By: Dennis Marcellino
(I put “Blacks” and “Latinos” in quotes because it feels disrespectful … and it’s actually racist, divisive and un-American … to identify people by the color of their skin. But for the purpose of statistical analysis and identifying a racist problem in our country, I’ll use those terms here.)
How is it possible that two groups who have historical legacies of being religious could vote in elections overwhelmingly for the political party that promotes and legalizes “sin” (homosexuality, abortion, taking God out of the mainstream, etc.) – the Democrats? Blacks have consistently voted in the 90% range for Democrats, and Latinos have voted in the 60-70% range.
The answer to this question can be found in a great statement made recently by Glenn Beck. He said, “When somebody has an agenda, they don’t want to hear the truth.” That is, they let their dominant agenda trump any other agenda they might have. In this case, blacks and Latinos are letting their racial identity trump their religious identity. He also said that when this is the case, the more radical are even sometimes given to “lying, stealing and cheating” to advance their agenda. (More “sins”.) And if someone isn’t representing the truth, they automatically are in lies (untruths).
Some of the groups that have at least some agendas and ideologies not based on truth would be: liberals, racists, feminists, hedonists, homosexuals, environmentalists, political parties, various religions/denominations, secularists, various addictions – including blind addiction to happiness and pleasure, and various personal agendas that aren’t in harmony with nature as designed by its Creator.
A problem with people who have agendas (as the Glenn Beck quote stated) is that they are hard to reason with because based on the tenets of their agenda, they allow a blind, knee-jerk, lock step loyalty to those tenets to overrule their ability to reason, as they just parrot the sound bites of those tenets. And the fact that they often use name-calling and emotion to push those sound bites and silence their opponents implicitly says that they don’t have enough confidence in the tenets of the agenda or ideology that they are aligning with to be able to calmly and intelligently present and defend them.
The particular focus here in this writing is a focus on two groups (“blacks” and “Latinos”) whose self-proclaimed leaders and people who find their primary identity in them have generally statistically adhered to certain agendas, one of which is: voting for Democrats. Also included in this focus are the liberals (and especially the radical ones) who have used these groups to promote the liberal agenda.
By the way, as a side note, if the “racist” accusation is going to be loosely thrown around (as is being done these days), it needs to be recognized that the groups who are most guilty of doing this are the finger pointers of racism: liberals and blacks. And that conclusion is based on the very definition of racism … which is a violation of Dr. Martin Luther King’s definition, which is: noticing the color of a person’s skin instead of noticing their individual character. And in a truly color blind society, a person’s race never needs to be mentioned or addressed, (unless it is done in a positive way … that is, mentioning the positive contributions to humankind in general that have come out of various cultures …for example, I love Mexican food and some of the music that has come out of black religious traditions).
So, if the above-mentioned groups have agendas that have tenets that are not within THE truth … what is THE truth? The basic truth behind this life and its mysteries is that there is a Creator of it and that Creator gave us the Bible as a direct communication to let us know what the mysteries behind this life are, what the optimum ways to approach life are, and what determines our destinies (both eternal and here on Earth). That conclusion has been proven to be true in the book THE PROOF that God exists and the Bible is true.
In that book are cited many examples of how following the Bible to the letter has proven to be the most effective, rewarding and harmonious way to approach a society or a personal life.
An example of the good that can happen when changing a society's rules to be more in line with the Bible is the remarkable transformation of the city of Shimabuku, Japan. Shimabuku was rediscovered by American GIs during WWII, 30 years after the Bible was presented to them by an American missionary, who convinced them to adopt the Ten Commandments as Shimabuku’s legal code and the Sermon on the Mount as their guide to social conduct. Nurtured on the Bible, a whole generation of Shimabukans had drawn from it their ideas of human dignity and of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The result was remarkable. Shimabuku for years had no jail, no brothel, no drunkenness, no divorce; and there was a high level of health and happiness. The Bible was referred to to solve any problem that came up. (That is what I did/do in my life too, which has been the exact thing that changed my life for the better).
The bottom line here … and an appeal to any open-minded or religious liberals, blacks and Latinos in this important election year … is to recognize that liberalism is a bad choice for two reasons: (1) It has never worked, but instead has created chaos and grief, both spiritually/experientially and economically (and the current administration is severely hurting the economy by mounting great debts and causing jobs to be lost), and (2) It is against what is in the Bible.
On a more ominous note here is what the Bible says about those who vote for people who promote and legalize sin. (And the Bible says that wisdom begins with a fear of God.)
People are offending God by voting for the proponents of sin (liberals). They also are putting themselves in jeopardy with God. Romans 1:32, “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them” (for one, by how they vote). And the “things” being spoken of in that verse are spelled out right before that verse and are common tenets in liberalism and secularism. Romans 1:25//31, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator. For this reason God gave them up to vile lusts; for both their females changed the natural use of their bodies into that which is unnatural; likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.” (e.g. AIDS.) “Unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, void of understanding, faithless.” And 2Thessalonians 2:12 says, “that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing” (by how they vote) “may be condemned.”
Some might view some of these statements by God and some of my statements as harsh. And if they are in one of the liberal agenda groups I mentioned they might even feel attacked. But then again, others might see these statements in the Bible and by me as giving them an opportunity to finally and completely identify with goodness and righteousness. I know for me, a key Bible revelation that got me to convert from being a wimpy liberal who overlooked most sin, into becoming a Christian, was the reality that the Bible says that God “hates” sin and it makes Him very angry. It made me see that deep down I too hated sin and it made me angry, but was too intimidated by my liberal peers to allow myself to see that. I really hated the fact that I and nearly all of my liberal friends were having broken relationships, addictions and lack of deep fulfillment and peace because of liberal ways. It was very liberating for me to see that though my feelings weren’t in line with my liberal friends, they were with an almighty and all good Creator of the universe and me … and who would have the final say over my eternal destiny and my peace on Earth. And it was exhilarating to discover that God had given perfect instructions in the Bible on how I should conduct my life so it would be sinless and in good harmony with my mind/heart/body/spirit, others and God. And I tried them and they worked. I didn’t want to just be “loved” or “understood” as to why I was taking a dysfunctional approach … I just wanted to get on with knowing THE truth and the optimum ways to approach inner and outer life. Taking that new approach allowed a long lost strength in me to emerge. And I became much happier and energized because of it. So basically, I was converted by truth and righteousness, not love or sympathy. The love came later, both from God and the community that I could now feel a part of because we were seeing the same thing: that the optimum way to approach life is to submit our lives to obedience to a holy God, whose rules we had a strong hunger to continually come to know (and still do) through study of the Bible He gave us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Byline
Dennis Marcellino is the author of eight books, including The Plague Of Liberalism (which can be seen at www.ThePlagueOfLiberalism.com) and THE PROOF that God exists and the Bible is true (which can be seen at www.ConclusiveProofOfGod.com).
For the media:
His media kit can be seen at www.ThePlagueOfLiberalism.com/mediakit.html.
Showing posts with label Peter Singer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Singer. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
MORNING BELL: This is What is Ahead for Americans in Healthcare!
The Rationer-in-Chief
When Linda O’Boyle was diagnosed with bowel cancer, her doctors told her she could boost her chances of survival by adding the drug cetuximab to her regimen. But the rationing body for Britain’s National Health Service, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), had previously ruled that the drug was not cost-effective and therefore would not be paid for by the government. So O’Boyle liquidated her savings and paid for the drug herself. But this is not allowed under NHS rules. When government bureaucrats found out that O’Boyle had purchased the drug with her own money, she was denied NHS treatment and died within months.
Defenders of Britain’s health care rationing system may try to claim that this tragic death is an outlier in an otherwise acceptable government run health care system. They are wrong. It is the point of the system. As socialized medicine and infanticide advocate Peter Singer has argued in The New York Times, the NICE bureaucrats must ration care or else free government health care would bankrupt the British economy. “NICE had set a general limit of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year,” Singer writes. Following this logic, Singer supported NICE’s decision not to allow British citizens the kidney cancer fighting drug Sutent. As a result of this, and many other rationing decisions Britain, has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in the Western world. While 60.3% of men and 61.7% of women in Sweden survive a cancer diagnosis, in Britain the figure ranges between 40.2% to 48.1% for men and 48% to 54.1% for women. And NICE’s rationing has not just hit cancer patients. Doctors have warned that patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS rationing scheme. And according to the Patients Association, one million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain.
Most Americans would find this harrowing. But not President Barack Obama. Yesterday he bypassed the Senate confirmation process and used a recess appointment to install Dr. Donald Berwick to be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS is the agency that runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs). Dr. Berwick said of Britain’s health care system: “Cynics beware, I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” And his love for Britain’s health care system is not in spite of its rationing, but because of it. In 2009 Dr. Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare: “NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious and valuable knowledge-building system. … The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
The fact that the White House chose to empower Dr. Berwick by recess appointment is particularly audacious. The recess appointment power was intended to be used for occasions when the Senate is out for months at a time. The Senate is currently out of session for just 11 days. Worse, the Senate majority has never even scheduled a hearing so that Dr. Berwick’s rationing views could be given an “open” forum. In fact, Dr. Berwick has not even returned Senators’ written questionnaires. The White House defends the move by claiming “there’s no time to waste with Washington game-playing.” But then why did the Obama administration wait until April 2010, a full 15 months after President Obama was sworn into office, to nominate Dr. Berwick? Is it because they did not want Dr. Berwick’s well known and public support for rationing health care to affect the debate over Obamacare?
In a 2005 interview with Health Affairs, Dr. Berwick said: “(G)overnment is an extraordinarily important player in the American health care scene, and it has inescapable duties with respect to improvement of care, or we’re not going to get improved care. Government remains a major purchaser. … So as CMS goes and as Medicaid goes, so goes the system.” And that was before Obamacare gave far reaching new powers to government bureaucrats.
In June of 2009, President Obama told the American Medical Association that “identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided.” Moreover, the president has assured the public time and again that the government will not get between patients and their doctors. His nomination of Don Berwick for Director of CMS, however, tells a different story.
Quick Hits:
•Arizona Democrats who have to face voters this year are lining up against the Obama administration’s suit aimed at stopping states new immigration enforcement law.
•According to a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year.
•According to Gallup a majority of Americans believe the government’s main focus should be on halting the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the U.S., not developing a plan to deal with those already here.
•The Obama EPA proposed new regulations for coal-burning power plants yesterday that would cost consumers nearly $3 billion a year.
•Also according to Gallup, only 38% of independents approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, the first time independent approval of Obama has dropped below 40%.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/07/morning-bell-the-rationer-in-chief/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
When Linda O’Boyle was diagnosed with bowel cancer, her doctors told her she could boost her chances of survival by adding the drug cetuximab to her regimen. But the rationing body for Britain’s National Health Service, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), had previously ruled that the drug was not cost-effective and therefore would not be paid for by the government. So O’Boyle liquidated her savings and paid for the drug herself. But this is not allowed under NHS rules. When government bureaucrats found out that O’Boyle had purchased the drug with her own money, she was denied NHS treatment and died within months.
Defenders of Britain’s health care rationing system may try to claim that this tragic death is an outlier in an otherwise acceptable government run health care system. They are wrong. It is the point of the system. As socialized medicine and infanticide advocate Peter Singer has argued in The New York Times, the NICE bureaucrats must ration care or else free government health care would bankrupt the British economy. “NICE had set a general limit of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year,” Singer writes. Following this logic, Singer supported NICE’s decision not to allow British citizens the kidney cancer fighting drug Sutent. As a result of this, and many other rationing decisions Britain, has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in the Western world. While 60.3% of men and 61.7% of women in Sweden survive a cancer diagnosis, in Britain the figure ranges between 40.2% to 48.1% for men and 48% to 54.1% for women. And NICE’s rationing has not just hit cancer patients. Doctors have warned that patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS rationing scheme. And according to the Patients Association, one million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain.
Most Americans would find this harrowing. But not President Barack Obama. Yesterday he bypassed the Senate confirmation process and used a recess appointment to install Dr. Donald Berwick to be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS is the agency that runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs). Dr. Berwick said of Britain’s health care system: “Cynics beware, I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” And his love for Britain’s health care system is not in spite of its rationing, but because of it. In 2009 Dr. Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare: “NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious and valuable knowledge-building system. … The decision is not whether or not we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
The fact that the White House chose to empower Dr. Berwick by recess appointment is particularly audacious. The recess appointment power was intended to be used for occasions when the Senate is out for months at a time. The Senate is currently out of session for just 11 days. Worse, the Senate majority has never even scheduled a hearing so that Dr. Berwick’s rationing views could be given an “open” forum. In fact, Dr. Berwick has not even returned Senators’ written questionnaires. The White House defends the move by claiming “there’s no time to waste with Washington game-playing.” But then why did the Obama administration wait until April 2010, a full 15 months after President Obama was sworn into office, to nominate Dr. Berwick? Is it because they did not want Dr. Berwick’s well known and public support for rationing health care to affect the debate over Obamacare?
In a 2005 interview with Health Affairs, Dr. Berwick said: “(G)overnment is an extraordinarily important player in the American health care scene, and it has inescapable duties with respect to improvement of care, or we’re not going to get improved care. Government remains a major purchaser. … So as CMS goes and as Medicaid goes, so goes the system.” And that was before Obamacare gave far reaching new powers to government bureaucrats.
In June of 2009, President Obama told the American Medical Association that “identifying what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided.” Moreover, the president has assured the public time and again that the government will not get between patients and their doctors. His nomination of Don Berwick for Director of CMS, however, tells a different story.
Quick Hits:
•Arizona Democrats who have to face voters this year are lining up against the Obama administration’s suit aimed at stopping states new immigration enforcement law.
•According to a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year.
•According to Gallup a majority of Americans believe the government’s main focus should be on halting the flow of illegal immigrants coming into the U.S., not developing a plan to deal with those already here.
•The Obama EPA proposed new regulations for coal-burning power plants yesterday that would cost consumers nearly $3 billion a year.
•Also according to Gallup, only 38% of independents approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, the first time independent approval of Obama has dropped below 40%.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/07/morning-bell-the-rationer-in-chief/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
