I have no intention of signing up for what is commonly known as Obamacare. It would literally be signing away my life, my freedom and ultimately my ability to receive healthcare; I’m talking death panels. Further I could lose my very identity considering the Internet security issues. It is a human beings duty to refuse to submit to unjust laws as the founding fathers of our great nation made clear in word and deed.
Some eight years ago when I lost my full time job, healthcare for my wife and I would have cost us approximately $1,400/mth. (we both have pre-existing conditions of some kind) In other words, we are the Obamacare target demographic. We could not afford it then and cannot now. Since then prices have gone up drastically. But since we are in an older group of healthcare consumers let us assume that we would be some of the few who would see reductions in healthcare costs, at least in premiums. I have not gone on the site but I have heard many testimonies of the costs from others.
So if we stick with the old figure of $1,400/mth (which if I am wrong it is on the low side) and include a doctor’s visit once a year for my wife and I, part of the deductible, I need approximately $18,000/yr for healthcare. That is more than 50% of our income. As we stand, with expendable income and the money saved if we pay off our house (many many years away) freeing up $2,000 a year in interest, we would have at most $700/mth, or $8,400/yr for healthcare; about 25% of our income. So we would have to be subsidized nearly $10,000/yr (not going to happen) and would have no money for going to movies, out to dinner, bowling or even activities like cycling. We would also have to go back to one car and have no money for home repairs. In other words, Obamacare means less economic stimulus and more lost jobs. Whatever one’s income simply drawing thousands upon thousands of dollars out of each family budget itself will bring financial disaster. My numbers are low if anything. It makes one question what a living wage would be in the Obamacare universe.
Now if I truly get seriously ill and my deductible is $5,000 (again low side) it will cost me $22,000/yr.; nearly two-thirds of our income, year after year until I die, before I get a penny in insurance. That is two-thirds of our income if I am able to continue to work. Best just give me a pain pill.
If I am going to be denied treatment for an illness and must accept death, as an American and free man, I will do it on my terms. I will not turn myself over to the government, in the name of healthcare, and allow them to control every aspect of my life by controlling all my hard earned money, and your as taxpayers who would have to subsidize my healthcare, housing, and food stamps. Currently we take no form of assistance and take the risk of not having healthcare in the hopes to achieve the American dream and break through to prosperity.
I will not conform to this law and not simply because it is economically impossible for me and my wife to afford. Any politician who supports this law is a traitor to this nation and the people, especially those who know better. It is unworkable and financial slavery. It is not difficult to see, for even the lowest information voter. In 2014 no quarter can be given in regards to Obamacare. We must all fight with everything we have to repeal this law.
Or perhaps I could title this one “The End Times, Phil Robertson 5 of 4” as the topics he raised remain front and center; the social degradation of society, particularly concerning sexual morals. A topic Phil Robertson has proven to be a master communicator on.
This last Sunday at church one gentleman brought up billboards put up by a certain Christian denomination embracing homosexuality. To quote the gentleman second hand, though I have seen these billboards myself some time back, the billboard read ‘We don’t care who you love, we still love you.’ If you really believe in Christian teachings the sign really says, “We don’t care if you’re going to hell, we still love you.”
These contrasting phenomenon of mankind coming to a point where the priceless value of each individual is recognized, and the near complete loss of all values or sense of right and wrong, the ability to recognize what is true or not as far as that can be accomplished with a mature educated discerning mind, may appear confusing. It may be called a sign of the end times. Consider with this all the under covered wide-spread infections of HIV, drug resistant bacteria and potentially deadly new forms of the flu, natural disasters and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of extremists, and one may think the world is coming to an end.
Isaac Asimov, in his “Foundation Trilogy”, portrays society collapsing when the foundational base knowledge of the advanced technologies that all civilization is built upon is lost. The ability to repair or reproduce these advanced technologies degrades as this foundational knowledge is lost and eventual the technology becomes unsustainable..
But if we look at the Obamacare website, that has become front and center in the news, as an example it is not loss of base technical knowledge that is bringing down our civilization but a lack of moral knowledge and fortitude. The software developer, CGI Group, was not chosen based on ability. They failed in previous projects of great but lesser magnitude. The private sector offered to do the site for free. Others said they could have done it better for a small fraction of what was and is being charged. Most likely we will be overpaying for updates to this site in perpetuity. Like Solyndra, and other green companies, I suspect much of the fees paid for the healthcare site are being funneled into liberal political causes including the democrat party in the tens of millions of dollars if not more. That is why CGI Group was chosen, for political gain, power, and not for true ability.
And it is not just the government. Yahoo, that takes a liberal political view in total contradiction to the views of its users is sharing the same fate. Whether on guns, homosexuality or politics remarks are ‘liked’ hundreds to even thousands to one in contradiction to Yahoo’s liberal views. Yahoo recently updated their free ‘groups’ function. Included is a new database that does not collate by date. So I put the year first in my 700+ fitness entries (i.e. 13/12/25) and that seemed to work until I went to add a new entry. You cannot simply add a new entry like before. You must edit the entire file. All the entries were scrambled when editing the file. So if I see a problem with one entry and want to edit it and press “edit file” who knows where I’ll find it. The most basic of functions for a database no longer exists on Yahoo.
While the large number of contentious issues may appear confusing it is not confusing at all if you have the right perspective. Let’s take Yahoo for example. I read a Yahoo news article this past weekend, though I have been unable to find it again. The writer for Yahoo was explaining why Phil Robertson’s comments were hate. His reasoning was, because there is no God and homosexuality is a natural activity among species. And it is not a imperfection, which any man of common sense would call it since it hinders reproduction of the species, but a product of evolution; supposed sound science. I still have seen no science in support of homosexuality as a biological reality.
There is the godless, on one side, where there is no right or wrong because there is no God, but only the evolutionary struggles of the survival of the fittest. The ends justify the means, morals that would hinder that are weakness. Plato, in “The Republic” some 2,400 years ago argued ‘in the name of Socrates’ that a government must lie to its people for the greater good, censor all arts and information and control who reproduces and doesn’t. Such ideas inspire the oppressor and have developed into the communism of today.
Then there are the Christians on the other side, where God is an absolute reality. All this confusion is simply the war of ideas and world views, between those who deny God and those who believe in God. Those who deny God have fruits that are rotten and sicken our inner cities. They are wrong and fail because their world view is based on lies. The fruits of Christianity have brought goodness and prosperity to all, embodied in the United States as it was founded.
Christianity has answers to the accusations from the left. Christians profess absolute love especially for one’s enemy and the sinner. So why has Christianity been powerless to defeat the communist/liberal cause? I would suggest because Christianity is wrong on some point where communism is right. I am not talking about homosexuality as a sin. The ideas I will present are not new to the Judeo-Christian tradition but have been rejected by most.
Socialism professes an ideal on this earth. In Christianity there is no ideal until the last day when this world is destroyed. There are always those who will be left behind. What if that is wrong? What if the second coming and the descriptions of the end of the world are simply the end of the evil world and Christ will establish an eternal kingdom on this earth as was intended from the beginning? These are age old teachings that fell out of favor.
It is interesting how revisiting these rejected ideas concerning the end times are taboo to Christians while so many Christians seem willing to reconsider whether homosexuality is a sin or not, though it has never been considered anything but a sin. (Now that is confusing) Where socialism fails enormously for its’ enormous flaws, perhaps Christianity has lost its influence and power for its’ mistaken understandings of where this world is headed. Perhaps the liberals are right on that one point and that is where their power comes from. That is the singular point where liberalism rings true in the hearts of all.
Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame has suffered discrimination for what is being called by many hateful words. Rather, he clearly gave the word of God calling sin sin, and lost his job, momentarily, with A&E for it. I claim his words and actions do not come out of any hate or fear, but from love.
Is life eternal? Every civilization that has advanced mankind has had some understanding that life continues for eternity after life on this earth, even those that believed in a multitude of gods. Judaism stood for the one true God amidst these cultures of polytheism and is the foundation for all of western civilization with its prosperity and advancements. Out of that soil rose Christianity which achieved its greatest manifestation in the United States, a nation that has uplifted the entire world whether they are willing to admit it or not. And sin is still sin whether one wants to admit it or not.
The wages of sin is death; eternal damnation. What that means may vary from denomination to denomination but the belief in the eternal nature of life does not vary. It is a perspective that should permeate all of our society, because if life is ultimately eternal it does matter how you live. Respecting such commonly shared truths, apparent in all denominations, is what creates a Judeo-Christian society without establishing a national religion. It is the foundation of a society that respects all religions. It is the foundation of a free society.
When I was a child the idea of being a teenager seemed an eternity away. I never imagined reaching the age of The Monkees and now when I see them on TV I hardly remember what it was like being that young. Something I thought happened five years ago I find is ten or even fifteen years in the past. How will this life be perceived after ten-thousand years in the life after this one? A mere flash. Obviously we should be far more concerned with the eternal nature of our spirits than what recognition one can gain in this world.
Those consumed with pleasures of the flesh generally have little foresight. They can rationalize away and justify any criticism, especially in the light of a free society. They insist that they are in the right and all need to agree with them, and those who disagree are not just wrong but haters. It sounds to me, a simple man hardly perfect myself but one who has kept his face turned towards the one God, that these are the intellectual gymnastics of one trying to override a guilty conscience. That is my perspective gained from a life of personal reflection.
If one views life from the eternal perspective and truly loves his fellow man, all mankind, than how can he not warn those walking the path of sin? Phil Robertson’s words can only be seen as a work of love and concern for his fellow man. If his words make some people feel guilty my advise would be to listen to your conscience and not the one who seeks to drag you to hell, whose words always appear more pleasing.
In the controversy over the words of Phil Robertson few have given him 100% support. Even many who have supported him whole heartedly have taken small steps back for the supposed crude and rude nature of his remarks. The graphic language of homosexuals and liberals on TV have been clearly overlooked in the past. Such language can easily be call crude and rude, not to mention offensive. So… how is one supposed to describe the topic or the actions of the reproductive process of humankind? What terms do we use, to get straight to the point?
Yes, the reproductive process. The most basic drive of all life that keeps the species going. This perspective alone should be enough to put the question to rest over the issue of homosexuality. To date there has been no scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural. Do you want to point to penguins, that reproduce once a year in the harshest environment in the world, where if one male can’t compete and win a female his uncontrollable surging hormones lead him to bang anything dead or alive? A pretty crude topic I would say. Outside of human beings, the reproduction of species is completely driven by biology. (this suggests a design to me) There is no decision making and no difficulty explaining confusions among the animal kingdom for those armed with common sense. No abnormalities, outside of perhaps being inferior to other males, have been documented to explain any actions that would be described as outside the norms. Yes, the norms.
What descriptive language is used in our schools, given to your children in sex ed? The government now wants to start sexual education in kindergarten. What terms are to be used for kindergarteners? How many of us are even aware of the words and descriptions that are being used in our schools? Since homosexuality has been recognized as normal by many local governments and their corresponding school districts, what is the language they are using to an ever younger audience to describe such relationships? What kind of language do they use when distributing condemns and explaining there use?
When I was a child, just past initial puberty (is that word to crude?) my mind was focused one one thing. What is a man to do with a women. Which words were used to describe the proper relationship of man and women, clearly described as confined to marriage, were immaterial. Clearly understanding the workings and purposes were the only thing that would put my mind at ease. Any words, …any words accomplishing that end were neither crude or rude but appreciated.
Phil Robertson was communicating important realities in words that went straight to the point with absolute clarity. His words were neither crude nor rude but informative. These topics need to be addressed, the issues confronted, and there is only one way to do it; in the clearest words possible.
