![74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power](http://ag.christianbook.com/g/tiny/7/74325.gif "74325: Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit"s Power")
Why the Health Care Jam Down is Just Plain Un-American
A friend of mine recently protested when I said these are extraordinary times. “These times are precisely ordinary,” he said. He argued that politicians have always tried to pull the shenanigans President Obama and his cronies in congress are pulling now. He might be right if we were talking about other countries but we are talking about the United States of America where the rule of law is established by the Constitution. Obama recently said in an interview he doesn’t think much about the process of how legislation gets passed. Isn’t that a rather weird thing for the President to say, especially one who has taught constitutional law? If he is not thinking about the process, what is he thinking about?
The rule of law is about to be completely disregarded and we cannot claim to be surprised. We should have known when Obama supported the Manuel Zelaya last summer, the Honduran president who tried to illegally stay in power and had to be removed by the Honduran congress. Process and law did not much matter to him then either. Why should we think it would matter to him in our country? I guess he was too busy trying to win friends and influence people. Too bad the historic enemies of America he was trying to befriend showed how little influence he really had.
If this health care bill goes down as proposed there will be an unprecedented backlash. It has already begun. There are even calls for impeachment of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Sure, it sounds drastic but what else do you call their bribes and last minute rule changes if not “high crimes and misdemeanors?”
Certainly not bipartisan. The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition against it. Conservatives and independents oppose the legislation by wide majorities and even some Democrats, like Rep. Bart Stupak, are opposed. Not one Republican is for the bill.
This kind of thing is not supposed to happen in the United States of America. The will of the people is not supposed to be disregarded so wantonly. We, intentionally, do not have a king. We have a constitutional republic. That means the will of the people matters more than ideological or egotistical commitments. Perhaps men in power have always tried to grab more of it but our process is designed to limit them. The complete contempt for both process and the rule of law is new to the United States. Until now we have had leaders who thought the process set forth in the Constitution set us apart. Not anymore. Once the “door is kicked open,” to borrow Pelosi’s phrase, there is no turning back.
Actually, Eric, you never used the word “extraordinary” when we were discussing the “times.” If it makes you feel better though, and it helps your point, then by all means use the word. For the most part though you represent the “extremely limited” exchange properly. By the way, I’d like a little more credit than “one of my friends” before you try to twist my words to advance your theory, so now I’ve got to register on your HUGELY biased site to correct your ways.
However, your submission that only “other countries” exhibit shenanigans by politicians completely erases the point I tried to make it in my statement to you. I simply tried to say that both Republicans and Democrats, over the course of time, have been less than forthright in their representation of the American public, and that your site, in its blind devotion to the Republicans, denigrates Democrats in any maneuver and absolves Republicans of any wrongdoings.
I will point out, before you take my words out of context again, that I neither argued for or against the Health Care Bill in our conversation, though I will admit to apprehension about the method in which it is being voted upon. Funnily enough though, it’s interesting how our Republican “friends” have done little in advancing an alternative. And don’t give me any crap line about how they don’t have the “votes” to get anything done. They have been plenty able to voice their displeasure through the media, yet still without voicing a viable system in its place.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-Democrat, and I know this infuriates you, since you always try to get me to pick a side. However, it’s funny to see that you and your columnists are a bunch of Repulican-supporting Yes Men who can’t advance an intelligent argument of your own. You’re too blind to understand that 100% of Republicans voting against an issue has more to do with receiving party funds in the future than anything else. Do you REALLY believe than the ideology of Republicans is so closely aligned that they would all vote together? The voting in unison by both sides, Democrat and Republican, happens too often to believe otherwise without being delusional.
By the way, you’re opening yourself up for the idiot-of-the-week award when you mention “win[ing] friends and influencing people.” Dale Carnegie said “Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.” Mr. Carnegie is hardly a character dismissed by Republicans, and this statement pretty much combats any petty arguments you and most of the numbskulls you link to, since your and their articles speak in generalizations and reference no specifics. If Obama is acting on principle, it pretty much trumps the vague whinings of your and your “colleagues,” with little to back up what you’re whining about.
Speaking about twisting of words, you said that Obama “doesn’t think much about the process”, when he actually said he “doesn’t worry much about the process.” Two very different connotations. Don’t forget that Obama represents the Executive branch of the government and, for obvious reasons, doesn’t worry much about what happens in the Legislative or Judicial branches. As far as he’s concerned, any evidence that the Legislative branches are performing their due diligence is a good sign. Up to this point though, it’s been more than evident, even over the last 20 years and spanning both Republican and Democratic majority, that the Legislative branch has neglected it’s duties. I wish I didn’t have to believe this, and I welcome you to submit just one viable alternative that has been presented; it doesn’t even have to be during the last year. Heck, why don’t you just point out one thing that Obama says in your video link that you think is false. Be specific. I’m open to it.
Finally, you are in complete ignorance of why Obama supported Zelaya. Granted, Zelaya was behaving extremely shady in his attempts to extend his own rule beyond his election expiration in 2010, however, his expatriation to Costa Rica by the military was absolutely and irrefutably against the Honduran Constitution. Constitutionally (which is SOOOOOOO important to you regarding the U.S.,) Zelaya should never have been removed as President. This is the only reason Obama backed up his right to the presidency. Obama, rightfully, overlooked the ties with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro and followed the Honduran Constitution. Alliances with leftists states do not, under any circumstances, warrant military removal from office. Look where that got Obama with your myopic, Republican, single-minded constituents.
Sorry if I’ve “insulted” your intelligence, but you “quoting” me in your article based on something I said in Facebook, without my permission and slightly out of context, has really upset me. Above and beyond that, you’ve induced me into responding in what I consider a waste of my time, since you, your columnists, and likely your devoted readers are focused only on advancing your own agendas without regard other opinion.
I feel like I have to, once again, state that I am not pro-Democrat, since it seems like the idea that there are more than two methods of thought is too much for you. I simply finding it sickening that you would advance such heavy-handed Republican propoganda in cutting down Democratic ideals. By no means do I propose that Democrats are above this same tactic, but this is your Republican worship site, and you touched my last nerve when you quoted me.
By the way, if you respond, and I don’t, it’s because I find at least one of the “columnists” on your website completely disgusting, and I don’t wish to frequent the place, but I will try for you just this once.
Rev Nev Reply:
March 21st, 2010 at 8:02 PM
I approved this comment, Ben, to give you the recognition you seek. The conversation we had on facebook was not private. I did not violate any confidence. There is no rule that requires me to cite you. Your comment made me think. Most people are happy about that.
Your first point demonstrates your inanity. You say I did not call the times “extraordinary.” So I looked it up. I call them “not ordinary times.” You can explain the difference but I don’t think that level of precision is necessary to be accurate. You yourself said I accurately portrayed the substance of what you said. I took that as a launching pad. You are welcome to disagree.
In rereading my reply, I found at least four little syntax errors. Get over it.
What really bothered me about it I couldn’t explain at the time, but I’ve got it pegged down now. Nothing to do with the word “extraordinary”, though it seems I latched onto it in my fervor.
You took my comment about political shenanigans and ran roughshod over it, stating flat out that it had no bearing because the topic is the United States of America. As if the rule of law being the Constitution prevents such things. You reiterate the statement at the end when you say this sort of behavior is “new to the United States.” There’s no reason to quote someone, if all you’re going to do is completely dismiss what they say.
Rev Nev Reply:
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:50 PM
No. I did not run roughshod over your comment. I disagreed with it and explained why I thought as much. You are welcome to disagree or protest but don’t pretend I’m violating you somehow by thinking about-and writing about in my own space-something you said. You may have been surprised. You may not like the way I write. But you may not mischaracterize what I intended to do.
I still contend that the system of limited government and check and balances are there to prevent abuses such as we saw yesterday. I am not alone or one-sided to believe so.