Realmscapes

Butler & Walker: The Constitutionality of Universal Healthcare, and the Question of Rights

by Nathan P. Butler

So, the Federal District court said the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and now the Federal Appeals court said the same. Time for (Supreme Courth of the United States) to say the same and kibosh this thing.

"Why should healthcare be a for-profit business?"

Aside from the fact that you have to provide incentives in an economy to create a supply of healthcare professionals? Other than the fact that profit motive is what drives technological and medical innovation, rather than altruism? Aside from the idea that in a free society, a national government cannot force individuals to purchase products from private entities? Aside from the idea that it is the responsibility of every individual to foot the bill for every other individual's healthcare, even if that individual's health issues are not unavoidable in some people's cases?

There are ways to do this, but the individual mandate and the way the law was generated falls apart.

Moreover, if the individual mandate goes, then the entire rest of the law is unsustainable. You can't pay for quasi-universal coverage without the funds that would be coming in with required coverage. You'd just be digging a bigger and bigger hole.

And before I get the "yeah, well, I have medical bills and you don't" garbage, bear in mind that my girlfriend has been fighting more medical conditions than I can count, cancer included in the last few years. We know what medical bills are like, and we also know how (difficult) insurance companies can be. 

Thinking of Mother Britannia

I love the UK nearly as much as my own country. It really hurts to see what is going on there. I pray wisdom is given to the leaders to address the issues, protection to the police that are trying to restore the peace and the citizens living through the unrest, reflection to the protesters as to whether their actions are truly honorable and productive, and patience to all.

It Feels Like Chaos

Joel Rosenberg posted a great point on his blog today:

"[Scripture] is clear: the Lord shakes individuals and nations that we might let go of all of the flawed political, philosophical, intellectual and religions notions that we cling to that won’t give us true peace, that don’t give us real hope, that can’t bring us any security, that can’t provide forgiveness from our sins much less eternal life for our souls. The God of the Bible wants to shake us loose of such things that we might turn to Him, and to the life He offers through faith in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord isn’t letting us be shaken because He hates us. He’s letting us be shaken precisely because He loves us and wants us to repent and turn to Him and call out to Him, as individuals, as families, and as nations. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” (John 11:25-26)"

Jewish Christians have a unique articlation of God's Word. They are usually dispensational pre-millennialist in tone, but Joel is pretty right on target in terms of addressing all the things that go on around us, both in our personal circles and the larger world, and what good they can possibly do.

God is not the source or creator of evil, but Scripture clearly shows that God is lord over evil; it will always be subserviant to His purpose but never completely erradicated from this world until the Last Day, as hard as that is for us--His creatures--to usually accept. Consider the story-witnesses of Joseph and his brothers, or the bondage of His people in Egypt, or the events that happened to Job, or the dramatic conversion of Paul, and the mighty Psalm 91: it is clearly true that evil will never usurp God's plans, even if we don't think God cares or is in control (Job 42:2, Isaiah 49:23, Romans 8:28).

It is also true that pondering the how's and why's of evil's existance in God's creation is a distraction that serves only the devil and our sinful natures. How can we, His creatures, know everything the Creator knows? Our flesh and the devil use this to chip away at our faith and critically damage our faith so that we cannot stand when the full storm hits. yet, just as we expect from our children, at some point we must trust the goodness of God our Father even when we sinfully doubt He is acting in our best interests.

God understands that we will be frustrated or angry at bad events that befall us or our neighbors; we can communicate those emotions to Him within the context of faith (Job 30:19-21). As Professor Robert Kolb points out in his book The Christian Faith:

"God did not create us to be angry with Him, but we must recognize the difference between the cry of faith, 'God, I am angry with you,' and the cry of unbelief, 'I am angry with God.' The first shriek confesses God's lordship and our expectation of His goodness, even if in a negative way. It betrays sinful misapprehensions of how God is working in our lives, but it does not deny that we have only Him to turn to in the evil hour."

There's not much else to add to Joel's post, except this lyric from Sanctus Real's "Whatever You're Doing (Something Heavenly)":

"Whatever you're doing inside of me
  It feels like chaos; somehow there's peace
It's hard to surrender to what I can't see
   but I'm giving in to something heavenly."

The Anti-America Prize

"The Nobel Peace Prize is a notoriously difficult award to predict, but yesterday's decision was clearly a political choice, with three of the past six peace awards going to Bush adversaries.

In 2002 the prize went to Jimmy Carter as an explicit rejection of the Bush presidency in the build-up to the Iraq war. In 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN atomic agency chief who had clashed with Washington over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was honoured. In 2007 Al Gore received the prize for his warnings on climate change, denounced by President Bush as a liberal myth." --Catherine Philp (The Times)

Gorbachev... Carter... Arafat... Thọ... Annan... Gore... ElBaradei... just a few of the con artists, terrorists, and tyrants to receive the "honour" of being a Nobel Peace Laureate. (Did you know that ElBaradei recently named Israel as the primary nuclear weapon aggressor in the Middle East?)

The Nobel Peace Prize stopped being serious in 1990 when it was awarded to Gorbachev. (Interesting that it was awarded to the man who capitulated to President Reagan, but Regan was never awarded one.) It became a joke when Gore received his for promoting bogus science as fact.

One thing that all these (and other) recent winners have in common is that they need the award to to legitimise their purpose. Beyond that, the agendas of all of these figures have failed, been rejected, or been defeated. Meanwhile Reagan and Bush II and Netanyahu fight (or fought) the good fight despite their critics. Their prize is victory over evil and freedom from oppression for their people and those they fought for.

What scares me about Obama receiving this award is that he will surely turn his back on the surge proposition needed for Afghanistan. Carter has called Obama's winning of the prize "bold". Obama signing off on the troop surge in the aftermath of receiving this award would truly be bold.

But somehow I have no expectations for this. How can I expect such bold action from a President who punts an opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama (now a fellow Laureate) in a effort to appease the Chinese? Or more to the point, how can Obama be expected to do what is needed in the Middle East after his administration's most recent assessment of that region, which now envisions a "role for the Taliban"(!) if Afghanistan is to have a future?

If this world wants true peace the world must first calm the human soul. This can only be accomplished one way.

9/24-9/28: Scary Run of Recent Int'l News Headlines & Quotes

Iran conducts third round of missile tests; 'Could reach Israel'...

U.S. commander in Afghanistan talked with Obama only once; Obama: 'Victory' Not Necessarily Goal in Afghanistan...

Venezuela exploring uranium deposits with Russia, Iran...

India raises nuclear stakes; Can make high-yield weapons...

Prez. Obama: 'We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.'; Prez. Sarkozy: 'President Obama dreams of a world without weapons but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.' ...

China to display upgraded missiles in parade...

Gadhafi Strengthens Ties With Chavez...

Obama heading to Copenhagen to fight for Chicago (to host Olympic Games)...

FBI arrests Jordanian for downtown Dallas bomb plot... TERROR RAIDS: Probe of DENVER cell planning 9/11-like ATTACK... Illinois man charged in plot to bomb federal offices... Terror suspects accused of targeting Marine base in Quantico...

Obama Administration Frees Three More Gitmo Detainees...

NYT: 'No Reason To Fear Terror Attacks'...

More Than Just National Security

With the Obama Administration scrapping alliances--some decades old--with the UK, Israel, Germany, Canada, and Honduras it comes as no surprise that Iraq is next on the list of crossed-off countries. Vice President Biden has taken the opportunity of his arrival to greet the troops, but not just to see how they are doing. A passing comment made to Prime Minister Maliki reported by Bloomberg is laying subtle structure for the Obama Administration to pull out of Iraq. The situation in Iraq is a key issue from the campaign and one that Obama has not indicated (to the consternation of his supporters) that he will fulfill. Afterall, in his mind he doesn't want failure in a war hated by liberals to be a mark on his presidency like the Johnson-bungled Vietnam War was on Nixon's.

But there is more at stake in Iraq than just the political and sectarian stability of that country. There is a growing Christian community there; although God's work can bear fruit under any circumstance a democratic Iraq will certainly make that work in Iraq go much smoother.

The same can be said in Honduras where there is a lot of ongoing Christian work including from my own church organisation. But the Obama Administration's decision to withold military support from Honduras because he supports the outed and former Honduran President, Manuel Zalaya does not bode well for the Christian missions there. Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, a fierce opponent of the democratic Honduran gov't, and a manipulator of God's Word, is considering military involvement of his country to restore Zalaya to power. Without U.S. military backing, which has been part of U.S. policy since the 80s, Honduras stands little chance against Chavez's military strength.

Bolton, On Current Foreign Policy Initiaves

A great column by John Bolton re: the Obama Admin foreign policy, "Obama continues Bush's 2nd term -- badly":

"Conservative foreign policy is unabashedly pro-American, unashamed of American exceptionalism, unwilling to bend its knee to international organizations, and unapologetic about the need for the fullest range of dominant military capabilities. Its diplomacy is neither unilateralist nor multilateralist, but chooses its strategies, tactics, means and methods based on a hard-headed assessment of U.S. national interests, not on theologies about process. Most especially, conservatives understand that allies are different from adversaries, and that each should be treated accordingly.

...

Overseas "apology tours," public displays of empathy and inviting the likes of Iran to Fourth of July receptions at our embassies will not alter these underlying realities. Nor will reducing national-security budgets on such key items as missile defense and advanced weapons systems (while dramatically increasing unnecessary and inevitably inflationary domestic spending) make our adversaries more amenable to sweet reason. Sadly, such gratuitous indications of self-doubt and weakness only encourage the very adversaries whose favor we are currying."

Saddam & WMDs

There were many good and solid reasons to go into Iraq in 2003 beyond just the WMD issue. But since this question is a favourite of whiny liberals, I'd like to give them this media-buried quote to chew on that I found. (He repeated the same on "Hannity & Colmes".) It is from General Georges Sada (ret.), one of Saddam Hussein's senior military advisers and Iraq's Air Vice-Marshal for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait campaign:

"There was a time when Saddam possessed chemical weapons. I am so sorry that Americans and many in authority said there were never weapons of mass destruction."

His comments of course contradict the Duelfer Report, to which I respond with read his personal memoir, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein for the full context of this man and his service to the Iraqi people, as well as consider that Saddam used chemical weapons during his rule. (Sada's story and role in the rebuilding of Iraq post-Saddam is briefly recounted in Joel Rosenberg's Epicenter.)

In the end, I know that liberals can't be convinced of WMDs because they cannot be convinced that there is real evil in the world. Georges Sada is one of the good guys, he is a lifelong committed Christian, and he is grateful for what the U.S. and coalition forces have accomplished for the Iraqi people.

Foreign Relations (Updated)

I seem to recall that a major part of Obama's campaign was to "rebuild" our supposed terrible relations with our allies. So said Obama; so said his supporters.

Well:

Exhibit A | Exhibit B | Exhibit C

It seems that his administration is too busy with cozying up to our allies' enemies as well as our own:

Exhibit A | Exhibit B | Exhibit C

Ironically enough, it is the Iranians and the Russians who are giving Obama a taste of his own domestic "bi-partisan" medicine: If Obama wants a deal with us (Iran/Russia) then he will have to meet our demands.

Don't think these countries will settle for anything less, Mr President.

UPDATE:

Exhibit D (I am officially embarrassed, and I am hardly a fan of PM Brown.)

Senator Dodd... again?

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has turned up once again in the middle of a major financial controversy, this time connected to the alleged $8 billion fraud scheme charged to Stanford Int'l Bank.

"The Stanford Financial Group, through its political action committee and employees, has contributed $2.4 million to political candidates, parties and committees in the U.S. since 1989, with nearly two-thirds going to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks campaign spending.

Most of that cash flowed during the 2002 election cycle, when Congress was debating a financial services antifraud bill that would have linked the databases of state and federal banking, securities and insurance regulators. The bill ultimately died in the Senate, where the biggest recipients have been Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. ($45,900); Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ($28,150); Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. ($27,500); and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas ($19,700). Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas also received $41,375.

Stanford and his wife Susan also donated $931,100 of their own money, with 78 percent going to Democrats, including $4,600 to President Barack Obama's presidential campaign last May 31. Records show $2,300 of that was returned on the same day."

First his sweetheart deal with Countrywide Mortgage that was part of his not supporting President Bush's initiatives to reign in Freddie and Fannie before the real estate bubble burst. And now this? Senator Dodd needs to face an oversight and ethics committee. Seriouslly. (He won't of course--not while the Dems are in control.)

In any case, I am glad he's not my Senator anymore. The guy is first-class slime, second only to Senator Schumer (D-NY) (who himself caused a run on a CA bank last Summer, remember).