Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Haitians..we can't take them to the States and now we CAN take them. WHAT?

Do you think America could be sued? This article says ".– The U.S. military has halted flights carrying Haitian earthquake victims to the United States because of an apparent cost dispute, though a doctor warned that some injured patients faced imminent death if the flights don't resume." and "The evacuations were temporarily suspended Wednesday, said Capt. Kevin Aandahl, spokesman for U.S. Transportation Command. The flights were halted a day after Florida Gov. Charlie Crist asked the federal government to help pay for care."
CAN we be sued after all we've done? Might a Haitian child's parents sue us for not having had them airlifted? Interesting hypothesis, no? Would THAT be something? I only say this because of all the ridicule we've been opening ourselves up to this last year as we've been denigrating ourselves on the world scene and removing missile shields and apologizing for ourselves. Does this set us up for more?

UPDATE: I'd had the above post ready for a couple of days and then saw this update HERE.
WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE HAPPENED TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR STOPPING THE AIRLIFTS GO AWAY? So many objections to taking the Haitians in have NOT been addressed in this article saying they're now being airlifted again that I found it odd and thought I'd ask you what you think happened........thanks.


Mustang said...

Here’s a good idea. Why don’t we provide medical care to illegal aliens and government-sponsored HIV infected Haitians at the expense of Americans with catastrophic illnesses? Not even Ducky could come up with something as stupid as this …

Joe said...

This is another example of how amateurishly this country is being run on every level, with inter-communications at an all-time low.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting isn't it, with all the criticism from other countries, like France, I didn't see in the article any offers from other countries to take in the injured and sick from Haiti.

Why not? They're not doing anything else.

Of course we in the US up to now, have the best healthcare in the world.

I wonder, if Obama has his way, where the best healthcare in the world will be. There's always Cuba, according to Michael Moore. And what about Canada, whose healthcare is lauded by the left, which is always mentioned as what we should have.

Oh, but they haven't offered I guess. Just the mean old imperialist US.

So how come it's us who are seemingly the only ones doing the heavy lifting?

It's time for this to be said. Our military which is engaged on two fronts, fighting terrorists, is also expected to do yeoman's work during a terrible crisis in Haiti. What other country has sent in their military to help? Am I missing something?

Just this morning the question was asked, "should our military become involved in Haitian security due to riots and crime? Great huh?

It's beginning to sound a bit like our effort in Somalia a few years ago. That began as a humanitarian effort.

So, here's my question: Are we just a bunch of patsys? Our President runs around the world apologizing for us, and before we know it we're tripping all over ourselves to do what's right to help the victims of a horrible disaster.

I have no objection to helping these poor people, I have objection to those who complain from afar about how we're going about it, how long it's taking, and not lifting a finger to help.

So, where are these arm chair critics, anyway? If, as our President has made clear, we are not an exceptional country why are we expected to act like one?

I'm just asking.


HoosierArmyMom said...

Mustang's comment ROCKS!!!! I can say nothing that expresses it better! LOL!!!!

Z said...

Pris, you take the cake when you say "If, as our President has made clear, we are not an exceptional country why are we expected to act like one?"
Bravo..so true. We get zero acknowledgment from the world because they EXPECT this and our left has slammed us so badly that everybody sees they don't HAVE to respect us, that half of America disdains us, too.

Mustang, GREAT idea! :-) man, oh, man.....
HAM...it rocks alright!

Joe, I just wish they'd THINK THINGS THROUGH and THEN act. \

WHERE is the clincher comment about why we had all those problems with taking injured Haitians to FLA, etc., and SUDDENLY, we DON'T? I saw nothing to explain away the hesitance being lifted ....

Faith said...

I haven't been keeping up with this but wasn't there something going on with the US military unable or refusing to transport some medical cases because of some kind of bureaucratic problem at the airfield, and then that was resolved somehow, but there was also the other situation with the Haitian children a Baptist church wanted to bring back that the Haitians refused to allow. I probably have things mixed up but I'm wondering if the stories themselves got mixed up. Ignore me if I'm just hopelessly confused.

Ducky's here said...

Sorry mustang, it's one of the acts of mercy.

If you can provide the care you do it. Simple.

Or you can be like Joe and sit and B**ch because one of the most logistically difficult rescue missions possible isn't going without hitch.

Although given his response to Howard Zinn's death, that Zinn is no in hell, I imagine he is one of those Old Testament and Revelations Christians that may catch a surprise when it's time for the sheep vs. goats thing. You too.

Z said...

Faith, two different stories there but easy to confuse. This problem I blogged on TV much if at all, or at least I didn't see it.

Ducky, do you realize your church is also based on the Bible and the words don't change for Protestants of Catholics? Or what DO you think the tenets come from? Ya, and some of your people even do that "racket" you described prayer as.

Brooke said...

Mustang: Don't sell the Duck short.

Z: I believe the situation can be summed up in one word learned in the Army:


Anonymous said...

Brooke: LMAO


Elmers Brother said...

duhkkky could..dependency theory and reparations.

Ducky's here said...

z, the Roman Catholic church doesn't place a lot of emphasis on the Old Testament and doesn't place much emphasis on textual infallibility.

Don't tell me what my church stands for, worry about your own and its neglect of the Gospels.

Z said...

Ducky, how dare you?
I'm not to tell you what your church stands for (which I didn't) as you continually slam Protestants?
What's the matter with you?
By the way, I'll also never suggest that your church believes the Bible isn't infallible.
Good try.
Where the heck do you think your leaders get what they pass on to you?
And, that's enough on the subject. I don't enjoy bashing others' interpretations of their religions as you do.

Elmers Brother said...

z, the Roman Catholic church doesn't place a lot of emphasis on the Old Testament and doesn't place much emphasis on textual infallibility.

duhkkky's only emphasis has ever been on the Sermon on the Mount...ignore the parts you don't like.

HoosierArmyMom said...

My friend and blogger Hassan Nurullah is a Islamic born man who converted to Christianity. He wrote an article about Haiti explaining why Pat Robertson said what he said about Haiti and Voodoo. He sent me this article which supports what he said about how difficult it is to help the Haitians.

Hassan is a blessing to know, a brilliant writer and a kind friend. He provides a balanced perspective that isn't easy to find. Enjoy reading him.

Elmers Brother said...

word to your mother duhkkky,

zeitgeist will not be found in the Gospels either

Elmers Brother said...

wow...duhkkky despite the fact that Jesus quoted from at least 24 books of the Old Testament (thereby esatblishing its authority) you still managed to find a way to discount them....

there's a good boy

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

Not only did Jesus confirm the historicity of these accounts, He also authenticated some of the passages that are most disputed today. Many modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, but Jesus did (see Matthew 19:8, 9; John 7:19; Mark 12:29-31).
Some modern scholars also assume the existence of more than one Isaiah, but Jesus believed in only one. In Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2 (the so-called second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah) while in Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9) without the slightest hint of more than one author.

The account of Daniel is rejected today by many as actually coming from the pen of Daniel, but the Lord Jesus believed him to be a prophet (Matthew 24:15). The account of Adam and Eve often is ridiculed today as legend, but Jesus believed the story to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).

Likewise, the narrative of Noah and the great flood not only is authenticated by Jesus (Matthew 24:37), it also is used as an example of His second coming. Finally, the most unbelievable of all-the account of Jonah and the great fish-is used by Jesus as a sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:39ff).

It almost seems as though Jesus was anticipating 20th century biblical criticism when He authenticated these accounts. The con-clusion is simple. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust.

Anonymous said...

Hoosier Mom, I can tell you, having been to Trinidad, which is also a place where voodoo is practiced, I would defy any visitor walking down the street with no crisis to deal with, to know a voodoo practitioner from a Christian, or muslim.

In Haiti, there is chaos, rubble everywhere, bodies lying in the streets, and we're supposed to believe that those providing aid, are singling out voodoo practitioners for discrimination?

Of course it's a bogus charge, and perhaps illustrates a tension between different sects and religions there that have existed all along.

Probably what we should say on behalf of the volunteers and military serving there is, "no good deed goes unpunished".


Faith said...

Much appreciate the article written by Hoosier Army Mom's friend. Yep, even having Obama in the presidency is God's judgment against America. And the behavior of the voodooists in Haiti, stealing the food sent to the suffering, is anything but Christian. I do think those Christians who insist that God has nothing to do with such things are going to have to answer for a weakened and useless gospel some day.

Elmers Brother said...

there's a saying in Haiti and Faith may have used it already, not sure

80% Catholic...100% Voodoo

Faith said...

It's a good one, EB, but I haven't run across it in that form before. I think I'll appropriate it, though, now that you've put it out there. :>) Thanks.

Z said...

Elbro, I hadn't heard it put that succinctly but that's what I've been told too, that catholics there do give at least some sway to voodoo, but I obviously don't know anybody there and I wouldn't want to say that without knowing with certitude.

The Archbishop was killed immediately in the earthquake....by the way.

Z said...

...although I don't know his heart, obviously, and would NEVER EVER be presumptuous about his stance. NEVER

May God rest his soul

Z said...

Hoosier, what a fantastic article...thanks for sharing that with us..just amazing.

Faith, amazing, isn't it? I know you'd agree with what he says, too.

Anonymous said...

Maybe what we really need to do is fight fire with fire and manufacture a host of little Obama Dolls complete with a large supply of rusty hatpins dipped in rat poison?

Heh heh heh!

~ FreeThinke

PS: Sorry! I couldn't resist.

Z said...

FT! YOU into VOODOO? :-)