Entry: Obama Gets Religion... Sort Of Thursday, August 20, 2009



Yesterday, while speaking to Liberal religious leaders (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one), Obama claimed a religious imperative behind his push for a government takeover of our health care system. "I know that there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are a some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness. ... These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation: that is, that we look out for one another; that is, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper."

Frankly, using the way he cares for his brother as an example is poor salesmanship on Obama's part. George Obama still lives in a Kenyan slum on "less than a dollar a month." It's as bad as his use of the Post Office as a model of government efficiency and competitiveness -- if the law preventing any other entity from delivering the mail were repealed, the Post Office would cease to exist overnight.

I was disgusted and outraged by The Messiah's blatant attempt to use religion to push his health care takeover package, and I'm not even very religious. Like he -- or anyone -- uses the phrase "bearing false witness" in normal conversation. It takes a sick mind to turn disagreeing with political policies into a sin... yet that's exactly what Obama's trying to do. And to claim that Christian teachings about taking care of the less fortunate translate into support for a wasteful, corrupt government program that would end up doing more harm than good is ridiculous and insulting. If you feel you have a duty to help others, than you personally should give your own money and/or time to do so. If you feel that government programs are a better way to help people than charities, then by all means feel free to pay extra taxes out of your own pocket! It is a personal duty and responsibility to care for the "less fortunate," not a government mandate.

This should, I hope, turn out to be a politically fatal miscalculation on the part of Obama and his anti-Christian handlers, who think all he has to do is mouth a few catchphrases and Christians will say "oh, yeah, I guess the Bible does say we ought to let the government run our lives." And here I thought I could not be more disgusted with this man and his Collectivist foolishness. In that respect, I was wrong.

   5 comments

Christopher Taylor
August 20, 2009   01:49 PM PDT
 
While President Obama knows the Bible better than most Democratic candidates (Kerry was just embarrassing), he's not a Christian and this sort of thing I believe is counterproductive and offensive to people, not helpful to his cause.

And since people generally agree that the US health care system needs some work, merely arguing that is not helpful to his cause either. People are opposed to what he's promoting, not the idea of work on health care in general.
Mick Dobra
August 20, 2009   04:52 PM PDT
 
Richard Wurmbrand, founder of what is today the Voice of the Martyrs ministry, wrote in his book "Tortured for Christ" of the communist occupation, "Once the Communists came to power, they skilfully used the means of seduction toward the Church. The language of love and the language of seduction are the same. The one who wishes a girl for a wife and the one who wishes her for only a night both say the words, 'I love you.' Jesus has told us to discern between the language of seduction and the language of love, and to know the wolves clad in sheepskin from the real sheep. Unfortunately, when the Communists came to power, thousands of priests, pastors, and ministers did not know how to discern between the two voices. . . "

I pray the church leaders are strong enough in their purpose driven focus to discern the difference today!

- Mick
radical_dawg
August 24, 2009   04:57 PM PDT
 
So what are your feelings about healthcare in the USA? We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world, but our life expentancy and infant mortality rates are only as good as those in third world countries. People stream across the borders to Mexico and Canada to buy prescription drugs at fair prices. Canada spends about half of what we spend per capita on health care but has far better life expentancy and infant mortality rates.
CavalierX
August 26, 2009   06:04 PM PDT
 
"We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world"

Who is "we?" The individual contracts for healthcare through his employer,and pays out of his salary. The use of the word "we" is misleading. You want to reduce healthcare costs? Fine, let's have tort reform and cross-state competition.

"our life expentancy and infant mortality rates are only as good as those in third world countries"

That's a blatant lie. Both statistics are skewed by the fact that we count underweight babies as live births, unlike any other country of which I'm aware. Also, we are so wealthy compared to any other country that more of us a) lead sedentary lives, b) overeat, and junk food at that, and c) own cars. We live dangerously because we choose to do so, and because we can afford to do so.

"People stream across the borders to Mexico and Canada to buy prescription drugs at fair prices."

Ahh, but they come HERE to get medical attention without standing in line for months first. Now, why is that?
Doc Neaves
August 31, 2009   07:39 AM PDT
 
Hey, Cav, long time no see...mind if I jump in for an assist?

"We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world"

That's because of several things. One, our costs are higher for the same treatments because of overhead. Two, we have many more procedures that are not available, which drives our cost up. Three, we have massive costs for lawsuits, not the least of which is malpractice insurance, awards, and defensive medicine (ordering tests to protect the doctor from lawsuit). There are others, but, we're just pointing out how disengenuous your comments are, so this'll do for now.

"People stream across the borders to Mexico and Canada to buy prescription drugs at fair prices."

It's not so much of a stream as it is a trickle, when you compare it to those buying drugs in this country. You show a line at one or two places in Canada, because it suddenly got busy, implying that there's a line there all day. Heck, there were eight people in line at Wal-Mart the other day when I picked up my scripts ($4 each, not sure how much cheaper they'd have been in Canada). And the reason those drugs are cheaper in Canada is because the Canadian government negotiated a better deal for the drugs, something our government isn't allowed to do, and the drug companies are simply making up the difference on selling drugs here. So, those discounts they're getting are actually being paid by all those who buy their drugs in the US, simply redistributing the costs, not making them cheaper.

"Canada spends about half of what we spend per capita on health care but has far better life expentancy and infant mortality rates."

Again, they don't count them the same way, and there are come Canadians getting US healthcare. And I'll argue with the life expectancy rates, just come back in about twenty years, give the National Health Service time to really get rolling offing people with their negligence, and then let's compare.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments