I am a conservative, because I believe in 'conserving government' at the request of our forefathers, as evidenced in the magnificent document they penned...The Constitution. Have you seriously studied The Constitution, or even in read it in full deeppeace? If so, then you know there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing health care, or any other "entitlement" program", to every US citizen, let alone illegal aliens (who are included in the uninsured numbers quoted). Anyway, do tell...why in the world would anyone want, or think the federal government could provide high quality national health care, in an efficient and fiscally responsible manner? Consider the bankrupt status of the single, most expensive federal debt, SS and Medicare, (which Libertarians and some Constitutional lawyers, often argue is illegally funded via FICA tax). Which prompts the next question, who is going to pay for our substandard, national healthcare? And yes, it will be substandard to the system we have now, as flawed as it may be. The idea of nationalized healthcare is a product of Socialism, and as has been proven over and over again, "Socialism", aka "the great equalizer", renders excellence obsolete. Thank God, (whomever he, she, or it may be for you), the USA is a democracy - built on excellence and ingenuity - often prompted by competition and rewarded through capitalism.
Although I certainly do not always agree with John McCain, I do agree with him that Roe -V- Wade is a flawed decision...because it simply isn't a federal law issue as mandated by the Constitution. And although it's highly unlikely, should Roe -v- Wade be overturned, the laws governing abortion simply go back to the states, where they rightfully belong. With a great mix of liberal and conservative states comprising our great nation, pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-abortion advocates all, will continue to be well represented.
I'm compelled to address the statement, "‘Pro-life’ means you respect living things. Like babies AFTER they’re born." I won't even bother to belabor the obvious...for I'm sure deeppeace recognizes that babies are alive and kickin'...long before they are "born" :) ...just ask any mom if you have doubts. More importantly, this statement reminds me that Obama doesn't support this notion...that a baby deserves the respect of life...even after it's born, if his/her mother intended for her baby to die during an abortion. Shocking, isn't it? But it's absolutely true. While serving in the IL state senate, Obama remained the lone holdout in three separate attempts to pass into law, the "Born Alive Infant's Protection Act". This law requires that usual and customary medical care be given to babies who are born alive, after surviving botched, labor-induced, late term abortions. Even the staunches supporters of abortion rights, like B Boxer of the US Senate, found the alternative practice of placing these living babies "out of sight" to die, like in a "soiled linen closet", to be just a bit too inhumane for the leader of the free world. The exact same law passed unanimously in the US Senate. Check it out for yourself Kai Noeske...read the transcript of Obama's detailed objections, "but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead...", available on the IL State Gov't official website: pp. 31-34, http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf.
Although I certainly do not always agree with John McCain, I do agree with him that Roe -V- Wade is a flawed decision...because it simply isn't a federal law issue as mandated by the Constitution. And although it's highly unlikely, should Roe -v- Wade be overturned, the laws governing abortion simply go back to the states, where they rightfully belong. With a great mix of liberal and conservative states comprising our great nation, pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-abortion advocates all, will continue to be well represented.
I'm compelled to address the statement, "‘Pro-life’ means you respect living things. Like babies AFTER they’re born." I won't even bother to belabor the obvious...for I'm sure deeppeace recognizes that babies are alive and kickin'...long before they are "born" :) ...just ask any mom if you have doubts. More importantly, this statement reminds me that Obama doesn't support this notion...that a baby deserves the respect of life...even after it's born, if his/her mother intended for her baby to die during an abortion. Shocking, isn't it? But it's absolutely true. While serving in the IL state senate, Obama remained the lone holdout in three separate attempts to pass into law, the "Born Alive Infant's Protection Act". This law requires that usual and customary medical care be given to babies who are born alive, after surviving botched, labor-induced, late term abortions. Even the staunches supporters of abortion rights, like B Boxer of the US Senate, found the alternative practice of placing these living babies "out of sight" to die, like in a "soiled linen closet", to be just a bit too inhumane for the leader of the free world. The exact same law passed unanimously in the US Senate. Check it out for yourself Kai Noeske...read the transcript of Obama's detailed objections, "but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead...", available on the IL State Gov't official website: pp. 31-34, http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment