The Audacity of Him

It seems like everyone but Harry Reid has finally figured it out. When President Obama said, “if you like your health insurance you can keep your insurance” it was a lie. The truth was something like, “if I like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance…and I don’t like your health insurance if it doesn’t cover stuff you will never use, and things like birth control, abortion pills, and various other ‘needs’ associated with immoral living that you could have avoided by exercising a little self control.” 

It certainly isn’t his first lie or his latest. Even his official White House bio continues to lie, as it begins, "His story is the American story—values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family..." Unless you redefine a word or two or five—heartland, values, middle class, strong, and family—that whole sentence is a lie or really bad joke.

Before he became President he gave us some whoppers. Recall his audacious denial of his radical position on abortion. In response to Senator McCain’s

"Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois state Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born in a failed abortion. He voted against that."

The Audacious One replied:

"If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that's because it's not true."

In essence, “nobody could do something so bad, so that proves I didn’t!”  Alas, even the AP told the truth about that Big Lie: “As a state senator, Obama opposed three legislative efforts, in 2001, 2002 and 2003, to give legal protections to any aborted fetus that showed signs of life.”

But that was about abortion rights, so the only Tea Party types cared. [Yawn]  So the “you can keep your insurance” lie may be his biggest, boldest, most obvious and most offensive to the most people. Seems that about the only person who still believes him, despite millions of insurance cancellations against the will of the insured, is Sen. Harry Reid: "What he said was true. If you want to keep the insurance you have you can keep it. The problem is, we did not put the bill into effect that way."

I found fascinating a bit of history*** from not so many years ago and not so far away, when another famous liberal leader said that in order to fundamentally transform a country a leader’s lies must be so "colossal" that the public would be confident that no national leaders "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." In his book, with more context, he wrote:

"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."*

His “press secretary”—justifying the right of leaders to lie in order to accomplish a greater good, perhaps fundamentally transform the nation—affirmed "the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. ... It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion."**

That elected national leader* also wrote about his political party: "The party ... must not become a servant of the masses, but their master." In justification of the ends of the state trumping individual liberty, he continued, "The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual."

Echoed the press secretary: "To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

Obama doesn’t always lie.  Sometimes he says the bold truth, and counts on the public to interpret it wishfully.  For instance, his 2008 victory night declaration, "At this defining moment, change has come to America," which reaffirmed this infamous claim from a week earlier: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Such transformative agenda has advanced far, in part because his propaganda—including his Big Lies—worked when needed to get the votes required to pass Obamacare. Trust him? Yeah, I trust him…to be true to his agenda: state control, centralized power, control of the masses by the privileged elite like himself.

* Adolf Hitler’s 1925 autobiography, Mein Kampf

** Hitler's Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels

***Much of this content is thanks to Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post, and we recommend that you subscribe to his essays. See http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209

A Glitch in Our Moral Software?

You've probably read or heard the story, but here is what seems to me a pretty insightful analysis. 

I've been discouraged by the legalistic mentality of our world: "if there is no law against it, then it is OK for me to do it, even if the spirit of the thing is clearly deceptive or harmful"... I see it in the business world, where as long as the legal disclosures are buried in the fine print the perception is that you can mislead people, yet with a conscience that reassures you: "I didn't break any law." This article from Eric Metaxas of the Colson Center is worth two minutes of your time. 

As the majority of people turn their backs on a genuine trust in God, they invariably drift from doing right because it is moral, liberty steadily contracts, tyranny follows. 

Curt

The Glitch in Our Moral Software

Theft or Human Nature?

by Eric Metaxas

Black Friday came a little early this year in Louisiana, with shoppers emptying store shelves. But why it happened says a lot about who we are as humans.     

On October 13, Wal-Mart shelves in Springhill and Mansfield, Louisiana, were stripped bare as hundreds of shoppers descended on the stores. The occasion for the unseemly behavior wasn’t a Black Friday sale but, instead, a computer glitch.

The glitch was in the software that administers food stamps. Food stamp recipients receive electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, cards that function in much the same way as your debit card.

And like your debit card, there’s a balance, and if you try to spend more than the balance, the transaction won’t be approved. However, on that Saturday night, the EBT cards weren’t showing a balance. Wal-Mart decided to allow purchases on the cards, anyway.

Word spread about the loophole in the system, and the result was a run on the stores. The Springhill chief of police said that the resulting crowd was worse than any “Black Friday” he’d ever seen.

A woman whose actual balance was forty-nine cents put $700 worth of food in her carts. Unfortunately for her, by the time she tried to check out the system was working again.

Reactions to what happened differed among those who didn’t participate in the free-for-all. One shopper thought the response to the glitch was just “human nature.” Other shoppers weren’t so forgiving: They told a local television station that what happened was “plain theft.”

And of course, both are right. For people who knew or should have known how much was remaining on their cards, sweeping store shelves clean is theft. And it’s also human nature, the result of what we Christians like to call “the Fall.”

And by “human,” I don’t mean only the kind of people stereotypically associated with the food stamp program. In Plato’s “Republic,” Plato recounts the legend of the Ring of Gyges, which enables its wearer to become invisible and, thus, to do whatever he desires without fear of being caught.

According to Plato, people who do the right thing when no one can see them are truly happy; while those who take advantage of the invisibility the ring provides are slaves to their appetites.

If Plato was correct, then slaves come in all shapes, sizes, and income brackets. Five years ago, the global economy was nearly destroyed by people in expensive suits who believed they had discovered the financial and legal equivalent of the Ring of Gyges.

They peddled derivatives and mortgages they knew were garbage. Yet no one was saying “no!” so they went ahead.

Like those Wal-Mart shoppers, they took advantage of a glitch in the system. As Bob Dylan once sang, “Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king.”

What happened at the Wal-Marts in Louisiana that Saturday night was fallen human nature on display. And what happened on Wall Street in the run-up to the financial crisis was also fallen human nature on display. The result in both cases, albeit on vastly different scales, was chaos.

How right Chuck Colson was to say that the virtues are laws for healthy souls. And healthy souls are a prerequisite for a healthy civilization.

Perhaps that’s why Chuck worked so hard on the “Doing the Right Thing” video series on ethics. You can learn more about “Doing the Right Thing” and Chuck’s teaching on the virtues by coming to BreakPoint.org and clicking on this commentary.

Also, the Colson Center and Gateways for Better Education have created a special “Doing the Right Thing” edition for high schools. Again, to learn more, please come to BreakPoint.org.

If Only The Republicans Would Negotiate...

Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from recent columns on who caused the government shutdown. The first comes from Ann Coulter:

 "Responding to the people's will, House Republicans first voted to fund all of government -- except Obamacare. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. Then the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but merely delay the implementation of Obamacare for one year. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. Finally, the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but added a requirement that everyone live under Obamacare. ... Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. So as you can see, Republicans are the big holdup here. ... If you are in the minority of Americans not already unalterably opposed to Obamacare, keep in mind that the only reason the government is shut down right now is that Democrats refuse to fund the government if they are required to live under Obamacare. That's how good it is!"

It is interesting to me that the president has selectively delayed implementation of Obamacare for a whole lot of people, picking carefully the exemptions and delays for maximum political advantage. But when the Republican House proposes to make the delay applicable to all--one might say to treat everyone equally under the law--this is some sort of affront to Obama and Reid. Come again?!

For some, Coulter may be too harsh in her views.  Here is a more deliberative piece from Thomas Sowell:

"Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose."    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/10/04/who-shut-down-the-government-n1716292/page/full

Finally, this from Charles Krauthammer, starkly illuminating the two-faced-ness of the Democrats:

"President Obama indignantly insists that GOP attempts to abolish or amend Obamacare are unseemly because it is 'settled' law, having passed both houses of Congress, obtained his signature and passed muster with the Supreme Court. Yes, settledness makes for a strong argument -- except from a president whose administration has unilaterally changed Obamacare five times after its passage, including, most brazenly, a year-long suspension of the employer mandate. Article 1 of the Constitution grants the legislative power entirely to Congress. Under what constitutional principle has Obama unilaterally amended the law? Yet when the House of Representatives undertakes a constitutionally correct, i.e., legislative, procedure for suspending the other mandate -- the individual mandate -- this is portrayed as some extra-constitutional sabotage of the rule of law. Why is tying that amendment to a generalized spending bill an outrage, while unilateral amendment by the executive (with a Valerie Jarrett blog item for spin) is perfectly fine?"

ObamaCare: Winning the War Against Traditional Marriage

Editorial Comment:

Readers of this blog know that I believe traditional marriage offers the state something that 'gay marriage' and non-committed relationships do not, and that committed man-woman marriage should be protected and nurished. ObamaCare, like so many of this President's activities, strikes a powerful blow against traditional marriage.

Following is a 2010 article analyzing ObamaCare. This is the law that the Republicans are now trying to de-fund or delay.  There are tables and supporting data with the original article, found here.

I would like to say "enjoy" your reading, but you could only enjoy it if you want to see traditional marriage destroyed. So I hope you don't enjoy it, but that you might be awakened to what is happening in our country under the guise of "affordable" "health" "care."

Curt

 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The New Federal Wedding Tax: How Obamacare Would Dramatically Penalize Marriage

By Robert Rector

One bizarre feature of the Senate-passed health care bill is its pervasive bias against marriage. Under the bill, couples would face massive financial penalties if they marry or remain married. Conversely, couples who cohabit without marriage are given highly preferential financial treatment. If the Senate bill becomes law, saying “I do” would cost some couples over $10,000 per year.[1]

Most people feel that marriage is a healthful institution that society should encourage and strengthen. Inexplicably, the Senate health care bill takes the opposite approach. At nearly all age and income levels, the bill profoundly discriminates against married couples, providing far less support to a husband and wife than to a cohabiting couple with the same income. If the bill is enacted, married couples across America will be taxed to provide discriminatory benefits to couples who cohabit, divorce, or never marry.

Analyzing Anti-Marriage Discrimination in the Senate Health Care Bill

The Senate bill is designed to provide health care benefits that are substantially more generous for lower-income persons. The bill’s anti-marriage penalties occur because of the income counting and benefit structure rules of the bill. If a two-earner couple is married, the bill counts their income jointly; since the joint income will be higher, a married couple’s health care subsidies would be lower.[2]

By contrast, if a couple cohabits rather than marrying, the bill counts each partner’s income separately. Separate counting means that, all else being equal, cohabiters would be treated as having lower incomes and therefore receive disproportionately greater government benefits. The bottom line: under the bill, a cohabiting couple would receive substantially higher health care subsidies than a married couple even when the total incomes of both couples are identical.

Tables 1 through 5 in the appendix illustrate this pattern of pervasive financial discrimination against married couples. In the examples in the charts, the couples are assumed to have no dependent children, neither partner has employer-provided health insurance, and each couple’s earned income is assumed to be split equally between the partners—if a married couple has an income of $50,000, the husband is assumed to earn $25,000 and the wife $25,000. (The details of the analysis are described in the appendix to this paper.)

As Tables 4 and 5 show, under the Senate bill, married couples in general would receive between $1,500 and $10,000 less in government health care support than would cohabiting couples with the same total income.

Government Bonuses for Refusing to Tie the Knot

The stiff anti-marriage penalties and heavy “cohabitation bonuses” built into the Senate Obamacare bill send a negative social message. In addition, the bill creates large incentives for couples to “game the system,” allowing and encouraging them to reap large financial rewards by living together rather than marrying.

For example, a young couple without children, age 20, each making $20,000, would receive $4,317 more in health benefits each year if they cohabit rather than marry. Slipping on the wedding ring would cut the couple’s annual disposable income by more than 10 percent. Rather than pay this new wedding tax, the couple is likely to postpone marriage or forego it entirely.

Penalizing Married Empty Nesters

Under the bill, the anti-marriage penalties increase sharply as a couple ages. The discriminatory anti-marriage penalties are particularly severe on middle-class “empty nester” couples. Many of those couples would pay an effective tax of $5,000 to $10,000 per year for the right to remain married.

For example, a 60-year-old couple, each earning $30,000 per year, would receive $10,425 per year less in benefits if they marry or remain married. Simply by divorcing and then living together, the couple can boost their post-tax, take-home income by nearly one-fourth.

Similarly, a 50-year-old couple, each earning $20,000 per year, would receive $5,114 less in benefits each year if they marry or remain married. By divorcing and then living together, the couple could increase its income by more than $50,000 over a decade.

Hammering Low-Income Married Couples

Low-income couples are not immune from the bill’s aggressive wedding taxes. A 60-year-old husband and wife, each with an income of $15,000, would pay over $4,000 per year if they remain married. Put in other terms, the government would offer an annual bonus of $4,212 if the couple divorces and then cohabits.

The Lifetime Marriage Tax

Annual penalties actually understate the depth of the anti-marriage bias in the Senate bill. The bill’s wedding tax is perpetual. Penalties against married couples add up year after year as long as the couple remains married. Some couples who remained married throughout their adult lives would face cumulative penalties of over $200,000 during the course of their marriage.

Defending the Indefensible

Proponents of the Senate health care bill might argue that these marriage penalties would reach their full effect only in situations where neither partner had employer-provided health insurance. It is true that married couples with employer coverage would face less bias; however, this defense of the bill remains weak because discrimination against marriage remains discrimination even if it does not fully affect all married couples. Such discrimination is unacceptable even in a single instance.

Moreover, the main purpose of the act is to provide health insurance to persons without employer-provided health insurance. The basic point here is that the new subsidy system designed to fulfill that purpose is highly discriminatory against married couples.

Finally, if Obamacare were enacted, the number of employers offering health insurance would decline over time.[3] Therefore, the number of married couples who would eventually lose employer-provided insurance—and face stark discrimination on the non-group market under the provisions of the Senate bill—would substantially increase in the long term.

Profound Bias Against Marriage

The Senate health care bill sends a clear message: Married couples are second-class citizens. On the other hand, the bill establishes cohabiters as a privileged special interest, quietly channeling tens of thousands of dollars to them in preferential government bonuses.

Offering couples massive financial rewards on the condition they jettison their wedding vows, or decline to make them in the first place, is absurd social policy. But that would be the established policy of the U.S. government if Obamacare becomes law.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the Domestic Policy Studies Department at The Heritage Foundation.