TOUGH CHOICES

Clearly, in a time of high deficits and a desire to at least modestly reduce it, difficult decisions have to be made by the White House and Congress as to what programs and/or entitlements have to be ditched or significantly reduced.

As is often the case, I'm frustrated with their priorities. In a time when unemployment is high, the focus should not only only be on creating jobs for people without a college education to fix and build infrastructure or saving government jobs. In order to keep our country competitive in the world and get high school students to pursue math and science majors, there has to also be lucrative and stimulating jobs for them when they graduate, i.e., the type of jobs that allow for research that advances our quality of life, health, and competitiveness in the world. These jobs are often supported by government grants and funds. I was reading an article today that Obama plans to reduce spending for NASA.

But Obama's budget freeze is likely to hamstring NASA in coming years as the spending clampdown will eventually shackle the agency and its ambitions. And this year's funding request to develop both commercial rockets and a new NASA spaceship will be less than what was recommended by a White House panel of experts last year.

There are tough choices to be made, but grants for big research are as important as jobs for infrastructure and so forth, because much research will not be done without the funds that only the federal government can provide. If those dollars aren't there, many high paying, and highly skilled jobs will be lost along with the innovation and progress in medicine, space exploration, and other areas of research and discovery gained by such jobs (and don't forget that it's those high paying jobs that are paying the taxes in the first place). There will be more thoughts on what I think can and cannot be cut from our bloated federal budget in other posts.

HERE WE GO AGAIN

After writing the lengthy post yesterday about euthanasia, I was faced with another disturbing example of the same nature.

At a town hall meeting Thursday, Bauer, who is running for governor in his own right now that Sanford is term-limited, said: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Martin Amis' comment that got me going on this subject yesterday, the tape of Charles Bernard Shaw promoting the death of unproductive citizens, and then President Obama's comments about the eldery and infirmed who cost the health care so much to keep alive seem tame after reading Bauer's careless and heartless statement. Thankfully, the article is just as much about how the other politicians were morally outraged by the comment.

Democrats and others railed at him."I am disgusted by these comments. They show an unbelievable lack of compassion toward the unemployed workers in our state who are hurting during these hard times," said state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, a Democrat who is also running for governor. "His comments were immoral and out of line."South Carolina schools Superintendent Jim Rex, another Democratic candidate for governor, called Bauer's comments "reprehensible" and said he should apologize.

The author of the article describes Bauer as,

"a fiercely ambitious Republican with a reputation for reckless and immature behavior."

Reckless and immature, yes, but things like that don't come out of your mouth unless you think them, internally. One of the most suprising things I read was toward the end of the article where it was written,

Similarly, Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon said Bauer's words "came out as condescending and insulting," but his overall message about government dependency and personal responsibility will appeal to his evangelical Republican base.

I sure HOPE this political scientist is wrong about that. It would be hypocrisy of the worst kind if he's right. Disposing of anyone, regardless of their productivity or health or whatever, is a rejection of the inherent dignity of life, which is at the very core of their ardent opposition to abortion.

YOU'LL ENJOY THIS!

I don't always take the time to listen to the videos that show up on instapundit.....but this one caught my eye and it's DEFINITELY worth the time (not very long - maybe a minute or so) to watch it.

JON STEWART MOCKS OBAMA FOR USING A TELEPROMPTER in a sixth-grade classroom.

Hope and change is on the rise!

TYPICAL

Regarding the the renomination of Bernanke, which is on the front burner and not something to be taken for granted, I read an article with the following excerpt.

The WH and Senate leaders have expressed confidence they will have the votes they need.. .

It's so typical of WH and Senate leaders "to express confidence that they will have the votes they need." Again, sayin' so isn't makin' it so. I heard these very words in relation to both health care and the MA election.

FORETOLD

It is pretty amazing the way Glen Beck has been able to be one step ahead of the headlines. He does seem to know what's coming. He's not a prophet - he just knows his history.

In his documentary on Friday, a big portion of it was spent talking about devastation of eugenics among communist countries in the early 20th century. He had a clip of George Bernard Shaw talking about it as a good thing.

"I do not want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioners, and say ever 5 years or every 7 years...Just put them there and say, Sir, or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself."

and at another time, he said,

"I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly: in short, a gentlemanly gas-deadly by all means-but humane not cruel."

Now today, here is an article about another well known and current author, Martin Amis, declaring that there should be euthanasia "booths" where people could die with a "martini and medal".

"They'll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops," he said. "I can imagine a sort of civil war between the old and the young in 10 or 15 years' time. There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a martini and a medal,"

Euthanasia is a difficult subject with similar moral implications as abortion, i.e., the intrinsic value of life.

We have all seen or heard of an elderly or very sick person who wants to escape the pain and suffering of a terminal disease by bringing death on prematurely, as to find peace instead of pain. It would be the ultimate sleeping pill. When, it's better to sleep than to wake up, one can imagine the dilemma. And the dilemma isn't harder for anyone except for the family member witnessing the decline and request of their loved one to escape this life.

We have also seen or heard of people who are so far gone, as to not seem to have any connection to reality anymore. As a family member in charge of their treatment, many have had to make the agonizing decision as to whether to continue life supporting intervention or to let nature take its course - perhaps even with a drug that would make the suffering accompanied with starving or such less painful for their loved one.

Right or wrong, these forms of euthanasia, while morally confusing, are driven by compassion. In Martin Amis' idea of euthanasia, we see an action not born of compassion, but rather of simple practicality. I would suggest that George Bernard Shaw's (and eventually Hitler and other dictators of the 20th century) idea of euthanasia was driven, not even from practicality, but by pure evil.

We saw a similar sentiment driven by practicality from Obama, himself, from a piece of an interview mentioned in a previous blog (ALARMING):

"So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."

Reminiscent of George Bernard Shaw's statement that

"to make everybody come before a properly appointed board"

Obama continued in that interview saying that

"And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance"

Like him or not, Glen Beck has been onto something. His style is to make an argument for the current state of affairs based on actual footage or recorded radio quotes of our leaders and those close to and having influence over them saying things similar to or sympathetic to those of the worst types of dictators. The White House has blasted Beck as a right wing crazy person, but has never actually denounced his conclusions. They'll say he's using scare tactics, but won't relieve those fears by defending their quotes as meaning something other than they say. And, if they do try, the attempt is feeble and unconvincing, versus the original statement made unashamedly and with conviction.

Glen Beck sees us, if unchecked, as heading toward a "progressive" country that ultimately leads to communism. In all of his ranting, however, he always offers the hope of our democracy and the every day man/woman stepping up (while we still have our rights to free speech and press) to stop the progressives from getting their way and turning our beloved America into something we don't recognize. Scott Brown's election is evidence that this is happening. He uses the lessons from history to make his points. We are not destined to fall into communism; we just have to being paying attention.

When I read comments on certain blogs, I am always astonished and baffled by some people's misunderstandings of what radical liberalism and the progressive moment is, as well as what the Tea Party movement is not. I think that Glen Beck's next series is going to focus on teaching his audience history. You have to study to really learn all of history, because school text books and the media often don't give the whole picture, and sadly the choices of what to record and/or leave out are often politically driven, presented in a politically correct way. History is not politically correct. It is full of horrors that we can't forget and must learn from.

Related: Here is another view of Obama's presidency and the blast to the past policies that didn't work the first time.
SILICON GRAFFITI: Barack to the Future!

QUITE REMARKABLE

I didn't think I'd end up writing a post today. Nothing really popped out. But, then I saw White House Advisers Give Three Different Numbers on ‘Saved or Created’ Jobs at Instapundit.com.

It's jaw dropping to believe how sloppy they could be. They have NO REAL IDEA of how anything really is. All they know how to do is spin. This administration is notorious for thinking that saying something is true is the same as having something be true. They really think they can tell us what to believe and think. Thank God for the blogosphere that is holding up the light to the lies.

Here are the comments:

Axelrod, on CNN’s State of the Union: “But understand that, in this recession that began at the beginning of 2007, we've lost 7 million jobs. Now, the Recovery Act the president passed has created more than — or saved more than 2 million jobs. But against 7 million, you know, that — that is — it is cold comfort to those who still are looking.”

Jarrett, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs. There are schoolteachers and firemen and— and— teachers all across our country, policemen, who have jobs today because of that recovery act. We're investing in infrastructure. We're investing in public education so that our kids can compete going forth into the next— generation.”

Gibbs, on “Fox News Sunday”: “Well, Chris, let's take for instance the example you just used of the stimulus package. We had four quarters of economic regression in terms of growth, right? Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year. Largely as a result of the recovery plan that's put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.”

ALARMING

Call it "death panels" or "end of life counseling", the words of the president regarding health care at the end of life are alarming. In this blog, there are pieces of an interview with Obama regarding end of life health care. I'll copy it here. I think the president's words speak for themselves.

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

Also, here is a portion of an interview with David Leonhardt of the Times:

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Some of you (Dad) may have watched the Glen Beck special documentary on Friday. It is about some of the dictators of the 20th century: Stalin, Che, Hitler, and Mao.

Eugenics was a key piece of their way of governing. It seems so primitive and unthinkable, but here we are, interpreted from the words of our president, that some people's lives aren't worth living. When your quality of life goes down and you're costing the system too much, it's time to go. You're not worth it.

Who is an "ethicist" anyways? God's law is written on our hearts. If our leaders have to go to an ethicist to see if it's morally okay to withhold care to the old and weak, our society has problems far greater than the threats of war and misfortune. Who hires the ethicist? It seems to me the only "ethicist" worthy of consultation is God himself. In His Word, we see that Jesus was a champion of the old, weak, sick, and disabled. He didn't dispose of them; he loved them and saved them.