I'm telling you, because the MSM isn't. And, unless forced to, I think they won't. Because it wouldn't help their candidate.
But back before he was trying to disguise or hide his beliefs so that he could gain the White House, Obama said it outright.
The least qualified, the most radically-leftist, the least-vetted.
Read a fairly thorough unpacking HERE. I may update as I find more.
UPDATE:
Attorney Beldar gets into this very thoroughly, may not hear Obama the same as I, is no less alarmed by what he hears.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
DJP
I feel compelled to address this issue as I see it lived out. The "helping hand" of assistance has evolved past an "entitlement mindset" to a "way of life" status, almost a career choice mentality for those who are multi-generational recipients. That said, any governmental directives that would expand this certainly is not the answer. The Lord has blessed me with the opportunity to serve at Target Dayton Ministries (shameless plug)for the homeless and the poor, where I have developed some wonderful relationships, relationships in which we are studying God's wonderful word and all that it says about how we are to live our lives. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, the veil of lies is being lifted and the resulting changed lives is no less that amazing. Although the successes may be few, I'll not hesitate in saying that these changing lives, Christ focused lives, and the changed lives that will increasingly result from them will far outweigh the success rates of a policy of "just throw more money at it" will ever have.
May God bless us all with more and more opportunitie to glorify Him.
I guess my only question is, why wasn't this found before? Why is it only appearing now and has it come out in time to make the difference that McCain needs to make with the likely undecided voters who will decide this election (no pun intended).
Yup, doesn't appear MSM is saying anything. Looked at the DNCTV website and CNN website, and it's nowhere. It is on Drudge and FNC.
These kinds of things make me scratch my head. The "redistribution of wealth" has been happening since before the time of Christ. It's called taxes.
As far as "entitlement programs," I suppose that some people end up coming to depend on them - but since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, families can only take advantage of them for a maximum of 5 years during their lifetimes. Beyond that, they can no longer qualify for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Now more than ever, with the economy in the tank and people losing their homes and their jobs all over the country, we need to take care of our own. If welfare were cut any more, or done away with, these people, and their children, might not get enough to eat. I am not talking about the stereotypical "welfare mom" either - that's a whole different discussion.
Kate, what you suggest is what charities and churches are meant to do. That is not the business of government to "forcibly take" (emphasis on "forcibly") from wealthier individuals and give their wealth to those who did not earn it. There is always a place to help those in need, but the place of the government to make people give by forcing them by outrageously high taxation is not the means to accomplish such a goal.
Fred, exactly. It's what charities and churches are *meant* to do. Oh that there were enough charitable organizations and churches in this country to feed all of her poor. I have had discussions with others online who view taxation as some sort of thievery. I've thought about it and y'know what? If I were truly wealthy, or even just well-to-do, and I could provide for all of the needs of my family and then some, I would happily pay more in taxes to help those in need, in addition to supporting whatever charities whose vision I shared.
Some make the claim that if the government didn't tax them, they would give more to charity. For some, I'm sure that's true. For others, let's be honest, it probably isn't true.
I really don't want to get into an arguement about taxes though. You and I can't change the tax code, so it's essentially a moot point.
Kate: If I were truly wealthy, or even just well-to-do, and I could provide for all of the needs of my family and then some, I would happily pay more in taxes to help those in need, in addition to supporting whatever charities whose vision I shared.
But you are not wealthy, Kate. When a candidate proposes (or you vote for legislation or a person who wants) to use the power of the government to take money away from tens of millions of citizens to give to other citizens (who have not earned it) that’s socialism and more to the point, government sponsored theft if you think about it.
I mean you bring to attention the claim by some people that if government didn't tax them so much, then they would give to charity and you say that it's true for some, but not true for others.
Well, Kate, how are we suppose to believe you or anyone who claims they are not wealthy to say if they were, they would "pay more taxes."
My last sentence is from Kate's quote: I've thought about it and y'know what? If I were truly wealthy, or even just well-to-do, and I could provide for all of the needs of my family and then some, I would happily pay more in taxes to help those in need, in addition to supporting whatever charities whose vision I shared.
I want to say a couple of more things, because there is a lot of chopping of passages and a lot of the misunderstandings. Kate said: The "redistribution of wealth" has been happening since before the time of Christ. It's called taxes.
A couple of things to point out because at the time before and during Christ was essentially the nation-state of the Roman Empire. That basically was it. Now, Rome did do some good things with the taxes they collected in building highways, but you are wrong to say that this "redistribution of wealth" existed since the time before Christ - vis a vi - taxes. Rome did not take taxes from the wealthy and distribute that to the poor. They pillaged the poor to give to the powerful and the rich. So, the comparison is not even close.
That is the exact opposite of what our government does. Our government, essentially and for the most part, has not given money to anyone other than people who have not earned it.
Another thing, the Romans 13 passage is more a passage about how we govern ourselves. So, how do we obey the civil magistrate and yes, that we should pay our taxes. The citizens of Rome in the Roman empire and monarchies that followed after didn't have a chance to vote tax policies and other legislation.
The democratic structure that we have open today was not open to many, many nations before us including those that lived during the time of Christ.
Now, since the Bible does tell us, how we should govern ourselves, as I've already said, it is wrong to use the power of government via the ballot box to take money away from people to give it to people who haven't earned it. Okay? I mean, if I shouldn't go to my next door neighbor and force him to give me some money and give to my broke friend, why would it be any different in the ballot box. The Bible tells us how to govern ourselves and I shouldn't steal. And if I shouldn't steal, if that's how I should govern myself, then, I shouldn't vote in a way that takes money from certain people to give it to others that didn't earn it. That is morally wrong.
Finally, where Romans is clear on how government should work, is that it should not use its power to terrorize good, but evil. But the same people that would use the power of government to take from certain people to give to others, would not use the power of government to defend human life. But in the most important area where we should be governing ourselves, where we are giving a clear example of what government should like, many take the opposite view.
So, they want to use the power of government to steal (essentially) money and give it to people who haven't earned it, but they don’t want to use the power of government to defend life. That is an indefensible and inconsistent position and morally wrong.
Post a Comment