In an episode of The West Wing a small circle of people, including Joint Chiefs, the President’s Chief of Staff, and the President are presented with a situation where a leader of a terrorist nation is going to be making a ceremonial stop in the United States. The administration has recently, since agreeing to the ceremonial handshake with the President, gotten solid evidence that this leader was the mastermind behind a foiled plot to bomb the Golden Gate Bridge. The dilemma amongst the small circle is whether or not to take this guy out with the one chance they have. It is the opinion of everyone except the one ultimately in charge, the President, that they should take the terrorist leader (we’ll liken it to Ahmadinejad turned bin Laden). The President is grappling with the idea, though it seems inevitable that he will ultimately agree with his counsel. The problem is that the plan that is devised to take this leader out, and in a way that does not incriminate the United States, falls after the ceremonial handshake. The Chief of Staff is trying to make it such that the handshake is nothing more than it needs to be. He cites a time when he used to take his young daughter to the seafood place and the first thing she would do is name all the lobsters in the tank so that he couldn’t eat any of them.
So goes the problem of the pro-life movement. The biggest, and possibly the only shortcoming we have in our time of living is that we don’t know the unborn child. They are nameless and faceless. We can see two arms and two feet, we can see a skull and a skeleton, and we can even see them move. But we can’t see their smile, we can’t know their personalities, and we aren’t able to hold the precious little person in our hands and know them enough to love them. Again, this is the biggest and possibly the only shortcoming of the pro-life movement, and when you look at the methodology of the pro-choice contingent you have great evidence. Consider the most obvious example, Planned Parenthood…
They don’t want the pregnant mother to get any literature from the sidewalk counselors, because they might realize that they are already a mother.
They don’t want the pregnant mother to hear anything that makes what is inside of them a human being because the mother might realize that she is already just that – a mother.
They don’t want the pregnant mother to see an ultrasound because they might realize they are already a mother.
They don’t want any sort of waiting period where a pregnant mother, already a mother, might realize that fact and change their mind.
They are so worried about the pregnant mother realizing they are a mother, they don’t even want to show the mom their baby when something goes “awry” and the baby is delivered alive.
All of this is an effort to make sure that the mother of the child, and any other influential person in the situation, do not come to know the child that is already alive. The child that is already alive.
Fortunately science is on the pro-life side. The better our images get, the more the pro-choice side has to sprint in another direction. (It’s ironic that the pro-choice side is, in most other cases, entirely apologetic of anything scientific, but I digress.) It is vitally important that we do everything else we can, on top of the scientific evidence that only some will pay attention to, to give a name and a face to the unborn child. The precious feet and the at-this-many-weeks facts are a good start, but we need to do even more than that. We need to give names to these children. This isn’t to “make the decision more difficult,” but to inject the truth of the matter into the discussion. After all, this is a live human being. Never has it been known that a pregnant woman has delivered anything other than a human being. There is no chance that what is growing inside of the woman, sometime in the future to be delivered, is a bowling ball or a bag of designer make-up, both of which can be amorally chucked into the garbage can.
The tragic events of 9-11 shook everyone I know to their respective core. Yet even I have to admit that not having known anyone, personally, who was affected in the tragedy gives me a far different experience than another person who lost a friend or a loved one at one of the three sites, on a plane or in a building. The point is this: We must make the lobsters known so that they can be loved as more than an inconvenient growth on a woman’s body. We must give name to the lobsters in the tank.
Today’s news that the U.S. Preventative Task Force has changed its advice that women should start regular mammograms at 50 rather than 40 will surely anger cancer organizations and medical doctors worldwide. The anger should not stop there, however. As we are in the midst of a debate on nationalized health care this has staggering ramifications on the health care that Americans could come to expect under government-controlled health care. Consider two points:
The “numbers” show that a 40-year-old woman has a .19 percent chance of dying of cancer before she turns 50, so it’s quite reasonable that government-controlled health care will not cover mammograms before the age of 50.
Groups of people – death panels – will decide what kind of health status of people (including age, likelihood of success, etc.) get treatment and what kind of treatment
When you put these two factors together, you get a health care system that is both deciding you cannot be screened for an illness before a certain age, and then determining whether or not you can be treated if you do get the disease anyway. Your only recourse is to pay for this screening out of your own pocket.
Now this is a true women’s issue, and one that should have all women in this great land very, very afraid of government-controlled health care. Call your Senators now and oppose the public option!
Today’s elections point out something very interesting. That something is not new, and in fact it seems to be the rule more than the exception, but it’s brought to light again today. That something is the idea that the country chooses its representation based on the motivation and interests of the electorate, the elected (including those who won on a recount or several recounts) think that it extends to their entire agenda, and then the elected begin to work on their demise in full force. In fact, when it comes to the presidency, they call this effort “The First 100 Days.”
Today we will see this referendum on governmental reach in all of the key races. There are places where conservatives should have no chance at winning, considering the results of just a year ago. There is even a place where a 3rd party candidate is going to win just to spite the president AND the liberalization of the so-called conservative party.
Maybe it’s because they can see what’s happening. Democrats can read the polls: Independent swing voters are moving toward the right, and the Republican base. The wide American mainstream is broadening to include fiscal conservatives—yes, some of whom have all sorts of opinions on social issues—but they are united in their concern about the growing size and scope of government. Wasn’t that the lesson of August’s tea parties—that people of all stripes are concerned about massive government growth? Isn’t that what’s really threatening the left?
This is something that happens on both sides of the aisle, though tonight will be a referendum on the one year of government overreach by the Obama Administration. It will be spun as something entirely different, but there’s simply no other reason why fiscal conservatives would be winning in these areas that were so largely won by Obama just one year ago.
Jesus and his disciples left from there and began a journey through Galilee,
but he did not wish anyone to know about it.
He was teaching his disciples and telling them,
“The Son of Man is to be handed over to men
and they will kill him,
and three days after his death the Son of Man will rise.”
But they did not understand the saying,
and they were afraid to question him.
They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house,
he began to ask them,
“What were you arguing about on the way?”
But they remained silent.
They had been discussing among themselves on the way
who was the greatest.
Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them,
“If anyone wishes to be first,
he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.”
Taking a child, he placed it in the their midst,
and putting his arms around it, he said to them,
“Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me;
and whoever receives me,
receives not me but the One who sent me.”
Today’s gospel provides two relevant lessons for Americans (and people of the world). First of all, Christ warns the apostles that anyone who acts selfishly and worries about their own interests are in grave danger. This is especially fitting when looking at the candidates and the issues a person supports with their time and fortune.
The second lesson in resides in the example he uses — a child. Considering God was omniscient, this is a very telling example for all of the ages to come: that there is nothing more precious in this world than a child, even the lowest and most unworthy of children (as is the case in this example). Yet, Christ puts the child on the pedestal and says you cannot receive him without receiving the child.
Many Christian-Americans continue to vote according to their wants and needs, and not the needs of the least among us. They have continued to put issues like education, taxes, and government services ahead of the needs of the unborn. They have continued to discount the millions of children we mercilessly kill every year while propping up the need for free markets and civil liberty. The first freedom we are entitled to in this world, though, is Freedom. People should heed the words of an ultimate civil libertarian, Ron Paul:
Contrast that with a guy who many Ron Paul supporters also support, but whose priorities are truly mis-guided, and you don’t have a civil libertarian at all. Be very prayerful and thoughtful before you give any kind of support to a man like Peter Schiff. Supporting a man with the thoughts to come (below) is denying the very child that Christ is begging you to receive (and thus, the Father):
There are some great pieces that have come out this morning regarding the health care debate, and particularly as President Obama’s speech last night affects it.
We start with Fred Barnes, where he was looking for the answers to five basic questions to see if the president had gotten back on track in the debate. Among them:
4) Did he demonize the health care providers he’s actually made deals with? Well, not all of them, but the health insurers took their usual beating.
5) Did he repeat the false claims he’s made repeatedly in earlier speeches? Yes indeed. He brought up nearly all of them, including the ones on no abortion coverage, no loss of one’s current health insurance, and the “savings” that would come from more preventive care.
The subtext of these and dozens of similar stories is crystal clear-Obama is in early trouble and the fate of his presidency may be at stake. The presidency that many thought might resemble FDR’s is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter’s. The aspirations of last November are becoming the trepidations of this September.
Madonna and young state that it’s not even out of the question that, among challenges from the conservative right, Obama could even be in store for a challenge from the liberal left come 2012.
The San Diego Union-Tribune, calling the speech a “missed opportunity,” sums up the problem with the president’s claims nicely:
We need to have a full and open debate about these concerns. But based on his speech last night, Obama would have us believe that he has a blueprint for a health care system that miraculously would be both much cheaper and much bigger — and the only thing that those who doubt him can offer is “misinformation.”
Sorry, Mr. President. That’s just not true.
In the end, keep in mind that even Congress “cackled” at the comment Obama made that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.”
If you enjoyed this post, please use the “Tweet this!” button to share with your Twitter followers.
David Carlson has taken his political commentary to a new blog. Please make sure to visit him over at The Liberty Blogger. Of particular interest to me, see his post on school vouchers.
The Minnesota House of Representatives have released their state fair poll results, and there are some very interesting tidbits in it, including opinions on the use of medical marijuana and the use of two fishing poles at once.
I am catching up on my stack(s) of reading material that I have fallen behind on over the last several months and finally got to the January edition of Session Weekly. In it, I see where the “Governor’s Workforce Development Council” recommended policy where each student, from 9th grade on, would be required to have a career plan in place and have it reviewed annually until they were through with high school.
Rep. Steve Gottwalt (R-St. Cloud): “I get awfully concerned when we’re talking about mandating things on ninth graders and graduates in high school. The fact that we might require them to start building a creer path too early or too arbitrarily is a bit of a concern.”
Yet another instance where government considers themselves omniscient, and can quickly and efficiently make decisions that often take people a lifetime to make (for good and bad reasons). Yet another example where communistic ideas are creeping into our everyday lives, and without much of a fight, while people like Rep. Jeanne Poppe continue on a dangerous course.
“Ninth grade, to me, is almost too late to be thinking about where they want to be going,” said Poppe.
It’s all fun and games until some “expert” tells a 9th grader that it’s unrealistic that they will be a bio-medical engineer and starts them down a path far less challenging and rewarding. The “program” could self-fulfill their own prophecies, but that won’t make it a successful one.
As President Obama prepares to announce his first Supreme Court nominee in a little over a hundred minutes, we are finally seeing the true consequences of the irresponsible voter. When tasked with a decision between two men who could win, some chose the wrong one to be a part of history. Some chose a third party on some impractical principle. Others chose simply not to vote, because the better option wasn’t “better enough.” Today, it finally comes to fruition. All three of those groups have let us down, and the Constitution of this great nation takes another knife in the back. Ironic, isn’t it, falling the day after we remembered the fallen soldiers who fought for this great land? A Supreme Court nominee is the longest lasting, in certain terms, consequence of any presidency. Selfishness at the polls will last long, long into the night and cost many their freedom and many more their lives.
There will be plenty of wailing when this announcement is made. Unless you voted for the only option better than the reality that we have, I don’t want to hear it from you. At least not today.
Update: It looks like it is going to be Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
It’s always a fascinating practice to take a look at the public relations job politicians do on the campaign trail. It’s always a challenge in a job where living in the gray might give you a chance on issues that are black and white, if only because it appears that you are both sides. When it comes to abortion it seems that there are two positions:
Pro-life: mostly or completely against abortion. (I lump in mostly because there are politicians who want to make exceptions for rape/incest, which I believe is wrong, but they are otherwise on target.)
Those that believe that abortion is a personal choice, but they want to reduce the need for abortion.
This begs the question: if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why would we waste our time and effort to reduce the need for it? Clearly the politician does find something wrong with abortion or they would simply throw the issue out with the trash. Next time you get the opportunity to confront one of these abortion reductionist politicians, ask them why they are even bothering. The answer could be quite interesting.
"Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." -Cardinal Egan
Latest Entry
