Thursday, March 18, 2010

Dennis 'Yes,' Anh 'No' to ObamaCare

Yesterday, it was Democrat Dennis Kucinich who revealed that he will be changing his previous vote on the Health Care Reform (HCR) bill from “No” to today saying he’ll vote “Yes” on HCR Sunday. Speculation has it that Congressman Kucinich changed his mind apparently after he got to ride on Air Force One. Meanwhile the rest of the nation is being taken on another type of royal ride, straight to oblivion!

Today, it was Anh Cao, Republican U.S. Congressman from Louisiana, who was the only GOP member who voted “yes” for HCR last year, but says he will now above it because of its extensive abortion funding. Here is an excerpt from an article, “
Republican Cao Opposes Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill, While Wilson Wavers,” posted at today.

Washington, DC ( -- Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao was the lone Republican to support the House health care bill but he was listed as a firm no on the Senate measure because of its massive abortion funding. President Barack Obama hoped to twist his arm, but he says he will oppose the bill.

Really, these two votes offset each other. Kucinich will get more press for his switch than will Cao. Why? Because the opposition media (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, New York Times, PBS, etc.) is in the pocket of the Democratic-lead government. However, it does seem that the Republicans will be standing united in opposition to the bill, a bill which is a shill for bringing about government-run healthcare.

You know it will be a very close vote. If the big-government, socialistic legislation passes on Sunday, things do not look good for the future of America. Another piece of the secular, socialist state will be put in place. Education in the government-run schools is nearly all dominated by an ungodly, atheistic, secular-humanistic philosophy and curriculum. Amnesty for illegals will follow shortly. Then all we have to do is yield the rest of this nation’s sovereignty to the United Nations via treaties etc. and the nation of Washington, Jefferson and Reagan will become a second rate European Socialist Utopia like France or Belgium.


  1. Kucinich turned out to be the Grinch. So much for "virtuous" and "independently-minded" liberals.

  2. So passing a very moderate, private-insurance based, heavily compromised, health care "reform" (which is so mild as to not really reform anything) is equivalent to... "oblivion."

    Umm. Feeling a bit extreme are we?

    Ah! That's the problem with putting feelings before facts or reasoning.

    It's one thing to say you don't like the bill, Greg, and state your reasons. Reasonable adults can discuss and agree or disagree about something like that. I don't much like this bill myself.

    It's quite another thing to make wild weird claims about "oblivion." When you do that, you jump off the "logical and rational" screen entirely and onto the "loony fringe with weak grip on reality" screen very fast. Obviously, no logical, rational argumentation (that would satisfy a grownup) exists to back up such a claim. You certainly offered none.

    You see the difference, don't you? Logical argumentation joins claims with evidence and reasoning. Crazy ranting -- of the sort you demonstrate here -- does not.

    As I've mentioned before, this isn't just me talking. This goes back to the ancient Greeks. They would regard your article here not as logical reasoning, but as merely an appeal to emotion. This distinction between reason and mere feeling is a major part of Western Civilization I would personally like to preserve. I find it awfully odd that you -- a self-proclaimed conservative -- would be so against preserving this sort of time-honored, historically-proven reasoning.

    You also show further historical ignorance when you say that "Another piece of the secular, socialist state will be put in place." Apparently, you are unaware that the United State is now already a secular state, and always has been. Because of the proud tradition established by our far-sighted Founders, we have never been ruled by priests or churches. And why you would consider socialism -- which after all has many Christian variants -- as somehow more "secular" than egocentric, desire-centered capitalism (which seeks to replace all religious values with marketplace values) is beyond any rational person.

    All-in-all, you show a profound disinterest in -- if not outright ignorance of -- actual history or tradition (at least any history or tradition that hasn't been produced by a pre-determined ideology). I think perhaps I am more of a TRUE conservative than you!

  3. kwix,

    If you are really open-minded, I hope you will listen to my defence of my fellow blogger's statements.

    First the "oblivion" statement:

    Our nation is about $13 trillion in debt. I have not read the bill (who has time to do that every time such monstrosity comes up for vote?), but my impression is that it will cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars. It is illogical to suggest that the Chinese and Saudi Arabians will keep lending us more and more money. If we keep borrowing the money from our own Fed, this will eventually lead to hyperinflation and a collapse of our monetary system. Not that the health care bill would be only reason for this, but could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The problems would be exacerbated by all the extra red tape and bureaucracy which would be created in the process. So if this what Greg means by "oblivion", I would certainly agree.

    As far as this secular vs. Christian argument, this is an issue where people often talk past each other. Of course the church and the state should be separate institutions, but God's word contains instructions for both. A properly informed Christian statesman will prefer a government which is based on Christian principles of justice and liberty, but does not otherwise favor any religion.

    As far as capitalism versus socialism, it is very clear that the Founders were capitalists. Socialism denies that anyone has a real right to property--everything is owned collectively and the state decides what can and can't have and what you can do with it.