Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative

It is not every day that a news item comes up that illustrates how one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative at the same time.  At least, not so many stories that lend to a narrative that even a Leftist can understand.  The Sandra Fluke story is just such a story.

The story I have heard from my Leftist friends over the years is that it is impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Mind you, this impossibility comes mostly from those who disdain absolutes.  So it goes: "You cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative because paying for the social programs is a fiscal duty of government." I never heard a QED at the end of one of these mini-seminars, so apparently it is even more 'settled science' than 'Climate Change.'

Somewhere in the last few decades this perception that to be socially liberal means to be the happy giver of the wealth of others has grown to the point that today a law school student, attending a prestigious private Catholic school, can go before Congress and demand legislation for her choice in birth control to be included in her student healthcare plan.

This nonsense is on the order of me going to the legislature during my college days and demanding a daily supply of condoms, just in case I got lucky.  No, that is too mild.  It is more like a demand for lobster and caviar on the meal plan.

Mind you, nobody is trying to prevent Sandra Fluke from obtaining the birth control of her choice.  She is in Washington, DC with all of the resources of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations at her disposal.  No, she wants to fulfill her fetish of having the government to force an organization to do something that they don't want to do.  It is the perfect story to illustrate the tenant of libertarianism, that you should be free to do with your body what you will and the rest of us are free to abstain from participation.

As you may know, there is no end to this. If this demand is met, a new list of demands will be presented, and on and on.  If I take my Leftie friends at their word, a dicey proposition at best, then literally any proclivity, fetish, want or desire should be lumped into "social good."  Of course, under Communism this works out just fine, right?  Well, unless you are a homosexual in China who ends up in electroshock "therapy" or a woman who wants more than one baby.

Courtesy of Nancy Pelosi and the US Congress

The fact is, one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Milton Friedman advocated the legalization of heroine (as do I) but he never advocated it be dispensed from a free clinic.  Folks, socially liberal means we don't care and are not going to stop you from doing whatever you want to yourself, and/or consenting participants.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR YOUR PARTY!

Obama's Plans for Church and School?

Lunch nazis on the attack

A North Carolina preschooler this week got a taste of the brave new school-lunch world.

As the 4-year-old entered the lunchroom, the state lunch inspector (!!) examined her sack and found the contents to be in violation of US Department of Agriculture nutrition guidelines. Herr Lunch Lady summarily threw the offending meal — including a homemade turkey sandwich, banana, chips and apple juice — into the trash; the girl was given a school-lunch meal consisting of . . . chicken nuggets.

The Left has been "warning" us about National Socialism (they call all of that fascism) for ages.  The problem is, they never bother warning anybody when they do it themselves.

The story above, even by the most  generous Leftist definition, is National Socialism.  Some government bureaucrat took a four year old child's lunch away, "gave" the child some government approved, commercially produced, chicken nuggets.  Then the government school employees sent the mother a bill for the Obama's chicken nuggets.

The Leftists would have us believe that some "corporation" forced the government to do this.  Now, just how plausible is that when the government controls the police force? More to the point, now that "the right people" like Obama are in charge, why is this sort of thing on the increase?

Within days of that incident, President Barrack Hussein Obama announced that all places of worship would be required (forced) to provide contraceptives and abortions, regardless of their objection against birth control.

Obama birth control plan angers church Roman Catholic church angry after US president orders it to offer its employees free contraceptive coverage. - Aljazeera

In the 1930s, Hitler tried to nationalize churches too.  In case you are unaware of what that means, Hitler (with Ludwig Müller) tried to tell various religions what they were to do for the National Socialist State.  It did not work out so well.  Also, if that is supposed to be evidence that Hitler was a Christian in his adult life, then absolutely anything counts as evidence of, well, absolutely anything these days.

Obama's most recent attempt at directly nationalizing places of worship failed too, but he had a backup plan at the ready.  He ordered all insurance companies to provide contraceptives, including those owned and operated by Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic organizations that service only those religious institutions.

Again, an adage about the Socialists is appropriate here, they like word games. When they got enough resistance from infringing on religious freedom, they targeted federally required insurance programs and *poof* they are no longer ordering Mosques what to do, they are only telling insurance companies what to do.  Either way, it is still National Socialism and this episode is definitely Hitlerian.

So, what is next in the Obama regime's goose-stepping march over individual rights on the way to the next election?  One can speculate something along these lines for school lunches.  Of course, that is not ordering people what to do, it is just providing much needed birth control for preschoolers.  If their condoms and chewable birth control pills don't work, they can always get some RU-486 at communion.

Obama actually believes that Jesus would approve of his National Socialist blending of government and religion.  Here is a clip of him at the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3rd, 2012: (full transcript | Download Video: mp4 (216MB) | mp3 (21MB))

But while I petition God for a whole range of things, there are a few common themes that do recur. The first category of prayer comes out of the urgency of the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel itself. I pray for my ability to help those who are struggling. Christian tradition teaches that one day the world will be turned right side up and everything will return as it should be. But until that day, we're called to work on behalf of a God that chose justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable.

We've seen a lot of hardship these past two years. Not a day passes when I don't get a letter from somebody or meet someone who’s out of work or lost their home or without health care. The story Randall told about his father -- that's a story that a whole lot of Americans have gone through over these past couple of years.

Sometimes I can't help right away. Sometimes what I can do to try to improve the economy or to curb foreclosures or to help deal with the health care system -- sometimes it seems so distant and so remote, so profoundly inadequate to the enormity of the need. And it is my faith, then, that biblical injunction to serve the least of these, that keeps me going and that keeps me from being overwhelmed. It’s faith that reminds me that despite being just one very imperfect man, I can still help whoever I can, however I can, wherever I can, for as long as I can, and that somehow God will buttress these efforts.