The Right Opposition

Those favoring abortion argue its acceptance for many reasons. Over the years their arguments have taken on a buzzword nature in which a one or two sentence zinger is used to supposedly win the argument against those of us who hold abortion to be a horrible event. To answer pro-abortion arguments, one must only look beneath the very thin veneer of their zingers to see the illogic that upholds their cause.

This article is intended as a “keeper.” It is one that you can refer back to time and again as a resource against the pro-abortion arguments.

A Woman Has A Right To Choose

This was one of the first arguments offered and is the root of their claim to be “pro-choice.” Upon closer examination we find that we do not have a right to choose anything we wish. I might fall in love with my neighbors new automobile but I cannot simply choose to get in it and drive away. All choices are restricted or modified by other factors. There is no such thing as an absolute right to do anything including to make a choice.

In this case, a woman’s right to choose is modified by others rights. There is the right of the man who equally contributed to the creation of the child.

There is the right of grandparents to see, know and love their offspring.

And there is the right of the unborn to birth.

A woman indeed has a right to choose many things, this simply should not be one of those rights.

A Woman Has A Right To Her Own Body

This is similar to the alleged right of choice. We would agree that, generally, a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases.

However, she has no right to the body of another. The child that grows within her is not chattel to be done with as she pleases. Any right she may have would be limited to her own body.

But even then, her rights are not absolute. You may not sell your body for prostitution. You may not abuse your body with illicit drugs. You may not sell a kidney or a lung. Society limits what we can do with our bodies. A limitation or prohibition of abortion is well within societal norms.

It Is Wrong For A Man To Tell A Woman What She Should Do With Her Body

I guess the thousands of male OB/GYN’s are in trouble for they routinely tell women what they should do with their bodies. We wonder if the pro-abortion crowd would fell any better if women said “non” to abortion?

The idea that one gender cannot understand the problems and struggles of the other gender is absolute foolishness. The issue in abortion is not gender but life. What if the child within the woman is male? Is she now restricted from aborting it simply because she doesn’t understand men?

The Arguments Beg the Question of Life

The issues here are often sidetracked into areas that are largely irrelevant to the heart of our discussion. Tthe issue here is two-fold:

1. Is the growing object within the womb alive? If so then,
2. Should all life be protected?

Both questions are difficult because there is little agreement on either. We would simply argue for now that if there is a chance that life exists, a noble society will do all it can to protect that life, especially given its innocence and defenselessness.

Alabama Congressman Jo Bonner of Mobile, is defending his decision to act in direct opposition to the desires of his constituents and vote for the bailout of financial institutions.

Bonner was a member of the Alabama clique of liberal Republicans who voted to support the bill as offered on Monday and will likely vote again today in favor of it. Robert Aderholt of Alabama’s 4th district was the only conservative vote from Alabama’s House delegation and he voted NO.

In a letter posted at his website Bonner argues that his decision was a tough decision because it opposed the voters of his district:

“Without question the “popular vote” would have been to vote against this bill. But in my opinion it does not mean it was the right vote.”

Two things stand out to us.

1. Public sentiment was against the bill, he knew it and he voted for it anyway,
2. The public was wrong.

America is fashioned upon a representative democracy. That means, Congressman Bonner, that you were hired to represent the people not to Lord over them. You knew what we wanted but your arrogance prevented you from doing the will of the people.

This is not a close issue where 1/2 of the people were in favor and the other 1/2 opposed. Estimates have run as high as 90% in opposition to your vote.

Bonner declares that his “goal has always been to act responsibly…” May we conclude that to have voted against the bill as directed by your constituents would have been irresponsible? Are you suggesting that those who called your office were irresponsible?

Bonner spends the remainder of his letter declaring that all sorts of bad things will happen if the bill is not passed yet he cannot point to one district problem that is a direct result of the problems this bill is supposed to fix. Does he really believe a bank will terminate a good, well paying client because of this?

We call on Congressman Bonner to cease the fear-mongering that has arisen from the Bush Administration and from the liberal left. The people have spoken and we expect you to listen.

Congress is expected to vote tonight on Bailout Redux. Another attempt to hoodwink American taxpayers into thinking that they have listened to our concerns and may substantive changes. They have not!

The text of the new bill is here and you should read it carefully. But notice especially section Title 1, 101:

The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (‘‘TARP’’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.

Please observe that the Secretary of the Treasury - Paulson - is still authorized to purchase assets which are almost in default. Notice further that it is the Secretary - Paulson - who develops the policies and procedures for such purchases.

Understand that these “troubled assets” are so poor, so dangerous that even profit hungry financial entrepreneurs will not touch them. These assets are on the verge of default and banks cannot pass them on or sell them off to anyone else because they are such a poor risk.

Your Congressmen however, many of whom have dined at the trough of financial institution contributions, want to buy them from the banks and give to you so that the taxpayer can take the hit and not the business.

Not since Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Christ as there been such a cowardly betrayal of the innocents. You the taxpayer have done nothing to deserve this. The business walk away with cash in hand and cleaned balance sheet.

Bailout Ornaments

To be sure, there are some additions in the bill. For example, the Secretary can establish an asset insurance program which, for a fee, institutions can use to insure assets. There is no requirement to participate and one wonders why you would insure that for which there is a ready buyer - the Federal Government.

Assistance for homeowners is also included which inserts the governemt into contractual obligations already entered into by business and consumers.

All of these ornaments however, do not change the fact that the Federal Government is fundamentally changing the marketplace and is socializing bad debt. Since government is inherently inefficient we can be assured that this program will grow and become more and more burdensome to taxpayers in future years.

The answer remains NO and should not change until Congress gets the message.

Wealthy liberal George Soros, the man behind the financing of much of the Democrat party message in recent years and one of the more anti-American voices on the left is now proposing a new bailout plan for the U.S. banking industry.

According to The Hill, Soros wants the U.S. to go beyond purchasing toxic assets and actually buy stakes in the troubled businesses themselves. Such would give the U.S. an ownership stake in those banks.

Now, in case no one has noticed,  that is an even more socialistic approach than buying the troubled assets. Socialism occurs when the central government owns  the means of production in a nation. While the purchasing of equity stakes in the financial industry would not fully nationalize that sector or the U.S. economy, it would set a frightening precedent [Read the rest of this entry...]

Alabama has some Congressmen who need to be soundly defeated. Let’s take a look at the Alabama rollcall. Remember, a YES vote is a Nancy Pelosi pro-socialist, bailout vote.

Bonner (R) 1st District, Mobile — YES

Everett, (R) 2nd District, Montgomery, Dothan — YES

Rogers, (R) 3rd District, Auburn, Anniston — YES

Aderholt, (R) 4th District, Jasper - Cullman — NO

Cramer, (D) 5th District, Huntsville — YES

Bachus, (R) 6th District, Homewood, Mountain Brook — YES

Davis, (D) 7th District, Demopolis, Selma –YES

Robert Aderholt from the small hamlet of Haleyville, Alabama was the only Alabama Congressman to support the basic fundamental principles of limited, conservative government. To Mr. Aderholt, we salute you!

To the rest of you so-called Republicans, we are ashamed. We are ashamed not only because you departed from sound fiscal principles, but because you ignored the overwhelming will of the people in your districts. There is never an excuse for failing to represent the will of the people. Reports of telephone calls running 10:1 against the bailout and you stood with the 10%. Do you really think you know better? Are you really so much smarter than the 90% who took the time to call your office and say NO?

Readers are reminded that all 7 Congressman are running for re-election. Which is worse? An  un-representative or a liberal?

Every now and then you come upon a post that concisely makes its point in an irrefutable manner. Such is the case with a post at Government is Not Your Daddy. The post is entitled Social Engineering as Economic Policy. I invite you to slowly read and digest what the author is saying. Here is just a brief portion of the post:

“…when the government removes the risk associated with a bad transaction, by assuming the risk itself, then the natural constraint of risk aversion that would apply in a truly free market is eliminated, and investors will take risks that would otherwise be unacceptable.”

His point, and you still need to read it for the complete account, is that by bringing unsuitable purchasers into the marketplace government created the debacle that now plagues the markets and threatens to engulf us all. We certainly agree.

It has always been a part of the American Dream to own a house. But the dream has never been free. Citizens are indeed free to work hard, save their money and build a house. But today, that plan has been turned upside down. Today we build a house and then figure out how to pay for it. And if we fail so what? We didn’t have anything in it to begin with.

The path ahead promises to be difficult. But we must not allow this present struggle to be in vain. We must learn from our errors and vow never to repeat them again.

Capital markets must be left free to function and protect themselves through the Adam Smith’s unseen hand.

Barack Obama attempted to chastise John McCain for pursuing a policy of refusing to talk to rogue regimes without preconditions. The Democrat candidate himself has been roundly criticised, even by his running mate, for agreeing to sit down with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Syria and North Korea without preconditions so he has to scrap back anyway he can.

Pointing to his inexperience, Obama used North Korea as an example of a a state where isolation hasn’t worked.

“…this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons.”

Hmm…

Obama forgets about the Clinton administration’s dealings and agreements with North Korea which were scuttled when the repressive regime decided to return to its nuclear program even after face-to-face talks. Then, after a period of isolation, the United States joined four other nations in discussions with North Korea (the famed 6 party talks) and again reached agreements. Now, after those talks, North Korea is restarting its nuclear program.

McCain did not do what he should have which was to beat Obama over the head with his foolish approach to foreign policy.

I can see it now…Obama standing around a table with the leaders of the World’s rogue states, they clasp hands and softly begin singing Kum Ba Yah. That’s the ticket!

Overshadowed by the Presidential debate, the White House and Congress is moving ahead with a corporate bailout plan that will saddle taxpayers with up to $700 billion in questionable, poorly performing mortgage debts. The rush to implement the plan occurs in the face of overwhelming opposition from voters.

Nancy Pelosi, pushing the bailout is quoted by the Washington Post as saying, “Great progress is being made. We will not leave until legislation is passed that will be signed by the president.” The Post reports that the deal could be done before Asian markets open (Sunday night in the states) with a House vote Monday and a Senate vote at mid-week.

The plan still includes the plan to buy so-called “toxic assets” from banks and financial institutions so that the businesses can improve their bottom line. It will immediately saddle the U.S. with the debt which may or may not perform in the future.

Taxpayers are rightly outraged and have made their feelings known. Nevertheless, because you don’t know any better, the Congress and the Administration are going to defy your wishes. Unfortunately they know voters have very short memories.

John McCain and Barack Obama squared off last night in Mississippi in the first of a series of Presidential Debates. I thought John McCain won. He looked better, did not get nasty and demonstrated a firm grasp of international affairs although he was clearly weaker on the economy. Obama however looked frustrated and often interrupted McCain which made him look unruly and even desperate. Anyway, I’m biased.

This morning CNN online leads with a poll showing Obama the winner. However the article notes that more Democrats participated than Republicans by a significant proportion. The next to the last paragraph says the following:

The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents.

Earlier in the article a commenter referenced a democrat bias but did not explain.

41 - 27 percent is a big bias and should have caused the poll to be tossed into the can. Instead, CNN chooses to make Obama the winner in a biased poll.

This is poor jounalism.

Negotiations in Washington continue to revolve around elements of a plan that is almost uniformly rejected by citizens across the nation. Lawmakers seem to be pressing ahead in spite of telephone calls running 90 to 1 against the plans. This is extreme arrogance on the part of the Congress.

Americans are angry because they view the present discussions as a way to save wealthy bankers who have made poor decisions and who, in some cases, are taking their homes through defaults. Congress faces two key problems.

1. Congress has failed to “sell” the problem. Americans are generally not convinced that the problem is as bad as the Administration claims.
2. Congress has failed to “sell” the solution. An article in this morning’s Wall Street Journal notes that even the experts are uncertain if the right solution is on the table.

The so called revolt by House Republicans comes not because of presidential politics, but because these lawmakers, who are closer to their smaller constituencies than any other branch of federal government, really do get the anger felt by their voters. A member of the House of Representatives must stand for re-election every two years and every one of them will be on the ballot this November. As a result they are more sensitive to voters concerns. Therefore, they are balking at the agreement despised by voters.

Americans should strongly reject the arrogance of those who will not listen to them while demanding full and adequate answers to their questions. Afterall, it is your money.