Monday, March 31, 2014

The Snarky Files: Week Ending March 29, 2014

The Snarky Files. Snarky has several definitions. I prefer "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Even the French Are Bailing the Bailout
The socialist party in France got its French face slapped this week by conservatives, who swept the first round of elections. Why does that matter to you and me? Well, for one thing, it shows that when push comes to shove, even the French have a limit on how much horse hockey they'll take from the socialists.

Perhaps Americans will suddenly recognize the horse hockey dished out by our own socialist-led government and vote them out of office, you know, like the French are doing. After all, isn't the US government trying to become more like the Europeans?

Women's Right to Contraception or Religious Freedom?
Two cases are before the Supreme Court concerning Obamacare's mandate to include birth control in all insurance plans. (Hey, my new plan has that included and it only costs 2.5 times what last year's plan cost!) The mainstream media have characterized opposition to the court cases as an attack on women's rights. The court cases, however, are really about religious freedom and protecting the 1st Amendment.

Here's another case where we have to ask ourselves the question: If government can force its version of morality against the religious beliefs of others, and against the free exercise of religion clause of the 1st Amendment, what are the limits of government power?

Other 1st Amendment Attacks
Besides Obamacare's attack on religion, the Obama administration is well known for stonewalling and coercing the press into reporting the party line. (Just like Pravda!) Now, some members of the press are finally realizing they've been played for a bunch of dupes.

For example, New York Times reporter reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation." (Source)

Considering the attacks on religious freedom (abortion über alles), on speech (Live Free or Die Alliance), on the press (see above), on the right to bear arms ("Obama's sensible measures"), or on due process (killing American citizens without trial), I'd say this president is the greatest enemy of press freedom we have encountered in at least ever.

Economic Recovery
Everyone (in the news media) keeps telling me how much the economy's recovered from when Evil Bush destroyed it. On a personal note, I'm not really doing better economically under the current administration. (What a surprise.)

Consider this scary graphic about the rising food costs in 2014:

What this shows is that food costs have risen 19% since the beginning of the year. What that means for you and me is that inflation on food will be more expensive and take whatever income gains the sluggish economy has given us. (Just like the cost rise of gasoline did to us in 2009.)

Extending Extensions on the Extension of Obamacare
President Obama waved his magic wand again and somehow extended the sign-up process for Obamacare until mid-April, instead of the March 31st deadline written into the law.

Even Speaker John "Political Expediency" Boehner realized that Obama had broken the law when he remarked at a press conference: "What the hell is this, a joke?"

Yes, Obama and Obamacare are a joke. Unfortunately, neither are very funny and both are made at the expense of the American people.

Teachers Unions Kill Charter Schools
The two biggest threats to our children's education these days are curriculum nationalization (Common Core) and teachers unions.

This past little while, teachers unions in several cities have attempted to close down competing charter schools because charter schools threaten the unions' teaching industry and their monopoly on our children's education.

Hospitals Plot the End of Insurance
Several large hospital groups in the US, such as the Mount Sinai Health System, are looking to offer their own versions of insurance that will bring premiums directly into the hospitals, rather than dispersing them to insurance companies and the government.

Will this be good or bad? I see this as good, as it shows American ingenuity at work to solve yet another problem caused by our overbearing government.

The biggest names in modern liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden, all had their moments of glory this week:

Nancy "We Have To Pass The Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" Pelosi received the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. Sanger founded Planned Parenthood on eugenic principles to rid the world of "inferior, feeble minded, mentally defective, poverty stricken" children.

Way to go Nancy!

Harry "If You Like the Health Care You Have, You Can Keep It" Reid recently said that the Obamacare horror stories we've all experienced are lies. Then, this week, he denied saying what he said, blaming Republicans for making up the story about lying. He also blamed the victims of Obamacare (not that there are any mind you) on the Koch brothers.

Thanks Harry for your continued brilliant leadership!

Joe "This Is a Big F-ing Deal" Biden believes that the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US are already American citizens. At least he'd like them to be so they can vote for more Democrat losers like Joe Biden.

You're a true blue American Joe!

Friday, March 28, 2014

Opium of the People - Liberalism's Religion

One of the mantras of the religion of liberalism is the idea of separation of church and state. We have a new state religion now.

The most quoted phrase from Karl Marx refers to religion as the opiate of the masses. Often quoted to show disdain for religion, Marx's quote in context tells us slightly a different story:
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Marx thought that people could only be happy by removing religion. Yet this conclusion doesn't follow the premises of Marx's own thought. He understood that in order for his vision of the world to come to fruit, he had to replace the Christianity of his day with a new system, which he thoughtfully supplied. Yet Marx's system, tried in various forms across the world stage, has failed time and again to supplant religion and has, by its very nature, produced some of the most despotic regimes of the last century. It has failed for the simple fact that Marx failed to create a system that could, indeed, replace the human urge toward the religious.

There is a growing social element within the US to attempt to supplant religion, to replace it with some form of benign secularism. This element argues that traditional religion is the most dangerous of all ideologies, that our secular government demands complete disregard of religion, and that religion itself, without any authority or political power, is still a dangerous beast that must be held in check by the strictest of social forces. In so believing, this element denies the reality of religion-less ideologies that swept the world in terror throughout the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, what has grown up in the US out of secularism is not benign, beholden to the rigors of the founding principles of democracy. What has emerged is a new religion, loosely based on the gospel of secularism, and beholden to no other ideals than those of popular opinion connected by the doctrines of moral relativism and statist control over the population. It caters to overt emotionalism and crass sentimentality. It is every bit as illogical and irrational as the traditional religion it supplants.

This is the religion of modern liberalism. It is highly secularized, which denies any higher power than that of its current leader. It answers only to the tides of popular opinion, based on a few standard principles. It represents a broad range of beliefs, all held in common by a disdain for such things as the Constitution, the free market, or traditional religion. Its goal is to sweep the country under its all-encompassing beliefs, ridding it of any unworthy or unapproved thought. Its dogma disguises itself under the rubric of political correctness.

The religion of modern liberalism bases its liturgy on the nebulous ideals of social and cultural relativism. There are no absolute values in this religion, except those values that stand as monuments to previous social prophets. Its liturgy consists of engineering new social values such as abortion, race baiting, neutering marriage, breaching taboos, or preaching cultural relativism. It consists of economic engineering values such as the redistribution of wealth, the distrust of the wealthy, the distrust of corporations, controlling the means of production, and the distribution of huge and unwieldy entitlements. It consists of statist control values, using good ideas to impose draconian responses with dubious conclusions: cap and trade to control global warming; nanny-state healthcare to control health insurance costs; huge deficit spending to control money supply; taking over corporations to control bad corporate management decisions.

The religion of modern liberalism denies the validity of other religions. It simply cannot stand to compete with any other system or any individuals who may believe differently from its dogma. Therefore, it reifies traditional religion into some monolithic beast that must be attacked and subdued. It conveniently forgets that religion only exists because individual people are religious. It cannot understand, then, the religious person. Instead, it sees that person as deluded at best, or as a threat at worst. By attacking traditional religion it creates the false hope that somehow the world will be a better place, if only religion would just go away, crying out to the world "Imagine!"

By extension, religious people are marginalized according to the gospel of modern liberalism. To the modern liberal, there is nothing more dangerous than a religious person, especially one who dares express religious thought in public. It cannot countenance the Glenn Becks or the Rush Limbaughs of the world, not because of their boisterous voices, but because they dare to publicly oppose the doctrines of the new religion and dare to turn liberal arguments against it. The religion of social liberalism has no qualms about attacking the individuals who disagree with it. Seemingly, it is only through personal attacks that it sees that the country can be washed clean from the stench of unapproved dissent.

This new secularist religion gains ground every day. Its purpose is to supplant traditional religions with its own world view, relegating the religious as a voiceless element in politics. With its doctrines, government grows to ever greater control, threatening the very foundations of the Constitution and the Republic. It gives legitimacy to socialized programs, appealing to the poorest and the weakest elements of society to create a false hope in salvation through government programs. And it accomplishes this with every bit of zeal and fervor that it accuses religious people of having.

The conclusion is clear and simple. beware of those who wield power under the banner of the new religion. They have only their own interests at heart and they are guided by their own, inner voices.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

It's Time to Play the Catch the Red Herring Game! Liberal Responses to Arguments

Red herrings are logical fallacies that divert an argument. Liberals are masters of the red herring argument.

Red herrings are smelly fish. They are also a smelly argument. Ostensibly, the term that applies to the phrase "red herring argument" comes from a past practice of using smelly red herrings to throw someone off the trail or the hunt. The idea applies to arguing a point as well. We use red herring arguments to throw someone off the trail or digress from the real argument.

Modern liberals are masters of the red herring argument. We've seen quite a few uses of this fallacy over the past year as Obama and Congress have positioned themselves to move the country into a socialist state without the American people catching on to what they are doing.

Let's take a look at some of the most common red herrings in liberalism's quiver. See if you can spot where the argument tries to throw us off the trail of the real argument. We'll start off with an easy one. Here's a quote from ex-president Jimmy Carter. You may not remember him, but he was a one-term president who left office with double-digit inflation and a US hostages in Iran. (Did you catch my red herring there?)
I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. (CNN)
Did you spot the red herring? Here's the argument in its simplest form: Some Americans don't like Obama's policies and voice opinions against them. Carter calls all such sentiments racism. Here's an even simpler version of the red herring: You don't like Obama? You're a racist!

Of course, calling Americans racist in this context does nothing to answer the honest disagreements with President Obama's policies and abuse of power. Americans don't agree with Obama's policies and feel disenfranchised. Their frustration has nothing to do with racism. What Carter hoped to accomplish with this red herring was to shut up the opposition to Obama's policies and allow them to pass uncontested. It can be an effective tool, but in this case, I don't think that Americans buy this sort of red herring argument anymore.

Here's another example from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When asked about protesters to government overspending, she said:
"What they want is a continuation of the failed economic policies of President George Bush which got us in the situation we are in now." (TPM)
Here's what Pelosi really says: "You don't like Congress' spending? The American people are all failures, just like George Bush! Using failure and George Bush here as an argument doesn't answer the question about the problems inherent with rampant government deficit spending and debt acquisition. What does protesting the continuing massive deficit spending really have to do with George Bush and his perceived failures? Blaming Bush certainly doesn't answer the current problems.

This next example comes from a Facebook status posting that went viral. Dozens of my Facebook friends posted this. It's the liberalized response to protests against Obamacare. See if you can spot the red herring:
No one should die because they cannot afford healthcare. No one should go broke because they get sick, and no one should be tied to a job because of pre-existing condition. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.
This really throws the argument off the scent, doesn't it? The original argument is over continued government meddling with the healthcare system and how broken it has become since Obamacare went into effect. The argument is about too much spending and government control. Yet this Facebook argument gets right to our heart strings, doesn't it? It claims that without government interference in healthcare, people will die, people will go broke and people will have to work at a job they dislike.

Red herrings all of them - effective, but completely off the point. Appeals to emotion can be terribly effective at derailing the real arguments.

Here's an example from close to home. In a local town, someone stole a banner from the front of a store. The banner read "Jesus Saves." With the online news story came one response in the comments section. The language was quite colorful, but the gist of the comment said: "I agree with stealing the banner because there are a lot of priests who are pedophiles. That's way worse than stealing a stupid banner from a group of religious nuts."

Here's the liberal red herring in this comment: Ignore the theft of your property because your group has members who are pedophiles.

This form of red herring takes on many forms but boils down to the argument: "You can't say anything against thieves because some priest have behaved badly. So there!" Remember the story of the pro-life man shot and killed by a crazed liberal? The red herring argument says he deserved it because an abortion clinic was bombed by a crazed pro-lifer.

These arguments simply ignore the fact of the original argument: Theft is wrong. Murder is wrong. Yet people use these arguments all the time to derail the main point. What follows is usually a continuing argument that has nothing to do with the original topic. From this one comment to the news story, the comments flared into an exchange about religion. (Well, not really an exchange since the anti-religion liberals dominated the forum.)

Here's an example that I encounter all the time in defense of marriage: "You don't like same sex marriage? You are a bigot!" or "You are a religious nut!" or "You are a Nazi!" or "You are a pinhead!" or....Well, you get the idea.

See the red herring? Instead of addressing the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman and is based on an immoral premise, the liberals derail the argument by name calling. Again, this can be an effective means to derail an argument, but derail it does.

With practice, you too can learn to spot the red herring. All you have to do is listen to the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.

Monday, March 24, 2014

The Snarky Files: Week Ending March 22, 2014

The Snarky Files. Snarky has several definitions. I prefer "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

The Laughable President
Earlier this week, Russia's deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin actually laughed off President Obama's proposed sanctions against Russia for taking over the Crimea, asking "Comrade@BarackObama" if "some prankster" had come up with the list of sanctions. Rogozin was immediately condemned by the US national news MSNBCBSABCNN for "being a racist."

"We're saddened that Russia doesn't take President Obama seriously," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "This just proves that Russians are all racist and must be badgered by every "real" news media until the deputy prime minister apologizes to the people of the United States."

"Further," he went on to say, "seven people from Obama Organizing for Action and thirty-two people from Occupy Wall Street have vowed to picket Russia until the Russians apologize for being so insensitive to the plight of blacks in America."

"This may spark further sanctions," he said.

Is Ukraine Next?
Seriously. Will Putin invade Ukraine next? Because that's what real imperialists do.

Thank you Barack Obama for removing any doubt in Vladimir Putin's mind that you are completely incompetent at United States foreign policy.

After All, Russia Has the Bomb
A news anchor on Soviet Russian television pronounced that Russia is capable of turning the United States into a radioactive pile of ash. Which only goes to prove that news casters in Russia are still mindless voices of the state - just like their American counterparts.

Death to Infidels!
No, I'm not talking of another Muslim attack on the West. This week Lawrence Torcello, a philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, published a paper suggesting that those who "campaign funding misinformation" about climate change "ought to be considered criminally negligent."

Yep, he's saying that if you actively campaign to stop government from draconian measures to punish people for "climate change" then you ought to be thrown in prison.

Totalitarian states all start with an idea about who is or is not allowed to participate in the public debate. Maybe climate change ideologues will be our tipping point?

Or Maybe Totalitarians Will be Gays
There are few ideologies in the US whose adherents are more vitriolic than those who support same sex marriage. For a group of people who call marriage supporters haters, gay groupthink simply cannot see past its own boundaries to the duplicity of its own position. Gay activists say they only want love and tolerance, as long as everyone else agrees with their dogmatic point of view.

Given that gay ideology is supported by more and more federal judges, it seems likely that the US totalitarian state will finally take its form under the guise of "tolerance."

He Did It, Not Me
A transgendered woman, named Donna, charged with the murders of three prostitutes claimed that she was not responsible for the murders because Doug, the man she was, no longer exists. "I don't know if Doug did or not, it was 20 years ago and I have no idea whether he did or did not," she said.

How far do you think this defense will go, riding on the coattails of LGBT dogma?

OH NOah!
Well, the movie Noah opens next week. I'm really not a fan of Hollywood movies that tackle Biblical stories. They always seem to find some interpretation, completely contrary to the text, that pushes some agenda or another.

Noah is no exception.

When God (or the Creator as Noah calls him without ever using the word God) decided to wipe out all humans in a great flood, what is the great sin of humanity? Pride? Worshipping false idols? Murder? Sodomy? Dog beating?

Nope. According to the movie, the great sin of humanity is not believing in global warming.

Al Gore would be so proud.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Lowered SAT Standards?

I don't have a lot of respect for the concepts of standardized testing, so when the SAT changed its test because students were having troubles with it, I wasn't really surprised.

After all, nearly the entire US has adopted Common Core, the lowest educational standards ever produced from the brilliant minds of liberal think tanks.

And by brilliant, I mean really, really dull.

It's really no wonder that Americans think that Obama's has America's interests at heart, that the news media tell the truth, that same sex marriage somehow makes homosexuality moral, that Bill Maher is funny, that Republicans are obstructing Congress, that spending even more borrowed money will help the economy, that rich people (except for liberal rich people) are all greedy and evil, and that Miley Cyrus is entertaining.

After all, schools now only teach students what to think, not how to think.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Rewriting History the Liberal Way: The Myth of American Imperialism

Ever since Putin sent troops into the Crimea to "liberate" the Russian citizens there, the modern left has spent its time ridiculing conservatives because Bush "invaded" Iraq. Conservatives, they say, cannot take the moral high ground against Putin because, as they see it, Bush was evil. They see that somehow Bush's attempts to throw out the dictator Saddam Hussein, rid Iraq of WMDs (which they did have at one time), and reduce the threat of terrorism in the West was proof positive of American imperialism.

Of course, if that were true, how is it that Bush turned Iraq over to the Iraqis as soon as possible? (It was too soon, considering Iraq's struggles since the reduction in US troops.)

Yet if America is the imperial power that the left says we are, then why didn't we stay in Iraq to exploit it to our advantage? Why aren't our troops there now forcing Iraqis to pump oil to supply our SUVs and pickups?

On the flip side, now that Putin controls the Crimea, we'll see what real imperialism looks like - forcing the short-lived independent countries of the former Soviet Union back under the paw of the Russian military. The Ukraine will be next. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland - the writing is on the wall.

Certainly the government and the people of the US have made mistakes in our growth to become the best and most prosperous nation in all history. Yes, we had slavery at a time when slavery was accepted practice. Yes, we took lands from the natives, correctly thinking that Western Civilization creates a better life for all individuals who adopt its ideals.

We are, after all, a country of humans who make human mistakes.

Yet, we created a country, not based on ethnicity, but on an idea. America is the first country to ever do that, and the experiment has worked beautifully.

Now liberal dogma has rewritten history in its own image. It preaches the Big Lie in the schools and throughout the media that America is the cause of all the wars and evil in the world today. If America would just leave the other countries alone, to do their own thing, then peace and love and harmony and Kumbaya would prevail.

That's all a pipe dream, a Kool-Aid induced stupor, wishful thinking, and a denial of real history. Anyone who studies history (not through the rainbow-colored glasses of university "studies") can immediately discern how false a view of the world liberal dogma presents us.

Anyone who looks at the great evils of the 20th Century can immediately point out that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, killing and enslaving its own people. (The Ukrainians haven't forgotten that six to eight million of their people starved to death under Stalin's reign.)

America? When we destroyed Japan for starting a war with us in 1941, what did we do afterward? We rebuilt the country, forcing democracy on them at the same time, with the result that they became one of the most prosperous and peace-loving countries in the world.

There is really no comparison between the US with other imperialist nations.

Modern liberal dogma isn't merely wrong, it is dangerous. It threatens to undo what America really stands for - the idea on which America was founded.

Yet, in just six years, President Obama has convinced the rest of the world that we are no longer interested in the ideals of our foundations.

And now the rest of the bullies have been let out of the cage. They will show us in the next few years what imperialism really looks like.

Arguing with Liberals

Sunday, March 16, 2014

The Snarky Files: Week Ending March 15, 2014

The Snarky Files. Snarky has several definitions. I prefer "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Bill Maher Is So Funny!
This week, Bill Maher, who makes a living by insulting conservatives and stroking the egos of liberals, decided to pick on God himself. The results, according to the best liberal audiences money can buy, were absolutely hysterical.

As he puts it: "Hey God, you know you’re kind of a [expletive] when you’re in a movie with Russell Crowe and you’re the one with anger issues. […] Conservatives are always going on about how Americans are losing their values and their morality, well maybe it’s because you worship a guy who drowns babies."

When Bill Maher speaks, you can't help but laugh at him. Unfortunately for Bill and the three people who watch his show, no one's laughing with him, especially God.

We Are a Nation in Decline
We're officially a nation in decline. How do I know for certain? Motley Crue's bass player, Nikki Six, who is 55 years old, and who has been married to not one, but two Playboy bunnies, is now married to 28 year-old model Courtney Bingham. The bride received gifts, like a candy necklace bikini top.

Nothing shows that the institution of marriage has died and has become a meaningless institution more than the union of an old heavy metal rocker with his latest girl toy. And the sad part is, most of the guys who will read this will be jealous of Nikki Six.

Excuse me while I go buy my wife a candy necklace bikini top.

Plane Mysterious
You've all read the news stories about the missing Malaysian flight MH370 disappearing into thin air. Are you now surprised to find out that it was probably hijacked and perhaps made its way to Pakistan? Me neither.

President Obama keeps rewriting the "Affordable Care Act" to suit his own political whims. Besides destroying the rule of law, he's creating even more problems by executive order. Unfortunately, his executives actions haven't prevented the worst from happening to me. After losing my individual coverage because of the price increases insurance companies started to charge when Obamacare took effect, I finally got insurance through my work.

That's a good thing, right? Except that now I pay about one-third of my paycheck for health insurance that is worse than the coverage I lost last year. But as a bonus, I did gain coverage in case I ever get pregnant.

Thank you so much Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid. You've made my life so much better now.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Failing the United States: Liberalism's Healthcare and Quotes from Abraham Lincoln

Nancy Pelosi was really excited to pass Obamacare.

I still remember Nancy Pelosi's infamous dictum concerning Obamacare:

As we consider the huge and unwieldy beast of the government takeover of health care, I am reminded of several quotes from Abraham Lincoln. Ponder these in connection with Congress' despised inconsideration of the American people:
At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. -- January 27, 1838

When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy. -- August 24, 1855 
Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense. -- February 22, 1842 
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it. -- April 6, 1859 
Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. -- January 27, 1838  
Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it. -- February 27, 1860

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Protection of Religion: The Number One Right in the Bill of Rights

There is no denying that in modern times that religion has come under attack. The Founding Fathers, however, understood the importance of protecting religion (not just "freedom of conscience") as a guiding principle of the United States. Many of the great moral advances in Western Civilization were created and promoted within the constructs of Christianity, including the moral ideas that eventually removed slavery from the United States. That is why, in the Bill of Rights, the very first clause of the very first amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Before free speech, before the free press, before the right to assemble, before the right to keep and bear arms, the Bill of Rights enumerates the concept that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Modern society rests on maintaining a government and a people capable of making and keeping moral associations. As John Adams put it:
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
When our government, and more importantly the people of the United States reject the religious foundations of morality, we condemn the United States to destruction as the moral principles of its founding are replaced by constructs which honor the dishonorable, uphold the weak, and replace evil for good.

The result will no longer be a constitutional republic, nor a democratic republic, but a despotism.

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Five Self Evident Truths that Defy Modern Liberalism

George Washington - Zombie Slayer

Modern liberal dogmatists decry conservatives as being old-fashioned, racist, narrow-minded, and yes, even stupid. For an ideology that pays lip service to the ideals of equality and tolerance, it's almost axiomatic that modern liberalism condemns conservatism with the broad brushstrokes of intolerance.

To counter this, I offer five self evident truths that cut modern liberalism down to size. Conservatives can also play the broad brushstroke game. Fortunately for the ideals of modern conservatism, history is firmly on the side of reason.

1) The Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than Barack Obama, or George Bush, or Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi, or Justice John Roberts, or....

The modern leaders of liberalism cannot conceive of a situation where the US Constitution would be necessary in its original form. Yet those who wrote the Constitution and those who supported the classical ideals that made it possible had years of practical and intimate knowledge with oppressive governments to warrant its creation. Yes, the Constitution was their best guess of a system of government that would resist the encroachment of tyranny. But I would place far more weight and ability in James Madison or Ben Franklin than in any modern politician.

Since it was written, the Constitution has protected Americans for over 220 years. It created a government that is far better, far wiser, and far more benign than any other in history. Certainly there have been problems and abuses. Those happen under any system of government where humans hold power. Power always corrupts in one way or another, and humans will always be corruptible.

The Founding Fathers understood this, accounted for it, and attempted to spread the power out among all the people of the United States. Power of the people is a better, wiser, and smarter system than all the collectivist, anti-colonialist, socialist crap that Barack Obama can preach. When power rests solely within the federal government, instead of among the states, or among the people, there is no doubt it will become as corrupt and abused as the Founding Fathers feared.

The Founding Fathers understood this, and de facto were a lot smarter than our present crop of government leaders.

2) The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect Americans from big government.

Along the same lines as above, the Founding Fathers also understood that the protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights were necessary to protect the people from its government. As a sample case in point, let's take the Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

A few weeks ago, news articles started appearing about how citizens in Detroit are arming themselves and fighting back against home invasions and lawlessness. (Source) Even the Detroit City Police Chief is on board with the idea. He understands several things: that Detroit is a broken city; that the police cannot protect its citizens at the moment violence occurs; that citizens are responsible enough to protect themselves when violence arises.

Currently, there is a lot of political pressure to remove the rights of citizens to protect themselves with guns. That particular brand of politics rests on the idea that government is the only source of protection of its citizens. This idea is based on the bankrupt ideals of socialism and statism, which argues that people are incapable of overcoming hardships on their own and need the all-powerful (and presumably all-benign) government to step in to protect its citizens.

Yet that ideology flies in the face of the facts. Where citizens' rights to bear arms has been upheld, crime rates drop. When Arizona passed its constitutional carry law (allowing individuals to conceal carry without a permit) government officials warned that lawlessness would prevail. The opposite has happened. Violent crime rates lowered even more to be about half of violent crime rates before Arizona adopted conceal carry laws. (Source)

Individual rights must be protected against the onslaught of government power and government abuse.

3) George Washington beats Barack Obama.

Let's face it, George Washington was a warrior - a true soldier who understood the purpose of the use of force, and more importantly, the purpose of giving up power when the job was done. Barack Obama is a nancy metrosexual who doesn't know the first thing about leading men on the field of battle.

And in a cage match, George Washington would beat the crap out of Obama.

4) The ideal of liberty is far more important than the concept of social equality.

With the rise of socialism in US government, the ideals of freedom and liberty have been supplanted with the French socialist ideals of equality. On the surface, the concept of equality sounds like an American ideal ("all men are created equal"), but it has changed over the years from the original "equality of opportunity" to the statist "equality of outcomes."

In modern liberal dogma, equality is something to be enforced by government, instead of having government protect the citizens' opportunities. Our current government has attempted to correct some of the abuses of equal protection under the law by creating a whole plethora of special class protections so that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause has been irretrievably broken. Consider, for example, the concept of a "hate crime." Under current law, a murderer charged with a hate crime is somehow more odious and culpable than a murderer who killed someone in a more random act. This, of course, is ludicrous to anyone who has not been indoctrinated in liberal dogma. All citizens should be equally protected from murderers, regardless of the intent of the murder.

Liberty is a far more important concept to protect than modern concepts of equality. Liberty is the self-evident and inalienable right to be able to order our lives free from government interference. Government's sole purpose is to protect everyone's right to order his or her own life free from the oppression that only a government can dish out.

5) Utopian models always fail because of human nature.

As a historian, I wrote my doctoral thesis on utopian societies in the US. From Plymouth to Oneida, all failed because the communities were run by people, who fall prey to the common dilemma of human nature. Someone got greedy. Someone cheated the system. Someone rejected the ideals of the parents. Human nature tends toward the selfish, to work against the community as a whole.

Modern liberalism is partly based on the dogma of utopian socialism. Marx's concept was that humans would transcend their very natures to create a utopian communism, self-regulated and (eventually) government free.

This is a pipe dream and hits at the core of utopian liberal dogma. Such human-led communities have always failed and fallen. To believe that humans can create a government that can produce a benign and completely equal system is delusional. Just ask the Ukrainians under Stalin about equality. Just ask the Chinese under Mao's Great Leap Forward.

On a less drastic level, just ask the current middle class in America, who have lost 40 percent of their wealth since 2008, who continue to labor for less pay, who are the taxpayers of an inconceivable National Debt. This is the utopia of Obama's "progressive" America.

Friday, March 7, 2014

The Empirical Mind and the Fallacy of Liberal Dogma

Liberals love their facts. Whenever I argue with liberals, inevitably one will appeal to the authority of some study or another, ostensibly based on empirical evidence. This is true for most liberal causes célèbres such as global warming, abortion, same sex marriage, the war on poverty, the welfare state, and a myriad others. This appeal to authority relies on the doctrine of empiricism.

Empiricism is the philosophy that all knowledge is derived from the senses. As a corollary, empiricists also believe that there is no reality beyond what we can prove with our senses. Yet, such reliance on "science" to "prove" all reality lends itself to the most ridiculous arguments. Here are some examples from some of my many "admirers" who took time to "talk" to me.

In a debate on Colorado's legalization of marijuana, where I argued that marijuana posed health problems, one argued: "And most of these effects have been thoroughly debunked by real science. Next." (The "real science" he refers to was in opposition to a government-based study on the harmful effects of marijuana use.)

Another "proved" marijuana was completely benign by stating: "US CDC Figures directly from the CDC dot gov web site on numbers of deaths per year in the USA: Prescription Drugs: 237,485; Tobacco: 81,323; Alcohol: 39,199; Marijuana 0, none, not a single death in all medical history Cited direct from CDC dot gov. Stop the lies!" (Begging the question about the dangers of the legalization of marijuana with meaningless statistics.)

In defending President Obama, one liberal soul made the following empirical observation: "speaking of war forgot to mention the .........4486..........American Service members who DIED in W. Bush's illegal Iraqi invasion..................." (I'm thinking the long row of dots really makes a strong "point" here.)

And the ever-popular appeal to science while sneaking in an ad hominem attack. This one stems from a debate about the social harms of same sex marriage: "See, the difference is, my views are backed my science and facts. Your views are based on the fact that your brain never moved on past middle school bullying, and so gay people are to be made fun of and ridiculed. Let me guess, you don't trust black people, you're scared of Muslims, and you think that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Marxist who is turning America communist?"

Empiricism is a useful tool when we look at science and the scientific method. We cannot deny the value that science has brought into the world, with its corresponding technology which makes our world a better, healthier, and safer place than our ancestors could have dreamed of. The problem with liberal thought, however, is its absolute reliance on the empirical world as a source of truth, all the while denying the foundational problems with the premises of the empirical argument.

Liberals ignore the premises of the argument, because those rest on rationalism. Rationalism is the philosophy that knowledge stems from rational thought and experience, rather than on the merely empirical.

Here's an example: Say I run an experiment that shows plants grow better in sunlight than in the dark. I put 20 bean plants on my kitchen ledge and 20 bean plants in my kitchen cupboard. (Boy was my mom pissed when she got home that evening.) I used the same soil, watered them the same way, and kept the temperature even. After two weeks, my mother made me throw them out, but only after discovering that the plants in the dark actually grew faster (in search of the elusive light seeping in at the cracks of the cupboard).

OK, what did I learn? I proved that bean plants grow faster in the dark, but I didn't "prove" that they grew "better." The word "better" is not a provable result in the empirical world. And where did my initial assumption about plant growth and the sun come from? That assumption relied on experience, which is rational, not empirical.

The primary fallacy of empirical thought is that its premises rely on rational thought and experience which cannot be proven empirically.

Bringing this back to liberal dogma, note that in the arguments above, every single liberal argued from false premises. Here are come broad examples:

"I happen to like marijuana and want it legalized, so I'll find some scientific study that proves why marijuana is not dangerous."

"Gay marriage is all about equality, so I'll find some scientific study that proves why gay marriage is a social good."

"Abortion is all about women's choice, so I'll find some scientific study that proves why abortion doesn't harm women."

These arguments rest on the ideals of empiricism, all the while ignoring the inherent fallacy of the argument. Why does this happen? A lot of the blame comes from the K-12 school system (especially those now aligned with Common Core). The Common Core standards preach the doctrine and virtues of empiricism, while nearly neglecting rationalism altogether. In such a curriculum, "scientific proof" trumps all arguments.

Unfortunately, by teaching empiricism rather than rationalism, the schools now produce children ready to be cast into the image of the perfect liberal - completely unable to formulate an argument based on rational thought, while relying on liberal ideologues to turn out the empirical data needed to squelch all other - rational - arguments.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Waiting in Line at the Ariport: The Pissed Off Generation and the Decay of Social Virtue

I was supposed to be at my father-in-law's funeral last Saturday morning. Through a comedy of errors, that didn't happen. Or perhaps it was the very cosmic universe out to get me. Either way, the flight that was supposed to take me from Phoenix to Denver was delayed, which meant that I would not make the connecting flight to arrive at the funeral in time.

That was fairly disappointing. Yet, even more disappointing was watching the reactions of the other passengers as their flights were rearranged to find options to get them to their destinations. I spent about three hours in the airport while a brilliant United Airlines ticket agent tried her best to get me to my destination by the next morning, in time for the funeral. That gave me ample time to watch a lot of people get angry, only to vent their anger on the ticket agents.

Yes, the situation was frustrating, but too many passenger immediately turned their frustration into anger, yelling and cursing because the airline had dared to interrupt their lives. I watched grown men curse as they slammed out the door, their flights postponed a few hours or a day. I watched impatient people as they sighed and cursed and paced and tried to skip ahead in the line. I watched people who thought they were more important than everyone else become living volcanoes of rage.

Me? I figured the best way for me to get good "customer service" was to be a good customer. I smiled and joked with the ticket agent who was, after all, trying her best to solve the problem that the delayed flight had caused. And what do you know, it worked. Her face changed from a strained look to becoming visibly relaxed. Her smile was quite attractive, a fact which most, if not all, those who were in line before me probably missed.

She spent a long time on the phone and on the computer, trying to get me to my destination. She seemed determined to find a solution when, in fact, none really existed. She tried other airlines. She tried flights to other airports close to my destination.

In the end, I had to cancel my flight and miss the funeral. Yes, that was disappointing and interfered with my plans. Yet the airline agent had a better time and worked extraordinarily hard, merely because I was a better customer, rather than a pain in the butt.

We should bemoan the loss of civility and decency in our society that used to be common. Our American way of life depends on a decent society. Ben Franklin understood that the survival of the republic depended on moral virtues, that without them, the people would not have the ability to govern themselves.

Standing in line at the airport demonstrated the stark selfishness and lack of moral virtue that now permeates society.

By the way, I understand that my father-in-law's funeral turned out well. He was buried with full military honors. I'm sorry to have missed it.