My dear nephew,
Rather
against my will, our relatives keep sending me what you write about
politics on Facebook, that invaluable aid for finding the
self-obsessed, the venomous, and the ignorant. I am concerned that
you are unknowingly destroying your own reputation, and you should be
concerned, also. If you continue to write in this way (meaning both
content and tone), you may find yourself stuck with labels that a
lifetime will not enable you to shake. I have been assured more than
once that it is pointless to try to reach you with logic, as you're
mind has made up by your self-perception. However, as a courtesy due
to a relative, I will give it one try, and I promise to be far more
polite than you have been in your published remarks. Make no
mistake, anything posted to Facebook has been published, and there is
no way to erase it.
I
have been informed that one of our family members gave you very sound
advice, and it was "Don't be a jerk about politics." Very
sound advice and very clearly completely ignored.
If
you are going to be a success at political mud slinging, you are
going to have to improve in a few areas. I have had considerable
success in this field, so please consider my advice carefully.
Otherwise, you will wear that deadly label "crank".
If
you are going to insult the intelligence of Republicans (like your
grandparents), you need to spell and capitalize correctly.
Publishing phrases like "brain-dead republicants" will lead
unkind people (some related to you) to postulate that the last
brain-dead person you saw was in your mirror.
I
add here as an aside that you should give thanks every day that you
never tried to debate your late grandfather on politics. He would
have done to you (speaking metaphorically) what a high-explosive bomb
does to a daffodil.
More
recently, I am told that you referred to presumptive Republican (note
spelling) presidential nominee Mitt Romney as a "robot".
This is juvenile name-calling, without point or punch. Does being
neat and clean and having a ready smile make you a robot? Readers
may end up wondering about your hygienic habits, or lack of same.
Name-calling is seldom effective; it hurts your reputation more than
your target's.
In
your recent posts, you accused Romney of the usual, tired litany of
supposed heartless policy goals -- meaning to end Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, ad nauseum. Are you aware that your preferred
candidate, Barack Obama, cuts $600 billion (that is to say,
$600,000,000,000) from Medicare as part of his Obamacare program?
Can you produce one statement during the last decade by any
Republican leader that they intend to cut the benefits of any of the
three programs I mentioned earlier this paragraph? Please note that
pledging to make the programs financially sustainable or pledging to
eliminate fraud and waste in the program(s) is not "cutting".
All three of these programs are going bankrupt, and will take the
country with them if something is not done quickly. It could have
been done relatively easily a decade or two ago, but now the holes
are so deep that the task has grown greatly difficult. One of the
parties has consistently blocked all attempts to make the programs
financially stable and self-supporting. It wasn't the Republicans.
Returning
to an older post, you seemed amused by the fact that 65% of
Republicans who participated in a survey in (I believe) January said
they would vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it was. Why
should that surprise you? If you were to ask registered Democrats if
they are going to vote for Obama no matter whom the Republicans
nominate, I predict that you would get a percentage closer to 95%
than 65%. I am depressed that only 65% of my party (if the poll is
accurate, which experience tells me is not to be assumed) is
unconditionally committed to voting against the most disastrous
president in American history, and the first president who can be
credibly accused of being a disaster for the country deliberately.
What
I find most frustrating is that you proclaim your intention to vote
for Obama even as you proclaim that you are pro-life. If you were
not my nephew, I would perhaps content myself with wishing you all
happiness in Jews for Hitler. Because of our family bond, I will
address the subject more politely. Hard as I try to give you the
benefit of the doubt on this matter, several disquieting theories
present themselves.
The
most obvious and perhaps the ugliest possibility is that you are
acting from supreme selfishness. You somehow see yourself getting
something from the re-election of Obama that is worth more than
thousands, perhaps millions of dead babies worldwide. Are you aware
of the fact that the Obama administration spent millions of dollars
of taxpayer money (at a time when inconceivably bad economic policies
have already pushed our budget deficits to world-record-shattering
levels) to persuade Kenya to pass a pro-abortion constitution? At
this point in his term, it seems pointless to point out that the
expenditure was illegal, but I will all the same.
The
above is just one item in a frightening CV when it comes to abortion.
Keep in mind that as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was the
only speaker against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which
extended legal protection to babies who had survived an abortion
attempt and were now completely outside the mother’s body. By all
precedent, that baby would not only be considered legally a person,
but indeed would be a citizen of the United States, with all of the
legal protections that come with citizenship. Even radical
pro-abortion groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America (who changed their
name from the National Abortion Rights Action League when they
discovered that that name was too honest) didn’t dare publicly
oppose this act. Barack Obama didn’t just oppose it, he stood up
and spoke AGAINST extending life-saving treatment to innocent
American citizen babies, gasping for breath and struggling for life.
Since
that day when he voted against the BAIPA, Obama has been trying to
come up with some reason for his vote that sounds at least
believable. His attempts (or ten of them, anyway) are available at
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html.
Similarly,
he opposed the national Partial-Birth Abortion bill, because he
claimed that the bill did not include an exemption for the mother’s
“health“. That’s “health” instead of health, because they
are not referring to physical health. Pro-aborts like Obama want the
“health” exemption included because experience shows that
including such a clause in effect nullifies the law, since a
pro-abort judge can always be found to grant the exemption regardless
of the health effect alleged. Certain judges (well-known to the
pro-abortion groups) will vote to take a babies life if the mother
(or her lawyer) says she’ll be depressed by the weight gain that
comes with a full-term pregnancy.
Now
we have the $1 abortion surcharge mandate under Obamacare. As Steven
Ertelt explained in Lifenews.com on March 12th:
“Nestled
within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that
portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government —
approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium
mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance
plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate
premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result,
many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that
violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may
not meet their health needs.” (Complete article at
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-admin-finalizes-rules-1-abortions-in-obamacare/)
In
ancient Rome, the conspirators who slew Julius Caesar all bathed
their hands in his blood” so that they would all share in the guilt
of the crime. Similarly, Nazi (the radical leftist National
Socialist German Workers Party) SS Chief Heinrich Himmler gave a
surprise speech to his fellow Nazi leaders telling them about the
Holocaust, the horrible industrialized slaughter of Europe’s Jewish
population. He did this to deprive every attendee of the “I didn’t
know” alibi. Although it never proved of any value to Himmler, the
speech led to deadly consequences when the National Socialist regime
collapsed and it came time for guilt to be assigned and punishments
to be meted out to surviving Nazis.
What
the Obama-ites are attempting is arguably worse, as they, with the $1
abortion mandate and the contraceptive mandates (which includes drugs
that can cause early abortions) attempt to force all Americans to
share in the financing of abortion, and thus share in the guilt for
this tremendous, horrendous crime crying out to Heaven. The Roman
conspirators joined the murder conspiracy willingly, and the
attendees to Himmler’s speech had joined the Nazi Party leadership.
Today, the vast majority of pro-life Americans are fighting
determinedly to avoid having guilt for the abortion nightmare
assigned to them.
Since
the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 (I assume you’ve heard of
it), over 53,000,000 babies have been slain in this country. (If you
want to know why Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are going
bankrupt today, you might consider this massacre of 53 million future
wage earners and taxpayers.)
What
could you possibly gain from BO’s re-election that could possibly
be worth more than the lives of all of those babies?
A
relative opines aloud (many others I’m sure opine silently) that
your support for Obama is dictated by your sexual orientation. I
personally have never been able to understand why so many of those of
your SO (to save typing) see every issue through that prism, and
often see things darkly. (I have some theories, which I will keep to
myself because my purpose in writing is not to offend you.) If our
relative is right, those of your SO are a remarkable subset of the
American population. Consider:
They
must not need jobs. The bizarre actions of BO and his merry band of
Keynesians have given us a situation unknown in our history -- a
recovery that features higher unemployment than that in the recession
from which we have supposedly “recovered” from.
They
must not drive gasoline-powered vehicles. When Barack Obama was
inaugurated, the price of gasoline was under $1.90/gallon. It is now
at or over $4.00/gallon, and fixing to go higher, largely because BO
and his environmentally radical administration has done everything
they can to strangle domestic gasoline production. From the Gulf Oil
Drilling moratorium, which the administration has persisted with
despite two court rulings that held that the President does not have
the authority to unilaterally stop drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
The EPA, headed by Obama-appointed radical environmentalist Lisa
Jackson, pulled a filthy trick on Sunoco by allowing them to spend $2
million dollars on an off-shore oil drilling project well off the
Alaska coast, and then stopping Sunoco from proceeding for a
stomach-turningly spurious reason -- they claimed that Sunoco’s
Environmental Impact Statement was inadequate because they had not
considered the possible health impacts of a possibly necessary
icebreaker on an Alaskan village 400 MILES AWAY! They also refused
to allow construction of the Keystone Oil Pipeline from our friendly
neighbor Canada, supposedly for safety concerns, despite the fact
that the EPA has done a risk assessment on the project and declared
it safe -- SIX TIMES!
How
is it safer to ship our oil from the Persian Gulf from hostile
nations in tankers? Have you ever known a pipeline to sink, run
aground, or be hijacked by pirates?
Every
time you put $40 in your gas tank, you are robbed of over $20. I
resent it. Every American should.
They
must not need to buy any products, be they food, clothes, or anything
else. When fuel prices go up, transport prices go up, and inevitably
retail prices go up. The administration so far, with the assistance
of a (to put it mildly) friendly media, has managed to conceal the
resulting inflation by omitting food and fuel from the official
inflation rate calculation. The rest of America has been rather less
successful in omitting food and fuel from their budgets.
They
must not need affordable energy. The Obama administration is clearly
attempting to destroy the domestic coal industry by imposing
impossible and useless standards on emissions. Even those pushing
these industry-destroying regulations can point to no benefits from
the stricter standards.
The
EPA is now trying to satisfy the watermelon environmentalists (who
will help bankroll BO’s re-election campaign) by finding some
spurious reason to oppose the rapidly expanding, wealth-creating,
energy-price-dropping natural gas industry. Hydro-fracking has been
used safely for over 6 decades worldwide, but now suddenly
anti-fracking zealots are trying to claim that the process is
dangerous. In fact they are transparently trying to cripple the
American economy by crippling the American energy industry.
There
are words that describe the people who are attempting the crippling.
“Reasonable”, “honest”, and “Patriotic” are not among
them.
Just
this month, the Interior Department (headed by Obama-appointed
environmental radical Ken Salazar) announced that they are “locking
up” 100 million acres of land in Arizona. This land contains the
richest uranium deposits in the country. Having crippled the
domestic oil industry, the administration now appear to be “focused
like a laser beam” on the domestic nuclear power industry.
When
Obama made that declaration that his energy policy is “all of the
above”, apparently he forgot to add “...except the ones that
work.”
Most
important for you, in my opinion, is Obamacare’s orientation toward
the elderly, the disabled, and the brain-damaged or otherwise
disabled. Obama’s appointees have included zealots like Ezekiel
Emanuel and Donald Berwick, who believe that doctors should only
provide medical care to their patients if it is also good for “the
system”. While Emanuel and Berwick have left their government
posts (Berwick because his views and past statements were so extreme
that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid informed Obama that Berwick
could not win a Senate confirmation vote), their spirit lives on in
the Health and Human Services, headed by Obama radical appointee
Kathleen Sebelius, who recently publicly stated that the Obamacare
health care regime (implication intended) will start saving money
once the population starts declining. How cold-blooded do you have
to be to see population decline as a financial goal?
Now
that we know that the Obama HHS wants population to decline, we need
to consider where they will try to cut what their ideological
predecessors the Nazis called “useless feeders’. The obvious
targets will be the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. To these
dehumanizers, each of these groups uses medical resources without
adequately benefiting “the system”. To the continued massacre of
the babies, we will add the massacre of the disabled (like our cousin
Todd), and the elderly.
So
I guess those of your SO don’t have grandmothers, either, do they,
nephew?
Please
consider carefully what I have written. At lot is at stake in the
election in November -- both for the country and for you personally.
This
would be a bad time to be wrong.
Quite
sincerely,
Uncle Hermit Crab
PS
I can back up every assertion I made here with evidence. Can you do
the same with your assertions?
No comments:
Post a Comment