All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Democrats vote to subsidize Viagra for child molesters and rapists

Story from the Washtington Times.

Excerpt:

Senate Democrats voted almost unanimously Wednesday night to ensure the right of rapists and child molesters to have guaranteed access to government-subsidized Viagra under the president’s health care plan. Only Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana broke ranks with his Democratic colleagues.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, put the Senate’s majority party on the spot by offering an amendment denying convicted sex offenders coverage for erectile-dysfunction medications. Dr. Coburn’s proposal would also have prohibited health care exchanges from offering any coverage of elective-abortion drugs like RU-486 at taxpayer expense.

[The Democrats also] defeated an amendment barring tax increases on families earning less than $250,000. So much for the president’s promised “middle-class tax cut.” They also defeated an amendment requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges – just like everyone else under Obamacare.

So it’s not just abortions that will be taxpayer-funded.

This is scary. It seems to me that people on the left don’t believe that anyone should ever be punished for doing anything immoral. They often oppose concepts like “good” and “evil”. They refrain from making moral judgments. They condemn those who are good, and lift up those who are evil. They don’t want anyone to feel excluded or judged. No one is responsible for their own decisions, they say. But what about the victims of immoral actions? And who is going to pay for all the goodies they hand out (to get elected)?

MUST-HEAR: Scott Klusendorf discusses Obamacare and the pro-life cause

This is a must-hear podcast.

Details:

LTI is not a political organization and does not endorse any candidate. The regular participates of the LTI podcast – namely Rich, Scott, and Jay wanted to change gears and explicitly discuss politics – specifically the recently enacted health care reform bill and its impact on the pro-life cause. The views expressed are individual opinions and are not endorsed by Life Training Institute.

Scott described this one as a barnburner yesterday and I could not agree more. Enjoy.

The MP3 file is here.

The RSS feed for the LTI podcast is here.

I’m also on Facebook, by the way, and you can befriend me. You can also click here to follow the blog on Facebook.

I’ve listened to this podcast 3 times but I’ll listen to it again and try to take notes, instead of jumping up and down clapping my hands. This podcast is a must-listen for social conservatives who are left-wing on economics issues. Big government is never in favor of protecting the unborn or defending traditional marriage. Big government always means increased social liberalism.

The bigger the government, the smaller the person

An article from Dennis Prager in Front Page Magazine. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)

Excerpt:

The need to be needed is universal. Men need it; women need it. The sexes may feel needed in different ways, but the depth of the need is the same. Many women feel particularly alive when needed by their young children; many men feel worthy when needed by their family and/or their work.

[…]Only when we are needed do we believe we have significance. Give a boy a special task — just about any task — and he blossoms. Give a girl a person — in fact, almost any living being — who depends on her, and she blossoms.

[…]As I regularly note, the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. One can add: The bigger the government, the less significant the citizen — especially men.

This is easy to explain because it is definitional. The more the state does, the less its citizens are needed to do. One well-known example is the way welfare robbed so many men of significance when women and their children came to depend financially on the state.

And it goes further than that. In order to feel significant, men not only need to have others depend on them, they also need to depend on themselves, on their own work and initiative. But that, too, is destroyed as the state gets bigger. Fewer and fewer people work for themselves (which leads to, among other things, the disappearance of that quintessentially American ideal of the risk-taking entrepreneur).

It gets worse. As being needed and significant shifts from the individual to the state, the state increasingly determines who is needed and who has significance.

Prager goes on to explain three groups who have increasing influence as government grows – politicians, news media, and intellectuals.

Mark Steyn has more to say about the decline of the West. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)

Excerpt:

Is America set for decline? It’s been a grand run. The country’s been the leading economic power since it overtook Britain in the 1880s. That’s impressive. Nevertheless, over the course of that century and a quarter, Detroit went from the world’s industrial powerhouse to an urban wasteland, and the once-golden state of California atrophied into a land of government run by the government for the government. What happens when the policies that brought ruin to Detroit and sclerosis to California become the basis for the nation at large? Strictly on the numbers, the United States is in the express lane to Declinistan: unsustainable entitlements, the remorseless governmentalization of the economy and individual liberty, and a centralization of power that will cripple a nation of this size. Decline is the way to bet. But what will ensure it is if the American people accept decline as a price worth paying for European social democracy.

Is that so hard to imagine? Every time I retail the latest indignity imposed upon the “citizen” by some or other Continental apparatchik, I receive e-mails from the heartland pointing out, with much reference to the Second Amendment, that it couldn’t happen here because Americans aren’t Euro-weenies. But nor were Euro-weenies once upon a time. Hayek’s greatest insight in The Road to Serfdom is psychological: “There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which at the present time provides special food for thought,” he wrote with an immigrant’s eye on the Britain of 1944. “It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem and which consequently become rarer are precisely those on which the British people justly prided themselves and in which they were generally agreed to excel. The virtues possessed by Anglo-Saxons in a higher degree than most other people, excepting only a few of the smaller nations, like the Swiss and the Dutch, were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one’s neighbor and tolerance of the different and queer, respect for custom and tradition, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.” Two-thirds of a century on, almost every item on the list has been abandoned, from “independence and self-reliance” (40 percent of people receive state handouts) to “a healthy suspicion of power and authority” — the reflex response now to almost any passing inconvenience is to demand the government “do something,” the cost to individual liberty be damned. American exceptionalism would have to be awfully exceptional to suffer a similar expansion of government and not witness, in enough of the populace, the same descent into dependency and fatalism. As Europe demonstrates, a determined state can change the character of a people in the space of a generation or two. Look at what the Great Society did to the black family and imagine it applied to the general population: That’s what happened in Britain.

Could it happen here?