2012; A Life or Death Choice for America

A few short years ago, Sarah Palin faced a monumental decision.

Early testing during Sarah’s fifth pregnancy revealed that her child would be born with Down syndrome. He would struggle mightily to acquire basic skills, always remain dependent on others, and would never be considered an equal to his peers. Going through with the pregnancy would mean unusual requirements of love and labor ahead to help her child grow up to be the very best he could be.

Ultimately, Palin chose, in contrast to more than 90% of women in her situation, the unpopular and more difficult of the two choices. Sarah chose life over death. And although Trig may never be fully independent, he is a human being like the rest of us thriving on and reciprocating love, laughter, and liveliness. Palin has explained that Trig has taught her how precious life is, even in less than ideal circumstances.

Life or death decisions are thankfully rare. But together, at this moment, as a nation, we face a life or death choice for our country.

The federal government has shirked its duties for far too long with senseless spending, endless handouts and a choking debt racked up with seemingly no care for the morrow. Obama and his team have treated the symptoms of economic illness by doubling and tripling the dangerous doses of spending, leading to the spreading of the disease which now affects so many Americans jobs and businesses.

The United States of America has undergone screenings and the results, as evidenced with the credit downgrade, have made it obvious that a choice must be made. Unlike abortion, the destruction of a great nation doesn’t occur through a single act; Indeed, it is more comparable to a person left to slowly bleed to death. Not taking any action will simply take the country further down the road to a slow and painful death, while furthering the current policies will quicken the speed of its decline.

The 2012 election is not just a quadrennial well-visit to ensure the health of this country. The elections of 2012 are follow-up appointments on the heels of a serious diagnosis and will require us all to make the choice between life and death for this nation.

Choosing life is often a difficult choice because of the hardships and pain necessary to extend the life and restore the person’s health. A patient whose doctor advises him to amputate a finger in order to save a limb, or a limb to save his life, will accept the diagnosis understanding that although extremely difficult and painful, one can learn to live and laugh with a prosthetic limb. Leaving the problem untreated, although it might appear to be the less drastic option, will lead to his demise.

The doctor’s orders may seem horrible and cruel to a clueless observer, but to all who are aware of the patient’s condition and the alternative, the doctor’s orders are a sign of hope for future life.

Medicare, Social Security and all other entitlement programs will be gasping for breath not too far down the road if left untreated. Continuing to lead this country in the current direction is equal to heading for a slow and painful death. The professionals warn us that a choice must be made. The Democrats choosing to blame the S&P and the Tea Party for the credit downgrade appear as ridiculous and as foolish as a patient that blames his doctor for his illness.

While the liberals are partying with future generations’ money, turning a blind eye to the bleeding economy, it is still possible for
someone to step in and apply a tourniquet on the gushing spending. Conservatives are aware that the doctors haven’t yet given up hope. (S&P is pleading with us to cut spending!) If we downsize the federal government and deregulate the choked private sector, the economy will return to its robust self and our credit rating will once again return to its highest levels.

When putting one’s life into the hands of a surgeon, a patient does his research carefully and searches for a trustworthy and experienced doctor. One wouldn’t trust someone who had merely passed his medical exams but would demand someone with actual experience. When choosing who should take over the reins of this country in 2012 we must remind all patients to personally do their research carefully, not trusting the media, and to opt only for someone who’s not only passed the test with flying colors but has actual life experience.

Sarah Palin has chosen life in the past. She lives her choice every day, is proud of it, and has no regrets although it’s not easy. Palin raises Trig with love and joy for the life he represents.

Governor Palin too has chosen to improve the quality of life of her state at a time when no danger was visible. She cut spending, created a surplus, and used those extra funds to pay down unfunded pension obligations and forward-fund education.

Sarah Palin is thus the only candidate who is capable and ready to lead our country through the difficult times ahead as we go through necessary cuts in order to once again return to a healthy, vibrant, and pulsating economy. 

This article has been cross posted at Conservatives4Palin.

 

Munkatch’s response to Abie Rubin’s previous article on Weprin and Yossi Gestetner

Munkatch’s opinion on Abie Rubin’s article: "Why Yossi Gestetner is correct in his op-ed regarding Weprin".

I quote: "Taxes on items such as cigarettes are different than traffic or other ticketing...... If the politicians truly have the people’s safety in mind, then cigarettes should be outlawed just as many other dangerous substances are. Not that I support the banning of cigarettes, I simply want to point out that making money off it is wrong".

Imagine the scene: a homeless disheveled man, climbing over the railing of the Brooklyn Bridge, readying himself to finally end his life of untold misery, by simply jumping into the Hudson River. He lifts one foot over the railing and starts to lift the other, when suddenly a strong pair of hands grabs his ankle and pulls him to safety. The hands belong to a NYPD officer, who noticed this suicidal man during a routine patrol, and thus was able to save him from certain death. The cop is then hailed as a hero, and reporters are fighting over exclusive rights to interview him.

The above scenario happens all too often, and while people generally focus on the heroism of the rescuer, not much thought is given to the rescued, and his choice of abruptly ending his life.

From a moral standpoint, should a person be allowed to take his life or not? I have mixed feelings about this and neither liberals nor conservatives are consistent in their views.

The liberal viewpoint of more government will say: "we can't let him take his life, because we know better than him what's good for him". The problem with this view is that when it comes to abortions and end of life decisions, suddenly the government decides that after all, it is better to be pro-choice and have "the right to die".

The conservative viewpoint of limited government might say: "the government shouldn't be telling me what to eat, drink or smoke, I am smart enough to decide what's right and wrong for me, even if it kills me. It would therefore seem that we really should let this man end his life. Now, although this agrees with the view of pro-life, -meaning your own life, not your unborn child or sick grandfather, is this consistent with the Judeo-Christian moral values upon which this country was founded? Don't we all know that "one who saves one life is considered as if he has saved the whole word"?

Getting back to the article, should the government really outlaw cigarettes and dangerous substances? Or perhaps like alcohol, it doesn't hurt when taken in moderation. What is dangerous anyway? Who decides what is or isn't dangerous? And who are we to take away someone's right to hurt themself? Do we have an obligation to prevent pain and death? These are all questions to which I don't think there is a straightforward answer, and therefore, in my opinion, cannot be used in any argument, be it for or against restrictions on cigarette use.

It is interesting to note, that the recent death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, also known as Dr. Death, for his role in assisting suicides of more than 100 people, brought this issue somewhat to the front burner. Dr. Kevorkian was actually sentenced to 8 years in prison and prosecuted unsuccessfully 4 times. On the other hand, doctor-assisted suicide essentially became law in Oregon in 1997 and in Washington State in 2009. The practice of doctors writing prescriptions to help terminally ill patients kill themselves was upheld as legal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In conclusion, perhaps that is why we tend to overtax cigarettes, as a way of finding some middle ground between these two very different perspectives.

Munkatch is a great Conservative and can be followed on twitter.



My response:

Firstly, thank you for responding in such a clear and well written manner.
 
Conservatism values life and is therefore opposed to both abortions – which is taking another’s life, and jumping off the bridge – which is taking one’s own life. Smoking is a health issue, not a life or death issue. I know plenty of ninety year olds still smoking. If you believe – as the left does -- that you have to control the health choices one makes then it should be banned. And if you believe – as conservatives do – that one should have the ability to make their own health choices, then smoking shouldn’t be singled out with higher taxes.