Hillary's recent concession speech, which finally gave Barack Obama the Democratic Nomination (well, not really, she only suspended her campaign just in case __________ [you fill in the blank]), was filled with typical Liberal politics and ideas. The prevalent message was articulated early on in the speech. She said at the very start that she thinks public service is about ". . . helping people solve their problems and live their dreams." Sounds nice, don't it? Everything you ever wanted, and government will hand it to you since you aren't good enough to achieve it yourself.
Well, no thank you. The Socialist/Liberal idea of government taking care of my woes does not appeal to me. I have this funny thing about being responsible, working hard, solving my problems, and living my dreams through self-sufficiency. I know, it sounds a little crazy, but I prefer not to be dependent upon the government.
A liberal reader of this site, one that loves to try to corner me with lousy attacks on my positions, challenged me recently about this. He asked me, "What about those that who are at a disadvantage, and it's not their fault?"
I believe that anybody is capable of rising from the ashes.
A different liberal, not the one mentioned in the above paragraph, would say that my statement is saying I believe all poor people, and everyone using government assistance, is lazy, especially those with disabilities. How dare I. What a horrible person that must make me.
I never said that I think all poor people are lazy, or that every case of those with a disability is just sucking the government dry. . . but I do believe they are all capable of success without government assistance if they really desired.
And yet another liberal reader posed this challenge to me:
"What if your wife was pregnant and the doctor said the fetus was deformed and would never be able to walk, talk, and play. What would you do? Could you afford to care for it for as long as it lived? Or would you have to rely on taxpayers to pick up the cost [by you using programs that you proclaim you are so against]?"
The question was posed to me after I said to him that I believe abortion in America is essentially akin to genocide of America's unborn. The unstated comment in that question is, "With a child that is going to be a drain on the system, shouldn't you just abort it?"
My answer was that I would allow the child to be born, because all children have a right to live. I then compared his attitude to that of eugenics. He was really asking me if I would be willing to decline the opportunity for life to an "unacceptable" child - after I had told him that no child is unacceptable. I told him that I would do whatever it takes to care for that child, to enable the child the opportunity for life, and create an atmosphere for love and success. If I could help it, not public assistance would be used to take care of such a special child.
Then I sent him a link to a story of a kid from Australia who was born with no limbs. The name of this fine young man is Nick Vujicic. He will be speaking at my church, Harvest Christian Fellowship, in a couple weeks.
Twenty four years ago, when Nick was born, his birth was considered a tragedy. The church his parents had planted in Australia shortly before mourned. No one could see any good coming out of a boy being born with no arms or legs. Had his parents of been of the same mentality of the three liberals I mentioned above, he would have been aborted, and saved from the horrible life he would have to endure as a deformed child.
But has his life been horrible? Has his deformities held him back and make him wish he was never born?
At some points in his life he felt that way. I suppose that it would be normal to feel like that when the teasing by others reaches a crescendo. In fact, When he was 10 years old, when the teasing was unbearable, he admittedly wished he was dead. He fantasized about asking his parents to put him on a kitchen stool -- and then he could "fall" off and, he hoped, break his neck. When he couldn't bring himself to end it all, he begged God to let him grow arms and legs -- for God's benefit, of course. (A modern-day miracle! Think of how many people you could convert!) It never happened. But he began to realize that maybe he didn't need to grow arms and legs for his life to mean something. Maybe his accomplishments were enough of a miracle.
As he grew up, he alternately doubted God existed – questioning what sort of a God would do such a nasty thing – or he was angry at God for the same reason.
He remembers reading a Biblical verse in Sunday school which purported that he was created in the image of God. "And I'm like, 'Yeah, riiight," was his response.
Then, he began to realize he was impressive, if not downright inspirational. His story was one that people wanted to hear. After all, he had risen above the difficulties life had thrown at him, and was becoming an independently self-sufficient individual.
At 15, Nick officially thanked God that he was alive. At 17, he gave his first talk to a prayer group. The requests to speak snowballed. And now, at 23, that's all he does. His nonprofit organization is called Life Without Limbs.
He is an example of disability, and a person that is disadvantaged, becoming all he can be.
As I stated early on in this post: People are all capable of success without government assistance if they really desired.
It's not about laziness - it is about attitude, and the willingness of realizing that dependency upon the government, or anything else, is not a lifestyle one has to choose.
Individuality and independence is so much sweeter.
Join the Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA