About Us

Name: Stefano
Location: Clayton, MO
Biography
Name:
Email: tectonic.stl@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Is It Time to Take Back the Democrat Party?

 I have been thinking about this idea for some time. I would be curious about what your thoughts might be on this subject. Please think about it and comment.

I was once a Democrat. I must say that the thing that drove me from the party was when McGovern declared that he would go to Hanoi on his knees if necessary to gain peace with the communists. That was the last straw. Later, the collapse of the party into rank liberalism confirmed the validity of my decision to leave. There must be millions of citizens in this country who have experienced the same thing, although the catalyst for their move might have been different. The Democrat party has become an “outlaw” in our republic. Their policies and philosophy are antithetical to what the founders of this nation had in mind when the constitution was ratified. They use whatever deceit is necessary to achieve their goals. They place jurists in positions of authority who give lip service to the clear written words of the founding documents, while at the same time they are reading their own subjective feelings and beliefs into their decisions. They give every indication through massive, expensive boondoggles like national health care and climate change bills that they have no respect for our personal liberty and freedom. The Democrat party is now controlled by a leftist fringe that, with respect to the Constitution, is American in name only.

It seems that the most effective current rhetorical mode of gaining political advantage is an appeal for change. Obama used this to good effect last year and he continues to attempt to invoke that tactic in the health care debate by deceptively invoking the charge that those who are opposed to his program want the status quo, not change. Another mode of attack is the “Take back”.   That would be to take back the country or take back the reins of power, as if those in power were there illegitimately. That tactic has been very effective in the recent tea party movement and, of course, was effective during the last national election. 

Is it time to take back the Democrat party? Is it time for change in the Democrat party? There is already a thorn in the side of that party represented by the group known as the “Blue Dogs”. I don’t know if the “Blue Dogs” are truly fiscally and socially conservative as they claim to be, but some no doubt are. The success of the “Blue Dogs” suggests that the Democrat Party is very vulnerable right now to a conservative revolution from within its ranks. 

I believe that it is time to take back the Democrat party from its liberal wing. It’s time for a return to the ideals of the type of Democrats personified by Truman, JFK, and Scoop Jackson. I am not endorsing everything these guys stood for, but their policies are light years away from what we face now with the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Baucus. The knee jerk socialist anti-defense, high tax Democrat Party of today bears no resemblance to the party of history. Granted, the socialist overreach of FDR with Social Security and Truman with the takeover of the steel industry reveals a dangerous socialist tendency, but historically the party has never been characterized by the all out crass socialist agenda that we see today. The high tax anti-growth agenda of the majority in Congress has now sparked a grass roots movement that reaches across many demographic lines and is in the process of gutting a vital constituency of the Democrats: senior citizens. The removal of 500 billion dollars from Medicare is more than even a yellow dog democrat can take. Obama has now attempted to bribe seniors with a $250 government check to keep them on his side of the political ledger.  In those states where voters can cross party lines to vote in primaries, the Democrats could be particularly vulnerable.  Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” last year showed that crossovers can be a very effective strategy. I believe that it might be time to recruit conservatives to run against democrats in the democrat primaries. It seems that whenever an “independent “runs, it is as a Republican or Libertarian. The Democrats get a free ride to the general election. We should be challenging Democrats in their own primaries with independent, conservative, fiscally responsible non politician candidates in the mode of conservative democrats of the past and blue dogs of the present time. It’s time to flush as many liberals and bogus blue dogs out of the Democrat party as possible.

If a large number of conservatives were to decide to run against congressional Democrats through next year’s Democrat primaries, the result might include but not be limited to: 

    1. 
Some liberals might be defeated, resulting in two conservatives running in the final November election. That would be a good thing. 
    
    2.
  The independent might be defeated in the primary, in which case, that person would have the option of endorsing and campaigning for whichever party has the most conservative candidate. 

    3.  
Incumbent Democrats would be forced to drain money from their campaign funds to combat a threat from a conservative independent opponent, resulting in their loss of funds for the general election.     

    4. 
“Blue Dogs” who are currently in Congress would be forced now to respond to health care bills, energy bills, stimulus bills, budget bills and earmarks in a fiscally conservative manner.

This tactic could have beneficial effects right now as listed in #4 above. Simply by announcing that an exploratory committee has been formed to decide whether to run might drive current “Blue Dogs” to stand by the promises they made when running last year for Congress. It could drive a stake into the heart of the ill-advised Obama Care program and the Cap and Trade boondoggle. It might cause current conservative Democrats to make true bipartisan coalitions with Republicans to advance a healthcare reform bill that doesn’t take a wrecking ball to our current system.

Perhaps this is just a pipe dream, but I suspect that the comments to this post will be interesting. 


 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Does God Think About America’s Health Care Debate?

The following article was written by Doug Merkey of Churches for Life.  It is a scholarly treatment of the current health care debate in the light of Christian scripture.  This might be effectively used for gently enlightening your Christian friends who are in favor of what is being proposed in the House and Senate.  A link to a PDF file is available at the bottom for use in printing the article.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               What Does God Think About America’s Health Care Debate?
 
All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the people of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work(2 Timothy 3:16-17, emphasis added) 
“God, do you actually mean that Your Word is relevant to the current work our federal government is doing regarding health care?”
“Well, do you think your government’s work on health care is included under ‘every good work’?”
“Hmm… when You put it that way, I guess so....”
“You got it! My Word actually is more important to this subject than all the polls, trends, global norms, statistics, and economic factors you tend to lean on for guidance. As a Christian, it’s especially relevant for you so you can know your part in the government’s work on health care.”
“Oh… OK. So, what do You have to say about it, then?”
“I’m glad you asked!”
                 
God on the Role for Civil Governments in General
 
God’s design for Israel’s civil government during the Old Testament era was a theocracy.  In this structure, God Himself was King and the church and civil government were intimately intertwined under His leadership to harmoniously fulfill His will. With the first advent of Christ, biblical theocracy as an ordained governmental form ended and the responsibilities and relationship between the civil government and the church changed. In the New Testament era, both the church and the civil government have an interest in the well-being of people. Yet today they operate “as planets moving in concentric orbits.”1 The church’s interest and authority is spiritual, does not include the use of physical force, and is framed directly by the Scriptures. A godly civil government is framed by Scriptural principles, human reason and providence, and includes the use of physical force in carrying out these broad mandates: 
  1. Restrain evil.2 God gives the civil government the “power of the sword” for the express purpose of restraining evil/evildoers as He defines it/them. A government that uses the sword (physical force up to and including death) to perform, promote, or protect evil/evildoers is itself doing evil in God’s sight.
  2. Promote human welfare.3 While the application of this mandate varies, the overwhelming biblical emphasis points to promoting justice, especially for the defenseless and weak. A government that performs or promotes harm to its citizens (as God defines “harm”), especially the weakest in its midst, is doing evil in God’s sight.
  3. Provide freedom.4 Freedom, defined biblically, is the ability to do that which conforms to God’s Word. Though exact methods for carrying this out are not mandated by Scripture, the most God-honoring governments work to foster, not hinder, this type of freedom. A government that curtails freedom or encourages lawlessness (cf. anarchy or relativistic indulgence in individually-defined values) as God defines it is doing evil in His sight. 
God on America’s National Health Care Initiative in Particular
 
If the three tenets above are true, then a God-honoring government can and perhaps should be involved in caring for the health of its citizens, at least to some degree. Yet how a godly government does this must coincide with God’s prescriptions, above. If a government’s involvement in health care is godly, its work must restrain evil, promote human welfare, and provide freedom as God defines such things in His Word. For example, it is obviously ungodly for a government to “care” for its citizens’ health by allowing harm or directly harming or killing its weakest members.  
 
In this light, how does the present health care legislation being considered by America’s federal government measure up? This question focuses on two federal health care bills backed by President Obama: (1) HR3200 in the Federal House of Representatives, and (2) The Kennedy Bill (named for its sponsor, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the U.S. Senate. It is predicted that these bills will be revised and brought to the floors of their respective houses for a vote in September, 2009. Together, they would create a national government-run health insurance plan often called the “public plan” or the “public option.” These plans will compete with private insurance providers and will be run entirely by the federal government. Enrollees will pay premiums to the federal government which will subsidize the cost of care through taxes.
 
On the positive side, these 1,017-plus page bills may show that our federal government is seeking justice, welfare, and freedom for its citizens. That is commendable. However, the brand of justice, welfare, and freedom it is seeking is riddled with evil. In fact, while there may be provisions in the present legislation that adhere to Scriptural principles, there are several items which grossly violate God’s mandates for civil government, and are therefore an affront to His character and authority.    
  • In the Kennedy Bill at least, medical services deemed as “essential benefits” or as “medically necessary” include elective abortion.5
  • HR3200’s funding stream does not pass through the Hyde Amendment sieve which would restrict taxpayer funding for abortions. HR3200 allows federal tax funding for abortion. 
  • The Capps Amendment to HR3200 requires that premiums paid by enrollees for the federal health plan include the cost to cover abortions. There is no provision to opt out of this facet of coverage.
  • HR3200 establishes an office called the Health Choices Commissioner that will establish standards for services and providers. Abortion is one of those standards.
  • Section 1233 of HR3200 includes provisions for prescribing euthanasia6 as an end-of-life treatment.
  • There is nothing in these bills that protects a provider’s right of conscience. So, if standards are set by government agencies (e.g. Health Benefits Advisory Committee mandating euthanasia as a “medical necessity”) conflict with a provider’s conscience (e.g. a Christian hospital or medical practitioner whose beliefs disallow providing euthanasia), that provider must either deny his conscience or be denied eligibility under the federal plan. 
What Now, God?
 
Based on the biblical analysis above, the present health care legislation being considered by our federal government violates God’s mandates for civil government. Therefore, it is right and reasonable for Christians to graciously oppose it by remembering these biblical insights: 
  1. Reconnect with the gospel.7 Before expressing your opposition, check the gospel in your own heart. Remember that you, too, violate God’s mandates and therefore deserve His wrath. Remember that God graciously saved you from this self-deserved fate by His free mercy in the gospel of Christ. As this gospel washes over your heart, it will diffuse any creeping self-righteousness, condescension or pride that might lead to inflamed, indignant, or disrespectful words and actions on your part. The gospel-filled heart carries no stones to hurl at others, even those caught in evil.
  2. Honor leaders.8 God installs kings and governments Himself, and commands us to honor them at all times because He has installed them. In fact, how we treat our leaders directly reveals and reflects how we treat God. We are especially called to pray for our leaders.
  3. Speak the truth in love.9 True “freedom of speech” as God defines it is the ability to say what is biblically edifying in ways that are humble and gracious. Whether it is calling, emailing, writing, or visiting legislators, do it in love… to God’s glory!
  4. Equip Others. If you are a pastor, a Life Team, or someone others look to for guidance, share this article with them. It is important for Christians in particular to be equipped with a biblical worldview on such important matters in a way that leads to godly action.

1 PCA Book of Church Order, 5th edition, 1997, chapter 3, see also Matt. 22:21, John 18:362 Rom. 13:1-9
2 Rom. 13:1-9
3 Ex. 23:6, Deut. 24:17ff, Luke 3:14, Rom. 13:1-9, 2 Pet. 2
4 Spiritual freedom – freedom from sin - is in the foreground of Scripture (Rom. 6:14-23, Col. 1:13, John 12:30-33, Gal. 2:4, 4:5, 5:1). Political freedom is not highlighted, but can be deduced from various incidences like God’s delivering Israel from Egypt in Exodus (Ex. 2-14, Isa. 61:1, Luke 4:18), the glory of His Word (Ps. 19, 119) and from His moral character and mandates in general.
5 Abortion is the killing of a human being, and therefore blatantly violates God’s imperative to promote human welfare and provide freedom for an entire class of citizens. To enact a plan that condones by paying and legally endorsing/protecting abortionists (e.g. “evildoers’ in God’s sight), the civil government is using it’s God-given “power of the sword” in ways totally contrary to Scripture. Condoning abortion is particularly offensive to God because it involves a deadly assault on the weakest of all citizens whom the civil government is called to protect.
6 Euthanasia, as defined by Encarta World English Dictionary (1998-2004), is the act or practice of killing somebody who has an incurable illness or injury, or allowing or assisting that person to die. The government’s condoning this practice by listing providers and allowing this act as a “medical treatment” violates all the mandates for godly civil government.  Like abortion, condoning euthanasia is particularly offensive to God because it involves a deadly assault on the weakest of all citizens whom the civil government is called to protect.
7 John 8, Rom. 5, esp. vv. 1 & 8, Rom. 12, Gal. 6:1-2. Also, consider singing the great hymn, Amazing Grace.
8 Num. 16:41-50, Josh. 5, Acts 26, 1 Tim. 2, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thes. 5:12-13, also look at Jesus’ ministry in the gospel and how He spoke with people in general and ignorant leaders in particular.
9 Ps. 82, Prov. 15:1, 24:11-12, Matt. 5:13ff, John 13:34-35, 1 Cor. 13, Eph. 5:11, James 3, 1 Pet. 1:22
 
Here is a link to this article in PDF form for printing: 
 
   http://www.getintolife.org/Portals/3/PDFs/God%20on%20Americas%20Health%20Care%20Debate,%20reprint.pdf
 
 
Churches for Life mission details:

CFL’s Vision - the long-term result of God’s working through CFL

A holistically life-affirming America resulting from a Gospel-driven, holistically life-affirming American Church.

CFL’s Mission - the concise and practical, yet broad summation of what God’s wants to accomplish with and through CFL

Churches for life exists to nourish churches as gospel-driven champions of life.

CFL’s Strategiesspecific categories of ministry that contribute to God’s accomplishing His mission and vision for CFL

1. Establish Life Teams (LTs) in local churches.
2. Encourage local pastors and church leaders.
3. Embolden denominational and ecclesial leaders.
4. Equip seminal institutions.
5. Endow life-affirming agencies with skills to partner with all the above.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oback and Infanticide

 Barack Obama abortion infanticide
 
I'm Oback Arama, and this is the last time I will address the issue of abortion and quote, infanticide, unquote, until I address it the next time.   Many are criticizing my 4 votes against providing health care to products of conception accidently born alive during an abortion.  Why people have a love affair with products of conception is beyond my ability to conceive.  Ha!  Ha!  You know, I went back and checked my record on these votes, because I was sure that I must have voted present at least once on this issue, but not so.
 
Now, we all have heard the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"  Well, I ask you a similar philosophical question, "If a breathing product of conception with a heart beat dies in a dirty linen closet, and it doesn't get health care, does that make it a person with rights?"  Due to the fact that this question may be above my pay grade, I must be very careful about my answer.  Firstly, I don't pretend to know for sure if these things are living persons with rights, so the safest way to deal with them is to be as careful as possible to protect the right to choose and just assume that they are not human beings.  Therefore, if it's not human, it's not infanticide.  Secondly, I don't want people to twist my words and spread lies saying that I don't support universal, free, Cuban style health care.  But if you put this pre-viable fetus thing in the closet, and of its own accord it ceases to have a heart beat, and stops breathing, and no one is there to see it, really, who cares?  We must at all costs protect the sacred holy right enshrined in the constitution through the Roe vs. Wade decision.  I'm not one to blow my own horn, but it took a great deal of courage for me to lead my party on this issue by denying health care to the born unborn.  Now, as I feared, politically motivated, petty people are attempting to use this against my humanitarian health care initiatives.  But, I stood up when faced with that dangerous political decision, and hit the no button on four different occasions, and protected the sacred right of every woman and brave abortionist to snuff out, by neglect, accidently born alive, breathing human blobs of tissue with heart beats.
 
I hope that I have cleared up any doubts about what I believe and what I have courageously done to show my compassionate, sensitive actions on behalf of human rights and I hope my opponents will now stop these empty personal attacks that never fed a hungry child.  We need to get back now to the central issues of this campaign, like change and hope, and change you can use, and change that works for you, and real change, not change of the last eight years.  I hope that my life issues positions will encourage you to support the coming glorious United States of Oback Arama Nation, by voting for me for President, and not for that old Navy flyer guy.
 
I'm Oback Arama and I approved this message.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BornAliveTruth.org
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »