Sully: “Christianists” show how “un-Christian” they are with death panel talk

Your Stuck-On-Stupid quote of the day (bolded emphasis added by me):

If everyone aged 40 or over simply made sure we appointed someone to be our power-of-attorney and instructed that person not to prolong our lives by extraordinary measures if we lost consciousness in a long, fatal illness or simply old age, then we’d immediately make a dent in some way on future healthcare costs. A remarkable proportion of healthcare costs go to the very last days or hours of our lives.

This seems to me particularly apposite for the boomers who, even if Paul Ryan got his way, would still be grandfathered into the most generous combination of personal prosperity and government support of any generation in history. Wouldn’t a few fewer unconscious hours or days be a sacrifice worth making?

Of course, this would be entirely voluntary – and not even nudged (although, frankly, I see no reason why the government shouldn’t nudge you to make arrangements ahead of time given that others will be forced to pay the costs). “Death panels!” Christianists would scream, revealing exactly how un-Christian they are. Christians, of all people, it seems to me, have nothing to fear from death, and a great deal to gain from giving a few of their own unconscious final days to make it feasible for others to have a few more conscious and healthy ones.

Got that, “Christianists”? YOU of all people here on earth should be first to step up to the plate and literally give your life for the ObamaCare cause. And if not voluntarily, then the government should darned well “nudge” you to, considering you might make life more comfortable for other folks – some of who happen to not be “Christianists” (like our dear Andrew Sullivan).

Mark this as the day that Andrew Sullivan officially and without a doubt went right over the edge into Unicorn Land.

I’m going to explain something to Sully and all other anti-“Christianists” who “think” (term used loosely) like he does. For those who fit in that category, please read very s l o w l y: Fearing death doesn’t make you “un-Christian”, morons. It makes you HUMAN. Christians who are saved, who have accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior don’t “fear” going to heaven. They just kinda like it down here on earth, too, where they can, you know, hang out with their family members a little while longer before they’re called Home?

This is the problem with secular liberal elites who never hesitate to bash Christians and who, in fact, always find ways to insert Christians into arguments where you wouldn’t think there wouldn’t be a need to (as Sully did here). They’re so busy trying to falsely paint the vast majorty of “Christianists” as perverters of the Bible’s “True Meaning™ ” that in the process, not only does it end up being so that it’s the non-“Christianists” who are the ones distorting and lying about its meaning, but it also ends up being that it’s the “non-Christianists” who distort, mislead, and lie about Christian beliefs and motivations. This is nothing more than a lazy form of argument: Create a phony caricature, set it up as a strawman, and “successfully” argue against it. It’s juvenile, but hey – it’s a tried and true liberal tactic, so none of us should be surprised to see a self-important pseudo-conservative like Andrew Sullivan use it.

Oh, and as to the “nudge” from the government that Sully thinks we – especially we “Christianists” – need: Why stop at “long illness”? Since the average life expectancy is now, what, in the mid 70s? Why don’t we just point blank cut people off at the good ol’ round number of 75? Why wait until a “prolonged illness which leaves you unconcious” hits? How many folks out there, both young and old, have had to have extensive medical care – including prolonged and sustained prescription drug usage – most if not all of their lives? Aren’t those folks a drain on the system, too? WE NEED TO BE “FAIR” TO THE HEALTHY FOLK, DAMMIT! So, since we should be able to trust government on giving us that “nudge” to off ourselves one way or the other, why not trust ’em to just cut people off of medical care at age 75, and for those who have been a “drain” on “they system” for most of their lives, perhaps they should be cut of sooner.

I’m being sarcastic, of course. But to clueless wonders like Sully, they never stop to think their ideas through to the logical conclusion, quite possibly because most of their “ideas” really aren’t logical to begin with so it’s a difficult minefield for them to wade through. If the government can “nudge” you off of care when they’ve determined you’re too old or that you’ve been unconcious for too long, it can step in and “nudge” you off of it for other reasons, too – and not just due to old age or unconsciousness.

Let’s be thankful that at the very least Sullivan is talking about physical unconsciousness and not intellectual unconsciousness, because if included intellectual unconsciousness as well, he might have to rethink his position, considering that – by my count – he’s been intellectually unconscious since around 2003 …

Sarah Palin: We deserve an explanation about Libya

**Posted by Phineas

I’m having cognitive dissonance here. On the one hand, I’m assured by the Left and the major media (but I repeat myself), and by many on the Establishment Right, that Sarah Palin is a chillbilly airhead who has no idea what she is talking about and would be a disaster as president.

But then, after expressing puzzlement over the administration’s conflicting reasons for going to war (kinda-sorta) in Libya, she goes and writes something like this:

At this point, to avoid further mission creep and involvement in a third war – one we certainly can’t afford – you need to step up and justify our Libyan involvement, or Americans are going to demand you pull out. Simply put, what are we doing there? You’ve put us in a strategic no man’s land. If Gaddafi’s got to go, then tell NATO our continued participation hinges on this: We strike hard and Gaddafi will be gone. If, as you and your spokesmen suggest, we’re not to tell Libya what to do when it comes to that country’s leadership, and if you can’t explain to Americans why we’re willing to protect Libyan resources and civilians but not Syria’s, Yemen’s, Bahrain’s, Egypt’s, Israel’s, etc., then there is no justification for U.S. human and fiscal resources to be spent.

I would also ask you to better explain your thinking on Libya. We can’t afford any actions that don’t take care of crucial U.S. needs and meet our own interests at this point. You are the Commander in Chief, so please explain what you believe is our “interest” there and not elsewhere.

Mr. President, your hesitation and vacillation in the Middle East breed uncertainty. It’s symptomatic of the puzzling way you govern. See, uncertainty is one of the factors over which you have control, and I would think you’d want to eliminate that additional element that helps breed problems like higher oil prices. Higher oil means exorbitant gas prices weighing down our economy. Consistency and strength – and greater domestic energy production – will help fix higher gas prices and help heal the economy. But only with leadership. These sorts of problems don’t fix themselves.

Uncertainty breeds higher prices because those who thought themselves our allies suddenly find that may not be true(1), they may not be as secure as they thought and their oil supplies may not be as safe, all of which leads more risk being associated with Mideast oil, and contributes to higher costs passed on to us at the pump. Basic economics and common sense, both of which are alien to our president.

It seems to me the woman dismissed as a “Caribou Barbie” and a quitter(2) has a better grip on our national interests than the Smartest President in History ever will.

Darn her for confusing me by being right when our Cultural Elites (all bow) insist she’s wrong.

Go, ‘Cuda!


(1) Hey, if we unceremoniously dumped Mubarak, who, while a bloated dictator, at least often served our interests and wasn’t as bad as a lot of them, then who’s next? You can bet a lot are worried.

(2) An argument I no longer treat as serious, unless it can be made in the context of the Alaskan ethics law as it existed at the time of her resignation.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Justice delayed is justice denied, but not for murder victims, it seems

**Posted by Phineas

I made my feelings about convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal clear a couple of weeks ago. Thus, I’m sure you’ll share the joy I feel knowing the man who shot a cop in the back and then finished him off with a bullet to the brain has been granted a new sentencing hearing because, 30 years later, an appeals court found the trial court’s sentencing instructions were vague:

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered a new sentencing hearing for convicted police killer and death-row activist Mumia Abu-Jamal, finding for a second time that the death-penalty instructions given to the jury at his 1982 trial were potentially misleading.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered prosecutors to conduct the new sentencing hearing within six months or agree to a life sentence. Abu-Jamal’s first-degree murder conviction nonetheless stands in the fatal shooting of Officer Daniel Faulkner.

And while this “death-row activist” cheats Death again, the family of Daniel Faulkner still waits for justice.

LINKS: More from Michelle Malkin

via PJM

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)