Why does Palin confuse them?
Sarah Palin is confusing the Left and the mainstream media.
And should we be surprised? In their myopic view of the world, they lack the ability to focus in on anything but that which surrounds them – anything but that which they are already engaged with. Within the realm of their understanding it seems to be nothing short of ludicrous that John McCain would seriously present the likes of Sarah Palin as candidate for Vice President of the United States. Their refined rationalism recoils at the thought of a right-wing, former small-town mayor, gun-lovin’, pro-life, Bible-believing woman being second in command – a mere heartbeat away from becoming POTUS. Indeed, the vile attacks levied against Palin, since her addition to the ticket, are all too telling.
John Podhoertz links to a NY Times article (HT: Crunchy Con) which illustrates the myopia of the media. From the NY Times article,
You mean that, as a Christian, she believes that the sovereign God (of the Bible) has… a will? That said God also has… a plan? And that we are to pray to said God for his will to be done through… his plan?
Horrors!
Perhaps the reporters for the NY Times piece, in their zest for research, should do a bit of it on what constitutes the Christian faith, not to mention finding out what the Bible says on the subject.
Better yet, how about they take Melinda’s suggestion, and listen to some of the sermons from the pastor at the church which Palin attends (sort of an end-around on the whole Jeremiah-Wright thing).
Or, maybe, listen to the excitement of the people…
Tagged with: barracuda • mccain palin • palin • pitbulls for palin • sarah palin
Filed under: Conservative • Liberal • Media • Politics • Republicans • Rusty
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
You know I wonder if the Republicans know Jesus Christ at all. They sound more like the Pharisees and the Sadducees of Jesus’ day.
They question the intentions of others but I thought Jesus said, “Let the one among you who has never sinned throw the first stone at her.” (John 8:2-11).
I also question those who claim to know definitely God’s will as Proverbs teaches us to “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding”.
But more important then that, so many of these same people, who challenge abortion, who fight against Gays can’t do the most important thing God has called all of us to “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
Let me first say the woman who has an abortion, or the Gay man is no more guilty then the person who lies to his boss when calling off sick, or the man who cheats on his wife. There are only two commandments greater than any other.
I think if God were a politcian he would be a Democrat or better still a socialist. After all those who make claims of entitlement, act as if though all which they have accumlated in life belongs to them. But I think really it all belongs to God.
I believe God would be for unverisal health care. Was it not Jesus who heeled the sick, and I don’t remember him asking for anyones Blue Cross Card.
I think Jesus would be cool with feeding the hungry. I seem to remember him feeding the masses with fish and bread. I don’t remember him asking anyone if they had a job. He did it because he realized all he had was God’s and was God’s to give, and not based on our own judgements.
See if God waited on us to be worthy of his grace and of his providence, we could work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for a life time and still fall short of God’s goodnees. None of us, not a single one of us is worthy of God’s grace, but his gives it to us because God is love.
So I leave you with these thoughts:
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:3
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.
So tell me who will enter into the kingdom of God. The gay man who believed in Jesus, gave to the poor, gave help to the sick or you who curse the poor and deny our sick.
Which among you is truly the righteous man?
Barika, you’ve got so much assumption and poor allegory in your message, it’s hard to cut through it. Let me just hit some high points.
Calling Republicans Pharisees and saying that they don’t trust in the Lord doesn’t make it true. I know you think the rest of your comment makes the point, but let me address them.
That we are all sinners is not really a point of contention. Don’t know why you felt you needed to bring it up. Unless you think that, because of that, none of us should stand against what we believe to be evil. I’d have an issue with that
Jesus did indeed heal people. Himself. The “Blue Cross card” is a non sequiter. I will say He didn’t require anyone else to pay His expenses, as universal coverage would force people to do.
Jesus did feed the 5000, but with a gift, not by requiring that everyone chip in (and certainly not by threatening jail for those who didn’t chip in their fair share, as the IRS does).
None of us is worthy of God’s love and yet he give it to us. No argument there, other than it’s another non sequiter. You make the same leap that I see in so many liberals; Jesus gave me the commandment to do unto the least of these. He didn’t tell me to use the force of government to take from others first.
When separating the sheep from the goats, God will not say, “I was hungry and you made your neighbor pay for my food.” He’ll say, “…and you gave me something to eat.” He’s all about personal responsibility. A nation that honors Him is desirable, but not by force, and nations and governments don’t go to heaven or hell; people do. Individuals do.
And people say Republicans want to force religion down everyone’s throats.
My basic problem Doug with Republicans are that they are quick to point their finger at others as evil. Just like you don’t want to be told to pay for someone else health care which by the way you already do at an unregulated high amount of bad debit.
How can you have it both ways? Don’t legislate my pocketbook, but you can legislate my morals?
One other point. So many Republicans say, they don’t want to pay for this, or they don’t want to pay for that. Well you are already paying for this or that at a higher rate, then if we had a policy to deal with the issue.
Think about this, in France higher education for young adults is paid for by the government. They have a lower rate of inmates in the age range of 18-25.Now consider this, it cost $40,000 to put a young adult in jail, less then $20,000 a year to send them to college.
So all I’m saying is may be if our government adopted some of these Christain values, maybe your pocketbook would be getting hit a little less.
My basic problem with Democrats is that they don’t want to point fingers at anybody, in spite of the example of Jesus. Sure he let the woman go caught in adultery. “Let he who is without sin…” and all that. But he did tell her “Go and sin no more.” That’s finger pointing. That’s justice, but also mercy. Calling evil “evil” and confronting it (see Jesus v. Pharisees) ain’t necessarily wrong. It can be done poorly, I agree.
I keep looking at socialized medicine in other countries, and the cost just keeps skyrocketing and requiring confiscatory tax rates, as noted in those blog posts I pointed out to you. And yet, the Canadians that can afford it come here when they can’t get what they need.
Does it cost less to go to college than spend a year in prison? Sounds like it does, except you’re talking about me paying for college vs the government, and a bureaucracy that siphons off its own expenses doesn’t sound to me like it can possibly still be the same amount. (And frankly, I think we do imprison too many non-violent offenders. I’m with Chuck Colson on this.)
But what I’m mostly addressing is your taking commands that Jesus gave to us personally and trying to imply that it must mean we’re supposed to take other people’s money upon threat of prison time, and then call those two actions morally equivalent. They simply aren’t. I find it incredibly immoral, frankly, and don’t see that taking less out my pocketbook, if indeed it would, would somehow make it moral.
Canadians come here to get what they need? That’s interesting because when I lived in Canada I saw more Americans coming into Canada for drugs and treatment. I guess my point isn’t rather its moral or not moral. My point on health care is that you are paying for for some guys health care anyways.
Ture story. 25 Year old guy comes into the hospital, he works full time at a small law firm and is in law school. His insurance policy has a max of 45,000 a year, he racks up a $87,000 bill. So we bill the guy 42,000. He makes $25,000. Do you think we’re going to get that money? Of course not. But we have to pay the doctors, the nurse, the administration staff. So as Budget Director do you know what I did, I raised the cost of in stay visits by 34% the next fiscal year because we tend to release non-insuranced patients and this insures that I can bill you, the person with insurance. Now also consider the fact, I’m not in the health care business to loss money I need to make a profit, unlike the government, so tack on another 14% to lab fees to make up the difference.
Also consider the fact that people without insurance tend to come to in for treatment later and miss preventive care. So when we do see bills for them instead of $30 visit and $130 for blood pressure meds, we get the $120,000 trip for a stroke.
The bottomline is this current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the highest in the world. While the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, you are paying the price, at a much higher cost to your pocketbook.
Of course we’re spending more; we get better health care while (as noted in the other posts) people wait in line for months in other countries.
You’re right, the government doesn’t have to make a profit, it just has to tax more. So giving health care to the government becomes extremely inefficient. There’s no profit motive.
And, again as I mentioned in another post, the government of Oregon, in trying to control its costs, wouldn’t pay for cancer treatment but would pay for assisted suicide.
I find that very immoral. And I find it ironic that you start this comment thread with all sort of Bible quotes and references to Jesus, and now you say, “I guess my point isn’t rather its moral or not moral.”
Better health care, that is totally false as are many of your statements. But I will just deal with that one. If we have better health care then explain:
1. “Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data,” found that even though the US spends the most on publicly and privately financed health insurance, its citizens had the most potential years of life lost due to circulatory and respiratory diseases as well as diabetes.
2.U.S. Infant Mortality Among Worst in Industrialized Nations (Life Science and WHO)
3. Out of 191 countries, the United States ranked 33rd in its death rate for children under age 5. The United States, out of 187 countries, ranked 68th in immunizing children against diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus; 89th for polio; and 84th for measles. U.S. teens ranked 18th out of 28 industrialized countries in a self-reported survey of not feeling healthy.Forty countries, including Cuba, Taiwan and most of Europe had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. in 2004. The U.S. rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births (John Hopkins 2004).
Personally I will tell you, I was 5 months pregnant when my husband’s job sent him to France with a high risk pregnancy. I never once waited in line. In fact, I had weekly visits to the doctor and my longest wait was 15 minutes. While back in the states my doctor could only see me every-other week. I went to the emergency room when I first got there and I was in and out in 2 hours. I was seen by a doctor, an OB-GYN specialist in under twenty minutes. I had an ultrasound 30 minutes later (in 4D). Also my husband cut his hand while we were there and he was in and out of urgent care in 45 minutes and back to work.
I guess most of my waiting line stats come from Canada, which I keep hearing Obama wants to use. France appears to do better.
Regarding item 1, I would imagine much of that has to do with our poor eating habits than access to health care. Our poor, let alone our rich, each better than in most countries.
Regarding item 2, I’ve read (and wish I still had the link) that these stats don’t consider abortions as “infants”. Since abortions are far cheaper in countries with socialized medicine, at-risk infants are more likely to be aborted than be born, which skews the stats in their favor. If you have a link to the studies you mention, I’d appreciate it.
Statistics do indeed tell part of the story, but not all of it.