It's all you hear in the news these days - the Health Care bills.
One the one side, conservatives who want to fix ONLY what is wrong - the expense of health care. On the other side, the liberals who want to completely gut the entire health care industry and rebuild it to government specs, to give the government the ultimate power over its citizens.
So, where do you stand? That should be an easy question, being from Maine, where we already have a "government option" health care system. It's called DIRIGO. When first introduced, we were told it would insure 150,000 (it only insures 10,000); we were told it would reduce costs (costs have increased 73%); and we were told it would be paid for by savings (there were no savings).
These are the exact same claims Congress is making for their health care bill, which is basically DIRIGO SENIOR. It has not worked in Maine, and it will not work nationally.
Massachusetts also instituted a state-subsidized health care system. It, too, has bankrupted the state. The same with two other states that initiated such plans - in no case do they provide what the sponsors promised.
So, now we have a chance to stand up and say "Enough!" If we do not, then we will be forever stuck with a substandard, increasingly expensive health care system we will come to hate.
/
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The "News"
I am not advocating for or against any political party in this particular post, it is important to every citizen of America.
Our rights, and our futures, depend upon whether or not we get the "straight" news about what is going on. If we get our news from a media lies to us, or omits critical information, then we are not informed. And if we are not informed, our freedoms, rights and the future of our children dissipate.
So it is critical we get our news from a source that provides ALL the news.
To that end, ask yourself if your media reported on the news that Van Johnson, one of the administration's "czars", was a criminal and self-proclaimed communist. And did they report on it BEFORE or AFTER he was forced to resign? And ask yourself if your source reported on the ACORN videos long before, or after, they became public and Congress acted to defund them. Or have they bothered to tell you that over 30 ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud and voter registration fraud, among other things? Or that one of the ACORN founders embezzled over a million taxpayer dollars from ACORN, and ACORN never pressed charges? And did your source tell you about the part of the Baucus health care bill that says you will go to jail if you do not buy insurance? Or that all health care proposals include language that will cut Medicare funding by 500 billion dollars? And did your source point out the fraud in the Stimulus Bill? Or all the pork that was in it?
All of those important stories turned out to be 100% factual. But only one news source reported them. Why? Because they know that it is easier to lead, and take advantage of people who are ill-informed and ignorant of what is going on.
As you can see, getting ALL the facts is important if we are to make informed choices in our own lives. And most of the media are not giving us those facts until they are forced to by public uproar. But where is that uproar coming from if most media are hiding the truth from you?
I watch the news from many sources, to make sure I have all the facts, and not just the cherry-picked parts that an agenda-driven media presents. And in every case - EVERY case - the only media that gave me all the news was Fox. Think what you like about Fox, but the fact remains that they were on the ACORN, Van Johnson, Stimulus Fraud and the Baucus health care jail long before any other media. And the fact remains that, to this day, many in the media STILL have not reported on these things, or have sharply minimalized the stories. And viewership of FOX now exceeds the viewership of ALL other news media combined. Why? Maybe it is BECAUSE more and more folks from both sides are discovering that only Fox gives you all the news.
Two separate polls (Zogby was one) last election day asked voters certain questions about politics - simple questions that everyone should have known the answers to. As it turned out, the best informed voters were those who claimed to get their news from either FOX, or talk radio, or both. Those individuals got over 80% of the answers correct, on average, while those who got their news from the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN only got an average of 22% correct.
I hate pain. But it is pain that tells me when something is wrong, and makes me seek medical attention so I can fix what is wrong. Hate Fox News if you wish. But if you want to be INFORMED, you should be watching it, regardless of your party affiliation, and in spite of your personal feelings. Because being informed is not just a luxury - in today's world, it is essential.
And well-informed people are better armed to win debates, and make good choices. Choose to be well-informed, even if it hurts!
/
Our rights, and our futures, depend upon whether or not we get the "straight" news about what is going on. If we get our news from a media lies to us, or omits critical information, then we are not informed. And if we are not informed, our freedoms, rights and the future of our children dissipate.
So it is critical we get our news from a source that provides ALL the news.
To that end, ask yourself if your media reported on the news that Van Johnson, one of the administration's "czars", was a criminal and self-proclaimed communist. And did they report on it BEFORE or AFTER he was forced to resign? And ask yourself if your source reported on the ACORN videos long before, or after, they became public and Congress acted to defund them. Or have they bothered to tell you that over 30 ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud and voter registration fraud, among other things? Or that one of the ACORN founders embezzled over a million taxpayer dollars from ACORN, and ACORN never pressed charges? And did your source tell you about the part of the Baucus health care bill that says you will go to jail if you do not buy insurance? Or that all health care proposals include language that will cut Medicare funding by 500 billion dollars? And did your source point out the fraud in the Stimulus Bill? Or all the pork that was in it?
All of those important stories turned out to be 100% factual. But only one news source reported them. Why? Because they know that it is easier to lead, and take advantage of people who are ill-informed and ignorant of what is going on.
As you can see, getting ALL the facts is important if we are to make informed choices in our own lives. And most of the media are not giving us those facts until they are forced to by public uproar. But where is that uproar coming from if most media are hiding the truth from you?
I watch the news from many sources, to make sure I have all the facts, and not just the cherry-picked parts that an agenda-driven media presents. And in every case - EVERY case - the only media that gave me all the news was Fox. Think what you like about Fox, but the fact remains that they were on the ACORN, Van Johnson, Stimulus Fraud and the Baucus health care jail long before any other media. And the fact remains that, to this day, many in the media STILL have not reported on these things, or have sharply minimalized the stories. And viewership of FOX now exceeds the viewership of ALL other news media combined. Why? Maybe it is BECAUSE more and more folks from both sides are discovering that only Fox gives you all the news.
Two separate polls (Zogby was one) last election day asked voters certain questions about politics - simple questions that everyone should have known the answers to. As it turned out, the best informed voters were those who claimed to get their news from either FOX, or talk radio, or both. Those individuals got over 80% of the answers correct, on average, while those who got their news from the New York Times, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN only got an average of 22% correct.
I hate pain. But it is pain that tells me when something is wrong, and makes me seek medical attention so I can fix what is wrong. Hate Fox News if you wish. But if you want to be INFORMED, you should be watching it, regardless of your party affiliation, and in spite of your personal feelings. Because being informed is not just a luxury - in today's world, it is essential.
And well-informed people are better armed to win debates, and make good choices. Choose to be well-informed, even if it hurts!
/
Monday, September 28, 2009
Health Care Jail
Did you know that the Health Care plan proposed by Sen. Baucus has a section that states if you do not buy health insurance you will be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished with either a $25,000 fine OR A YEAR IN JAIL?
Can you believe these people? Not only do they want to violate your Constitutional Rights by FORCING you to spend your money on something you may not want or need, but they want to put you in prison if you do not comply with their Gestapo tactics.
Think about this - if for some reason you lose your insurance, you would be forced to spend $3800 to enter the "government" option, or go to jail. Hell, for most folks, if they do not have insurance it is because they cannot afford it. So the Democrats want to put you behind bars for being broke.
Don't think so? Think again. Baucus has already admitted that it exists in the bill. Now think about this - let's say the government says if you earn more than $48,000 a year, you can "afford" the $3800/year for their insurance. Yet, for all they know, your bills and expenses come to $48,000 a year. So how will you pay $3800 for insurance without going bankrupt and losing everything? In other words, it will not matter how much debt you already have - if you EARN a certain amount, the government says you can afford it - even if you cannot. So, you go to JAIL!
In America! With each passing day, the Obama Administration is changing America from the land of the free to the land of the enslaved.
Of course, the liberal media refuses to tell folks about this part of the Baucus bill, because they know the folks would revolt, big time. As far as I can tell, the only news source to show this is Fox News. No wonder it beats ALL other news stations combined.
Folks - if you have an ounce of common sense and a modicum of interest in what kind of future our children will have, get on the horn and call your senators and congressmen TODAY. Tell them if they vote for the health care bill, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. This is far too important for anyone to sit on their hands and hope someone else will fight the fight for them.
/
Can you believe these people? Not only do they want to violate your Constitutional Rights by FORCING you to spend your money on something you may not want or need, but they want to put you in prison if you do not comply with their Gestapo tactics.
Think about this - if for some reason you lose your insurance, you would be forced to spend $3800 to enter the "government" option, or go to jail. Hell, for most folks, if they do not have insurance it is because they cannot afford it. So the Democrats want to put you behind bars for being broke.
Don't think so? Think again. Baucus has already admitted that it exists in the bill. Now think about this - let's say the government says if you earn more than $48,000 a year, you can "afford" the $3800/year for their insurance. Yet, for all they know, your bills and expenses come to $48,000 a year. So how will you pay $3800 for insurance without going bankrupt and losing everything? In other words, it will not matter how much debt you already have - if you EARN a certain amount, the government says you can afford it - even if you cannot. So, you go to JAIL!
In America! With each passing day, the Obama Administration is changing America from the land of the free to the land of the enslaved.
Of course, the liberal media refuses to tell folks about this part of the Baucus bill, because they know the folks would revolt, big time. As far as I can tell, the only news source to show this is Fox News. No wonder it beats ALL other news stations combined.
Folks - if you have an ounce of common sense and a modicum of interest in what kind of future our children will have, get on the horn and call your senators and congressmen TODAY. Tell them if they vote for the health care bill, you will vote for their opponent in the next election. This is far too important for anyone to sit on their hands and hope someone else will fight the fight for them.
/
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Should Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)Be Banned?
Read on, then vote in the poll on the left margin:
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Unfortunately, the dangers of DHMO have increased as world population has increased, a fact that the raw numbers and careful research both bear out. Now more than ever, it is important to be aware of just what the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are and how we can all reduce the risks faced by ourselves and our families.
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved.
Knowing these statistics and facts, do you think DHMO should be banned? Please cast your vote.
/
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Unfortunately, the dangers of DHMO have increased as world population has increased, a fact that the raw numbers and careful research both bear out. Now more than ever, it is important to be aware of just what the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide are and how we can all reduce the risks faced by ourselves and our families.
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
- Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
- Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
- Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
- DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
- Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
- Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
- Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
- Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
- Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
- Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes
- including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
- Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect
Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
- as an industrial solvent and coolant,
in nuclear power plants, - by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
- by elite athletes to improve performance,
- in the production of Styrofoam,
- in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
- in the development of genetically engineered crops and animals,
- as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
- in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
- as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
in cult rituals, - by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
- by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
- historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
- in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
- during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
- by many terrorist organizations including al Quaeda,
in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes, - in animal research laboratories, and
- in pesticide production and distribution.
- as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
- in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
- in spray-on oven cleaners,
- in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
- in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
- as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
- in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
- in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad
A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved.
Knowing these statistics and facts, do you think DHMO should be banned? Please cast your vote.
/
Monday, August 3, 2009
Is Health Care System "Broken"
Democrats keep repeating that the health care system in America is "broken". But nothing is further from the truth.
Let us begin with a couple of simple, undeniable facts:
1) America has the best, highest quality health care in the world, and
2) America has the most expensive health care in the world
What this tells us is that the health care in America is not broken - it is just expensive.
The Democrats want to tear down the entire system, radically change it, and hopefully make it affordable in the process while putting it under government control.
Republicans on the other hand, have offered a plan that deals with the expense, while leaving our great health care untouched.
Historically, the government has never - I repeat, NEVER - successfuilly run anything except wars. So it is unlikely that the Democrat plan would succeed, and would only serve to reduce the quality of our health care to that of Canada or the UK.
But although the Republican plan makes more sense, and would likely have the desired result, the Democrat-controlled Congress will not even allow it to be presented for a vote.
So much for bipartisanship.
In the Democrat plan, there is much more than meets the eye. You have all heard about the sections that say a bureaucrat will determine who gets what care, based on life expectancy and usefulness versus cost. But there is a tremendous amount of other poison in that 1000 page bill. For example, in section 440 the government would be permitted to have their social engineers enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children, and teach them the "right" values.
That is but one small part of this bill. But what it all boils down to is this: the liberals now controlling this nation want to create a nanny state, dictating our lives from cradle to grave. This would give them everlasting power and control. And health care is the only method of achieving that. Under a health care bill, they can dictate what is best for us. Teach our children their own values. Choose who will live, who will die. Who suffers, and who gets treatment.
Think about it - any government that controls the health of its citizens CONTROLS THOSE CITIZENS!
Do you recall that science fiction show where one alien race got another alien race addicted to a drug, then used that to control the race to fight their wars for them? If they fought, they got their fix. If they did not, they would die from the withdrawal. That is the power of government health care.
The republicans, on the other hand, want the folks to be able to better control their own health. This would be done with legislation designed to bring down costs. How?
As an example, it would include tort reform. One of the reasons health care is so expensive is because fear of lawsuits force doctors and hospital to order many tests and treatments that are not necessary, so they can say they tried everything. In addition, the excessive cost of malpractice INSURANCE adds to your health bill. And that cost is so high because the current laws have no cap on judgements.
Ergo, tort reform could reduce medical costs by up to 20% without affecting the quality of care.
Another cost-cutter is health savings accounts, particularly if they are coupled with a co-op. If you have ever joined a grocery co-op, you understand. By pooling resouces, you can get the care you need for less. And with health savings accounts, you reduce your taxes accordingly while building up cash to pay for future medical costs.
Most folks need catastrophic insurance, to cover major issues like cancer, or surgery. And because coverage is limited only to catastrophic care, which only a small percentage of folks need, it is much cheaper than full coverage. Therefore, the average person could have catastrophic insurance provided by employers (or a credit given to self-employed people), while their health savings account covers everything else other than catastrophic care. And YOU control it.
All in all, the result would be to reduce medical costs by at least 40 percent while leaving the quality and availability of healh care untouched.
Some folks, however, think health care should just be free, paid for by the government. But that is not realistic - there is a price for everything, and nothing is free. We would still have to pay for it one way or another, through taxes, and it would result in government control which, as pointed out earlier, would reduce the quality and availability of care.
And there are those, among the Democrats, that believe insurance for all is the answer. It is not, and here is why: insurance is the problem, not the solution. Think about it - if you have 100% coverage, you will be more apt to run to the emergency room for every little discomfort, since you are not paying for it. If uninsured, you would think twice before incurring ER costs to deal with a minor cut on your 5 year old's knee.
And all that abuse and demand on the health care system drives up costs. But with health savings accounts, you would be more prone to conserving that money and not waste it.
Do you need proof that insurance is the problem? Test it. Call your local hospital and tell them your doctor is prescribing a colonoscopy, and you want to know how much it will cost. They will ask if you have insurance, because they charge differently if you do. If insured, the charge can be as much as 300% higher. So, tell them you have Blue Cross/Blue Shield - what would be the charge. It will likely be around $1500.
A few days later, using a different name, make the same call. This time, however, tell them you have no insurance and this will be self-pay, in cash, and you need to know how much. Chances are they will quote a cost around $500-$800.
And that is why insurance is the problem - the health providers screw insurers, resulting in much higher-than-necessary insurance premiums.
Are you getting the picture?
The health care system is not broken. It is simply expensive. And that can be dealt with easily, without jeopardizing the quality or availability of the care, and without entrusting it to a government that could not even run the "Cash For Clunkers" program efficiently.
/
Let us begin with a couple of simple, undeniable facts:
1) America has the best, highest quality health care in the world, and
2) America has the most expensive health care in the world
What this tells us is that the health care in America is not broken - it is just expensive.
The Democrats want to tear down the entire system, radically change it, and hopefully make it affordable in the process while putting it under government control.
Republicans on the other hand, have offered a plan that deals with the expense, while leaving our great health care untouched.
Historically, the government has never - I repeat, NEVER - successfuilly run anything except wars. So it is unlikely that the Democrat plan would succeed, and would only serve to reduce the quality of our health care to that of Canada or the UK.
But although the Republican plan makes more sense, and would likely have the desired result, the Democrat-controlled Congress will not even allow it to be presented for a vote.
So much for bipartisanship.
In the Democrat plan, there is much more than meets the eye. You have all heard about the sections that say a bureaucrat will determine who gets what care, based on life expectancy and usefulness versus cost. But there is a tremendous amount of other poison in that 1000 page bill. For example, in section 440 the government would be permitted to have their social engineers enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children, and teach them the "right" values.
That is but one small part of this bill. But what it all boils down to is this: the liberals now controlling this nation want to create a nanny state, dictating our lives from cradle to grave. This would give them everlasting power and control. And health care is the only method of achieving that. Under a health care bill, they can dictate what is best for us. Teach our children their own values. Choose who will live, who will die. Who suffers, and who gets treatment.
Think about it - any government that controls the health of its citizens CONTROLS THOSE CITIZENS!
Do you recall that science fiction show where one alien race got another alien race addicted to a drug, then used that to control the race to fight their wars for them? If they fought, they got their fix. If they did not, they would die from the withdrawal. That is the power of government health care.
The republicans, on the other hand, want the folks to be able to better control their own health. This would be done with legislation designed to bring down costs. How?
As an example, it would include tort reform. One of the reasons health care is so expensive is because fear of lawsuits force doctors and hospital to order many tests and treatments that are not necessary, so they can say they tried everything. In addition, the excessive cost of malpractice INSURANCE adds to your health bill. And that cost is so high because the current laws have no cap on judgements.
Ergo, tort reform could reduce medical costs by up to 20% without affecting the quality of care.
Another cost-cutter is health savings accounts, particularly if they are coupled with a co-op. If you have ever joined a grocery co-op, you understand. By pooling resouces, you can get the care you need for less. And with health savings accounts, you reduce your taxes accordingly while building up cash to pay for future medical costs.
Most folks need catastrophic insurance, to cover major issues like cancer, or surgery. And because coverage is limited only to catastrophic care, which only a small percentage of folks need, it is much cheaper than full coverage. Therefore, the average person could have catastrophic insurance provided by employers (or a credit given to self-employed people), while their health savings account covers everything else other than catastrophic care. And YOU control it.
All in all, the result would be to reduce medical costs by at least 40 percent while leaving the quality and availability of healh care untouched.
Some folks, however, think health care should just be free, paid for by the government. But that is not realistic - there is a price for everything, and nothing is free. We would still have to pay for it one way or another, through taxes, and it would result in government control which, as pointed out earlier, would reduce the quality and availability of care.
And there are those, among the Democrats, that believe insurance for all is the answer. It is not, and here is why: insurance is the problem, not the solution. Think about it - if you have 100% coverage, you will be more apt to run to the emergency room for every little discomfort, since you are not paying for it. If uninsured, you would think twice before incurring ER costs to deal with a minor cut on your 5 year old's knee.
And all that abuse and demand on the health care system drives up costs. But with health savings accounts, you would be more prone to conserving that money and not waste it.
Do you need proof that insurance is the problem? Test it. Call your local hospital and tell them your doctor is prescribing a colonoscopy, and you want to know how much it will cost. They will ask if you have insurance, because they charge differently if you do. If insured, the charge can be as much as 300% higher. So, tell them you have Blue Cross/Blue Shield - what would be the charge. It will likely be around $1500.
A few days later, using a different name, make the same call. This time, however, tell them you have no insurance and this will be self-pay, in cash, and you need to know how much. Chances are they will quote a cost around $500-$800.
And that is why insurance is the problem - the health providers screw insurers, resulting in much higher-than-necessary insurance premiums.
Are you getting the picture?
The health care system is not broken. It is simply expensive. And that can be dealt with easily, without jeopardizing the quality or availability of the care, and without entrusting it to a government that could not even run the "Cash For Clunkers" program efficiently.
/
Friday, July 31, 2009
Not In The News
Not likely to be seen in the "mainstream" (liberal) media:
Senior citizens (AKA "The People") descended upon Senator Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) office today with questions and concerns about the health care bill she is supporting. Apparently unaware that she is supposed to be representing the people, the Feinstein Office called police to have those pesky American Voters removed.
Talk about elitism and an inability to connect with the folks...
Section 440 of that health bill allows government social(ist) workers to enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children properly, and "teach" you how to instill the "right" values in your children
Can you say "1984 Big Brother Nazi-ism"?
/
Senior citizens (AKA "The People") descended upon Senator Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) office today with questions and concerns about the health care bill she is supporting. Apparently unaware that she is supposed to be representing the people, the Feinstein Office called police to have those pesky American Voters removed.
Talk about elitism and an inability to connect with the folks...
Section 440 of that health bill allows government social(ist) workers to enter your home and "teach" you how to raise your children properly, and "teach" you how to instill the "right" values in your children
Can you say "1984 Big Brother Nazi-ism"?
/
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Talk About Obscene
The Democratic Stimulus Bill that was passed a couple months ago handed out 80 million dollars to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
So what, you say?
Well, as it turns out, the NEA has handed out much of that money in grants to companies like CounterPulse and Frameline to produce porn. Yep, you heard right - YOUR money is being used to create more hard-core pornography.
Now some folks - particularly liberals - will say that people who are bothered by this are simply trying to censor free speech. Not so! If a company wants to create porn, fine. If a person wants to see it, fine. The problem that SANE people have with this is that they are using TAXPAYER MONEY to do it. And most taxpayers find that objectionable.
The government should never force Americans to become a party to anything that may violate their religious beliefs, or offend their conscience. In most religions, if you participate in any way, or stand by while a sin is being committed, you are considered to be as much a sinner as the person sinning. By using tax money for porn, every religious American is being forced to participate in creating pornography, and is violating their beliefs and offending their God.
That may be OK for atheists or liberals, but not for the remaining 82% of Americans. If atheists or anyone else wants to fund porn, no one is stopping them. But they have no right to force the rest of us into their leaky, Godless boat.
And that is exactly what happens when the government acts rashly and hastily, and our elected officials do not read the bills they pass (not a single Congress person read the stimulus bill - not one)! And that is what happens when we, the People, don't stand up and be counted.
And I thought the 3 million dollars to build a tunnel for turtles was absurd.
If anyone wants to see into the future, to see what America would be like with the government taking care of everyone, and national health care and other entitlements, take heart - there is already one group of Americans that have been "cared for" by the government for over 100 years. You can look at them and see the future of government care.
Who are these people? Native American Indians that live on reservations. No group of Americans has ever received more "care" from the government, and no other group has ever been in worse shape.
/
So what, you say?
Well, as it turns out, the NEA has handed out much of that money in grants to companies like CounterPulse and Frameline to produce porn. Yep, you heard right - YOUR money is being used to create more hard-core pornography.
Now some folks - particularly liberals - will say that people who are bothered by this are simply trying to censor free speech. Not so! If a company wants to create porn, fine. If a person wants to see it, fine. The problem that SANE people have with this is that they are using TAXPAYER MONEY to do it. And most taxpayers find that objectionable.
The government should never force Americans to become a party to anything that may violate their religious beliefs, or offend their conscience. In most religions, if you participate in any way, or stand by while a sin is being committed, you are considered to be as much a sinner as the person sinning. By using tax money for porn, every religious American is being forced to participate in creating pornography, and is violating their beliefs and offending their God.
That may be OK for atheists or liberals, but not for the remaining 82% of Americans. If atheists or anyone else wants to fund porn, no one is stopping them. But they have no right to force the rest of us into their leaky, Godless boat.
And that is exactly what happens when the government acts rashly and hastily, and our elected officials do not read the bills they pass (not a single Congress person read the stimulus bill - not one)! And that is what happens when we, the People, don't stand up and be counted.
And I thought the 3 million dollars to build a tunnel for turtles was absurd.
If anyone wants to see into the future, to see what America would be like with the government taking care of everyone, and national health care and other entitlements, take heart - there is already one group of Americans that have been "cared for" by the government for over 100 years. You can look at them and see the future of government care.
Who are these people? Native American Indians that live on reservations. No group of Americans has ever received more "care" from the government, and no other group has ever been in worse shape.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)