Is it Time to Talk about a Tax Revolt?
March 18, 2010
That’s a provocative headline, I realize, but it’s a question I am beginning to wonder if it’s time to raise, with my principle reason for asking being the fact that we may need to think about the appropriate way to respond to the concerns Charmaine Yoest raises in this article about the likelihood that the Hyde Amendment—prohibiting federal funding for abortions—will be effectively overturned through the President’s proposed health care reform:
I believe that anything as radical as this needs to be thought through very, very carefully, using the lens of the Word of God as our template. We have no warrant to stop paying our taxes because we are irritated with government (I’d have stopped doing that a long, long time ago if that were the case; wouldn’t you?). We have no warrant to stop paying taxes just because we disagree with policies; ditto the above. But if/when the government takes my money—and that’s what taxes are, my money—to kill babies? That raises the stakes—considerably. And thus I ask, if Obamacare passes and includes such an abomination,
Is it indeed time to begin to talk about a tax revolt?
10 Minutes Might Save a Life: READ THIS!
March 15, 2010
Submitted: There is a shortage of available organs for transplant use.
Submitted: People die needlessly because of this fact.
Submitted: Christians ought to be concerned with such; we ought to do what we can to alleviate suffering.
Submitted: Therefore, all Christians ought to be organ donors (generally speaking).
Submitted: People who are willing to themselves be organ donors ought to be first in line to receive organs should they need them. Isn’t this just reasonable? Person A needs a liver, and Person B needs a liver, but Person A has designated himself an organ donor, while Person B isn’t willing to share his organs with others. Which person ought to have “dibs”? Easy call.
Therefore, be it resolved: We ought to join an organization that enables just this thing to happen. LifeSharers is just such an organization. It takes less than 10 minutes to join. Your organs–should, perish the thought, you die in a sudden accident–will be given first to people who are themselves willing to donate organs (it should be added that you in no way sign away your right to give an organ to a family member; this is covered in the membership packet). Joining LifeSharers costs nothing. Every person ought to do it. Why wouldn’t you? So…here’s the link:
If you do, would you just leave a comment saying, “I joined, Byron”? I’d appreciate it.
A Democrat Stands on Principle
March 15, 2010
There are so few politicians on either side of the aisle—and decidedly less among Democrats; I’m sorry, but it’s the truth—who stand on principle. Which is why Bart Stupak is a shining light. No, I’m sure I couldn’t vote for Mr. Stupak, but I can respect him; here’s why.
Down is Up, and Up is Down…
February 15, 2010
At least for some folks…
America is in the midst of genocide, and a significant portion of the victims of genocide are African-American kids. Of 
course, I’m talking about the holocaust of abortion. And one outfit has begun to advertise in the Atlanta area about the fact that
Black Children are an Endangered Species
The connected website is TooManyAborted, and it tells the stories of how little black kids are being murdered in the womb, as well as the story of the Negro Project, a plot initiated by the white supremacist Margaret Sanger, who began Planned Parenthood. The truth is devastating, of course…which is why liberal feminist loons will be up in arms.
Check that: one already is. Here’s the quote by Spelman College professor Beverly Guy-Sheftall:
“To use racist arguments to try to bait black people to get them to be anti-abortion is just disgusting.”
OK…let me get this straight, Ms. Guy-Sheftall: it’s not racist to abort millions of little black kids in an effort, begun by Ms. Sanger, to racially-cleanse American society, but it is racist to call attention to that fact. She went on:
“Many black people don’t know who Margaret Sanger is and could care less.”
OK…so instead of educating people as to who she was and her agenda, you’d rather leave members of your own race in the dark about the vile agenda she promoted. Oh, and you are an educator?
Down is up, and up is down, apparently for the Ms. Guy-Sheftalls of the world…
Tebow and the Feminazis
February 3, 2010
So you’ve heard by now of the “controversy” manufactured by a few out-of-touch, off-the-deep-end-left “women’s groups” about the Super Bowl ad (which they have not even seen) featuring Tim Tebow’s mom explaining the choice she made not to abort young Tim, though doctors advised her to. Wait…the choice she made…doesn’t “pro-choice” mean that women ought to have a choice about whether or not to abort children? And didn’t Mrs. Tebow make a choice? Or was it the wrong choice?
Really, it’s sad/preposterous/childish for these silly women to raise this objection. Oh, wait, the ad is sponsored by Evil Incarnate (aka Focus on the Family), and thus the pathetic vitriol; here’s an excerpt from the (typical leftist, brainless, mud-slinging) letter written by the far-lefties to CBS News to protest the ad:
“By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.”
Methinks somebody needs to grow up. Sally Jenkins is an example of one pro-choice lady who is grown-up, and isn’t afraid to buck the Feminazi Fundamentalists on this one; she writes a column entitled Tebow’s Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are.
My sentiments exactly.
Two Choices in the Life Debate
January 29, 2010
Scott Roeder, heinous murderer, was rightly convicted of Murder One today. I’d have voted for conviction, without giving it a second thought.
And it’s interesting: there are two positions when it comes to the sanctity of life. One position holds that it is not acceptable for one person to take the life of another person without the consent of the other person. This is the pro-life position, and I am pro-life. The other position holds that one person ought to have the right to unilaterally choose to end the life of another person without the other person’s consent. This is the “pro-choice” position. People who believe that they ought to have the prerogative to chooose to end the life of an unborn child are labeled pro-choice. Scott Roeder believes that he had the prerogative to choose to end the life of George Tiller.
Ergo, Scott Roeder and abortion supporters are in the same camp. Period.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
