The Evangelical Resistance to Obamacare in a Nutshell

I've seen some new debate in the blogosphere on whether or not the evangelical resistance to Obamacare is legitimate or not, prompted mostly by a quote from 'out there' theologian N. T. Wright.

Wright got some immediate pushback, and rightly so. But even then, those pushing back got pushed themselves, and the debate seemed to get muddier. What is missing is a concise explanation of why evangelicals must oppose Obamacare, single-payer healthcare, and any other related scheme the left (or the right) might come up with that puts the government in charge of healthcare.

Pay attention here...this is going to be quick, and I don't want you to miss this-

Nationalized health care and freedom of religion, speech, etc., CANNOT both exist at the same time and in the same relationship.

Why not? Think about it in simple, logical terms rather than convoluted social arguments. Health care is directly related to health, and health is a direct consequence (among some other things) of behavior.  Religion is directly related to religious beliefs, and religious beliefs have the direct consequence of influencing behavior.

In a theocracy, there is no religious freedom because behavior (outward expression of religious belief) is restricted to the religion that is in charge. In a democracy, religious freedom can exist as long as the government is tolerant of various expressions of religious belief via behavior (what people say, do, etc.). But when the democracy adopts nationalized health care, it assumes authority over certain behaviors, and when these behaviors conflict with the best interests of the government, they are subdued or prohibited. These might include religious speech, such as opposition to certain medical procedures; they might include domestic behaviors such as keeping and bearing arms; or they might include social behaviors, such as disapproval of certain lifestyle behaviors (like for example, not wanting to photograph a wedding).

Some will make all kinds of logical-acrobatic arguments about these things, but they all boil down to the simple fact that when a government becomes the arbiter of behaviors associated with health care, they necessarily become the established religious authority in the nation. No loop-holing will change that fact.

Health Care Law and The Future

Since the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Obamacare (not entirely unexpected, though one of the names on the positive side of the decision was), the question becomes, 'What now?'

Here's my prediction:  This decision won't be as bad as we fear.  I predict that without the SCOTUS to run against, there's now a fair-to-middlin' chance that the democrat incumbent in the White House could lose the election, which is a historically rare occurrence.  I also think this will lead to 10-15 additional GOP wins in House elections, and one or two wins in the Senate.

All that said, we now have a SCOTUS precedence that the federal government can tax the people in any amount for any reason.  That is certainly is a problem.

We'll see how it goes in November.

Why the Dems are Surprised at the Uprising

This time, it matters

Democrats in congress and the White House seem to be taken a bit off guard by the recent volume and intensity of the protests around the country, particularly at the congressional town hall meetings on so-called health care reform. As a conservative watching the dismantling of the free market system, one might be surprised at their apparent niavity. Don't be.


Remember, this type of reaction didn't happen the last time they were in power. When Bill Clinton finally admitted that not having sexual relations included having sexual relations, conservatives were upset, annoyed, disgusted, angered, and quite a few other descriptors, but they didn't rise up in peaceful rebellion like today. Why not? Well, simply, Clinton's actions didn't rise to the level of an uprising. (Whether or not they rose to the level of an impeachable offense we'll leave open for now.)


The time before that, when Jimmy Carter was in office, we did see the American farmers join forces in desperation and march on Washington as the American Agriculture movement, but farmers make up less than 4% of the population, and are easily ignored by the media, so most left-wingers at the time either didn't hear about those events at all, or if they did, found them amusing at best. (Lost in the shuffle was all these farmers in DC with their tractors when one of the worst blizzards in years hit...and like the good folks they are, spent a good bit of their time pulling people out of ditches and snow banks without compensation instead of protesting.)


The time before that, when LBJ was in power, things were certainly ugly, but you have to remember that was over 40 years ago, and many of the current liberal beaurocrats were only children then, or not even born yet. And even those that were teens or young adults remember that time as a protest against conservative causes, even though the war was being run by an ultra-liberal president and a democrat congress.


So it really is no surprise that the grab for power in recent days has elicited a strong response from the conservative people who make up the folks that keep this country running and drive its economy. And its also not a surprise that the leftists in power can't understand this rejection on a new level, given the safe working environment they've had in this country for the past 30 years or so by a friendly media and entrenched liberal federal beaurocracy.


It remains to be seen if the people affected most by this power grab will sustain their protests long and hard enough to have a significant effect on their congress-people. But the next five weeks are going to be interesting.

Elections Have Consequences

I began building an AR-15 about June of 2008. I wanted the experience of building my own, rather than buying one off the shelf, and I wanted to know how they were put together so I could work on mine if they ever needed repair.

Big mistake.

I should have realized with the election of BHO coming up, AR parts would all but disappear. I remember when Clinton was elected, and the "Clinton Gun Ban" was passed in 1993. The same thing happened...no ammo to be had, primers and powder were unavailable except at ludicrous prices, high-capacity magazines were selling for $100 each, and so on. I don't know why I didn't put two and two together and realize the same thing was coming in November '08. I suppose we all forgot how good we had it under GWB.

In any case, I have finally completed the lower, except for the buttstock. I can't find the recoil tube and collapsible stock I want. Finally, uppers are coming back into availability, though the prices are at least $100 more per each unit. Instead of building the upper, I think I'll snag a whole one when I can and save the project for more sane political times.

While the gun grab didn't happen like some thought, it may still be coming. The democrats are to busy doing the health care grab right now. Looks like they will pull it off, albeit after the summer recess. The only thing that can stop it now is folks in the districts of blue-dog democrats getting in the face of their representative until he or she has no doubt about the wrongheadedness of socialized medicine. I don't see that happening...the electorate is too gullable, naive, or downright myopic for such to happen, I fear.

But stranger things have happened. BHO's approval numbers are nearly as low as Carter's were at this point, and lower than GWB's. (That's gotta rankle the libs...) Congress, in spite of the almost inhuman charisma of BHO, will never show altruism in this day and age...if the poll numbers are a threat, they'll do the populist thing. Unfortunately, that only benefits us about half the time, since the populace is even less altruistic than their congressional representatives.