It should then, come as no surprise that as a subject of the King of the Universe, I have compassion on the poor and oppressed peoples. I have spent countless hours with indigents, serving prisoners, and taking a personal role is trying to lift up my fellow man. I have not waited on a social agency nor sought the aid of a government institution to do so. Moved with compassion and biblical conviction, I take personal responsibility.
What does come as a surprise to me, is that the environment in which we live today, the one that demands the alleged rule of separation of “church and State,” which has worked so very hard to divorce sacred from secular, to remove any vestige of faith from the public welfare, and to push an evolutionary theory on generations of students, cares about the poor and the sick.
If in fact we evolved, devoid of deification or a higher Law, then the law of our land should be “survival of the fittest.” I believe they might even say that we have moved beyond theory into “settled science.”
Why then, “promote the general welfare?”
See if my logic holds true. If we have all evolved from lower life forms; if indeed the idea of “survival of the fittest” is the rule of the world, then how can our politicians—forbidden from exercising anything close to religious principles in the practice of their offices—give two wits about the poor and infirmed?
Why are our taxes spent trying to level the playing field? Why do we care if a bank succeeds or fails, whether an auto manufacturer is not strong enough to survive, if the planet is over or under-heating, or if the uninsured get health care? If, in every one of those examples, we prop up that which is not strong enough to survive, then by the standards upon which they insist, the weak should be allowed to die leaving the strong to survive and carry on.
Unless of course, politicians are hypocrites.
We are about to entertain legislation intended to insure the uninsured: which by its own estimations, depending on who is handing out the estimations, will still leave 17 million of the 12 million without insurance, without insurance. And you are right, that math does not work, but those are the figures being bandied about by those “in the know” responsible for this legislation. Idiotic math not withstanding, this health care plan comes with a heavy price tag, well in excess of the estimated $1.2 trillion. As every penny of this is debt spending, that $1.2 trillion is considerably higher once you account for interest.
And so I ask the secular evolutionists . . . why? If the uninsured are not strong enough, not fit enough, not able enough to succeed at acquiring their own insurance, perhaps they should not be allowed to have insurance? If by your law, they cannot survive, by what justification do you insist that they must? Does not this circumvent an immutable principle of evolution?
Which then comes to the real rub, and another immutable principle. In every socialized heath care system on our planet, decisions must be made as to who should or should not be afforded treatment. When care becomes too costly, those who are not strong enough to survive will be allowed to die, quite possibly even encouraged to let death take its course. Our so-called compassionate system to cover all Americans with health care will in fact, succumb to its own inviolate principle of survival of the fittest. Only this time, it will cost our nation untold trillions, endless bureaucracy, and thousands of pages of legislation to ensure that those who should not survive, don’t.
What will have been gained in the end? Evolution gets the final say at the hands of those who managed to survive to the top. Control will rest with federal decision-makers. Our lives will be subject to governmental intrusion abhorrent to our founding fathers, and our debt will be beyond imaginable.
Sounds like a pretty fair deal, filled with sound political reason. What, what?
 |
Posts
