"The moral test of a government..."
In the post-Katrina era, as the United States tries to rebuild a major U.S. city, and people try to rebuild our lives, these words from Hubert Humphrey should guide us:
"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life -- the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children;.....
One more reason to be pro-life.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/11 @ 05:13 AM — (Reply)
And in typical Republican fashion, there is no discussion about the welfare of a child, once they leave their mother's womb. Being "pro-life" (though your party is really pro-death) doesn't stop in the womb.
Being pro-life means you care about giving children universal health care.
Being pro-life, and pro-family, means you care about the fact that the number of hungry children has increased in America. There are more "food insecure" families: meaning, those families who aren't sure they will have enough money to feed their children.
Yet, your Republican Party wants to move ahead with cuts in vital programs, such as the program that provides food stamps to those in need.
I care about what happens to someone while they are in their mother's womb.
But I also care about a mother when she needs to terminate a pregancy because her life is in danger.
And unlike the majority of the Republican Party, I care what happens when a child is born. I care about whether they will have health care; whether they will have food to eat.
THAT, my friend, is being pro-life.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/11 @ 08:52 PM — (Reply)
but they must be born first!...
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/10/11 @ 11:23 PM — (Reply)
I never said I voted Republican but the life of an unborn child and it's prospects for a healthy life are very important to me.
You speak of being pro life but you still have not answered my questions with anything but rhetoric?
Comment by — 2005/10/11 @ 11:28 PM — (Reply)
My first co ment was an affirmation 0f your post yet you hammer me...haha..
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/10/11 @ 11:31 PM — (Reply)
You think by stereotyping me you can marginalize me, it doesn't work that way. I am trying to get you to clarify your own argument. You have said on previous comments that you are not for abortion on demand. Well then what abortions are you not for? Was the state of California correct in prosecuting Scott Peterson for two murders instead of one? Why are you afraid of answering these questions. Have you a cogent argument that uses neither extremes, insults or stereotypes? Tell me Shalana if conservatives are a culture of death why is it that you support abortion on demand? and if you don't, do you abhor the 99% of abortions that are done merely for the convenience of the mother? I can be patient, think about it.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/12 @ 12:22 AM — (Reply)
Oh and again need a thesaurus for the word "typical".
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/12 @ 12:23 AM — (Reply)
Is your own Party making you so ashamed that you don't even want to claim them? I am proud to say that I am a progressive. I wear the Progressive label very proudly.
Most importantly though, you still have not addressed the substance of my comments. If the Republican Party is truly as "pro-life" as they want people to think they are, why are they only concerned with what happens to a child while they are still in their mother's womb? They clearly don't care what happens once that child is born. If they did,they would be promoting universal health care, and not trying to cut food stamps for hungry families.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/12 @ 09:08 PM — (Reply)
Again if you can label me one way or the other it makes it easier for you to marginalize me. Fine. Whether you are a Rep. or Lib., you can still clarify your argument for me, unless of course you want to keep deflecting? What abortions do you oppose? Shalana - it's not a political statement, just tell me without any rhetoric or insults, mano y mano.
and of course I care for children after their born...quit asking George Soros for your answers.
Comment by Elmers Brother — 2005/10/12 @ 11:01 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/12 @ 11:06 PM — (Reply)
If you truly had a mind of your own, as you claim, then you would answer one simple question: why is it that so many members of the Republican Party love the fetus, but they hate the child?
You still have not addressed our moral obligation to make sure that children have health care, and have enough to eat.
Do you know that last October, right before the election, the Department of Agriculture delayed an annual report on hunger in America. The report tracks the number of "food insecure" Americans (those who fear they won't have enough to feed their families) and those who have actually experienced hunger.
This report is normally released about a month or so after the Census Bureau releases its annual poverty figures. And of course last year, they showed an increase in poverty.
An increase in poverty and uninsured Americans, usually translates into an increase in "food insecure" or hungry Americans, especially children.
So did they delay the report's release for political purposes?
And why has the Republican Party, the Party who currently controls all three branches of government, failed to address the steady increase in poverty, the increase in uninsured children, and the increase in hungry children.
If you cannot answer that question, then you are not prepared to lecture anyone on abortion.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/13 @ 07:52 PM — (Reply)
again with the rhetoric and the deflection. your argument is the stupidest I have ever heard. I don't have to answer because it is not what I think or believe. shalana you claim to be progressive (euphemism for liberal gutless america haters) and your only argument is to send up comments that aren't even mine. why don't you ask me to Clarify something I HAVE SAID rather than some rhetoric you cut and pasted of Salon.com. I am asking you to clarify your own argument, your very own words! What are you afraid of?
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/10/13 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
You claim to be all about the children, but your Republican Party has not done anything to address the growing number of hungry children in this country. Their only response has been to call for making cuts in the food stamp program.
I reference comments that aren't yours for a good reason. I am showing you what your Party is all about. You clearly seem to be a single-issue voter (abortion) but I am offering you evidence that your Party really doesn't care about children at all.
And you have just shown who you really are, by callig liberals "gutless American haters."
We hate America? No. We hate what your Party is doing to America.
We love our country. We are the ones who truly support our troops, by trying to ensure they have armored vehicles in Iraq, and that when they come home, they have jobs and health care.
We are the ones who have called for universal health care, and for not balancing our budget on the backs of the poor, and future generations.
Do me a favor: tell Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh I said hello the next time you talk to them. You clearly get your talking points from them. And you're so ashamed of them, you won't even own up to it.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/13 @ 08:25 PM — (Reply)
you support the troops? bwahahahaha so I will now assume that you are for abortion on demand and for partial birth abortion, 13 million black children aborted since 1973. Maybe Margaret Sanger speaks for you. yea you're compassionate all right. yea you're pro-life, keep on telling yourself this if it makes you feel better.
I suggest you take Debate 101. I suggest you develop your own belief system instead of regurgitating the same shallow liberal bile you find at mediamatters. BTW take your patronizing of the troops somewhere else. Your definition of support is to have the local Vegans buy you a latte at the Bash Bush rally. I can spot a hate america basher a mile away. While I appreciate and respect your point of view (when you have one of your own) and was and still am willing to give my life for you I will not let you ttry and scam the troops into pretending you care about them. BTW which part of supporting the troops didn't John Kerry understand? Was it becoming a war hero in N. Vietnam? armor and supplies for me and my buddies or calling his shipmates baby killers?
Comment by — 2005/10/13 @ 08:52 PM — (Reply)
And you're darn right I'm a compassionate person, unlike you, your Party and your President.
I believe that we need to live by Christ's admonishment that we will be judged by how we do unto the least of us.
And that's why I cannot support a party (your Party) that wants to cut food stamps at a time when people may need them the most (i.e. those people trying to rebuild their lives post-Katrina).
Because I am compassionate, I will not support a Party who supports assasinating world leaders who simply don't agree with us; who have policy differences with us.
And I don't support a Party that lies its way into war.
You keep bringing up Media Matters for America. And I'm glad you do. Do you know their story? Media Matters was started by David Brock. I'm sure you, as a Republican, know who David Brock is.
I'm sure you know that David Brock wrote a book trashing Anita Hill. And he wrote the "Troopergate" article for the American Spectator magazine. He was the one who mentioned "a woman named Paula" and helped bring us the Paula Jones fiasco.
But thankfully, he showed that you can turn your life around. David Brock realized that he was being used by his friends in the Republican party. That he had allowed himself to be lied to by the conservative movement, and that he printed a bunch of lies about Anita Hill and Bill and Hillary Clinton. He even wrote a letter of apology to President Bill and Hillary Clinton.
And he has redeemed himself by starting Media Matters, which is dedicated to ACCURACY in the media (imagine that!)
But I don't expect you to be interested in accuary in the media, because you are a Republican who gets your talking points from liars like Bill O'Reilly.
I actually feel sorry for you, because you are so small minded. Your comments about "Bash Bush" rallies, being able to spot an "America basher," clearly show that you believe that in order to support America, you have to support the policies of an incumbent President.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This country was founded on the idea that its citizentry ("we the people") have a right to question the actions of our elected leaders, those making decisions in our name and supposedly on our behalf.
It is precisely because we love America, that we are duty bound to question the actions of this Administration.
I suppose that during the 8 years of peace and prosperity under Clinton, you hated America, because you hated Clinton's policies?
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/13 @ 09:15 PM — (Reply)
Peace, prosperity and appeasement of the terrorists you mean! Look what that bought us 3000+ dead on 9/11, It's easy for you as long as you can label me this or that. I have tried to use reason and logic but that doesnt' work with liberals.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/13 @ 09:35 PM — (Reply)
disagreeing with you does not mean I hate you BTW....hahahahah I am simply showing you what you are doing...parroting others and using rhetoric...come on wow us with your reason and logic...
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/13 @ 09:37 PM — (Reply)
is it hate speech to say that I am willing to sacrifice my life for you?
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/13 @ 09:42 PM — (Reply)
mediamatters if funded by George Soros
Comment by Elmers brother— 2005/10/13 @ 09:43 PM — (Reply)
Bill Clinton appeased the terrorists?
That's news to me. And that's news to your fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. Do you know that when President Bill Clinton orded the bombing of suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Sudan.
And then he launched Operation Desert Fox in Iraq.
And he was accused by the Republicans of acting too agressively. His Defense Secretary, William Cohen (a Republican) testified to the 9/11 Commission that as Clinton acted against terrorists, he was called up to Capitol Hill, and yelled at by Republican members of Congress. They thought Clinton was "wagging the dog" and acting too agressively, not fighting terrorism (which is what he was doing).
Because of President Clinton's leadership, and his decision to go to battle stations, the millenium plot to bomb LAX Airport was stopped. We didn't have a terrorist attack at LAX Airport on New Year's Eve 1999, because the Clinton administration shook the trees and uncovered the plot.
And Clinton ordered daily meetings at the White House of various national security officials and cabinet members, so they could share the information they were learning in their departments.
I know the Republicans like to blame Clinton for everything. You would even blame Clinton for the rainy weather, or your dog dying, if you could.
But you cannot blame him for 9/11.
I suggest you look to the President who spent the entire month of August 2001 on vacation, even after receiving a PDB called "Bin laden Determined to Strike Within The United States."
I suggest you look to the National Security Adviser who told Richard Clarke in was inappropriate of him to ask for a principals-level meeting to discuss the threat posed by Al Qaeda.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/14 @ 07:01 PM — (Reply)
OBL said himself that he was emboldened by the inaction of our government over such incidents as the pull out from Somalia, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombings...he saw us do nothing but bomb milk factories and hold meetings. Ask Louis Freeh, in his new book he said he was afraid to resign because of the terrorism threat and Clintons inaction. The FBI and CIA didn't even have computers and the technology under the Clinton administration to share information and Jamie Gorelick refused to let them. Sudan offered Clinton OBL three times but it got tied up in some PR and legal meetings. I don't blame Clinton for everything but unlike you I can't blame Bush for everything either.
Maybe Clinton was to busy with Monica to bother with OBL.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/15 @ 12:30 PM — (Reply)
Louis Freeh has no credibility. I just gave you the FACTS that proved Clinton combated terrorism, and was ridiculed by the Republican Party for acting TOO AGRESSIVELY.
Because of Clinton's action, and because he ordered the Administration to go to battle stations, the Millenium bombing never happened.
And do you know that during the transition, Sandy Berger told Condi Rice that she would spend more time on the issue of terrorism in general, and specifically Al Qaeda, than any other issue.
Condi Rice was warned about the Al Qaeda threat, and yet Richard Clarke did NOT get the urgent and important meeting he asked for in January 2001 after Condi Rice assumed the role of NSA.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/15 @ 08:06 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/16 @ 08:39 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/10/16 @ 08:46 AM — (Reply)
Yes, Clinton made sure his government agencies talked. That they shook the trees and shared information. And as a result, the Millenium plot to bomb LAX Airport DID NOT HAPPEN.
Louis Freeh has no credibility because he had admitted that much of the information in his book is cirumstantial...it came from "other sources." He wasnt even PRESENT at some of those meetings he mentions in his book, thank you.
You REFUSE to accept that Clinton fought terrorism, and the Republicans accused him of being too agressive. He goes after terrorism, and his Defense Secretary is called to Capitol Hill and yelled at by his fellow Republicans.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/10/16 @ 08:49 AM — (Reply)
bwahahaha Clinton fought terrorism in typical liberal fashion by cutting and running and it was an atntive c8stoms agent that thwarted the LAX bombing.
Comment by elmers brother— 2005/10/16 @ 10:06 AM — (Reply)
You know another example is liberals running around with "free Tibet" bumper stickers on their cars, it's a nice thought but is Tibet any closer to being free? Talk and bumper stickers are cheap.
Comment by elmers brother — 2005/10/16 @ 10:17 AM — (Reply)
You know another example is liberals running around with "free Tibet" bumper stickers on their cars, it's a nice thought but is Tibet any closer to being free? Talk and bumper stickers are cheap.
Comment by elmers brother — 2005/10/16 @ 10:18 AM — (Reply)