By Douglas V. Gibbs
Perhaps I wrote my posts about the new "hate crimes" provision in the defense bill, and the radical health care reform being proposed by the House, a bit hastily. Maybe I didn't take into consideration the liberal left's inability to understand anything unless it is carefully laid out, with meticulous attention paid to how I come to my conclusions (and even then it is a crap shoot on whether or not they will "get it").
The left tends to not read conservative writings to understand, but to find something to attack.
Considering that the left uses "progressives" as one of the labels they go by, one would think that the leftists would recognize when a writer was suggesting a possible progression of political events based on a new policy, while also realizing that the speculation regarding the suggested progression of events is in fact "speculative."
Definitive opinion is an oxymoron. Opinion of political futures are no more definite than the opinion that I will not die in my sleep tonight. I am pretty sure I will survive the night. I am healthy, and I have a history of waking up in the morning, but I can no more guarantee I will not meet my Maker while sleeping any more than a political opinion can guarantee that the chain of events they foresee should a particular piece of legislation pass happen as expected. Knowing this, I use words like "may," "could," and "alleged" sometimes when writing articles about my opinions. Using those words aren't a cop-out. Using those words are a sign that I recognize reality.
No human knows the future, but based on historical evidence, political models, and common sense, I believe I have a pretty good idea of the likelihood that certain political policies will be successful, and others will fail. Nonetheless, that does not mean that all speculation will come to pass as expected.
Obama's economic policies, for example, will result in a worsening of our economic troubles. I am as sure that his policies will damage our economy in the long run as I am that I will wake up tomorrow morning. It is possible, however, that unexpected factors currently unknown to any of us, like a new information technology emerging and taking the world by storm, could invigorate our financial system, creating jobs and a new avenue for moving goods in an inexpensive and quick manner, could take our economy to a new level - despite Obama's attempts to create inflation, and destroy America's economy. Therefore, when I write that Obama's plans will create further havoc in an already distraught economy, I do it realizing that maybe the right word to use is "may."
The opinion that Obama's economic policies will be disastrous to the American financial structure is not a conclusion I came to just because I don't like Obama, or whatever other warped reason the left would like to throw on the fire (racism, hate, ignorance, stupidity, party lines, parroting conservative talkers, etc.). My opinion that the Democrat's economic decisions, including a disastrous health care reform proposal, is dangerous to the future of America was formulated by careful examination of his policies, while understanding history, and how political and economic systems function. Based on all of that data, and my own gut feelings, I believe that everything Obama is doing is detrimental to the stability of the United States of America.
Barack Obama, and the Democrats, are putting into place policies that in a number of ways are consistent with European Socialism, which is a proven failure. The leftists will not admit that is what they are doing because they know the American People would never willingly except changing the American form of government into something Karl Marx would be proud of. Therefore, they are giving these socialist policies new names, and are sprinkling them with promises of "choice" and "Americanism" that they do not intend to keep. In the health care legislation, though their full intention is to lead America to a government controlled system (single payer), they say things like "you can keep your insurance if you like it," or "we are simply using the public option so that there can be competition," so that you are willing to accept it. They have no intention of keeping their word, nor can they. The new system, should it be put into play, will slowly be converted to the government controlled health care you are fighting against. It may take a decade or so, but after the private system is completely eliminated, and you won't have a choice. Government-controlled health care is all you will be allowed to have - and the quality of care in America will deteriorate as a result.
Why would the progressives do such a thing?
The basic tenet of liberalism is diametrically opposed to the basic foundation of conservatism. While conservatives believe liberty is best protected, and economies best thrive, when the federal government is limited, power is divided, and markets are allowed to function freely, the liberals believe that increased government involvement in your lives is necessary. Big government, according to the left, is the solution to all of our problems. People are too stupid to individually take care of themselves, as far as the leftists are concerned, and monetary success is unfair when there are so many people out there that are in poverty. Therefore, in the spirit of fairness, the left believes in equity - forced equity by the government. Of course those in charge don't see themselves as part of the mix. They are elevated elitists, not required to participate in the policies they put into place. I guess in their opinion, some people are more equal than others.
Just look at the health care legislation - members of Congress are exempt from the requirement to take part in government sponsored health care.
Human nature will never allow liberal programs to run as they do on paper. The progression of events will eventually lead to abuse, and corruption. Health care under governmental control will become too expensive, and then the government will begin to pick and choose what they are willing to cover, and who gets the care. Your choice will be eliminated, and a bureaucrat in Washington will make the decision on whether or not you will get health care, and ultimately, whether or not you get to live or die.
And they call that "Progression."
Progress is not always progress when you are progressing toward a dead end.
The same progression that isn't progress, based on human nature, and studying history here and abroad, applies when discussing the issue of "hate crimes."
In a prior post I made what the left considered to be an outrageous claim of what will eventually transpire if we allow hate crime laws to run amok. I indicated that pastors will be arrested for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and that the eventual result of hate crime laws will be the illegalization of the Holy Bible.
The hate crimes legislation the Democrats slipped into a defense bill as a provision because they couldn't get the bill passed on its own (which is a practice that needs to be stopped, by the way) was influenced heavily, they say, by the Matthew Shepard story. Shepard was a homosexual who was brutally beaten and left for dead back in 1998. The attackers allegedly attacked Matthew Shepard because he was gay, and society recoiled from such a heinous act. The outcry was massive, and Hollywood put out a mess-load of films depicting the tragedy.
The crime was horrendous, and the attackers got what they deserved, regardless of Matthew's sexual orientation. Why would "hate crime" need to be added? Was the killing of Matthew Shepard more heinous than the murder of another because he was gay? Does hate crime legislation give preferential treatment to some groups, while not to others?
Hate Crimes Legislation does no curb "hate crimes," but gives the groups the laws are designed to protect a legal weapon against those that oppose them, or even a legal weapon against those that they think oppose them, even though it may not be the case.
Wherever hate crimes legislation has been enacted, some members of the minority groups and homosexual community the laws are designed to protect begin to use the law to silence, or scare, their opposition. In Canada, for example, Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" placed him into serious legal trouble because of the facts he wrote about regarding Islam. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" ran into trouble in Canada for their stance that homosexuality is a sin, so the program stopped running the show in some areas, and edited the shows to be more "politically correct" where they do broadcast so as to not bring about more legal inquiries. In a different scenario, a pastor in Canada at one point was investigated for preaching inside his church the sins of homosexuality, and in Sweden a similar case played out. In both cases, ultimately, the cases were dismissed, but the fact that hate crimes laws were used to arrest these pastors and put them before a judge is undeniable.
Once the more radical members of a group realize they can use hate crimes legislation to silence their opposition, they will use it, and eventually one of the attempts will stick. Ultimately, freedom of speech will be eradicated as a result, thus forcing Christians to only say what they believe inside the four walls of a church. Eventually, even the church will not be safe, for a pastor will preach the sins of homosexuality, and a militant gay in the audience (in the hopes of catching a pastor disobeying the hate crimes law), and be arrested for such.
One of the arguments is that hate crimes legislation doesn't work that way - a crime must be committed, and then it must be determined if the motivation of the crime was against (insert minority or sexual lifestyle here).
Who is the government to determine what a motivation is? Isn't motivation something one keeps in their mind? That makes hate crimes legislation very Orwellian - think about it - Thought Crimes.
But how long before the crime itself is the willingness to speak out against the protected groups? Then what? If it becomes a crime to criticize the homosexual fetish by merely speaking a word, or writing a word, in opposition to the behavior, wouldn't that then make a pastor's sermon, or even the Holy Bible, unlawful?
A quick response to the quip by one of my leftist commenters about a Catholic Church in Ireland wanting to make it unlawful to criticize Christianity is that the Church in Ireland is being ridiculous. Think about it. Christians are under fire daily, and have been for two thousand years - and we tend to be defenders of freedom, and specifically freedom of speech. . . Do you really think we desire to become as tyrannical as the leftists are by limiting the speech of others, even when that speech is critical of Christianity?
Unlike Obama and gang, who has been trying to silence critics by going after the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the Chamber of Commerce, Biblical Christians do not wish to silence anyone - only share the good news of Christ with them. After all, we understand that we are all sinners, and have no room to be anything but humble about our faith - and it is a good thing that God doesn't expect us to come to Him as perfect beings, or to be perfect beings even as Christians - otherwise we'd all be heading South when eternity arrives.
I am more sure of that than I am that I will wake up when the sun rises.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment