, and far less accountability than ordinary citizens can even imagine. 

But the people of America have spoken.  They must really like the blues.

As for me, I’m seeing red. 

And I don’t like it.

Make a Prediction

Who will be next?

 

It's Getting Kind of Crowded under Here

Just give it time…we’ll all be under there.  h/t DP