Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Comments on "The Dirty Dozen" - Heritage Foundation Research

The Heritage Foundation, (a policy research group), has released a list of twelve policies which the Obama administration has put in place that show "disregard for the civil society of American life." I would invite anyone who is interested to view the list here, and I would like to add some of my thoughts on the subject (though not on all twelve topics addresed; I will leave those to you).
The first on the list is the administrations attack on charitable giving by the wealthy of this country. The President's budget would decrease the amount of money that is deductible on taxes from charitable giving, taking away part of the built in incentive to donate to charity. This will undermine the money flow that so many charities count on for their existence. I understand why Obama wants to do this; more tax money flowing into the government which means bigger government. I question, however, why he cannot stop expanding government and instead cut spending. If the growing government trend continues, we will become a nation who cannot afford to make these private donations to charities. This would allow the government to chose which charities exist, as our tax money would be split between whomever they chose. Sounds like a dangerous picture, right? And, of course, we know that faith-based charities are already out of the picture, as Obama has reversed a Bush administration policy to include faith-based charities in the funding lists. You may say that I'm taking this too far, but I am only looking ahead to where the trends inevitably are going.
The Obama administration has also written a new executive order, (no deliberation or vote on these), which could be set to go into place soon, stating that doctors and nurses can no longer morally object to performing certain procedures, such as abortions. This would force all hospitals and clinics across the country to perform abortions, even if there are moral objections by the staff. This is a dangerous command. The Catholic-run charity hospitals have already threatened to shut down if Obama goes through with this order, citing the fact that they would never perform abortions in their buildings. This would have a huge impact, especially in urban areas where many poor depend on these charity hospitals for care. Also, many doctors and nurses, morally objected to the abortion procedure, have talked about quitting their practice. Obama would essentially shut down hospitals across the country. Of course, this would open up the way for government funded hospitals, (our tax dollars), to be set up and 'save the day', another sign of growing government. If a big government is what he wants, he certainly has found a good way to do it.
On the same abortion note, Obama wrote and signed an executive order lifting the ban on so-called "family planning groups" overseas from receiving US taxpayer funding. These groups perform abortions on demand, so much so that many countries in Europe are having their population stagnate due to the number of abortions being performed. And our tax money is now helping to fund it all. First of all, why is our tax money being used overseas to fund these types of groups? That doesn't make sense in and of itself. We have plenty of use for our tax money here at home; and then to use our money to fund abortion, which the majority of Americans object to? Absurd is the only word that comes to mind. How can the land of "life and liberty" be funding the murder of children around the world? Our own President supports not only partial-birth abortion, but what is known as "post-partum abortion", the killing of fully born children if the parents don't want them. It is a sad day in this country when life is snuffed out on a whim; when the self-centered society we have turned into becomes so selfish that would-be parents would rather have no responsibility for there actions and kill a child than take that child and care for it, or put it up for adoption so someone could give that child a chance to live. God help us for condoning these acts. Life is not to be thrown away, but cherished. We are not to play God and decide who shall live or die on a whim. Shame on us.
As for the rest of the list, you can look at it and decide what you think here. I only wanted to give a brief look at a few topics. I thank the Heritage Foundation for the work they are doing to ensure the life, liberties, and freedoms we all hold onto continue in this country; and I thank you the reader for taking the time to see what I have to say and become informed about what is happening in this country. Until next time, thank you all.

5 comments:

  1. Citing the Heritage Foundation is like saying that the Vikings are the best football team because you were on the Vikings' website and they said so. Notably biased, much?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your comparison is pretty lame in my opinion. In the Heritage Foundation page, which you probably did not read, they cite Gallup.com which is not a conservative website and USA Today, which certainly is not conservative. Mostly everything that was stated on the HF page was backed by facts and polls.
    I'm trying to figure out if the notably biased, much? part was directed at the author of this blog or at yourself? I would say that's its fairly biased to completely disregard anything that comes from the Heritage Foundation simply because you don't agree with them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you everyone for being involved, first of all. It's great to have a conversation started!
    The Heritage Foundation, while being conservative in it's conclusions, doesn't set out to be conservative per se. They research heavily, using the hard facts and truth to get real information on the issues. They also mull over thousands of pages of government documents and bills that are passed through the Senate and House in search of the truth. To use the football analogy from above, it's like saying the Vikings went through two quarterbacks last season based on the information gathered through press releases and official website information, not just guessing.
    So, no, I don't believe that citing the Heritage Foundation is a "wrong move" on my part. You can follow all the information, and where they got it, at the bottom of their page, and judge for yourself how viable it is.
    Thank you both for your input and the time you take to read and comment on my ramblings... and feel free to keep the conversation going :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are you sure you're not Sean Hannity in disguise?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm am not Sean Hannity, by far. I am just an average person from a small town in Wisconsin. I don't have a lot of money or prominence in any fashion whatsoever. What I do have is a passion towards politics and getting people involved in politics. This country was founded by average people getting involved on a political level, trying their best to make a difference in the country they live in. It is also founded on the idea that debate is the core of a good country. That is why I do this.
    Thank You for your interest in what is happening here and your involvement. It is appreciated.

    ReplyDelete