Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Obama Like Jesus Christ

At a Neighborhood Restaurant

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:
They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had had enough.
I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.
“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes! , the ol d man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.
“Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.
“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. Thes! e are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded.
“Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” Was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.
After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”
I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
Use reason, it is the closest you are going to get to Godly conduct.

Post Published: 04 May 2010
Author: The Eagle

Monday, May 13, 2013

Gosnel Guilty

Gosnel is guilty of murder in the first degree. Just announced.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Right To Health Care?

An interesting topic posted from Facebook...
"You have a 'right' to pursue the best health care you can afford to get for yourself.  Beyond that, there is not, and can not be a "right" to something that involves the labor of other people. "Health Care" is the labor of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, medical technnology engineers, etc. And claiming a 'right' to their labors is to regard them as slaves. Neither can a 'right' be determined to the labors of other people (in the form of their money) to pay for one's health care. The very concept defies logic and that is the very simple argument we should all make when confronted with this garbage. The same goes for Welfare and any other 'right' that imposes upon other individuals to provide the benefit."
While I could not find the exact quote put in quotes above, I believe I found an article which sums up his point to a "T":  
Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them.
You have a right to work, not to rob others of the fruits of their work, not to turn others into sacrificial, rightless animals laboring to fulfill your needs.
Another added this comment:
"I agree with your stance on government subsidized healthcare, but I'm curious how you would address the tax benefits afforded to churches and religious organizations using the same logic. My inkling is there would be a bit of a double standard."
To which I responded:
First off, you conceded the initial point - but then changed the subject. While getting a tax benefit can be seen as a subsidy, that was not the original point. The point was that calling healthcare a "right" (Constitution of the United States) when it is chiefly the labors of those in the healthcare industry is in reality taking the "rights" (Constitution...) of those who provide the services away from them. It is to take *ownership*, or "making slaves" of those persons and/or their skills. With that in mind, your question has pretty much hijacked the original discussion point.
The further (original) point is that this is the same as any *welfare* system which demands that others pay for the *wants* of others. I hesitate to call it *needs* anymore, for no one "needs" a cell phone, yet we're paying for cell phones for those who cannot afford them. We subsidize the food for many individuals who turn around and use money on drugs which they could have spent on food. I have no problem being there for an individual or family who needs help in an extra-ordinary situation, and that was the original purpose for welfare. It is not intended to be a "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) subsidy, or in other words - it was not to become the *ordinary* which it has become.
Now, to sort of tie-in the diversive point... The traditional role of providing for these *needs* of individuals and families *was* and to a large part *still is* the responsibility of religious organizations! Catholic Social Services and the St. Vincent dePaul organizations, to name a couple, are huge *providers* to those *in need.*
The REAL problem here, and more on the original point, "using the same logic,"  such *welfare* has become the expectation and the norm for many in society. It has gone beyond a temporary means of assistance to this "cradle-to-grave" (Adams, Henry) mentality. It has become to be thought of as a "right" (Constitution...) which has essentially takes the will of those caught up in this system, and breaks it, "broken, as the colt dies in harness, taking a new nature in becoming tame...” (Adams, Henry).
The person who wrote the (what I called "hijacked") point responded to me stating:
I've never seen someone go to such great lengths to miss the point. Congratulations. I didn't "hijack" his discussion point. I spoke to the core of the issue. Even with Obamacare enacted, those in the healthcare field will still be paid for their labor. A far cry from slavery. More to the original point is the undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the healthcare worker. To be clear, I'm a proponent of smaller government, much smaller. 
Then we should put the breaks on and even repeal "Obamacare."   You claim to speak to "the core of the issue" - but the original point had nothing to do with religion.  To say I "missed the point" is a bit humorous, since I brought the discussion BACK to the original point AND incorporated the additional topic you brought up!  That being said, I believe what you've just said puts us in agreement!  "The undue hardship it puts on the entire system and more importantly the taxpayers who have to pay to subsidize the income of the health care worker."  THAT statement is completely in line with the original point of this discussion!
Adams, Henry qtd. on:
Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights

Addendum, 5/13/2013:

> How can you reconcile your stance on subsidized
> healthcare with your stance on subsidized
> religious organizations without some mental
> gymnastics?

Simple, you're comparing apples to oranges.  Health care organizations (I work for one) are getting literally millions of dollars, per organization, in direct subsidy.  Can you name a religious organization which is getting DIRECT subsidy, especially in the millions of dollars?  Each hospital is getting funded, dollar for dollar, for everything they are spending on converting to electronic health records; and the catch is they HAVE to do this - for if they don't then soon comes the penalty phase of the EHR - where if you DON'T have a viable one in place, you will LOSE millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements!  There is no such thing going on in religious organizations.  The minor percentage of what a hospital MIGHT have to pay taxes on (and there ARE "for profit" hospitals which DO file taxes) would be easily countered by what they "write off" as uncollectable from the uninsured and under-insured.  In the end, they'd pay no significant taxes, if any, even as "for profit" hospitals.

Actually, some religious organizations, namely the Catholic Church, are being forced by the government to subsidize things (like abortion and contraception) which are completely contrary to their doctrines.  Veiling it as "their insurance companies pay for it, not them," is a joke - whom do you think pays the premiums to the insurance companies?!  How about those who self-insure?

> Sorry for taking the conversation in a
> different direction. I had no idea it would be
> this hard for you to follow.

1) Thank you for admitting you took it in a different direction!  That's ALL I was saying when I said you "hijacked" the topic.  It was hijacked too, because Jr., et. al., followed you down the rabbit trail.

2) It wasn't hard to follow at all.  I followed it perfectly - I merely pointed out that it was a different direction from the original topic.  Well, I also have been pointing out the differences between direct and indirect government subsidy.

> For me it seemed a much more interesting tangent
> seeing as how we already agreed on the healthcare
> issue.

Interesting, but as you say - a tangent.


Tuesday, May 7, 2013

What Happened to the 33?

33 people were rescued from Benghazi, what happened to them? Best case scenario would have been 33 hostages; worst case would have been 33 more casualties. If those men had not defied orders, we would have been looking at one of those scenarios! But we've heard nothing from these rescued Americans, why?