U.S. House Fails to Override Obama’s Veto of Bill Defunding Planned Parenthood

Abortion Credit All Night Images-compressed
Photo Credit: All Night Images

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives has failed to override Barack Obama’s veto of a bill that would have defunded the abortion giant Planned Parenthood for one year.

Although the House obtained a majority on Tuesday, it fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote to override the veto. The final tally was 241-186.

Rep. Robert Pittinger, R-N.C., told reporters that while many in Congress knew the bill would likely fail, it sent more of a statement than anything to show where the president stands on the side of the unborn contrasted with the stance of Congress.

“We want to make it very clear to the American people where we stand and where the president stands. That’s why we put this on his desk,” he said. “We want them to know that we are standing for righteousness. We’re standing for truth. We’re standing for the lives of the unborn.”

“The president is the only person standing in the way of what the American people want, so our job now is to stand up for them, to demonstrate for them who is on their side,” also stated Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga.

As previously reported, the House voted 240-181 in favor of the legislation last month, and the Senate voted 52 to 47 in favor in December. In addition to defunding Planned Parenthood, the measure likewise sought to repeal key parts of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

Democrats such as Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., opposed the effort, pointing to the recent indictments leveled against two pro-life Americans who were indicted after conducting an undercover investigation into the abortion giant. He contended that the Republican Party “apparently wants to ignore the facts that we learned from the Texas grand jury.”

  • Connect with Christian News

But Republicans such as Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wi, pointed to the dark ideologies that founded Planned Parenthood in the first place.

“Margaret Sanger is connected to some of the ugliest segments in our history,” he declared.

As previously reported, Planned Parenthood was founded in 1921 by Sanger, and was originally known as the American Birth Control League. She later changed the name as some found it offensive.

“Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches,” she wrote in a 1920’s newsletter. “I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity, no less than capitalism.”

Sanger, who was a staunch advocate of eugenics, also wrote in “The Pivot of Civilization,” “Constructive eugenics … shows us that we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all—that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization.”

Planned Parenthood outlined in its annual report released at the end of December that the organization performed 323,999 abortions nationwide during the 2014-2015 fiscal year.

It received $553 million in taxpayer funding/grants in 2014, up from $528 million the year prior, which equated to 43 percent of its total income. $48 million of Planned Parenthood’s income was used for sex education, and $39 million was used for public policy, or to influence state and federal law, up from $33 million in 2013. Despite its expenditures, it still garnered a $61 million dollar profit.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • The Skeptical Chymist

    BRAVO to Mr. Obama and the minority in the House!

  • Amos Moses

    SMH/////// the fall into apostasy continues unabated.

    • BarkingDawg

      What does the ACA have to do with apostasy?

      • Amos Moses

        Apostasy is defined as the abandonment of truth.

        • BarkingDawg

          Again: this has to do with the Affordable Care Act, how?

          • Amos Moses

            Abortion is not a right. There is no right to kill another.

          • BarkingDawg

            Abortion is not covered under the ACA, so how is this apostasy?

          • Bob Johnson

            Sure there is a right to kill. Go back and reread Deuteronomy and Numbers.

          • Amos Moses

            “In addition to defunding Planned Parenthood, the measure likewise sought to repeal key parts of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.”

            The story mentions ACA but is about not defunding abortion,,,, and i did not mention abortion being related to ACA.

            Anything further?

          • BarkingDawg

            The ACA does not fund abortion

            The federal government does not find abortion.

            So how is this story evidence of apostasy?

          • Amos Moses

            Woof?

          • BarkingDawg

            So you’ve got a handful of nothing.

            I thought so.

          • Amos Moses

            No, i never mentioned ACA, you did, so i am not even sure what you are talking about.

            Do you know?

          • BarkingDawg

            Did you read the article that this thread is attached to?

          • Amos Moses

            Did you read my comments? i made no mention of ACA and i quoted the only sentence to mention it.

          • BarkingDawg

            So you are just making random posts to hijack the threads to your own agenda.

            Got it.

          • Amos Moses

            So lets see, i made 1 comment, not random, but even if what you say is true, so what?

            You seem to have trouble commenting on what was actually said. Your issue, not mine.

  • FoJC_Forever

    The USA is rampant with people voting murderers into office. No blessing from God on the nation, but God’s blessing will continue to rest upon those who follow Jesus (the) Christ.

    Judgement is coming.

    • gizmo23

      As long as the GOP and the right keep suckering prolife people into voting for them the pro life side will lose.
      Why would the GOP want to kill off their secure votes and campaign donations? They would be terrified if abortion would be made illegal

      • Cady555

        Like a dog chasing a car. The goal is to make noise and look important. They last thing they want is to win.

        • gizmo23

          Great response!

        • afchief

          I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy.

          I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between judicial leniency and surging crime rates.

          I vote Democrat because I believe marriage is obsolete, except for homosexuals.

          I vote Democrat because I believe in killing babies

          I vote Democrat because I think AIDS is spread by insufficient funding.

          I vote Democrat because I think “fairness” is far more important than freedom.

          I vote Democrat because I think an “equal outcome” is far more important than equal opportunity.

          And lastly, I vote Democrat because I’m convinced that government programs are the solution to the human condition, NOT freedom….

          Just a few of the reasons why some vote for their own demise…

          “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

          ~Benjamin Franklin

          • Cady555

            How about:

            I vote Democrat because … the preamble to the Constitution declares that to “promote the common welfare” is a core purpose of our government. Taking care of the rich while the poor are denied health care and clean water is not what our nation was founded on.

            I vote Democrat because … I absolutely see a correlation between the war on drugs, our skewed justice system and racist policing on continued poverty and oppression even as, according to facts, crime is dropping.

            I vote Democrat because … I believe equal treatment under the law matters and government has no basis to discriminate against citizens regarding secular recognition of families. Marriage is hanging in there just fine.

            I vote Democrat because … I believe every baby should be born to a family with the emotional and financial resources to care for a child. I believe that women can be trusted to make the right decisions about their own life and health. I believe a woman with family and a life has more value than a non viable possible future person.

            I vote Democrat because … science and scientific research matters and willful ignorance and science denial are threats to our well being.

            I vote Democrat because … I think fairness (without scare quotes) is necessary to freedom.

            I vote Democrat because … I think an equal opportunity matters and “I’ve got mine. Sucks to be you.” is hypocrisy not equal opportunity.

            And lastly, I vote Democrat because … I’m convinced that a functional government populated by people willing to compromise and work together for the common good is key to freedom and opportunity. I believe our infrastructure

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            Too bad I can only upvote this once.

    • BarkingDawg

      What does the ACA have to do with murderers?

  • afchief

    The Republicans are a bunch of cowards. Vote them all out.

    • BarkingDawg

      And what does The ACA have to do with being a Christian?

      • afchief

        The ACA is garbage!!! Why should others be forced to pay for people’s healthcare. You are not entitled to other’s labor. That is theft! Nothing is free in life. WORK FOR IT!!!

        • BarkingDawg

          “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”

          • afchief

            Please do not quote scripture that you have NO idea what it means!!!!!

            We Christians are to “willfully” give from our hearts. Not the forceful hand of government to take by force.

            Helping your fellow man in need by reaching into your own pocket is praiseworthy and noble (the Christian way).

            Helping your fellow man in need by reaching into someone else’s pocket is worthy of condemnation (government stealing)

          • Bob Johnson

            “We the People …, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”

            To paraphrase Pogo, “We have met the government and he is us.”

          • afchief

            Are you for real?!?!?! Taking people’s hard earned labor and giving it to the lazy is theft!!! Redistribution of wealth is not JUSTICE, it is THEFT. God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses that read, “Thou shall not steal, unless Congress passes a different law.” In fact, the Ten Commandments rule out socialism because socialism legalizes theft (Eighth Commandment) and institutionalizes envy (Tenth Commandment)! Contrary to liberal thought, forced redistribution of wealth is immoral. True effective compassion is voluntary—from the heart—and for the recipient it is (a) challenging, (b) personal, and (c) spiritual. In other words, the down-and-out need more than money; they need encouragement and spiritual food. Government offers none of these criteria. Whenever wealth is redistributed, an injustice is done to at least one party. While government may legitimately encourage voluntary giving—and encourage institutions that facilitate it such as Christian organizations—it has no moral authority to force people to give by the heavy hand of the state. (Helpful book: The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.)

            “The only lasting solution to poverty is wealth, and only business—not government, not non-profits, not even the church—creates wealth….The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil; its pull is powerful, causing some to even walk away from the faith (1 Timothy 6:10). And we in the U.S., who are wealthier than any people have ever been, need to be constantly warned. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a moral quality to wealth. Nor does it mean that the essence of capitalism is greed. Market economies work, Jay Richards says, because they allow wealth to be created. Only wealth can reduce poverty.” —Richard Doster,

          • Bob Johnson

            “Are there no prisons? And the workhouses. Are there still in operation?” Ebenezer Scrooge

          • afchief

            This is why liberalism/socialism is EVIL!!!!

            Christianity says “what’s mine is yours” Socialism and Communism says “What’s yours is mine” as you can see, it is the complete opposite satan works in opposites, turning the world upside down and the brainwashed think the Christians are turning the world upside down when the attempt is right side up

            Capitalism is man taking care of himself in a competitive but predominately cooperative market system. Capitalism breeds independence, interdependence, personal responsibility, freedom, etc.

            Socialism is the government micromanaging the details in everyone’s lives by means of taking from those who have and distributing it in a very unproductive way to those who don’t have so much. Socialism breeds corruption, laziness, oppression, etc.

            You can’t “spread” wealth. By “spreading” wealth you only destroy it. That has been proven again and again.

            Although the leftists deny it, wealth is nothing without the people that create it. There is a reason that some people are rich and others are not.

            After the “spreaded” wealth has been consumed it will be the same people that are rich and the same that cry for having nothing

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, some things are a moral imperative: Feed the hungry. Heal the sick. Keep children off the street.
            You keep shrieking that Christians will solve this out of the goodness of their own heart, but it’s not freaking working. Private charity simply cannot keep pace with rising economic hardship.

            Furthermore, every “lazy” child that goes without an education, or every person stuck working two minimum wage jobs just to survive, is a net loss for the economy because you’ve effectively crippled any potential earnings or returns they might have generated over their life. Access to robust education, basic healthcare, and basic needs is a strong predictor of economic stability, if not success.

            I’ll summarize this for you so that you can understand that: raise someone poor and uneducated, they’ll stay that way their entire life. Give them good education, housing, and food, and they’re more likely to become a productive member of society.
            Easy enough?

          • afchief

            Typical liberal response! Before welfare the illegitimacy rate for blacks was 6%. Today it is close to 75% Why? Welfare and Food stamps. Black women do not need black men anymore. They just need to pop out more kids for bigger welfare checks. Do we want to stop illegal immigration? Stop ALL welfare and food stamps and the illegals will go home. It is that easy!!! No one! I repeat no is entitled to another’s hare earned labor. NO ONE!!!

            With that said, I have no problem with the government taking care of the people who are physically and/or mentally incapable of working. Everyone else live withing your means. As God said in Genesis;

            Genesis 3:19 (NASB)
            19 By the sweat of your face
            You will eat bread,
            Till you return to the ground,
            Because from it you were taken;
            For you are dust,
            And to dust you shall return.”

            No one wants to sweat today! They want the government to provide them their LCD TVs, 0bama phone, house, car, etc.

            As the Word of God also states;

            2 Thessalonians 3:10 (NASB) For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

            The key word there is “willing”. There are millions of people who have NO will to work. If so, then they should not eat also.

          • SkyknightXi

            I doubt you want them to die, though. And if they don’t eat…

          • afchief

            They won’t die! They will be forced to work just like the days of old before welfare and food stamps.

            My great grandparents came to Ellis Island with only the close on their backs and never took one cent from the government. By the the sweat on their face they worked hard to make a living and succeeded.

          • SkyknightXi

            {sweatdrop} The point is not to force anything. Besides which, it’s a matter of if the work they can find still lets them earn enough for food, shelter, and transportation. WITHOUT being condemned to lowliness. That’s part of the idea of liberalism/progressivism–forever expunge lowliness.

            And I’m not talking about plasma TVs (we do just fine with cathode ray here, thank you). I’m talking about basics–about working families who STILL need welfare to make ends meet. What do you want them to do, accept lowliness as God’s decree or thereabouts?! (And like as not, cell phones–not necessarily smartphones, just cell phones–seem to be a requisite in today’s job market.)

          • afchief

            You are NOT entitled to anyone’s labor, period!!! You live within your means. If single then live at home and save. If married live within your means. People have done it for centuries. They can do it today.

          • SkyknightXi

            Missing the point, still. What if one CANNOT live within one’s means, and has no (immediate) capacity to improve those means? The lower class need more help than the middle, thank you.

            And what’s been done for “centuries” often involved widespread penury. I thought we were trying to disqualify that! What you’re saying really does sound like you think people should be content with lowliness.

          • afchief

            Horse Hocky!!! Liberal/progressive policies have killed businesses and employment!!!! If you really want jobs and lots of them and a healthy growing economy and to help the poor, cut corporate taxes to ZERO! We have the highest corporate tax rate of any industrialized nation in the world. And who pays the corporate taxes anyway? WE do, the consumer pays the corporate tax every time they buy something, because all costs of doing business get passed along to the consumer, they have to, or you wouldn’t be in business very long. If you took the corporate tax to zero you would see business expanding and hiring almost overnight creating millions of jobs in this country and getting rid of unemployment. You would even create a situation where there are not enough people to fill all the jobs available and companies would have to start increasing pay to compete for the people they need. Lots more people making lots more money will buy lots more stuff creating the need for even more employees for companies. This will also bring in lots more income tax and sales tax for the government. Problem solved!

            It is liberalism that destroys (in more ways than one)!!!!

          • SkyknightXi

            …You must have missed the part where trickle-down economics has no proven effect. Because trickle-down sounds like what you’re saying.

            Is there any conservative precept you DON’T have any use for? (No, that’s not a rhetorical question.)

            (And no, ancient Israel was not necessarily a conservatism elemental. The institute of the Jubilee–the cancelling every seven years of all debts between Israelis–kind of goes against that.)

          • afchief

            Ok, tell me, in very BASIC terms. How does taking more money away from citizens and businesses, then giving it to the government improve the economy? Tell us the mechanism, because NO STUDY of any nation in history has ever shown us that taxing the rich makes the poor wealthier. In fact, studies show us that taxing the rich more makes the poor poorer, and all seven years of 0bama’s presidency have shown us this is true, and the next year will again validate that, but here is your chance with your complex understanding of the machinations of macroeconomics to tell me/us how taking capital away improves the economy. Please, show me yours, 0bama’s or liberals plan to fix the economy and provide more jobs.

          • SkyknightXi

            I’ll take that to mean that you DO believe in trickle-down, then. I am curious if the studies you have (hopefully not all from the Cato Institute and its ilk; I have no use for libertarian villainy) apply a causal link between taxing the rich and further destitution of the poor, though, rather than just a correlation. As in, might there be a third aspect we’re missing out on? (And the rich don’t deserve adoration, anyway. Never have, never will. You DID read Habakkuk 2 when I mentioned it, right?)

          • afchief

            I see you cannot show me how taking more money away from people and businesses (the liberal way) improves the economy.

            The bottom line is this; you or anyone else is not entitled to anyone’s labor, period!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Child welfare checks grant far less money than what is necessary to raise a child. Financially speaking, and regardless of welfare, raising a child is a financial sinkhole. Ironically we pay foster parents more for fostering kids than we do to the kids’ parents if they are in need.

            Similarly, most illegal immigrants don’t get a single cent in welfare, because you actually need papers for that. Signing up for welfare carries the very real risk of getting apprehended and deported.

            Why do you lie so easily, Chief?

          • afchief

            You are full of BS!!! I’m in the poultry business and see day in and day out illegals getting welfare and food stamps!! You have NO idea what you are talking about. NONE!

            Welfare is stealing, PERIOD!!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, I’m an immigrant, a legal one. I’m not eligible for the majority of benefits available to citizens. For someone who lacks even my legal status to gain access to those, they need to commit identity theft on a massive scale.

            I have to add, if you know many illegals getting welfare in your business, then most of your customers really should be prosecuted along with their undocumented employees. Why haven’t you turned them in yet? I thought you were a stickler for legality.

          • afchief

            Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

            http://www.usatoday. com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

            For one these illegals do not work for my company. I’m a project manager for a company that makes the processing machines that go in the poultry plants. I see day in and day out illegals on welfare and food stamps. Plant managers have told me they recruit on the border and in Central America. The want illegal Hispanics because of their work ethic. Most Americans do not want to work for a minimum wage and 99% of the plants are filled with Hispanics and blacks. The Hispanics are actually pushing the blacks out of jobs. Over 80% of management is white. Go figure!

          • Elie Challita

            So why did you not report the poultry plants, if you know that they are hiring illegal immigrants?

          • afchief

            Are you for real?!?!? We have a completely lawless pResident who is not enforcing our immigration laws. Nothing I do will stop it!

          • gizmo23

            So why don’t Christians solve these problems?

          • afchief

            Why? Jeremiah 17:9 (NASB) “The heart is more deceitful than all else
            And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

            When people would come to our church for handouts, we would offer them a job first. Nine times out of 10 people would turn down the job and just want food and/or money.

            We Christians believe in personal accountability and responsibility. Take away welfare and food stamps and people will be forced to work. With that said, I have no problem with the government helping out the people who are physically and mentally incapable of working. Welfare and food stamps should NOT last a life time.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, you’re saying it would be wrong to pass laws to make American society agree with the Bible?

          • afchief

            Your point?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I want to know whether or not you think it’s wrong to pass laws that would compel America to agree with the Bible. I didn’t stutter.

          • afchief

            Be specific! What laws are you talking about?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Wait, there are some Biblical requirements you think should be enacted into law and some you don’t? Why?

          • afchief

            What? You are making no sense as usual. What biblical requirements?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Fine, let’s start over.

            Christians are supposed to willfully give to charity, correct? And it would be immoral to pass a law forcing them to?

          • afchief

            Christians do not have to give anything. God looks at the heart and knows what we are doing. We give because we love people and God. And yes it would be immoral to pass a law forcing us to do so.

            And I know where you are going with this. If the government requires a tax (income tax), the tax should be an equal percentage for everyone.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so if it’s immoral to pass laws compelling people to behave in a Christian manner and give to charity, why is it not immoral to pass laws compelling people to behave in a Christian manner and not get same sex married?

          • afchief

            Because a society has to draw the line when it comes to morals. Should we allow pornography on TV for all to see? Should we allow 3 people to get married? Should we allow open nudity anywhere? Etc, etc, etc!

          • HelenaConstantine

            Ignoring the poor is more immoral than sodomy. If you don;t get that from reading the new Testament, then you must have dyslexia.

          • afchief

            Do you mean stealing? What right do you or anyone have to other peoples labor? That is theft!!!

            Helping your fellow man in need by reaching into your own pocket is praiseworthy and noble (the Christian way).

            Helping your fellow man in need by reaching into someone else’s pocket is worthy of condemnation (government stealing)

            For the government to steal other people’s wealth for your own benefit puts more faith in government over the individual, your family and your community. This clearly the wrong Christian path

            Christianity says “what’s mine is yours” Socialism and Communism says “What’s yours is mine” as you can see, it is the complete opposite satan works in opposites, turning the world upside down and the brainwashed think the Christians are turning the world upside down when the attempt is right side up

            Capitalism is man taking care of himself in a competitive but predominately cooperative market system. Capitalism breeds independence, interdependence, personal responsibility, freedom, etc.

            Socialism is the government micromanaging the details in everyone’s lives by means of taking from those who have and distributing it in a very unproductive way to those who don’t have so much. Socialism breeds corruption, laziness, oppression, etc.

            You can’t “spread” wealth. By “spreading” wealth you only destroy it. That has been proven again and again.

            Although the leftists deny it, wealth is nothing without the people that create it. There is a reason that some people are rich and others are not.

            After the “spreaded” wealth has been consumed it will be the same people that are rich and the same that cry for having nothing

          • HelenaConstantine

            No. The rich have more, so it would be fair if their taxes were higher, the way it was throughout all of American history until the presidency of the war criminal Ronald Reagan.

          • afchief

            So lets penalize the rich because they work harder and make more and lets reward the lazy because they work less and make less.

            Spoken like a true socialist. Socialism is EVIL!!!

          • SkyknightXi

            First, make sure the rich actually ARE working harder. Making more money doesn’t necessarily mean working harder, after all. (How much work does playing the stock market require, again? It’s not all that dissimilar from gambling, truth be told.)

            Besides, the whole point of greater taxes on greater gradations (e.g. up to say $150,000, the tax percent is the same for everyone. If you have $275,000, then there’s an extra percentage applied to the exceeding $125,000; the basal $150,000 doesn’t get touched any further) was to prevent the appearance of a moneyed class in the first place! The Founders knew the problems that came from an aristocracy that had enough money to basically buy their way out of anything baleful they did and/or bribe the not-so-moneyed to do their will. The idea was to establish an effective ceiling on how much wealth any one person could ever have and/or give to heirs. Sort of enforcing the would-be upper class to be middle class instead. (How well this did in preventing the manifestation of upper and lower classes is a different story…If only Adams had been able to preclude slavery from the union…) I guess you could say it was an attempt to punish such wealth–not to punish working harder, but because attaining extreme wealth was thought to be only doable in an immoral (and presumably lazy; the plantation keepers would have been the ultimate example) fashion. And I do believe you said that society needs to draw moral lines somewhere…(Just remember that early American economy would have been neither socialistic nor capitalistic; those were later conceits.)

            Never mind the rather uncomplimentary view the Bible tends to have of the rich (Habakkuk 2, anyone?). “Christians do not have to give anything”? That sounds like a case of “I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink”. Read: putting yourself at risk of “everlasting fire”. (“Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’…”) Really, that’s getting uncomfortably close to antinomianism. And I say that as an apatheist (i.e. I’m not convinced God’s existence can be proven OR disproven, and it doesn’t matter anyway because between the two situations, the definitions of good and evil won’t shift by so much as a micron).

            Meanwhile, I think David Brin said that the kind of reliance and emphasis you’re putting on wealthy “job creators” is redolent of feudalism, with workers being reduced to a kind of dependent tenant. Make sure you’re staying far afield of feudalism, yes? (Not everyone can hope to be an entrepeneur; that doesn’t mean they should be content with lowliness. And before you bring it up, when the Christ said “the poor you will always have with you”, he likely meant it in part to chastise society, just as the part of Deuteronomy he was quoting was.)

          • afchief

            Ten reasons why liberalism is not only ineffective, but indeed immoral and inhumane:

            1. Redistribution of wealth is not JUSTICE, it is THEFT. God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses that read, “Thou shall not steal, unless Congress passes a different law.” In fact, the Ten Commandments rule out socialism because socialism legalizes theft (Eighth Commandment) and institutionalizes envy (Tenth Commandment)! Contrary to liberal thought, forced redistribution of wealth is immoral. True effective compassion is voluntary—from the heart—and for the recipient it is (a) challenging, (b) personal, and (c) spiritual. In other words, the down-and-out need more than money; they need encouragement and spiritual food. Government offers none of these criteria. Whenever wealth is redistributed, an injustice is done to at least one party. While government may legitimately encourage voluntary giving—and encourage institutions that facilitate it such as Christian organizations—it has no moral authority to force people to give by the heavy hand of the state. (Helpful book: The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.)

            “The only lasting solution to poverty is wealth, and only business—not government, not non-profits, not even the church—creates wealth….The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil; its pull is powerful, causing some to even walk away from the faith (1 Timothy 6:10). And we in the U.S., who are wealthier than any people have ever been, need to be constantly warned. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a moral quality to wealth. Nor does it mean that the essence of capitalism is greed. Market economies work, Jay Richards says, because they allow wealth to be created. Only wealth can reduce poverty.” —Richard Doster, https://byfaithonline. com/page/ordinary-life/christianity-and-capitalism

            2. Socialism and marxism reduce our freedoms, thus leading to tyranny. Freedom, we argue, is a legitimate moral end in itself—an unalienable right. Remember the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the foundational principle of America’s Founders, who, incidentally, were overwhelmingly Christian. It is no less true today than in 1776. America’s founders referenced 2 Corinthians 3:17 in support of freedom: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The Liberty Bell declares from Leviticus 25:10, “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” With liberty, one’s soul breathes. (Helpful book: Christianity and the Constitution by John Eidsmoe.)

            3. When the government redistributes wealth it even hurts the people it is trying to help! This is not necessarily intuitive, but observable. The welfare mess is a classic example of failed government intervention. We have 50 years of experience which proves that oppressive utopian ideas of “compassion” only imprison the welfare class into perpetual poverty. An interesting current comparison is Texas vs. California. Texas has a conservative philosophy of government while California has taken the liberal utopian route. Texas, as of October 2009, had an 8.3% unemployment rate, while California’s unemployment rate was 12.9%—55% higher than Texas. Who is doing a better job for its citizens, including for the working class? Socialism is oppressive to the poor. (A book that is crucial to understanding the problem is Uncle Sam’s Plantation by black author Star Parker.) Watch this fascinating short clip of Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue show: http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A.

            “Business, working through free markets is possibly the greatest force for good on the planet today….Business increases prosperity, ends poverty, improves the quality of life, and promotes health and longevity of the world’s population.” —John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods

            4. Every time the government gets involved in something, in the long run it hurts the economy. We must get over the ignorant idea, however well-intentioned, that the economy is a static entity—and like a pie—that if one group of people has a larger piece of the pie, others get a smaller piece. A market economy is not a zero-sum game. The accurate view is, if government policies do not stifle the economy, the whole pie grows producing greater benefits for all. A dynamic economy creates wealth. Economics is about growing the pie, not dividing it. The simple fact of life is that the sectors of the economy that have the larger pieces of the pie are the most productive ones that generate the pieces of the pie for everyone! Remember that the government does not produce anything. So every dollar taken out of the productive economy (or distorts the productive economy) reduces the total output of the economy. Interference in the economy either by direct action or through regulations ends up decreasing the wealth of the country rather than increasing it. Regulations add to the cost of production, lessening efficiency and raising prices—which in turn lowers demand. When this occurs, those at every income level suffer. Further, armed with the power to tax, government fosters stupid economic decisions because it is blinded without a profit motive. A recent example is how the federal government—through both legislation and Federal Reserve policy—encouraged banks to make home loans to people who could not afford them, precipitating the housing collapse. One must be blinded by pre-conceptions to fail to see that any intrusions into the economy with Soviet-like utopian ideologies are ultimately disastrous to its people. The more utopian liberalism is introduced into the system, the poorer it performs. (Important books: How Capitalism Saved America by Thomas DiLorenzo and How Capitalism Will Save Us by Steve Forbes. Also, watch this short video about how the government worsened the Depression: http://dittosrush.blogspot. com/2009/11/thomas-sowell-explains-great-depression.html).

            5. Socialism reduces the incentive to innovate and produce. Christians are often not used to thinking about economics. But we should. If we are interested in increasing charitable giving, we should grow the economy as much as possible so that philanthropy is possible. Is your church’s giving better when the economy is healthy or when more people are on welfare? Capitalism has a firm historical and intellectual foundation in Christianity, yet is attacked by liberals as not compassionate. Liberals have the misplaced notion that profit is immoral. The voluntary exchange of goods and services for profit is not immoral. The fact is, the profit motive is the engine that grows the economy and has produced every modern convenience. Just take a moment to think through the things in your life and ask yourself why they are there. From the food you eat to the products you use, there has been an enormous amount of entrepreneurial energy and innovation that has made these things available to you. Government, on the other hand, not only does not produce anything, it creates shortages. Milton Friedman said, “If the Government was in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand.” An example in the real economy would be government health care. It is a certainty that the currently proposed government takeover of medicine will lead to fewer doctors. In one study, 45% of doctors would consider quitting if Congress passes health care overhaul. Bright students, faced with huge costs to attend medical school, will choose other fields. Such is a logical outcome from absurd policies. If we cover more people, we would need more doctors, more nurses, more hospitals, and more clinics. Promises of universal coverage cannot overcome the reality of universal shortages—leading to poorer service and rationing. This is certainly immoral. Socialism actually reduces incentives for productive activity of both the classes from whom the money is taken and to whom the money is given. If a father continually takes money from a successful son and gives it to a slothful son, eventually both sons will become less productive and tainted. (For a discussion on biblical capitalism verses darwinian capitalism, see http://www. faithfacts. org/blog/biblical-capitalism.)

            Steve Forbes (see his book How Capitalism Will Save Us) contends that with the rise of democratic capitalism humankind has become wealthier and healthier than in all previous centuries combined. In a democratic capitalist economy, he says, people interact in networks of cooperation that “teach discipline and moral lessons—from the importance of showing up for work and handling money responsibly to the value of teamwork.”

          • afchief

            6. Studies show that government is much less efficient at the same tasks as private enterprise or charity. At least one study (http://www.gerrycharlottephelps. com/2009/08/fed-govt-wastes-more-money-than-business-charity.html) showed that Government administrative costs consume 35-55% of the total expenditures. So in the health care debate, for example, if insurance companies make a 3-7% profit on sales, they are still hugely more efficient at delivering health care services than government. And unlike the profit made by private concerns, that 35-55% loss by government benefits nobody—it is essentially lost (wasted). Is there not yet enough outrage at story after story of pork barrel spending in Congress? How numbed does one have to be to fail to see that government by its very nature not only wastes money but is bent to cronyism and fraud? Of course, man’s inherent sinfulness can show up in any organization. But the government has never run an efficient system of any kind anywhere, with the possible exception of the military.

            7. Socialism rewards failure. Consider the takeover of General Motors. There have been hundreds of automobile companies that have failed in our history. Every once in awhile, the free enterprise system purges itself of the losers, only to be replaced by more efficient producers that have a better model how to deliver more goods and services that consumers want to buy at a price they can afford. It is suicidal for society to resist this trend. A key tenet of investing is to cut your losses and reinvest in more promising things. In an investment portfolio, nursing your losers leads to a stagnant portfolio of trash. One may think, at first glance, that it is compassionate to save jobs by government interference. But in the long run, the economy is held back by government interference, hurting everyone. Check out this article which explains how even our prized anti-trust laws and the progressive income tax tend to reward the inefficient producers and slow growth: http://mises. org/daily/3856.

            Socialist communities fail because non-productivity is tolerated. In socialist economies, high goals aren’t set, lousy work is condoned, there’s no motivation to improve one’s living standards, government quashes incentive and innovation, and assets are routinely misapplied. Therefore, there is nothing to encourage the investment of one’s time, effort, or assets.

            8. Socialism and marxism ultimately lead to financial destruction. The U. S. budget death spiral in which we now find ourselves places us at a very serious risk of economic collapse. See our blog entry, “U. S. Budget Death Spiral”: http://offgridblogger.wordpress. com/. As Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.” Let’s just consider the centerpiece of the liberal socialist agenda—Social Security. It is a madoff/ponzi scheme. It taxes workers to pay for those who are retired. There is no actual “Social Security Trust Fund”—even though this term is still commonly used. The liabilities of the Social Security system are unfunded promises to pay retirees. Together with Medicare, these transfer payments are by far the largest item in the federal budget, and are the primary reason why the federal government is on the brink of bankruptcy. The Social Security tax burden hits the low income worker’s budget the hardest. And studies show that if workers were to put what they pay in taxes instead into a conservative personal investment account over their working lifetime, they would have substantially more income at retirement! And they would own the account and thus have something to pass on to their heirs. See http://www.socialsecurity org/reformandyou/you.html.

            9. Liberalism destroys the Rule of Law. America is the heir of the Rule of Law, which originated with the Hebrews in ancient times. America’s Constitution is quite clear that there are specific enumerated powers of the federal government, and all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. The liberal agenda in legislation and court rulings has openly ignored the Constitution. Considering federal health care legislation, there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution to force people to buy something they do not want—yet our legislators could care less. When the Rule of Law is destroyed, despotism takes over. The result is predictable: If history is any judge, in time the Constitution will completely crumble into shambles and the United States of America will dissolve. History proves that the yearning for freedom always pushes man to demand the freedom that he is convinced is a God-given right.

            “Jay Richards poses the question: How is wealth created? Economists, he explains, can’t easily answer the question, but Christians can. The key source of material wealth in a modern market economy, he says, is not material—it’s spiritual. According to Richards, ‘Wealth is created when our creative freedom is allowed to prosper, when it’s undergirded by the rule of law and suffused with a rich moral culture.’ Mankind’s unfettered creativity reflects God’s image, and this, Richards points out, is one of the least appreciated truths of economics.” —Richard Doster (https://byfaithonline. com/page/ordinary-life/christianity-and-capitalism)

            10. Liberalism not only breeds hatred, but indeed contributes to people’s deaths. Because liberalism is a relativistic worldview, some people are ultimately expendable. We see this in every leftist government, but fail to make the connection to this ideology at home. Liberals attack conservatives as being self-centered, money hungry, and uncompassionate. But who are more likely champions of the innocent unborn and the elderly? The current health care debate should heighten the awareness of who is concerned about the almighty dollar over human rights. It is the liberals who are willing to cut back on mammograms for middle-aged women to save a few dollars. It is the liberals who would ration care to seniors to save money. It is liberals who want free abortions—taking the lives of millions of innocent unborn children. We ask: who are truly compassionate and who are the hypocrites? Further, liberalism pits one class of citizens against another. It especially fosters hatred, envy, and covetousness toward the successful rather than admiration and inspiration. Bitterness filters down in an organization too. We ask you to consider how you are treated by government employees such as those behind the counter at the Post Office or tax office compared to most for-profit business. In which setting are you more likely to get more personal warmth and upbeat, caring service? Ironically, socialism is inherently heartless, while capitalism is inherently caring for the customer. Remember that a business’s survival depends on the satisfied customer. Related to this in an important way, liberalism also often discourages faith in God or creates new gods suitable to a pre-conceived ideology. It is no accident that the further left a government becomes, the less religious it is. Full-blown leftist governments are atheistic.

          • SkyknightXi

            …I’m not convinced you addressed any of my points specifically. For starters, how did you address my point that the Founders were trying to interdict a moneyed class?

          • afchief

            Prove to me that the founders were trying to do this. I have read of this NO WHERE!

          • SkyknightXi

            {sigh} Unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact location where I read this. I know it was somewhere in the comments section of Slacktivist, but I don’t remember the day. It may have been extrapolation from the existence of an inheritance tax. (Although, how much grumbling did you hear from most industrialists about a 90% tax on certain echelons of wealth back in the 1930s? Besides Prescott Bush and his fellow would-have-been coup invokers.)

            But are we at least agreed that the existence of a moneyed class is a Bad Thing, pulling us back towards feudalism?

          • Bob Johnson

            You might try the writings of Thomas Paine, in particular “Rights of Man”.

          • HelenaConstantine

            Helping the sick, maybe? Feeding the hungry?

            What your original point is not taking into account is that a good deal of what people earn through their labor is stolen from them by the people they work for. Since the 1970s, national income has gone up through the roof, but almost all of it has gone to the rich, despite the fact it has all been created by the labor of the poor and middle class. The rich stole it from us. What we want is for the government to take some of our income back from the people who stole it and give it back to the people who earned it, in the form of healthcare, college tuition, etc.

          • afchief

            Ohh stop with your socialist garbage. Get off your lazy butt and work!!! A study of 37 countries over 21 years showed us that the ONLY way to recover from debt was to cut spending. Nations that raised taxes accelerated their decline, nations that raised taxes and partly cut spending declined and never recovered, and the only nations that recovered were the ones that cut spending.

            There are only three ways to accumulate money and wealth in world (other than stumbling across a hidden treasure and actually finding money, that is):

            #1) Production: Offer something of value in exchange for money voluntarily traded by recipients. Working or starting a business

            #2) Coercion: Confiscate money (or stores of value) by claiming authority over those who earn it

            #3) Theft: Steal money (or stores of value) from those who already have it

            Every person in society today acquires money in these three ways (with “gifting” being a fourth way that’s in a separate category because it’s passive, not active). The office worker, the entrepreneur, the laborer, the weekend burglar and even the professional politician all acquire money in one of these three primary ways.

            Out of the three methods of money accumulation, production is the only one that adds abundance to the economy. The other two methods reduce wealth and ultimately promote poverty.

            The fall of society can be understood through these key transitions:

            Abundant society = Freedom and liberty = Production and wealth creation

            …then Production becomes Coercion

            Coercion society = High taxes, growth of government = Wealth confiscation

            …then Coercion becomes Theft

            Theft society = Looting of private bank accounts, government seizure of industry = Wealth destruction

            …Theft leads to Collapse

            The EU has entered the stage of “coercion becoming theft.” The collapse is near.

            Again, socialism is EVIL!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Which study is that?

          • Bob Johnson

            It certainly wasn’t by the salt water crowd.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What kind of un-Biblical, anti-Christian, Jesus-hating rant did that come from!?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Finally! We’ve found something we agree on!

      • afchief

        Not all of them are power hungry cowards, but around 95% are. They should have impeached Obamadinajad 7 years ago.

  • BarkingDawg

    The definition of insanity is repeating something, over and over again, hoping for a different outcome.

    • afchief

      That’s the definition of liberalism!!!

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Cite, please.

        • afchief

          Progressive (Liberal Democrat) definition:

          Any person or group that believes people should be given special treatment based on ethnicity, gender or sexual preference.

          Any person or group that believes people should be treated as more valuable under the law due to ethnicity, gender or sexual preference.

          Any person or group that believes human life does not begin at conception and will push for killing a baby up to and after live birth.

          People who support philosophies relating to or in support of Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Atheism, Collectivism, LGBT activism, pro-abortion fanatics, radical feminists, normalization of pedophilia, radical environmentalism, racialism and any person or group who does not believe in upholding the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law.

          In addition to the above group memberships and ideals Progressives as a group will knowingly lie, cheat, break laws, deny a person or a group’s Constitutional rights and deny referenced facts that do not support their Progressive agenda. Progressives often resort to intense physical attacks, bullying and baseless slander when confronted with a set of facts or beliefs that oppose their agenda. Progressives seem to be unbound by any moral imperative and also display many or all the traits of a sociopath and or a psychopath while pursuing their deviant agenda.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I said “cite,” not “opine more.”

          • afchief

            Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. ‘‘The Liberal Mind The Psychological Causes of Political Madness’’ 2006

            pp 328-330:

            The Values of the Liberal Mind

            Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

            What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are ”workers,” ”minorities,” ”the little guy,” ”women,” and the ”unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the ”root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: ”Big Business,” ”Big Corporations,” ”greedy capitalists, ”U.S. Imperialists,” ”the oppressors,” ”the rich,” ”the wealthy,” ”the powerful” and ”the selfish.”

            The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is ”In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

            It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error: Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.