Who would Jesus discriminate against?
"There is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repents, than over 99 righteous people who don't need to repent." (I suspect some holy sarcasm after the comma [not that NT Greek had commas.])
Joy over the terrorist being crucified with Jesus who accepted capital punishment and rebuked his fellow, but not over the terrorist who complained that crucifixion was cruel and unusual punishment. Joy over the woman taken in adultery if she did indeed, as Jesus ordered her, Go break up with your significant other ("Go stop sinning"). Joy over the Corinthian who repented of trans-pagan fornication, and over previous repenters (I Cor 6:9-11). Joy over Israel when she repented and God raised up judges to slaughter her enemies, but not over Sodom...
Luke 24:47 Let repentance and forgiveness of sins (in that order) be preached in the name of Jesus...beginning among God's own people. Forgiveness and 'gospel' can be rather vapid without repentance, without acknowledging God's standards and our failure to meet them, our failure to even want to try to meet them, our failure to... as per II Cor 7:10-11.
Replacing a secular hat with one that pays tribute to Noah, whose family of 8 survived the Flood in the Ark when the rest of the world was condemned to drown for their wickedness? Repent.
Put down your gun and trust the government that promised 'If you like your health insurance you can keep it. Period.' ?
The government that 'passes' laws (by bribes) so we can find out what's in them, and what bureaucrats are going to write into them? That can't build a website in three years? That ignores its own laws, its own deadlines, and its own Constitution?
Put down your gun and trust the government that takes nine minutes to respond to a 9-1-1 call? (Not blaming the heroes who need nine minutes, but can the one on the spot wait that long?)
Put down your gun and trust the government whose air-conditioned groupies and lawyers in suits second-guess the people who call 9-1-1, the government whose 'justice' system often seems to be government of, by, and for the lawyers instead of seeking truth and doing justice for the people? Can George Zimmerman trust the government that persecuted/prosecuted him for doing what a black man being beaten that way by a white man would rightly have done?
You may live in such a leap of faith, but I'm a Christian. There are limits to my credibility. Jesus is the truth; big government is fantasy. Trust a government that promises more than it is paying for?
Shrink the government so it can do less damage, offer fewer bribes, and offer less concealment to crooks.
But coming from the party of Jefferson Davis and his loathsome paternalism (he had more bureaucrats than Lee soldiers), the party that thinks 2000+ pages of laws and 10,000+ of regulations can improve health insurance by forcing healthy people to pay sick people to be sick (Singapore lets you keep what you save, paying yourself to be healthy), the party that can run election websites but not (yet) insurance websites it's had three years to prepare, the party that resisted real civil rights and now takes the racist attitude that blacks need special help, but won't let them escape lousy tax-paid schools...hmph. The devil is the father of lies.
Write more insurance policies covering more people, with more comprehensive coverage on each, while cutting costs? No wonder the computers crashed.
Singapore makes everyone put 7% or so of their income into health savings accounts from which they pay for whatever they need. So they have coverage, very flexible to meet the needs of each, and they also have an incentive to save, since they can keep what they don't spend. How about that as an alternative to O'Liarcare? (Source: Kevin Williamson at National Review Online.)
If it costs $2,000,000 don't do it with taxes, but let Mr Cook and librul and bredaaliana chip in whatever they choose. They were gonna save 1 million by depriving policemen of cars they'd been promised? So save 2 million this way. Jesus didn't care for those who broadcast giving away their own money. Whaddya think He thinks of those who give away other peoples' money? Not just braggarts but thieves?
Now, I don't mind letting people have "Registered Significant Others" who can visit them in hospital, etc, and I suppose if the RSOs are paying for their own insurance, at rates proportional to risk, I wouldn't mind them joining the group. Just stop groping my wallet; I like the privacy of my pants.
Referendum, OK, but better to let each buy what they want. Economic democracy, dollars voting every day and electing all kinds of things, has advantages over political democracy: electing tyrants or even voting in tyrannical laws.
Junk insurance? Well, my car may be junk, but it does the job. A law forcing all drivers to buy new Cadillacs is rich people taking choices away from poor people--and that's what liberalism is, librul(s). Repent, damnable tyrants; God prefers liberty.
Jesus came to call not the righteous but sinners to REPENTANCE--not to remain in their sins. He loves sinners enough to have died for them (not 'slept' with them) and risen from the dead for them, but came to raise up "a unique people, zealous of good works" not sinners with a Get-out-of-Hell-free card. Gandhi, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, Marx, Rand, and Kennedy just died--didn't die for us--and stayed dead. The more they borrowed from Jesus the better, but they ain't on the same level.
.gov is the problem, so go sledgehammer. Gov is the outfit we have to pay whether we like its product or not; businesses, if we don't like one we can go to another. So shrink gov and enlarge the business sector. (This includes shrinking the part of gov that discourages competition, e.g. requiring new doctors in town to prove their services are needed here, instead of letting them set up shop and see if they make a living or not. Crony capitalism is gov, not biz.)
Gov is the outfit whose CEO lied (he'd been told the figures) about letting people keep insurance they liked. So far, O'care has probably killed more insurance policies than it's sold, especially when new Medicaid isn't counted as "sold." (There are at least two bills in Congress to turn the liar-in-chief into a truthteller on this matter. Congressman Fleischmann, have you co-sponsored any such House bill?)
What works in Singapore? They make you put 6-9 % of your income into a medical saving/spending account, and then pay for whatever treatment you need. What you don't spend you keep. So everyone in town is cutting medical costs on the one hand, and flexibly buying whatever they need on the other. Here, we can only spend health money if we get sick, so we spend more. (From Kevin Williamson at National Review online.)
Safety net? Liberal, big-government war on the poor is more like it.
A housing inspector comes in from his suburb, tells a poor family their dwelling is condemned, and goes home to his suburb. War on the poor?
New taxi companies are told they must prove they won't hurt existing companies. Most poor people have cars they could sell rides with. War on the poor?
Hair braiders are told they must go to barber school for a year. War on the poor?
A man who knows what medicine he needs is told he must pay a doctor to prescribe it for him War on the poor?
Our President sends his own daughters to private school while trying to shut down D.C.'s voucher program which gives poor parents the power to reward good schools and punish bad ones. War on the poor?
New regulations force the cancellation of insurance policies our President promised we could keep, "Period.". War on the poor?
A lawyer obtains "sanctions" from a judge against a poor man at a hearing of which he was not informed, and when he later shows up to argue he is told that it is now "moot." War on the poor?
Drugs are cheap in Canada, but we're told we can't buy them from there. GOP war on the poor?
Taxes are so complex a poor man is afraid to start a new business lest it get snarled in red tape and penalties. War on the poor?
My family throws away leftovers, has an overflowing pantry, has plenty of $$$ left on EBT (food stamp) card...do we respect the efficiency of this program?
More libertarianism please, to help the poor.
Analog Science Fiction (etc) magazine some years back suggested nitrogen inhalation as a painless method of execution. We all breathe 80% nitrogen all the time, so going to 100% should be fatal but not painful, eh?
Of course, if crucifixion was good enough for God the Son, and stoning was the method triune Jehovah told Moses to use the only time Jehovah gave laws for a country (Old Testament Israel), only an utterly arrogant man would claim to know better than God.
And if intelligence is an art, is Mr Bennett a target? (My GUESS is they're both above average and below genius.)
One stupid thing smart liberals do is consider themselves qualified to do other people's thinking for them: here, let me and my pet bureaucrats help you by choosing your light bulbs, toilet tanks, and insurance policies for you. So the liberals waste energy trying to do the thinking for other people that we could do for ourselves. And smart as they are, they do it badly because each of us knows more about our own situations, and what we actually need and what actually works, than the guy behind a desk who's seen me for five minutes. So liberal Jimmy Carter was a lousy President (sorry for the anti-white racism there), and Ronald Reagan was a pretty good one, letting us think for ourselves.
One promise I don't think the Gingrich Congress ever kept was to take votes on dumb regulations ("Correction day"?) I'd like to see a constitutional, or high-ranking law, limitation on the hours and percentage of dollars that can be demanded of us to learn and comply with most regulations: say 1 hour per person per day and 5% of income, except for stuff like "thou shalt not murder" and "drive on the right."
Jesus is libertarian: "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." That's not our president's slogan, nor that of our cartoonist, eh?