"The US ambassador in Kabul has written to the White House arguing against sending thousands more American troops to Afghanistan.
In a leaked cable, Karl Eikenberry expressed doubts about the competence of President Hamid Karzai's government."
Excerpt over. You have an enemy, the Taliban, who need to be defeated. Send the troops. If the Afghan government isn't functioning as needed, replace it. Having us not only oversee but run the election process to ensure minimal fraud is a possibility. One can not say we don't have the resources for it. If we have the resources to place ourselves trillions in debt, we can conduct a fair election.
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8356094.stm
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Giddy Republicans?
I think Republicans are becoming more popular because they have become more Conservative in fiscal and political issues, instead of emphasizing social issues. They have not, by my observation, become giddy at all.
More Angry Catholics
From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html
The article states:
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it would be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city won't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom.
Excerpt over. So much material in this one.
So because they won't be allowed to discriminate they will stop being charitable?
Isn't it ironic that a religious entity operating in the capital of a secular nation has trouble acting in a secular manner with secular funds?
Isn't it ironic that religious freedom, protected by the Constitution, sometimes claims to be able to over ride the other freedoms granted by the Constitution?
Questions are such a non-violent way of expressing anger don't you think?
The article states:
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it would be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city won't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
After the vote, the archdiocese sent out a statement accusing the council of ignoring the right of religious freedom.
Excerpt over. So much material in this one.
So because they won't be allowed to discriminate they will stop being charitable?
Isn't it ironic that a religious entity operating in the capital of a secular nation has trouble acting in a secular manner with secular funds?
Isn't it ironic that religious freedom, protected by the Constitution, sometimes claims to be able to over ride the other freedoms granted by the Constitution?
Questions are such a non-violent way of expressing anger don't you think?
Health Insurance
I will not purchase health insurance under three conditions:
1. I do not have the money I will not buy health insurance.
2. I am able to afford to pay for regular doctor visits and am considered quite healthy, I will not purchase health insurance.
3. If I do have the money, but am mandated to do so by the government, I will not buy health insurance.
The flaw in requiring people to purchase health insurance is that there are some who simply can not afford it, and the fine is also not going to be paid. The sentence to prison means the entire existence, health care included, of a person will then be the cost of the government.
Should that provision of the health care bill become law, it will be time for civil disobedience against an unjust law.
1. I do not have the money I will not buy health insurance.
2. I am able to afford to pay for regular doctor visits and am considered quite healthy, I will not purchase health insurance.
3. If I do have the money, but am mandated to do so by the government, I will not buy health insurance.
The flaw in requiring people to purchase health insurance is that there are some who simply can not afford it, and the fine is also not going to be paid. The sentence to prison means the entire existence, health care included, of a person will then be the cost of the government.
Should that provision of the health care bill become law, it will be time for civil disobedience against an unjust law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
