Maybe you caught the O'Reilly factor on Thursday when O'Reilly had Juan Williams and some generic black liberal Democrat apology artist on. I didn't notice at the time, but the second guy fired off a racial slur at Williams. Williams guest-hosted on Friday and discussed it. Below is my email I sent in to "The Factor."
Bill,
I didn't catch the insult fired at Mr. Williams the first time around, but I am glad he took the time to address it when he subbed for you on Friday.
It's too bad the other guest can't recognize a free man when he sees one. But then he'd have to recognize that he, Sharpton, Jackson, etc. are the house slaves and the average poor black person on the welfare treadmill is the field slave.
Wes Reddish
Now, I'd like to take a little more time to explain. (Viewer emails can't be a fully thought out essay on any program.)
If you have seen Mr. Williams on TV or heard him on radio it is blatantly clear he is a liberal, not a conservative. It's a solid lock that he votes either exclusively Democrat or more than 80% Democrat. However, Mr. Williams is an inllectually honest man (which is why he is invited back to O'Reilly's show so often). This probably irritates the left like lemon juice on a paper cut.
More importantly, Mr. Williams thinks for himself and is not beholden to anyone. I rather suspect there are many blacks in this category, republican, democrat, libertarian, etc. Since these folks are not beholden to someone else, they are the equivalent of the antebellum freemen -- blacks who had been bought out of slavery (by themselves or others) or released by their owner.
In contrast, there are many black folks who have sold themselves into the service of the left, specifically to the democrat party or certain specific left-wing movements. In turn, they are well-looked after, protected even supported by these organizations. In other words, they are kept. These are the house slaves.
Lastly, we have the average black person sucked into the welfare poverty cycle. THIS NOT every black person. Those working-class, middle class or (dare I say it) wealthy black folk who have seperated themselves from dependence on government as envisioned by the democrats (they might still vote for democrats, but they are dependent on those programs) are in the freemen class I first mentioned -- go back and read instead of skimming! The folks in this last category are taken for granted, and given lip-service at best. These guys are the field slaves -- the ones that are desperately in need of release from the clutches of government enslavement. Not gonna happen with Massa Obama running the show.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
A Coming Attraction
You've no doubt heard quite a few arguments for and against a national health care. I think the most telling condemnation of a government health care system is examples from existing similar programs.
Recently, a young lady in Britain suffered the loss of her premature son. Her child was born at 22 weeks -- an age at which infants have survived with proper care. This child received no such care. Once the government doctors discovered that she was only 22 weeks along, no preparations were made to care for this young and vulnerable life. In fact, before the young lady gave birth, a chaplain was sent in to help her with bereavement and funeral planning! Holding her son for a few hours as he turned his head and moved his limbs, the young mother pleaded, begged, and cried out for medical care for her son. She was rebuffed by all -- doctors, nurses, administrators, and chaplain. One possible reason for the medically unsound threshold for premie care -- to defend the window in which abortions are permitted in the UK.
Such a thing could not happen today in America. If it ever did, the individual medical personnel would lose their licenses and the hospital would be sued out of existence. There is no recourse against a government official. They cannot be sued, regardless of whether or not they know their actions or inactions will cause harm. Civil service employees cannot be fired, certainly not if they follow government regulations.
So who will be making the regulations governing a public health system? The Obama administration has many czars, but the lead personnel on health care are HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, OMB Deputy Director / Government Performance czar Jeffrey Zients, Dircetor of ONAP / AIDS czar Jeffrey Crowley, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform /Health czar Nancy-Ann Deparle, Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, and Science czar John Holdren.
I will hold off discussing Holdren and Sunstein until later. (I made a promise to get the blog out on a short time line.) For now the short version is that these two believe that only 'ideal' people should be preserved and human population should be decreased in order to save the planet. I'll handle them when I have time to do more thorough research.
I should also mention Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist with close ties with the president and brother to chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Dr Emanuel has proposed that people should be ranked according to their ability to produce for society. This ranking would then determine eligibility for health care.
Now on with the rest. Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas ran political cover for the Dr. Tiller, a prominent abortionist who frequently conducted extreme late-term abortions -- abortions other doctors refused to conduct due to the advanced development of the fetus. (You may recall that Dr. Tiller was recently murdered in church by a nutcase.) Additionally, Sebelius vetoed every abortion regulation sent to her by the Kansas legislature.
Nancy -Ann Deparle was apart of the earlier Clinton health care take over attempt. Later, she ran Medicare and Medicaid in the Clinton administration.
Jeffrey Zients is still the managing general partner of Portfolio Logic, an investment group specializing in health care and business services companies. Portfolio Logic currently owns Pediatric Services of America. Zients specialty is advising health care companies on ways to cut costs. In addition to his duties of streamlining processes and cutting costs, Zients will have a hand in regulating the security clearance process. Aside from the conflict of interest angle (no small thing) I found no glaring red flags on Zients.
Last but not least we have Jeffrey Crowley. Crowley has spent much of his career advocating for greater usage of Medicare and Medicaid, and advising others on how to be come a "Heath Policy Advocate." His specific focus now is on AIDS- he has had a hand in a few medical papers regarding AIDS or treatment of AIDS patients. However, Speaking before the Council on Aging called in 2006, Mr Crowley advised an incremental approach to government health care -- quite in line with some current plans to 'phase-in' government control through triggers and onerous regulations.
Well, that's all the raw data I could gather in a short time. Granted, some of these folks are not particularly dangerous, at least on the surface. Bear in mind that I did not go into Sunstein, Holdren, and Emanuel yet.
The danger so far is in having the government deciding who lives and who dies. We cannot let a group of people with little experience outside of government, and more concern for trees and animal than people, establishing the rules determining who does or does not get health care. Otherwise, we wind up with denial of expensive, life-sustaining care for seniors, lack of prenatal or peri-natal care for the young -- eventually leading to regulations of who may or may not give birth, or how many children they may have.
Sources for this posting include:
GovExec.com
InformationWeek.com
wikipedia.com
towleroad.com
dailymail.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html
Recently, a young lady in Britain suffered the loss of her premature son. Her child was born at 22 weeks -- an age at which infants have survived with proper care. This child received no such care. Once the government doctors discovered that she was only 22 weeks along, no preparations were made to care for this young and vulnerable life. In fact, before the young lady gave birth, a chaplain was sent in to help her with bereavement and funeral planning! Holding her son for a few hours as he turned his head and moved his limbs, the young mother pleaded, begged, and cried out for medical care for her son. She was rebuffed by all -- doctors, nurses, administrators, and chaplain. One possible reason for the medically unsound threshold for premie care -- to defend the window in which abortions are permitted in the UK.
Such a thing could not happen today in America. If it ever did, the individual medical personnel would lose their licenses and the hospital would be sued out of existence. There is no recourse against a government official. They cannot be sued, regardless of whether or not they know their actions or inactions will cause harm. Civil service employees cannot be fired, certainly not if they follow government regulations.
So who will be making the regulations governing a public health system? The Obama administration has many czars, but the lead personnel on health care are HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, OMB Deputy Director / Government Performance czar Jeffrey Zients, Dircetor of ONAP / AIDS czar Jeffrey Crowley, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform /Health czar Nancy-Ann Deparle, Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, and Science czar John Holdren.
I will hold off discussing Holdren and Sunstein until later. (I made a promise to get the blog out on a short time line.) For now the short version is that these two believe that only 'ideal' people should be preserved and human population should be decreased in order to save the planet. I'll handle them when I have time to do more thorough research.
I should also mention Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist with close ties with the president and brother to chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Dr Emanuel has proposed that people should be ranked according to their ability to produce for society. This ranking would then determine eligibility for health care.
Now on with the rest. Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of Kansas ran political cover for the Dr. Tiller, a prominent abortionist who frequently conducted extreme late-term abortions -- abortions other doctors refused to conduct due to the advanced development of the fetus. (You may recall that Dr. Tiller was recently murdered in church by a nutcase.) Additionally, Sebelius vetoed every abortion regulation sent to her by the Kansas legislature.
Nancy -Ann Deparle was apart of the earlier Clinton health care take over attempt. Later, she ran Medicare and Medicaid in the Clinton administration.
Jeffrey Zients is still the managing general partner of Portfolio Logic, an investment group specializing in health care and business services companies. Portfolio Logic currently owns Pediatric Services of America. Zients specialty is advising health care companies on ways to cut costs. In addition to his duties of streamlining processes and cutting costs, Zients will have a hand in regulating the security clearance process. Aside from the conflict of interest angle (no small thing) I found no glaring red flags on Zients.
Last but not least we have Jeffrey Crowley. Crowley has spent much of his career advocating for greater usage of Medicare and Medicaid, and advising others on how to be come a "Heath Policy Advocate." His specific focus now is on AIDS- he has had a hand in a few medical papers regarding AIDS or treatment of AIDS patients. However, Speaking before the Council on Aging called in 2006, Mr Crowley advised an incremental approach to government health care -- quite in line with some current plans to 'phase-in' government control through triggers and onerous regulations.
Well, that's all the raw data I could gather in a short time. Granted, some of these folks are not particularly dangerous, at least on the surface. Bear in mind that I did not go into Sunstein, Holdren, and Emanuel yet.
The danger so far is in having the government deciding who lives and who dies. We cannot let a group of people with little experience outside of government, and more concern for trees and animal than people, establishing the rules determining who does or does not get health care. Otherwise, we wind up with denial of expensive, life-sustaining care for seniors, lack of prenatal or peri-natal care for the young -- eventually leading to regulations of who may or may not give birth, or how many children they may have.
Sources for this posting include:
GovExec.com
InformationWeek.com
wikipedia.com
towleroad.com
dailymail.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html
Monday, August 31, 2009
A Wolf among Shepherds
Maybe you've seen reports already about a Phoenix area "pastor" by the name of Stephan Anderson. If not, the person in question recently delivered a sermon entitled "Why I hate Barack Obama". Additionally, Mr. Anderson has stated he prays for the president's death and encourages his flock to do the same.
If you are not a Christian, people like "pastor" Anderson are probably a part of why you left the faith or chose to not accept Christ in the first place. I don't expect to change your mind in one blog. However, I cannot let this horrific misrepresentation of Christ go unchallenged.
If you are a Christian, then pay attention. It is time to get off our duffs and fight for what we believe. We (I am including myself) have too often let our faith be defined by secularists, or wolves.
Christ calls us to speak the truth in love. We do not speak the truth if we excuse behavior God has defined as sinful. We are not expressing love if we spew hate or turn a blind eye to those who spew hate and claim to be acting in God's name.
We, as Christians, are called upon to pray for those in authority over us. This is as true today in our federal republic as it was in the days of monarchs and emperors. If we if we disagree with the policies, then we should pray for our leaders to receive wisdom, or a revelation. If we perceive that a politician has been sinful, then we should pray that the be reconciled to God, not sent to stand in judgment before Him.
There is a legitimate perception among many Christians that some in our society are seeking to eradicate Christianity, to ridicule Christians into obscurity. This does not excuse hateful behavior. We are called on to pray for those who persecute us and bless those who curse us. Consider also that there are places on this planet where Christians are murdered or jailed for speaking the Word. As ugly as it has gotten here, American Christians have it good.
This brings me to the nature of prayer. It is not a magic imprecation. Nor is it a wish list sent up to a magic Santa Claus figure. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much. This is both a critique of "pastor" Anderson, and a command to those of us who see him for what he is. Pray that he receives a true and life-changing encounter with our Lord. Pray that his congregation rejects this poisonous bile and has this man removed from the pulpit until such time as he can be reconnected with He is, and was, and is to come.
I do not hold a great deal of hope for the last option. The level of vitriol packed into such few sentences is very telling. Such hatred and wanton abuse of the Holy Word cannot be an isolated incident. Thus, the people in the pews of Mr. Anderson's church have sat still, and returned to his tutelage week after week, knowing his beliefs.
I weep for the children who are being taught by this man, and "Reverend" Wright. There is no difference.
If you are not a Christian, people like "pastor" Anderson are probably a part of why you left the faith or chose to not accept Christ in the first place. I don't expect to change your mind in one blog. However, I cannot let this horrific misrepresentation of Christ go unchallenged.
If you are a Christian, then pay attention. It is time to get off our duffs and fight for what we believe. We (I am including myself) have too often let our faith be defined by secularists, or wolves.
Christ calls us to speak the truth in love. We do not speak the truth if we excuse behavior God has defined as sinful. We are not expressing love if we spew hate or turn a blind eye to those who spew hate and claim to be acting in God's name.
We, as Christians, are called upon to pray for those in authority over us. This is as true today in our federal republic as it was in the days of monarchs and emperors. If we if we disagree with the policies, then we should pray for our leaders to receive wisdom, or a revelation. If we perceive that a politician has been sinful, then we should pray that the be reconciled to God, not sent to stand in judgment before Him.
There is a legitimate perception among many Christians that some in our society are seeking to eradicate Christianity, to ridicule Christians into obscurity. This does not excuse hateful behavior. We are called on to pray for those who persecute us and bless those who curse us. Consider also that there are places on this planet where Christians are murdered or jailed for speaking the Word. As ugly as it has gotten here, American Christians have it good.
This brings me to the nature of prayer. It is not a magic imprecation. Nor is it a wish list sent up to a magic Santa Claus figure. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much. This is both a critique of "pastor" Anderson, and a command to those of us who see him for what he is. Pray that he receives a true and life-changing encounter with our Lord. Pray that his congregation rejects this poisonous bile and has this man removed from the pulpit until such time as he can be reconnected with He is, and was, and is to come.
I do not hold a great deal of hope for the last option. The level of vitriol packed into such few sentences is very telling. Such hatred and wanton abuse of the Holy Word cannot be an isolated incident. Thus, the people in the pews of Mr. Anderson's church have sat still, and returned to his tutelage week after week, knowing his beliefs.
I weep for the children who are being taught by this man, and "Reverend" Wright. There is no difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)