Wish I'd said that!

In recent decades, the ACLU has used its so-called "wall" to fight tooth and nail to prevent government sponsorship of the Pledge of Allegiance, memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, nativity scenes, Bible displays, and virtually every other acknowdgement of America's religious heritage.

At the same time, it is worthwhile to note that there have been some instances in which the ACLU has endorsed public displays of religion. For example, When New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani threatened to cut taxpayer funding from the Brooklyn Museum of Art for displaying a painting of the Virgin Mary with cow dung and pictures of female sexual organs pasted all over her body, the ACLU was first in line to defend the display. U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon ruled that New York City's elected officials were not allowed to place conditions on the museum's funding.

In another instance, the ACLU offered its support to the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts, after the agency sponsored an art show featuring "Piss Christ" - an exhibit consisting of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine.

In the ACLU's myopic world, it appears that the only permissible publicly-funded displays of religion are those which blatantly mock or disparage the Christian faith.

-- Indefensible: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America, Sam Kastensmidt, 2006

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Strange New World

There's a word that has been popping up with increasing frequency lately, due to the debate over Obama's healthcare proposal -- eugenics. I would describe it as "government policies for choosing who gets to live in and benefit from a society, and choosing those who don't get to live. Glenn Beck, who has a special interest in what it means to a society, produced a short but very informative crash course in eugenics that is well worth checking out, because eugenics policies, if implemented, will eventually affect everyone; some classes of people will benefit, while others...

And Beck isn't the only one with piercing insights regarding this dangerous legislation:

"Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head, John Conyers, says he doesn't understand it. It'll be passed by Congress that has not read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?" --Rush Limbaugh

Dancing with the Czars. A lot of press has been given to Obama's penchant for appointing "czars", without giving a lot of details about who these people actually are. Actually, the term "czar", which is the Russianized form of "Caesar", is inappropriate, since the Communists liquidated the last Czar during the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The Communist Party then appointed "commisars" (commissioners) to be local or regional political leaders. So, breaking with current phraseology in the interest of accuracy, here are Obama's "commisars". Some of them are downright scary when you consider the influence they wield on national policy.

In the interest of fairness... Last time, I wrote about a National Guard ad for prison guards, and alluded to the possibility of domestic internment camps. The National Guard has responded with a denial that they are for domestic use. A spokesman for the NG stated that the camps referred to are located overseas, and that "members pledge to follow the U.S. Constitution and take orders from American civilian authorities."

I'm glad to hear that the troops still swear their allegiance to the Constitution, but I worry that so few Americans are really taught anything about that document any more, which makes them malleable to reinterpretation. And frankly, it's the civilian authorities who make me worry (see commisars list, above). While I hope the scenario never materializes, I can't forget that it has happened before to Japanese-Americans during WW2 and political opponents during WW1, and a people ignorant of the law and history could potentially allow it to happen again.

A truthful politician...sorta. I have to hand it to Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), he's a man who speaks his mind, even if it comes out both sides of his mouth. Even though the district he represents (south central NYS) is generally Republican, he recently told a group of liberal NetRoots activists that he would "vote against the interests of my district" when it comes to supporting the president's single-payer health plan. However, at a Sunday townhall meeting, one attendee reported that he told his constituents he was "there to speak for and represent his district and what they wanted. " All we have to do is decide which statement he really means (duh).

Meanwhile, turncoat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) told ABC's 'This Week' that the recent upbraidings he's been receiving during townhall meetings "are really not representative of America in my opinion." And of course, his opinion is more valid than the opinions of the people who continually send him to Washington to represent them. But then, why do they give such credence to the liberals who generally haunt public meetings to rail at the politicians? What makes their opinions more valid?

Palin's point taken. Despite the vicious, crude, and underhanded treatment Sarah Palin has received from the Left, her steady stream of rebuttals of the Obama healthcare (it is about neither) plan has borne results. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 54% of those surveyed would rather have no plan passed rather than the Obama/congressional healthcare (it is neither) plan. That's not to say those folks don't want real reform, but they don't believe the government version will do anything other than screw up our lives even more, and put more lives at risk.

No comments:

Post a Comment