Last night on my way home from work, I tuned into NPR, and they were airing a debate from the program Intelligence Squared US on the important and controversial topic: Should We Legalize Drugs?
In Colorado and Washington, voters recently approved measures to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. Supporters say legalization will generate tax revenue, move the trade into the open, and free up law enforcement resources.
You can listen to the full debate, here.
And, I’d love to hear your opinion on this subject. Comments and questions are welcome.
And, although I don’t necessarily agree 100% with the author, I think he does bring up some valid arguments. I would diverge with him on a couple of points:
1. What is wrong with communitarianism? ( i.e. “nation states” or “city states” or as the author termed it “a nostalgia for localism”) — he seems to think that they are not wanted (I hesitate to use the word ‘bad’), somehow.
2. All the problems the West faces, specifically in the US, were not created by Obama taking office and running up 5 trillion more dollars worth of debt. These problems are deep-seated, and transcend party affiliation, ethnicity or gender. They have more to do with worldview, then with politics. Which of course, are intra-related, one informing the other, hopefully.
Why is there today a nostalgia for localism? Shrinking Western populations with growing numbers of elderly and unemployed can no longer sustain their present level of redistributive taxation and entitlements. Europe, which can endure neither the disease of insolvency nor the supposed medicine of austerity, is only a decade ahead of what we should expect here in the United States, or what we see now in California — a construct more than a state, where the Central Valley is to the coast as Mississippi is to Massachusetts.
Voters are also disgusted with government, and feel that their overseers are not even subject to the consequences of what they impose on others: We expect the Obamas to trash the 1 percent as they jet to Martha’s Vineyard, or a zillionaire John Kerry to demand higher taxes as he seeks to avoid them on his yacht, or an upscale French Socialist president to have a home on the Mediterranean — or, on the other side of the ledger, social-conservative elites to speak and act like metrosexuals.
The frustration with the distant redistributive state extends beyond the technocracy to the very nature and legitimacy of the bureaucracies themselves. We know that no one trusts the National Bank of Greece or believes much in Eurobonds, but who trusts any more the GSA, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or even the Secret Service to fulfill their missions competently, and with honesty and decorum?
Nor can the redistributionist technocracy any longer make the case that its certifications, its very claims to legitimacy and entitlement — a PhD from Harvard, a JD from Yale, an MBA from Stanford — and its experience — tenure at Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, two years in OMB, a billet at the CBO, three years at the Federal Reserve — have warranted our trust. We certainly do not believe any more that such a résumé makes one a better legislator or administrator than another who has run a company, built a business, farmed, piloted a plane, or served in the military. Certainly an Al Gore or Barack Obama does not seem wise, no matter where he was educated or how many government posts he has held.
You can read the article in it’s entirety, here.
House minority leader John Boehner gave a rousing speech in opposition to “Obama care” on Sunday. As you can see by the passion with which he speaks, he was very much against this bill! I don’t generally agree with him (he’s a neocon), but I must congratulate Mr. Boehner when he does something right and good. This was one of those times.
So I want to say thank you to all of the men and women who fought for months and months to try to kill this bill, for all of their hard work and dedication. Your fight was not wasted! Thanks to you, our voices were heard… and ignored by those who have another agenda, not the people’s best interest at heart.
We the People still have a choice… this November. Let’s vote America!!!
This is a re-post of a blog from last year, but due to the fact that the congress is coming up on a vote on the “Health Care Reform” bill, I thought that it would be good to be reminded of some of the horrible implications of this bill, should it pass!
ObamaCare: Would Abortions be Included?
As the health care reform debate continues to rage; town halls bringing much attention to the lack of real concern the congress has for the American people, many questions remain to be answered. Many in the “life begins at conception” camp have some nagging questions: “Does the proposed plan make exception for abortions?” “Will tax payers money go for the killing of innocent, unborn life?”
Among those in the congress, several have already made it clear that the answer is a resounding (well, it really depends if you want to tell the truth or not) yes! The press has picked up on this as well, exposing it as one of many vulnerable “blemish spots” in the plan. There was even a summit held two weeks ago, via the Internet, to discuss the “abortion mandate” and what is really in this health care bill.
I guess freedom has a time limit. It can only “work” for “so long” before it becomes “irrelevant” and “old-fashioned” or “un-useful” in the scheme of those who are more “big government” minded. Incredible! Freedom is what made it possible for me to even express my opinion. If it was not for the thousands of our fallen heroes, we would not even be engaging in this health care debate.
The problem with the form of government we have (and we’ve had it for a lot longer than just Bush #2) is that it sees freedom, individual expression, anything that the Constitution embodies as being wrong headed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our rights do not come from government. They come from God. This is clearly re-stated (for those who have not read the Bible) in the Declaration of Independence. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.. It continues in the second paragraph… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
What does all of the aforementioned mean? Simply, God created man in His image, He loves life because He made life. Therefore, as created beings, subject to the will of God, we must protect and love life as well. It is the very essence of our nation. Without life, our nation is dead.
Secondly, God established certain laws that should dictate the way we live. The Ten Commandments are a prime example of part of God’s law. In a perfect world, these laws would be the skeleton structure for every form of government. Sadly, mankind has chosen to reject God and His laws. That all started back in the Beginning when Eve ate the forbidden fruit and gave to Adam to partake.
We should therefore understand from these words the very nature of our government and how it was formed. Encouraging our elected leaders to stay within the bounds of the founding documents, having them as a guide for their political decisions.
In closing I want to entertain two questions:
Will the unborn, precious little child in its mother’s womb be protected under this plan being pushed by those in D.C.? The sanctity of human life is not just a thing of the “right.” Really life is something we face each day. It is a unique and beautiful gift, a group of miracles. For without life, there would be no America. No world as we know it. Nothing great to look forward to with bright hope-filled dreams. Life is the essence of a nation.
Are there provisions that would guarantee the right to physician assisted suicide (also know as: Euthanasia) for those deemed “too old to be productive to our society?” Does this not frighten us? Reminding us of what Hitler did during the Third Reich to those who were “dangerous” to his objectives? If this passes and becomes law, I guess anyone over 55 will have to be pushed out of the way so that the younger folks can truly fulfill their potential; until they become “too old to be productive” of course. A sick, vicious cycle.
The world is obsessed with the cult of youth. It will destroy us if we do not take heed.
Several months back I ran across this powerful video. Eliot Mooney’s parents learned even before he was born that he had a serious disease – One that would kill him, either before he was born or shortly thereafter. They choose life. Little Elliot was born with a hole in his heart, DNA that placed faulty information into all the cells of his body, and many other serious problems, and yet he survived birth to live an extraordinary life – for 99 days.
So my question is: Would this bill protect all the little Eliots of America? Or will it kill them needlessly?
Let’s fight for life!!
“Unless the LORD builds the house,
those who build it labor in vain…
Behold, children are a heritage from the
the fruit of the womb a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them!
He shall not be put to shame
when he speaks with his enemies in
the gate.” Psalm 127:1,3-5 ESV
Yesterday was a historic day in American politics. For 7 hours, members of both political parties met with the president at Blair House for a “healthcare summit” to negotiate a plan regarding the massive overhaul of our nation’s healthcare system that has been discussed so vigorously.
But was it all for nought? Was it just a hoax? Seven hours wasted bloviating? I think the answer is a resounding YES!
Here is just one example of what happened repeatedly to the those who brought sound arguments to the table… they were stonewalled by president Obama and his associates. Or just ignored.
And I am not alone in my suspicions about yesterdays “summit”.
After President Obama accepted the fact that his agenda was going nowhere, he used his State of the Union address to try and turn things around. He spoke of bipartisanship …….a practice he rejected for the first year of his term.He used healthcare as a central focus for demonstrating his new found desire for bipartisanship. He even suggested that Democrats and Republicans work together on it. This was a novel idea, for up till that point, Republicans have been locked out of the closed door meetings that took place among Democrats in an attempt to muster enough votes among themselves to pass their combined 5,000 pages of healthcare reforms.
I believe the rage will continue until this whole “overhaul” is scrapped and the process begun anew.
And to those who have sold out for a few hasty dollars… remember there’s an election coming this fall.