RSS

Tag Archives: Talitha K. McEachin

Introducing the “Bloguement” (Conservative vs Liberal)

Introducing the “Bloguement” (Conservative vs Liberal)

One of the things that troubles me as I participate in & observe the plethora of political discussions throughout social media is the manner in which conservatives & liberals argue at one another & engage in name calling, instead of healthy, respectful dialogue. So a few months ago I asked for recommendations for a liberal with whom I could have such civil discourse with, even though we are ideologically opposed. I was specifically looking for a liberal blogger and after several recommendations, I was introduced to Yvette Carnell through our mutual Facebook friend Charlie Harris, who is also a Christian Conservative. After several discussions we both agreed that it would be a great idea to host this “bloguement”, featuring honest, civil debate in blog form on the political & social hot topics of the day.

Yvette Carnell is a self-professed Independent Liberal who is an editor of African-American news site yourblackword.net and also maintains her own popular blog breakingbrown.com. She is a former Hill staffer, writer, editor, social media enthusiast & I consider her a very worthy “opponent”.In all honesty, in my view, debating her is sort of like debating the liberal version of myself (if there were such a thing). She is also a fellow native of Atlanta, Georgia and a young black woman as am I. Her erudite commentary on social & political topics is well known throughout the liberal blogosphere. Yvette is a political analyst for the African-American business and politics site Madame Noire (formerly atlantapost.com) and she also contributes to internet newspaper giant The Huffington Post. Yvette is also a featured video commentator, in the popular videos of yourblackworld.net creator Dr. Boyce Watkins on Youtube.

I’m a Christian Conservative blogger, Republican & member of the Tea Party. My articles have appeared on numerous political blogs & websites including the Yahoo News Contributor Network,  KiraDavis.net, former GOP presidential nominee Herman Cain’s CainTV & of course my own blog, Conservative Calmversation. I’m known throughout the conservative blogosphere for my provocative topics, candid opinions, humor & apologetics for the Conservative cause & the Christian faith. I am also featured on the Facebook page dedicated to highlight minority women within the Conservative movement, Conservative Black Women. I am also an editorial writer for Black Literature Magazine. The first novel of my fictional series, The Elements Book I is due for publication in early 2013 and my website is here. On Sundays, I host a 30 minute BlogTalkradio show called BookReads, highlighting authors of fiction.

The first topic that Yvette & I will be “blogueing” on is “Design your Ideal Healthcare Plan for America”. We both agree that the current state of healthcare in the private sector has not, is not & never has worked. We both dislike Obamacare, but for different reasons. Yvette is in favor of true universal healthcare run by the government and I am in favor of true healthcare reform, finally repairing what is wrong with the broken system we have had. Stay tuned, it’s going to be a very interesting endeavor on both of our parts! Input your email address (and confirm) on both of our blogsites to receive each edition of our “bloguement” to your email inbox!

Independent Liberal blogger Yvette Carnell

Consevative blogger Talitha McEachin

Advertisements
 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Marriage Proposal: My Resolution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

A Marriage Proposal: My Resolution to the Same Sex Marriage Debate

Amid the controversy of statements made by Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy, about his support of traditional marriage, I want to share with you my proposal to solving this seemingly never ending issue on same sex marriage vs traditional marriage. For the record, I am a Christian Conservative who supports traditional marriage between one man and one woman, therefore, although I respect proponents of same sex marriage, I oppose their platform on the matter, in favor of the tenets of my religious faith. Those who would oppose me because of their secular humanist philosophy or religious views even, certainly have the freedom to do so, however, if such opposition includes ad hominems such as bigot, homophobe, religious zealot or any other such labels, immediately, they demonstrate a lack of the very same tolerance which they demand from me, rendering their arguments exponentially futile to my ears.

Since this missive is not about the current Chick-Fil-A controversy, I will not discuss it, however, you can read Dan Cathy’s statement here if you are unfamiliar with it. Currently, only six states have legalized same sex marriages – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont & most recently, New York. Although these states recognize same sex marriage, the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) means that the federal government does not have to recognize these unions performed in those states. Also, Washington, DC, Maryland, Rhode Island and two Native American tribal jurisdictions recognize these unions from those six states but does not perform them. According to Wikipedia:

Same-sex marriage has been established through court rulings and legislative action, but not via popular vote. Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage in statute and thirty prohibit it in their constitution. The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the 1970s, but became more prominent in U.S. politics in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared the state’s prohibition to be unconstitutional in Baehr v. Lewin.

Throughout the 2000s decade, public support for legalizing same-sex marriage grew considerably, and various national polls now show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly declare support for the legalization of same-sex marriage.”

Before the current Chick-Fil-A controversy, the last event to re-ignite the debate on same sex marriage was indeed President Barack Obama’s open support of same sex marriage which some celebrated & others stood against. President Obama is no different from any other citizen in that he can personally choose to support or oppose any view he wants but since he is a self-professed Christian, this decision disappointed me greatly. As a Christian, I believe in the biblical scriptures on which I base my opposition to same sex marriage. The Bible is explicitly clear on homosexuality in both the Old & New testaments, therefore a marriage based on a homosexual union is utterly invalid to those whose religious faith inherently prohibits it:

Leviticus 18:22:

You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Romans 1:26:

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.”

Christianity is not alone in it’s condemnation of homosexuality:

“We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!” (Qur’an 7:80-82)

 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 4:15-16)

In Theravada Buddhism, it is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya (monastic discipline) and prohibited. It is not singled out for special condemnation, but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of other sexual behavior as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns to be celibate. 

Of course there are non-religious persons who support homosexuality and believe that it is as normal as heterosexuality and two persons who love one another should be able to join together in marriage legally. The arguments for same sex marriage are vast but predictable (in my opinion) and there are some religious persons (self-professed Christians included) who present arguments in favor of same sex marriage as well. I won’t present them here but the point is that regardless to the arguments from both sides, a solution to this dilemma will require compromise from both groups. Here are some major points in my proposal to resolve the issue:

  • Rather than re-defining marriage as well as civil unions for every citizen as an arrangement based on gender and sexual preference, let’s re-define them based on the institution ordaining the marriage or presiding over the civil union (religious institutions vs. the government). In other words, a marriage becomes a union ordained by a religious institution and a civil union becomes a union presided over by the government. This removes the entire issue of sexual preference by redefining it based on who performs the union. One complaint from those in the LGBT community is that “civil unions” have a negative connotation and are inherently inferior by name. Since a civil union would now be defined by merely being a union sanctioned by the government, regardless of the gender of both parties, non-religious heterosexual couples would also be “merged”under governmental civil unions.
  •  With marriages & civil unions re-defined in this manner, certain terminology would also change. A religious institution will “marry” couples & the state (government) will “merge” a couple. Partners in a civil union will be called “life partners” and in marriages they will be called “spouses” . Religious institutions may or may not specify this with “husband”and “wife”. Civil unions will designate a “life partner A or B” (or I & II) on documentation.
  • Leaders of individual religious institutions or entire denominations as a whole will not be required to maintain licenses, the couples they marry will not either. Each religious institution may issue it’s own marriage licenses or permission to marry (or not)based on their own decision making processes. Each denomination or individual institution must submit their marriage requirements or procedures to the state government for the purpose of record keeping and in case of divorce proceedings.
  •  The State (government) can continue to issue licenses as is for same sex and heterosexual couples alike who choose state sanctioned “mergers”.
  •  It is the couples’ decision alone on which arrangement to seek. It is the religious institution’s decision to accept or deny a marriage based on their religious dogma or their interpretation of it.
  •  Divorces would have a two step process for marriages (for filing), first, the religious institution would issue an certificate or decree (written consent) to divorce and take on the responsibility for any emotional distress and counseling. This certificate or decree would be presented to the state for the sole purpose of dividing assets, calculating child support or alimony payments to either spouse. The religious institution will deal with the spiritual and emotional, the state (courts) will only decide material & monetary divisions. The religious institutions may give a recommendation with the divorce decree/certificate/written consent for custody of any minor children, but this too, will remain the role of the courts. Civil Unions would only have a one step “dissolution” process, filing directly with the state and settling all monetary/material distributions with the courts just as marriages will.
  • Religious institutions must adhere to the law in each state with regards to the legal age of consent. In other words, a religious institution cannot marry a 40 or 18 year old man and an 11 or 14 year old girl in Georgia (for example), whose age of consent is 16. Religious institutions must also adhere to the law in each state not allowing blood family members to marry one another. This is because there is a proven biological risk for birth defects and other medical problems when close family members procreate. Such relationships includes siblings, cousins, parent-child…etc. Marriages of this type performed by a religious institution knowingly, can be annulled by the state and the religious institution would pay a penalty.

Now I have shared only a portion of my marriage proposal here and will share more as I fine tune it but with this proposal, marriage is defined by religious faith which is in accordance with today’s marriage practices, because for the overwhelming majority of marriages in the United States, the date of actual marriage (and anniversary celebrations) is based on the date of the ceremony and not the date when marriage licenses are issued by the state. Now as I briefly alluded to above, there are religious persons who support same sex marriage and believe that the Bible does not expressly forbid it, because although the New Testament mentions it (Romans 1:26)  their main argument is that Jesus himself does not forbid it in his words. This is a spiritually dangerous technicality in my view, but everyone has the right to believe what they want. For the religious institutions in support of same sex marriage, as you may have deduced, they will in fact, have the freedom to marry couples of the same sex in their individual institutions or denominations.

Before my fellow Christians in opposition of same sex marriage start cursing me or my proposal, this is not problematic, because although we know and believe that homosexuality is expressly forbidden based on the scriptures, we cannot dictate to a church, synagogue, mosque or other religious gathering that they must share our interpretation of scriptures or sexual morality. Sinners are allowed to sin. If an entire church body decides to approve a same sex marriage, in short, that’s their business and we don’t have to attend such a church. I refuse to. That’s my personal decision. To find this problematic spiritually, you’d also have to take issue with any denomination that has any practice which yours does not based on a difference in scriptural interpretation or a lack of one. We cannot pretend as though all denominations are the same theologically or otherwise.

Now to some that begs the question, “Why can’t the federal government just legalize same sex marriage everywhere? What’s the difference?” The answer is simple – because in doing so the government is legislating morality for all. When an umbrella is opened fully, whoever is under it will be in the shade regardless as to whether they want to be or not. In order to get back in the sun or rain, one must have the freedom to do so and this is impossible with only one umbrella or a federal mandate.For some, this is the same problem if a majority vote does not go in their favor. If the federal government (or for that matter individual states) makes a law to legalize same sex marriages everywhere and the government decides who gets licenses and requires them in order for a person to perform a marriage, what is to stop the government from refusing a license to someone who refuses to marry a same sex or heterosexual couple? Wouldn’t a same or opposite sex couple be able to sue a religious institution for discrimination? Of course they could because as it stands now, marriages in the church are subject to the authority of the state, because without a license, a minister cannot marry anyone.

If we sever this relationship, the decision of who to marry becomes the sole decision of the religious institution and they cannot be punished or rewarded in any way for it. If you are thinking that such a scenario will never happen, think again, it already has in this instance. There have also been instances where churches refused to marry same sex couples and homosexual pastors have refused to marry heterosexual couples, which is their prerogative. In my opinion, this is inherently in conflict with anti-discrimination laws because of the existing license requirement imposed on leaders of religious institutions by the state. If we take away license requirements, we cut the religious umbilical cord to the state.

To avoid all of this, the decision of who can marry should rest in the hands of each religious institution or entire denominations and we must eradicate licensure requirements in this regard. What I am advocating for are individual umbrellas for each religious institution and one for the state. A religious institution has the right to oppose and refuse gay marriage or allow it. My proposal renders the state non-partisan as it should be and restores autocracy to religious institutions as far as marriage is concerned. Others will ask, will a church or mosque be able to deny interracial or interfaith marriages? The answer is yes as they should be, because religion is a predecessor of government and religious institutions can define marriage how they want with a few limits. Contrary to what some think or recent events, institutions who refuse interracial couples are not popular nor widespread. Ones who refuse interfaith couples (for example a Christian marrying a Hindu) are doing so because of religious dogma and are within their rights to refuse such a union. For every religious entity which discriminates for these reasons, there are ones that don’t. In America, we have options, let’s utilize them.

Both spouses and life partners would also have equality in civil and legal matters which are not covered by legal documents such as wills, for example. If same sex or opposite sex couples do not want a merger under a civil union because of any perceived inequality or inferiority because of naming, they can seek a marriage from a religious institution which will marry them and these days there is no shortage of institutions willing to do either. I must reiterate that neither marriages or civil unions are defined in my proposal by the gender or sexual preference of the individuals which make up the couple by the state. It’s up to the religious institutions to restrict their definitions to same sex or opposite sex couples, or allow both. This also would mean that DOMA would not need to be repealed necessarily, but rather it would be amended to define marriage as a union of religious origin rather than gender, for two or more** persons. A religious institution, however, can define marriage by gender in it’s decision of who it will and will not marry. 

What one religious denomination decides to allow or refuse has no bearing on the religion as a whole. Denominations were created because of varying religious interpretations for the most part. If a religious institution presided over your ceremony you’re married, if the government did so you are merged. Your gender is irrelevant. From my perspective, this is the best way to compromise while keeping the state in it’s proper place with regards to marriage – limited but allowed some regulation, which is no different from private sector commerce. Think about it.

**Stay tuned, Walter Myers III will explore the topic of polygamy & marriage in Part II to this blog!

 
25 Comments

Posted by on August 1, 2012 in Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Society

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s “Truth Team” Caught….Lying

Obama’s “Truth Team” Caught….Lying

I signed up in 2008 on Barack Obama’s website to receive email updates on the campaign and four years later, I still receive the emails. For the most part, I delete them but sometimes I read them (depending on the topic) and I’ll forward them to my Conservative BFF & fellow blogger (a superb writer in his own right) Walter Myers III. Walter & I often have discussions about many political topics of the day and for my part I enjoy these discussions because no matter how much we may agree (or disagree), we always learn from one another and it’s great to have someone else’s perspective before I expound on a topic in a blog. I received the following email after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare:

Talitha —

I’d love to take a moment to savor yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, but we don’t have time.

Already, Mitt Romney and Republicans are out with outright falsehoods about Obamacare — their favorite distortion being that this is somehow a broad tax on the middle class. In reality, this is all about personal responsibility — and the “tax” they are trying to scare everyone about is actually a penalty for the 1 percent of people who can afford insurance but still choose not to buy it, leaving the rest of us to pay for their health care when they head to the emergency room.

Just like they did when the bill was before Congress, Republicans are playing fast and loose with the truth, making up scary consequences to keep you from knowing all the good things Obamacare does. They’re not telling the truth about what this reform means for millions of middle-class Americans, so I need you to help get the facts out there.

Let’s break it down.

I forwarded this “Truth Team”email to Walter and we discussed these five points which ironically, couldn’t be further from the truth and decided to collaborate. Here’s how Walter and I both feel about Obama’s alleged “truth” regarding the GOP and future president Mitt Romney:

#1 Republican distortion: “The President promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class by a penny with this health care law. Well, that’s been proven false now.”

The facts: President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three and a half years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts, to the American Opportunity Tax Credit which gives up to a $10,000 tax credit to help families pay for four years of college, the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.

Here’s another fact: Obamacare includes the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 19 million people will receive tax credits — worth an average of about $4,800 each — to help afford health care. These tax credits will finally put health insurance within reach for millions of American families. In short, Obamacare cuts taxes for middle-class families. Period.

Around 1 percent of people — those who can afford to buy coverage but instead choose to opt out, shifting their costs to the rest of us — will pay a penalty. The Supreme Court acknowledged yesterday that this penalty will be charged through the tax code — but that doesn’t change its purpose (to ensure everyone who can afford insurance buys it) or its effect (to lower costs for everyone). It’s also the same policy Mitt Romney implemented when he signed health reform in Massachusetts. For many folks in Massachusetts, the penalties under Romney’s reform were even bigger. In fact, here’s a video of him extolling the virtues of his penalty.

REAL FACTSFirst of all, Obama attempts to fool the public by calling a tax a penalty because he knows that raising taxes is toxic. However, when his legislation is being questioned in from of the court, his lawyers say it is a tax even though he sold it as a penalty. Even once the court says it is a tax, Obama, his administration, and his campaign team continue to lie about it not being a tax. It is the height of hypocrisy, then, to say that Romney is lying. The entire law is based on a lie because it does not make healthcare more affordable and it pays for it through a myriad of new taxes. Moreover, they lied about the costs because now we see that the costs are at least double from what we were originally sold when the legislation passed. Furthermore, in 2010 Mitt Romney stated that his plan was for Massachusetts only and he’d never roll it out as a federal plan. Some of us may not like Romneycare but it was a state decision, which is a reflection of Mitt Romney’s respect for empowered states as the constitutional framers wanted. The “Truth Team”, in it’s rush to demonize Romney and Romneycare, neglects to tell us that 62% of Massachusetts residents surveyed support the healthcare law there.

#2 Romney distortion: Romney said Obamacare meant “a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life — separating you and your doctor.”

The facts: Totally dishonest. In fact, this is one of the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn’t about government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation’s private health care system.

Second, here’s what it fixes. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had free rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and they could waste our premiums on overheads and big CEO bonuses. With Obamacare, there will now be clear rules of the road to give patients and doctors more control over their health care. These rules will make sure that you and your doctor — not your insurance company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat — have control over your health.

REAL FACTSThis is absolutely about government so Romney is on target. How can it not be with 150+ new federal agencies to regulate insurance and medical care? And what about the IPAB, a 15-member commission appointed by the president whose purpose is to make annual “legislative proposals” starting in 2014 that will result in reducing the per capita rate of growth in Medicare? That is not more and bigger government intruding into your life between you and your doctor? Please. The best way to improve the nation’s private health care system is to make it more competitive, not coerce it to do the government’s bidding through artificial constructs only Washington bureaucrats could dream up. Also, it really is none of Obama’s business what insurance companies do with their money as long as they follow the law and do not cheat their customers. Bringing up CEO bonuses is nothing but another example of the class warfare that Obama likes to shamelessly foment. The bottom line is not just a Washington bureaucrat, but numerous Washington bureaucrats have control over your health, and Obama is lying if he is telling you that is not the case.

Supporting Evidence:

Obama’s Other Unconstitutional Provision (www.hoover.org)

Price: Obamacare Means 159 New Government Agencies (www.newsmax.com)

#3 Romney distortion: “Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have.”

The facts: Outright false. If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. The only thing that’s changed is that your coverage is stronger. Here’s how:

— If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60 percent of employer-based plans did), it’s been lifted.
— If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan.
— Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.
— Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anyone insurance based on preexisting conditions, helping up to 129 million Americans get the care they need.
— Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for the exact same coverage.
— 54 million Americans already have access to better preventive services, free of charge.
— And if you get sick, your insurance company can’t drop your coverage, and if they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.

Republicans who tell you Obamacare won’t let you keep your plan if you like it are lying to you — and it is shameful.

REAL FACTS: Obama continues to perpetuate a known lie because millions of Americans will lose some or all of the insurance coverage they have enjoyed. Obamacare causes employers to spend more money on healthcare plans for their employees because of the myriad taxes Obamacare imposes. Thus, costs will necessarily go up. Just look at the list above. When you impose all of these regulations, they will cause prices to rise significantly (which has already happened with the partial implementation of the law thus far). If you lift the lifetime limit, then premiums will have to rise. If you add children to a plan under the age of 26, premiums will rise. If insurance companies can no longer exclude anyone with a preexisting condition, then it will be impossible for an insurance company to stay in business without massive increases in premiums. What’s worse is that since the “penalties” for those who refuse to purchase insurance begins at a low teaser rate, smart people will just wait until they get sick, wreaking havoc on insurance actuarial tables. I don’t know how they will survive this and how any fool could think this is even workable.

It is a known actuarial fact that women have more healthcare needs than men simply due to the different makeup of their bodies, so why can’t they be charged more? If not, then everyone else will have to be charged more. These provisions above are the most egregious of the healthcare and are entirely unworkable, almost designed to make the private insurance industry fail so the government can create a single-payer system. Finally, if you are now giving preventive care to everyone for free, how can costs not rise? Yes, you can say this will lower costs over time, but can you really expect that once people are given “free” healthcare that they will be more responsible? I hardly think so. If you don’t earn your healthcare, you will never appreciate it as you would if you earned it. Thus, I believe that overall health will NOT increase because there is no incentive to be healthy. If premiums are manipulated so that one person can’t be charged the true actuarial cost based on their health, then why would a smoker quit since he/she wouldn’t have to pay appreciably more than the next person who doesn’t smoke? Their is no true price signal that would deter them, and they can also just wait until they get sick to buy healthcare. That is how perverse the healthcare law is since it is NOT market based.

Supporting Evidence:

The Coming ObamaTax Bomb (www.townhall.com)

If You Like Your healthcare Plan Can You Keep It? (The Foundry/Heritage.org)

#4 Republican distortion: “Costs are going up.”

The facts: Health care costs have been going up for decades — that’s one of the reasons President Obama fought to pass the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare makes targeted changes to hold costs down. The President started by taking on the insurance companies. As he said yesterday, the law ensures that insurance companies spend 80% of your premium dollars on your health care, not administrative costs or CEO bonuses. If they don’t follow that rule, they have to send you a rebate. This month, more than 12 million Americans will receive over $1 billion in rebate checks, and we’re all seeing lower premiums because of it.

The law also takes on waste in our health care system. Let’s take just one example. We spend billions of dollars every year treating people for infections they get while they are in the hospital. The health care law helps hospitals take simple but necessary steps to prevent infections. These types of reforms will save up to $35 billion and 60,000 lives.

REAL FACTSObamacare, as discussed above, only adds to the cost and does nothing to lower or contain costs. Also, it is simply common sense that if you bring supposedly 30 million more people into the healthcare system that the cost will go up since these people must now be served. What Obamacare does is just create more complexity and bureaucracy in a system that needs to be simplified and made more efficient. If we can’t make Social Security and Medicare work, what on earth would make someone think another entitlement system will be successful and make costs go down? The problem is not administrative costs and CEO bonuses, even though Obama likes to make this out to be the problem, which only someone who has no knowledge of the insurance industry would fall for. It is pure sophistry. Finally, premiums are already rising, so they can’t say just two years into Obamacare that premiums are going down in any case. In fact, they have had to provide over 1000 waivers to companies who said it was going to be a major burden to them to participate in the law. Ironically, most of the waivers went to union members and also restaurants in the district of none other than Nancy Pelosi:

Supporting Evidence:

1 In 5 of latest Obamacare Waivers Went to Nancy Pelosi’s District (Hot Air)

Over Half of All Obamacare Waivers Given to Union Members (The Weekly Standard)

And finally….

#5 Romney distortion: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.”
The facts: Wrong again. The Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit by over $100 billion during the first ten years. In the following decade, it cuts the deficit by another $1 trillion. Not only is the Romney campaign misleading people about the President’s deficit plan, they won’t tell the truth about their own. Romney would grow the deficit by as much as $5 trillion by giving tax cuts that favor millionaires and billionaires while taking away health care benefits that people rely on. We can’t let them get away with it.
I’m going to be perfectly clear: Mitt Romney has promised that if elected our next president, he will repeal Obamacare on Day One in office. Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold health care reform yesterday, Romney reminded his supporters: “When I’m President…Obamacare will be over.”
 If Romney gets his way, 105 million Americans could see their lifetime caps reinstated, and more than 3.1 young Americans could be booted off their parent’s plan and could again be without insurance. Up to 17 million children with preexisting conditions could, once again, be at risk of being denied coverage, and insurance companies could once again drop you if you get sick.
REAL FACTSThat is a pure lie that is counter to the CBO’s own projections. The CBO now projects that the health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. According to the CBO, 3 million fewer people will have health insurance through their employer, while 17 million Americans will be added to Medicaid and 22 million will be getting coverage through government-run exchanges. So Obama care is hardly a solution, and it needs to be repealed in favor of a real solution that does not involve government but increases competition and fixes the inequities in the current system.
Supporting Evidence:

 

Despite the “Truth Team’s” untruthful caveats regarding what would happen if Mitt Romney wins the election, Mitt Romney will not only repeal the Obamatax/Obamacare, he does have a plan to replace it with because no American wants to go back to what we had exactly. In an article in the New York Times, Op/Ed Columnist David Brooks gives us a hint of what Mitt Romney’s replacement for Obamacare would be:

“Moreover, there are alternatives. Despite what you’ve read, there is a coherent Republican plan. The best encapsulation of that approach is found in the National Affairs essay, “How to Replace Obamacare,” by James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit. (Mitt Romney has a similar plan, which he unveiled a little while ago and now keeps in a secret compartment in subsection C in the third basement of his 12-car garage).”

Barack Obama’s “Truth Team” is just another part of his smear campaign against the GOP and Mitt Romney but many Americans can see through his political legerdemain and we will not be victims of this “dumbing down” of American citizens. I have faith and trust that Mitt Romney is the man to do the job and I feel confident in saying that my friend Walter Myers III has the same level of trust but either way, unlike Democratic (the majority) blind support of Obama no matter what he does ( or fails to do), we will hold his “feet to the fire” to ensure that these promises are kept along with every other Conservative. To Obama’s “Truth Team” we suggest another career because your lies are transparent and this will only lead you to one place: the unemployment line on November 6th, 2012 behind Barack Obama and all of the rest of his liberal cronies and sycophants.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Exclusive: Black Christian Conservative Allegedly Thrown Out of Summer Program at Georgetown for Refusing LGBTQ Tolerance Indoctrination

Exclusive: Black Christian Conservative Allegedly Thrown Out of Summer Program at Georgetown for Refusing LGBTQ Tolerance Indoctrination

One of the most wonderful news stories that I was so happy to hear over the last two years was that of Urban Prep Academy in Chicago. It is the only 100% African-American male charter high school in Chicago and the entire country. It also has had a 100% college acceptance rate for it’s senior class for the last three years. There has been no shortage of coverage, accolades and pride for these young men in the media and the community, in fact, here are some of the headlines:

“Another Perfect College Acceptance Year At Urban Prep” – Chicago Tribune

“Urban Prep Academy announces 100% four-year college acceptance rate” – Examiner.com

“Urban Prep: 100% of Graduates College-Bound For Second Straight Year” – Huffington Post

Big Things Poppin’ at Urban Prep Academy: 100% of Their Men Heading to College – YourBlackWorld.net

Governor Pat Quinn (D) of Illinois shared this tweet expressing his excitement for Jarrett’s acceptance into his own Alma Mater on March 30th 2012 and rightfully so:


In an article just before the 2012 Urban Prep Academy graduation in the Milwaukee Courier, Jarrett Roby shared this:

I have lived on both the West Side and South Sides of Chicago. I chose Urban Prep because the news of the two previous graduating classes having 100 percent college acceptance rate was impressive,” says Jarrett.

He adds that before he came to Urban Prep, he had good self-esteem. “But Urban Prep challenged me to pursue excellence which has caused my self-esteem to increase. Urban Prep has inspired me to rise above and beyond all negative stereotypes and statistics that society has for young Black males.

Like JaBrice (Reese a classmate of Jarrett’s), Jarrett’s favorite subject at the academy is also African American History. “In my Honors African American History class, I am constantly learning surprising information about my race. The class provokes stimulating debates which in our teams cultivates and inspires outspoken individuals and independent thinkers.

The 18-year-old plans to attend Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. He is considering a major in Biology so as to be a “competitive applicant” when he applies to medical school.

My short term goal is to become an emergency room physician or general surgeon. My long term career goal is a leadership position in the United States government.”

There are plenty more where that came from however, actually, I digress. Not very long ago (June 16th 2012) Jarrett Roby, who was also student body president, not only graduated with honors but was accepted to prestigious Georgetown University and received a full scholarship. He was also selected to participate in the Georgetown University Community Scholars program which according to their website is not only “The Soul of Georgetown” but also:

The Community Scholars Program provides Georgetown students with the unique opportunity to thrive. Scholars are carefully selected during the admissions process based on their academic achievement, impressive co-curricular accomplishments, and commitment to the transformative power of education. They typically represent diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and are often first generation college students.”

The Community Scholars program is sponsored by “The Center for Multicultural Equity & Access (CMEA). Their mission statement is here. My fellow conservative blogger and radio host Kira Davis of CDN network’s show “The Dark Side” and I simultaneously received some news tips and disturbing information this evening. She and I both were very shocked, angered and saddened to learn that this promising student, Jarrett Roby, future surgeon and physician was given the boot from this program because of his refusal to attend a workshop on “tolerance” of the LGBT community and “people who are different”. To be clear, Jarrett Roby was suspended from the summer enrichment program – Community Scholars, not Georgetown University in the Fall.  We received this disturbing news today from a source (who shall remain anonymous) whose eye/earwitness account was this regarding recent disturbing events at this summer program for selected Georgetown students who will matriculate the school this Fall:

I am here at Georgetown University through a program hosted by the Center for Multicultural Equity and Access called the Community Scholars Program. The program focuses on assisting underprivileged students attain a college education, and therefore they allow us to attend a five week intensive program that immerses us in two classes, and we get priority registration. The program is great overall and has great intentions, but today and over the past week they got out of hand.

It was brought to our attention that the program was requiring us to attend a workshop that essentially pushed for LGBTQ** Rights and “Tolerance” for people who are different than we are. I did not feel comfortable attending such a workshop, so I spoke to the Resident Director and the Assistant Program Coordinator. They both told me that I had to attend and that if I did not attend I would be subject to disciplinary action. A lot of people were not comfortable attending, but because they threatened us with disciplinary action, many just went along.

I finally spoke to the Program Director who then was the nail in the coffin in stating that if I did not attend I would be subject to disciplinary action. An individual who also felt the same as I did decided not to attend and he was expelled and suspended from the program. They even had the Georgetown Police (Department of Public Safety) escort him out. He refused to attend the workshop from the beginning, and we both felt uncomfortable but they refused to respect our ideas. I just went along with the flow, but I was uncomfortable. The other student was expelled from the program because of his religious and political beliefs.”

**LGBTQ=Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning people (people who are questioning their sexuality/gender)

Kira took the liberty of uploading this exclusive video which we received (from an source we will not name) exposes a small portion of this “tolerance” workshop. Here it is:

According to a second source (who shall also remain anonymous) that student was none other than Mr. Jarrett Roby, who according to his profile on a social media site is a “disciple of Christ”. According to that source it is he whom the CMEA had thrown out by the Georgetown police because of his religious beliefs! How ironic is that? He refused to attend a class on “tolerance”of the LGBTQ community rights and “those different than we are” and those who were attempting to coerce him to take the workshop showed him zero tolerance for his faith. It seems as though those persons are the ones needing the tolerance workshop. What is even more shocking is that this would occur on the campus of Georgetown University – the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the country.

So what is next – will an atheist be forced to take a workshop on theology or “religious tolerance”? Will a vegetarian be required to eat meat or take a class on butchering a pig? I have to also wonder if in this “tolerance workshop” members of the LGBTQ community were taught to tolerate those of us who exercise our first amendment right to practice the religion of our choice and adhere to it’s practices. You see, contrary to liberal media portrayal, it’s not that Christians (or members of any religion which prohibits homosexual lifestyles) are “intolerant” of the LGBTQ community, for we dislike the sin of homosexual lifestyles but most certainly not homosexuals themselves. In fact, in my blog Conservative Calmversation, I dealt with the issue of unequal sin condemnation among Christians here. I had the pleasure of communicating with Jarrett via social media and confirmed this story and he explained how this situation unfolded. Here is what he shared in his own words:

Me: “How are you Jarrett? My name is Talitha McEachin I’m a writer/blogger for several conservative political sites including CainTV , KiraDavis.net and other sites. I heard about your dismissal from the summer program at GU because of the “Gay tolerance”class and as a Christian & Conservative it makes me VERY upset that they would trample all over your beliefs & force you to take a class (well try to. I’m writing an article about it now). Can you tell me what happened? What made you decide to stand your ground rather than just taking the class in order to stay in the program.”


JR: “
Hello. Thank you for contacting me. I am doing well. I’m just greatly saddened about the situation. Officially, the program directors will say I was dismissed from the program because I left 3 of the Ra’s {Resident Advisers} feeling physically threatened. However I never mentioned anything remotely violent or did anything violent. Also I am confident that all of my peers would support the fact that I have never showed an ounce of violence and any such claims are flawed. The directors of the program who dismissed me said that their reasoning may not be fair, but they were not going to ask for a general consensus of me.

Considering this, I believe I was asked to leave the program because I took a conservative stand against a liberal ideology and liberal group of people who are in charge of the program. Every scholar apart of the program was signed up for an LGBTQ seminar for Monday (July 23). My friend, _____________, and I decided this was a seminar we would not attend. I am a devout Christian so I have no animosity in my heart toward any man whether he is gay or straight. I am required to love all people and I try my best to do so. I have no problems with homosexuals because it is the natural and God given right to be with whom they want to be with (Freewill). I do not support Gay rights, but as a supporter of the US constitution I do tolerate them.


Because I have an established view point on LGBTQ I did not think it was necessary for me to go to the seminar.
I approached a RA privately with my appeal on Sunday and it was automatically shut down and I was told I could expect to be written up if I did not go to the seminar. I held my peace and persisted with the idea of not going. Later that night other students got wind that ____ and I were not planning on going to the seminar. We were automatically attacked and deemed “closed-minded” and “ignorant”. In the mist of this rising confrontation I began to speak up to try and explain to other scholars how I was not trying to be intolerant. During this discussion the same three RAs that decided that they felt physically threaten tried to stop the conversation and send everyone to their rooms before the established curfew.

I once again spoke up in protest of the early curfew and with an appeal that everyone calms down and back off. As the intensity died down it was clear that the RAs had personal biases toward LGBTQ and were against anyone who spoke against it. I heard the RAs say negative things about me but I didn’t respond because once everything died down it was curfew and I did not want to turn a political debate into and emotional onslaught.

The next day I was called in by the program directors and told my actions during the informal debate had reassured the RAs feeling of being threatened. I was told that there had been a meeting with the RA’s and it was decided that I could not stay because 3 RAs were scared for the safety. I believe a true injustice was done to me. I am not looking for revenge, but I am trying to help stop injustice.”

Folks, this young (18 years old) Christian Conservative man has stood his ground for the biblical principles he holds dear and for that I applaud him. What he is saying is that by virtue of accepting Christ and adhering to the teachings of Christ, he is already tolerant of not only the LGBTQ community but all others “different than him”. The interesting thing is that on the website description of the workshop there is no information regarding this workshop as a part of the program, however, to be fair, Jarrett says he learned of this workshop when he arrived on campus for the program as it was in his itinerary: 

Me: Did you express your concern about attending to anyone early on?

JR: No, I did not express my concern about attending early on. I felt like the problem would best be solved near the date and I thought I’d easily be excused from this workshop if I expressed concern based on my religious faith.

Me: Did they tell you you’d be disciplined or possibly kicked out for not attending this workshop early on at the start of the program or was that included in your written itinerary?

JR: They told us that we could receive disciplinary action of we missed some on the itinerary. But I definitely thought I could make an appeal for the LGBTQ seminar because of personal views if I didn’t attend.

Me: Did they give you a reason why you needed this workshop or explain why it was required? After all, Georgetown is a Catholic university.

JR: No, not at all.

Me: Now that you have read the account of the other witness whom I cannot name, is their version of events accurate in your opinion?

JR: Yes that account is accurate. It’s just a broader version of events.

Me: How has this affected your excitement about attending GU in the Fall? Do you think the CS program represents Georgetown’s core values? After all it’s a religious based university.

JR:I Think Georgetown is a great school. I think the CS program is a good program just misguided and biased in some of their approaches. I’m still looking forward to attending GU in the fall and I trust that it will be a good experience.

I want to thank Jarrett Roby for sharing his story with me. I also applaud him for not only sticking to his guns but being so gracious and appreciative for his upcoming Georgetown education. Unfortunately his story (the general discrimination assuming all testimonies are accurate) is one that has become all too familiar. In our society’s efforts to secure rights and tolerance for the LGBTQ community (which I don’t disagree with, they should not be discriminated against), we have begun trampling over the rights of those who do not support such lifestyles based on their religion. He simply did not want to participate in a class that is an effort to inculcate and indoctrinate the homosexual lifestyle acceptance agenda which is contrary to his faith and neither would I. Can you imagine, that at a prominent Catholic University, a young black Christian Conservative is thrown out of a summer program for minority scholars because of his refusal to be subjected to teachings contrary to his religious faith? Shame on the CMEA and Georgetown University! Newsflash CMEA and Georgetown University: Jarrett, myself and millions of other Christians are already as tolerant as we need to be by extending the love of Christ to anyone regardless of their background, age, sexual orientation, race, gender, nationality and a host of other categories.

Jarrett is a perfect example of how to stand your ground amid liberal attempts to make homosexual lifestyles normative and mainstream. If this is any indication of how he will grow and mature as a college student, then perhaps he or others like him will be the first fiscally and socially responsible black president. How is it that Jarrett, an 18 year old college student and a Christian, can refuse to give in to the liberal homosexual agenda yet Barack Obama, 50 years old and another self-professed Christian, caves under the pressure of the LGBTQ community on same sex marriage. Jarrett needs to have a courage workshop and Barack Obama needs to be required to attend it. You don’t have to succumb to the homosexual lifestyle agenda in order to respect them as human beings and treat them fairly. The homosexual members of my family know that I love them but they also know that I mean business when I say that based on my faith I abhor their lifestyle choice. I don’t need to be taught to tolerate their lifestyle because my faith says that all that I have to do is love them. The very fact that this workshop, which is not academic in nature, is being required under the threat of disciplinary action, demonstrates in and of itself a lack of tolerance on the part of those over the program – the very principle they are trying to teach. I have no problem with a voluntary workshop of this nature but coercion never produces tolerance, only resentment and perhaps even intolerance.

What also is very striking is that as per Jarrett’s account and that of the witnesses, these three resident advisers felt “physically threatened” by this young scholar, so much so that they utilized the Georgetown Police to remove him from the premises. Since liberals are so great at detecting “coded language” here’s a translation we all can agree with <sarcasm alert>: He’s black, somewhat large in stature, black, a Christian, black, a Conservative…black…a teenager…black…so we need to call the police and have him thrown out…Did I mention that Jarrett Roby is black? These “tolerant” people who allegedly threw this teenager out with police escorts are the type of people who rail against alleged conservative intolerance but refused to even hear Jarrett out completely.

Kira Davis was scheduled to interview Jarrett Roby on her internet radio show “The Dark Side” on 7-24-12 however, he changed his mind & declined the appearance. She did however, replay a portion of a recorded telephone conversation and read/discussed the various eyewitness statements, here is the recording. Kira received the following emailed response from Stacy Kerr from the Georgetown Communications office earlier today regarding the Roby situation:

“All new students at Georgetown University participate in programming and orientations to prepare them to be successful in a university environment that is inclusive and respectful of diverse groups of people. During orientation all news students participate in Pluralism in Action, a session exploring issues related to diversity and tolerance.Some specific programs, like the Georgetown Community Scholars Summer Program, give us the benefit of time over the summer to address issues in more depth. In addition to diversity, some examples of this in-depth programming include sessions on financial literacy and healthy relationships.In the instance that students make administrators aware of religious or personal objections to any training or programs, the university works to provide alternative approaches to fulfill these requirements in concert with students’ beliefs”.

I also received this anonymous response from another eyewitness who does not agree with the eyewitness accounts above:

“This is really sad how blown out of proportion this is getting. The sources are faulty and biased. I’m a Community Scholar and I am witness to the situation that night. Jarrett was in fact, loud and aggressive. These articles on the situation overly-victimize Jarrett and throw dirt on people who do not deserve it. They explained to us that he was dismissed not because of that incident, but because of a series of other incidents that he has been involved in. He was on probation in regards to the higher authorities of the program. He was not removed because of his beliefs nor was he singled out because of his beliefs. His approach was extremely aggressive and inappropriate and it left many people hurt, in fear, and upset. Of course, his best friends will “attest” to what they claim happened and it is unfortunate how it is being portrayed. ________, the other “conservative” involved, hid behind the shadows of Jarrett as Jarrett went off on a rage that night. _______ said things like “I’m going to get my lawyer!” _______ is the recorder of the video shot during the LGBTQ workshop (WORKSHOP NOT TRAINING).

These articles are out of line and exemplifies how unreliable the media is. It is unfortunate how quickly Jarrett bit the hand that fed him. The very least he could do is own up to his mistakes, learn from them humbly, and go on with life. Exaggerating, falsifying information, and completely sugarcoating his way to sympathy is pathetic and childish. 100% of us could not and WILL not vouch for him because his antics were very offensive, uncalled for, and frightening (not because of what he believes, but how far he would go verbally to make them clear).This has nothing to do with race. There are two white kids out of 52 of us. We are all minorities, including the higher authorities of this program with whom made the decision that Jarrett had to leave. Campus police being called is normal protocol for someone who is being dismissed. They are ensuring the safety of everyone on campus by escorting him out of the front gates. By being dismissed, he no longer had a reason to remain on campus, therefore STOP VICTIMIZING HIM AND SUGARCOATING THE SITUATION. So sad how someone can bash their own school, especially in order to avoid learning from one’s mistakes. Humble YOURSELVES!”

Well, there you have it, and each person can decide for themselves which version of events they find the most plausible. Of course, even with my own provocative opinions, I was not there. I know that some liberals and members of the LBGTQ community may call me “homophobic” (a misnomer I fear nor hate anyone) and others might say that I am “playing the race card”. The latter group may be correct for once. My response is a simple one: You’re damn right I’m not only playing the race card but I’m calling out the liberal agenda with it as well.I hope you all are paying close attention because this story, Jarrett’s story, is one such case where the race card has been put to proper use for once.

 
21 Comments

Posted by on July 24, 2012 in Breaking News, In The News, Politics

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Re: “You’re well off, that’s why you’re against Obamacare”

Re: “You’re well off, that’s why you’re against Obamacare”

In response to my blog, “Obamacare: The Left Won the Battle, The Right Will Win the War“, some have sent me messages telling me that since I’m “well off” that’s why I’m against Obamacare. I have to tell you that this lack of political acumen on the part of those individuals is an indication that instead of paying the “Obamatax” our money is probably better spent on education reform. I had a person to comment:

“According to my job, Obamacare wont change anything regarding my current coverage and since my coverage is sufficient for me I dont really have much gripe about obamacare passing.”

First of all I am by no means “well off”, my personal healthcare situation is irrelevant in evaluating this situation and one thing I value in my commentary is a level of objectivity. I have two prescription medications which I need now but I’m having to battle with my insurance to cover and I still know and accept that Obamacare is not good legislation. Let me say this, this is not about me it’s about the good of the entire country. We cannot evaluate Obamacare based on our personal woes. It is an expensive piece of legislation that is bound for failure because we can’t pay for it.

If you’re thinking that since your healthcare plan won’t change, you’re poor or have a religious exemption so you don’t care about the healthcare ruling, it is that very mentality that got us here in the first place. Who do you think will pay for your healthcare in lieu of your exemption or poverty? The rest of us will be charged with this at the end of the day. More than that many who need it or think they’ll qualify for an exemption won’t.This is not a sustainable plan because almost fifty percent of Americans don’t pay taxes as is. Add yet another tax and there will be more who won’t pay it.

Are some of you really that obtuse? It’s simple math. You can’t have a healthcare plan with no co-payments, the inclusion of those with pre-existing (expensive) conditions and expect costs not to go up! Obamacare will fail because it’s twin predecessor Romneycare failed and Massachusetts is a state with a lot of wealthy residents. We have to think about what is not only good but affordable for all, not just our own personal circumstances. Since we are buying our own debt anyway (basically just printing more money) Obama should go ahead and print more money to pay for all of our healthcare.We’ve already hit the iceberg and since we apparently cannot see the life rafts being presented, we may as well sink expeditiously…

 
5 Comments

Posted by on July 1, 2012 in Politics, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare: The Left Won the Battle, The Right Will Win the War

Obamacare: The Left Won the Battle, The Right Will Win the War

Words are not adequate enough to fully express my initial level of shock and disappointment  for the SCOTUS’ ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare however, I am even more inspired by the increased level of patriotism in light of it. The SCOTUS has ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or “Obamacare” is unconstitutional under the commerce clause however, it was upheld as constitutional under the taxation clause. Most of the components of it remain in tact and the entire written opinion is here.

 Barack Obama has now added to his resume the largest tax increase on American citizens in US history. A very dangerous precedent has been set in that Congress can tax the citizens for anything – even inactivity. A mandate is a tax. Chief Justice Roberts’ message to Americans is very clear: This is a legislative problem that must be fixed by our elected officials. In other words, this needs to be handled politically for what it is – a tax increase. I think Roberts’ decision will silence Liberals who question the objectivity of the SCOTUS and he, as Chief Justice, is trying to balance maintaining the integrity of  the court and the sovereignty of the constitution. Instead of dealing with Obamacare politically, Republicans thought that they could just shift responsibility to the Supreme Court and it would be repealed or at worse, the individual mandate alone would be repealed. Now as per Chief Justice Roberts, we must take it back to Congress and deal with it politically. One slight benefit of the ruling is that now the Senate can’t filibuster on taxation issues like they could on issues of commerce but it’s up to us to do what is needed to ensure thatObamacare is repealed.

 This ruling is sending shock waves throughout populations of supporters for both political ideologies. Conservatives have gone from outrage to even more fervent support of GOP candidate Mitt Romney and a shift is bound to occur among independent voters as well.Within hours of the ruling, Mitt Romney’s campaign has received more 3 million dollars in donations and counting. All on the Left are not thrilled with this outcome either but both sides share responsibility for it. As analyst Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute reminded us regarding the predecessor for Obamacare (Romneycare) in 2008:

“Outside observers on both the Right and Left praised the program. Edmund Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation hailed it as “one of the most promising strategies out there.” And Hillary Clinton adviser Stuart Altman said, ‘‘The Massachusetts plan could become a catalyst and a galvanizing event at the national level, and a catalyst for other states.”

Critics of Mitt Romney argue that “Romneycare” is a failure (and it is) but you see, that’s the very reason Romney is  the right man for the job because he has tried it, failed and knows firsthand that Obamacare, modeled after his plan will not work. Massachusetts was an experimental microcosm of socialist inspired healthcare in the local private sector. Romney has tested his healthcare hypothesis in Massachusetts and failed, whereas with President Obama weare the test and his hypothesis is based on Romney’s so as logic dictates, we will fail. Barack Obama either deliberately ignores this in light of the tax revenue he will generate or is afflicted with political myopia so severe that he cannot see it. You decide. Romney has responded to the ruling stating that “In order to get rid of Obamacare we must get rid of Obama” as well as pledged to repeal it if elected and I believe that he will do this and we will make sure he keeps this promise:

Mitt Romney’s Reaction to Obamacare Ruling

As of today, according to the Seattle Times Barack Obama still has his work cut out for him (and I concur):

“Still, the triumph for Obama will not necessarily be enduring. The president now faces the challenge of trying to sell the merits of the health-care law again in the court of public opinion, even as Romney and Republicans can campaign on their promise to repeal the measure.

It was telling that Obama used his address from the East Room two hours after the court’s ruling to explain the law and its benefits to Americans, something that even some supporters said he had failed to do effectively after the law’s passage in 2010.”

Most liberals are celebrating which is quite confusing as well as humorous to me to be honest, because this should be a losing situation for them as well. Their shouts of victory show me that they don’t even understand their ownplatform. So a regurgitated republican healthcare plan that has been proven as a failure is a victory? Huh? They are still forced to buy insurance from the private sector which liberals have rallied against from here to kingdom come, in favor of government run healthcare. I’m starting to think liberalism is a mental disorder today and I would, except for those liberals friends of mine who have remained consistent in their quest for true socialized medicine which they believe can be benevolent and best run by the federal government. One such friend is Independent Liberal bloggerYvette Carnell, a contributor and editor of YourBlackWorld.net who said to me, in reaction to the ruling:

 “The Supreme Court may have limited the Commerce Clause, but they still legalized a mandate to buy PRIVATE health insurance. For me, that’s a problem since there’s no government alternative. You’re forcing me into the market no matter what. What if prices are high, then what? I’m still mandated to participate? I have issues with that…”

 Now of course, I don’t agree with Yvette but at least she has the wisdom to understand what this really means for the healthcare aspect of the liberal platform and no one can dare say that she or other liberals who share this sentiment are inconsistent. Obamacare was a covert love affair between Barack Obama and taxation that the Supreme Court has now brought out into the open. Instead of keeping this affair secret any longer, an engagement has been announced by Chief Justice Roberts and it’s up to us on Tuesday, November 6th 2012 to interrupt the ceremony when asked and speak up or hold our peace for four more years. In effect, liberals celebrating Obamacare is equivalent to a turkey celebrating Thanksgiving.

To continue reading please click here

MITT ROMNEY 2012!!

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RE: “Bush Did It, You Hate Obama”

RE: “Bush Did It, You Hate Obama”

“Bush did it/Bush did it too/You hate Obama” = “Talitha, I am really not educated on the issues enough to present a viable argument, so I’ll just blame Bush or try to divert attention from this by saying you hate Obama”

This is in response to many messages on social media and emails I have received in response to my blogs. If the shoe fits wear it (but there’s no need to tell me you’re wearing it), if not, don’t.

The most effective and strongest elected leaders take the moral and fiscal compasses they inherit and begin immediately to steer the people in the right direction. They do not give scapegoats or precedents more weight than the Constitution, which they take a public oath to uphold (on a Bible at that). They use common sense, morality, business and legislative acumen as well as the voice of the people, to ensure that every American is empowered to pursue life, liberty and happiness as the forefathers envisioned and as natural law makes apparent. If you want to argue that Obama is the best man for the job or that he is the lesser of two evils that’s fine but if you cannot do so apart from blaming Bush, or indulging in mind reading to tell me how I feel, then I submit, that you have not thoroughly studied the platform of the one you support to start with. Therefore, you cannot effectively argue aside from anti-Bush, anti-GOP or anti-Tea Party talking points and rhetoric.

In this election year, the most effective debates are color-blind and strictly seek to critique policy, legislation and actions in light of the constitution, not popularity, race, class or culture. Personally, I have conceded that America is too immature to do this, even after we have been separated by time from the many racial, cultural, gender-based and religious struggles, that so many of those before us gave their lives for, knowing that they would not see or benefit from such freedoms themselves. I urge you all to pray for all of our leaders and one another, that we would grow as a nation and reach the level of maturity and intellectual prowess needed, not merely to stay afloat but to thrive again. As for now we are no better than children squabbling over trinkets in a burning building. God help us. God help us all. God (please) bless America, even though we don’t deserve it.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 23, 2012 in Politics, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: