Thursday, December 31, 2015

Modern Courts and Ignorance of the Rule of Law

This coming year, the Supreme Court will take on some major cases dealing with abortion, affirmative action, the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare, and Obama's attempt to circumvent Congress on immigration law.

As we have seen with other cases from the Supreme Court, the Court is no stranger to legislating from the bench in order to promote leftist ideology. In Roe v. Wade, the court contrived a federal "right" to abortion. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court stepped on state constitutions to invent a "right" to same sex marriage. In King v. Burwell, the court upheld Obama's "right" to change the law concerning Obamacare willy-nilly.

Since today's Supreme Court leans to the left on social issues, we can assume that the decisions this coming year will maintain the progressive status quo which will once again ignore the plain meaning of the US Constitution, step on the rights of all citizens, and ignore the rule of law.

In order to ignore the rule of law, progressive ideology preaches the doctrine of "social justice," yet never clearly defines what constitutes justice. Instead, it names some vague ideals surrounding the term "equality." Progressive "equality" is another vague term which changes almost daily with the liberal cause du jour.

While progressives may logically argue their case for their ill-defined social justice, they do so by resorting to false premises which ignore the rule of law and threaten to destabilize the entire country.

I am reminded of a quote by the English Judge William Blackstone:
The liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulged too far, lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity, tho’ hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law; which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would be almost as many rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind.
As we approach the national elections in 2016, remember that one of the responsibilities of the President of the United States is to nominate federal judges. Electing a president who will recommend justices who further the progressive deconstruction of the United States will have far reaching effects toward supporting or destroying the rule of law.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

What Is Equality? The Progressive Vision


A stamp from the USPS which promotes the division of society.

Sometime during the past decade or so, progressives began flinging around the term "equality" as seemingly the most important principle on which the US was founded. However, the definition of equality for progressives is far different than the term as originally understood when Thomas Jefferson penned the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence.

If we are to defeat the worst abuses of progressivism, we must understand that when progressives say "equality" they really mean two things.

First is the socialist ideal of economic equality, where the government controls wages and prices, and also provides "free" services, so that everyone maintains some fanciful Utopian ideal. That this ideal is an unattainable chimera has never seemed to bother socialists. That such an ideal tends to promote totalitarian systems is largely ignored.

Second, and more damaging to American society, is the ideal that "oppressed" groups of people are entitled to more opportunities than non-oppressed groups. This ideal is extremely dangerous to society because of the undefined and slippery term "oppressed." In today's world, according to progressives, nearly everyone belongs to an oppressed group (except heterosexual white males and anyone who holds conservative ideals).

We see that this skewed ideal of equality promotes the most outlandish and silly categories of "oppressed" people. Progressives seem perfectly comfortable calling black, white when it suits their ideology. Hence, whites can be Black (Rachel Dolezal). Blacks can be white (Clarence Thomas). Men can be women (Bruce Jenner). Women can be men (Hillary Clinton). And on and on and on.

Worse than these artificial categories is the propaganda used to support progressive claims to their ideals of equality. Progressives use propaganda in to form of "facts" as made up by progressive propagandists. For every outlandish claim to equality, a progressive will point to some study or another which uses false premises to support it.

This is the way of propagandists throughout history. As F.A. Hayek put it:
The thrust of organized, systematic propaganda, especially in totalitarian states, centers precisely on facts and causation as the pivots of belief.
Non-progressives are able to see the harm to society that such a view promotes. The basic problem stems from the inherent inequality of such ideals. To promote one group over another is to promote inequality, not equality. To support the inherent inequality, progressives use propaganda to drive public opinion. Such propaganda creates an ever-increasing divide among the people of the United States which will lead to a breaking point.

In the world of fantasy equality, we must ground ourselves in the reality of the physical world, and we must understand history to show us what works and what doesn't work.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Why We Have a Difficult Time Selling the Idea of the Free Market

Cholita at a mercado in La Paz, Bolivia

Democracies thrive on the principles of the free market. The market economy always trends toward an equilibrium between price and cost, and between supply and demand.

The free market has always been distrusted by socialists, who in the US now call themselves progressives. (In the case of Bernie Sanders, he admits he's a socialist, but qualifies himself as a "democratic socialist" which basically means that the people are deluded into voting to give government control over the economy.) Socialism is highly seductive, offering the illusion that government can manage the economy to create a fair and equitable system for everyone.

When the socialist system inevitably fails to deliver sufficient goods to the people, those who operate the system can easily explain its failure.

They blame others.

For example, with the readily predicted failures of Obamacare, progressive politicians blame Republican interference. The US is $18.8 trillion dollars in debt? It's Bush's fault. Students aren't passing basic math and English standards? We haven't spent enough money on education. There are still poor people? Rich people have stolen all the money through greed.

There is no end to progressive blame throwing.

Progressive programs have a long and venerable history of failure, yet progressives sell their bankrupt ideas with the promise that more money or fewer Republicans will fix everything. Their arguments and conclusions are entirely false, but that doesn't matter to a population seduced into thinking that the government will pay their medical bills, or for their cars and houses.

Getting back to the market system, we know that it works because it has produced the richest countries with the least amount of poverty in history. Even the poor people of the US have more than people from non-market and non-democratic countries.

Yet the market system is a difficult sell. It doesn't have the seductive promise of (illusory) equality. It doesn't pretend to promise to take care of all the nation's poor. Most people cannot even readily explain why a market economy is so successful. Even those who have promoted it, such as Adam Smith, rely on vague explanations of its success ("the invisible hand").

And that is why, in today's world of ignorant Americans, the market system is distrusted. It's a far more difficult sell than the unicorn promises of socialism.

As the free market diminishes, so does democracy.

Friday, December 25, 2015

Merry Christmas from Euripides Self Evident Truths

Painting by my friend Howard Lyon

A Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. May the peace of the season find a place in your heart. May you and your families be blessed. May you find courage to recognize what's good and right in the world. May the light of Christ shine before you to light your way in dark times.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Putting Our Faith in Politicians


If there is one failure among people on both sides of the political spectrum, it is the belief that electing a certain person, or a person representing a political party, will "fix" the problems of the country. This faith and belief in politicians is folly of the highest order.

I am reminded of a statement from an economist made 40 years ago:
The prime problem of politicians is not to serve the public good but to get elected to office and remain in power (Harry G. Johnson).
The principle was true then. The principle is true now.

This coming year we must nominate, then elect, someone as president of the United States. While none of the candidates can "fix" all the problems we face, we can be assured that some of the candidates will certainly make things worse.

Stop listening to the pleasing words of candidates who tell us things we only want to hear. Stop basing your preferences on trivialities of showmanship. Stop believing that a single person can wave a magic wand and reform the US to your satisfaction.

Be informed. Choose a candidate who has consistently worked to improve the US. Choose wisely.


Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Book Recommendation - War: The Lethal Custom by Gwynne Dyer


Years ago, I was introduced to Gwynne Dyer's book entitled War: The Lethal Custom. I recently picked up the book again and have been reviewing the video series that he made back in the 80s. While his overall thesis surrounds his desire for humans to give up war as a human institution, Dyer does retain a realistic sense that such a thing may never happen as long as humans remain human.

As he says:
The universe does not give guarantees. But change is certainly possible, provided that we understand the nature of the institution we are trying to change and are willing to accept the consequences of changing it.
I am more cynical and pragmatic than Gwynne Dyer. I agree with his ideal, that we as humans ought to strive to end war. I do not think, however, that imperfect governments can or will band together to broker an uneasy peace across the world. There are still far too many dangerous types of governments, including the socialism that modern progressives are trying to build out of the US. All the great evils of the 20th Century arose from the foibles of trusting government to "fix" the inequities of humans. The ideals behind ISIS rest on socialism as a means to force others to convert to Islam or die.

I also substantively disagree with Dyer about the causes of war. Conservatives tend toward an understanding of human nature that liberals cannot grasp. Dyer, being more liberal in his views, doesn't see the value of honor and patriotism in helping humans get along in groups. He also doesn't quite view evil as an absolute (except of course, the absolute evil of war). Most of you will disagree with Dyer in his analysis of war.

Still, the book is worth a read. The video series is also worth watching once. All the parts are on YouTube.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

My Christmas Wish List or How to Fix Our Government


Dear Santa:

For Christmas this year I'd like the following which, I believe, would go a long way toward fixing our government. You won't have to make anything for me, or even bring me anything. All you need to do is to get rid of some things that make life difficult.

1) Repeal Obamacare and deregulate the health insurance industry.
Obamacare's killing me off, Santa. My monthly health insurance payments now cost more than my house payment.

Remember a long while back when telecommunications was deregulated? Everyone thought that catastrophe would strike the telephone industry. To be honest, for awhile prices went up, especially for long distance services. Then the market took over and startup businesses started competing with Ma Bell and AT&T. Today, you can call someone across the world, using a phone no bigger than a pack of cards, and pay pennies for the service.

If health insurance companies had to compete across the entire US, we'd see a real drop in the cost of insurance. In return, I believe the insurance companies would help stabilize the exorbitant cost of medical care. Yes, we'd see several years of chaos as insurance companies scrambled to provide services, and yes, we'd see a market equilibrium reached that defied anything the "Affordable" Care Act could ever produce.

2) Disband the Department of Education and remove federal education mandates on states.
Frankly, Santa, the ED is getting in the way of our children's education, instead of promoting it.

Getting rid of the ED would have three effects. First, schools based on touchy-feely progressivism would lose out to more pragmatic educational practices. (Creating pragmatic education is what I currently do in the private sector.) Second, progressives would lose a major hold on indoctrinating our children to create ignorant liberals. Third, such a measure would piss off progressives. That is always a good thing.

3) Disband the EPA.
If there ever was a money waster, Santa, the EPA is the Grand Poobah.

The EPA ceased to be relevant some time in the 1980s. Today, the agency just piles on more and more regulation which merely promotes increased cost of production.

4) Repeal the entire federal tax code.
No one understands the tax code now Santa. No one. Start over. Try again. Rewrite the thing.

Better yet, help Congress figure out how to run the federal government without stealing money from Americans.

5) Get rid of the Department of Homeland Security.
Do you feel safer with the DHS Santa? I sure don't.

The idea behind the DHS was to coordinate intel between several government agencies in order to combat terrorism. What was really created was a policing agency that interferes with the everyday lives of Americans without producing noticeable results.

Frankly, the whole "Homeland" idea sounds a little too much like the "Fatherland" of Germany or the "Motherland" of the Soviet Union. Wouldn't it be better if we went back to being "The United States of America?"

These easy fixes would go a long way into making the US a better place for everyone, especially for our struggling middle class. What do you think, Santa? Could you possibly give us a Merry Christmas this year by getting rid of these money pits?

Monday, December 21, 2015

Blogging Along or Coming Out of the Closet


In 2008, I and several other folks started blogging because we saw a clear and present danger in the push to legalize same sex marriage. We noted that gay activists had latched on to rich and corrupt donors, had sympathetic and unthinking media support, and had finally convinced enough people that homosexuality was somehow a protected class, covered by the 14th Amendment. Through a long and expensive process, the Supreme Court agreed and effectively destroyed the institution of marriage by declaring that marriage had no real meaning in today's society.

Initially, I had begun blogging anonymously because I was square in the middle of a profession where jobs are usually held only by those who maintain the highest standards of progressive dogma, or who happen to be a gender or skin color that is acceptable to the educational establishment. As most of what I have written seems highly offensive to the long-toed left, and because I have been active in several organizations that are anathema to modern progressivism, I've kept the moniker of Euripides.

The caution was justified at the time, as I and others who supported one man-one woman marriage were threatened with physical violence, with legal action, and with cowardly and petty acts of hatred.

Over the years, many have learned my name. I'm proud to be friends with several fellow bloggers who keep plugging away day after day and year after year to uncover the follies of progressivism. Others, among the perpetually-offended class, who discovered who I really was, have gone out of their way to try to force me out of my chosen profession. And do you know what? To some extent they have been successful.

Over the years, I've been marginalized at the school where I've taught for over 20 years. I've been passed over for several positions which were filled by less qualified, but politically correct people. Teaching hours were cut because the school didn't want to pay for Obamacare-mandated insurance for most of its faculty. The school stopped contributing to a pension plan.

To continue in education, I turned to the private sector and got hired as director of a private school. Yet, even as I doubled the student enrollment and filled the campus, I was suddenly and illogically pushed out of my job and replaced by, you might guess, a less qualified black woman. Even in the private sector, education is ruled by political correctness and inane progressivism.

Which is all a long way around a short horse to say that even though I have generally hidden my identity from the general public as a proud and outspoken advocate of the US Constitution, I have still been marginalized by political correctness. There is no hiding the fact that our modern education has been derailed by progressives who despise anyone who holds an opinion different from their own and who will disenfranchise anyone they disagree with.

As for me, there is simply no reason to remain anonymous any longer, as schools continue to enforce poor thinking, and society in general grows ever more ignorant. In short, my work is no longer at risk because I've been forced to seek employment among people who still appreciate the value of an education, rather than the indoctrination of ignorance.

I will continue to post as Euripides, as there is value in maintaining a "brand name." And who knows, with the change in my life's direction, I may find time to write that book I've started.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Suggested Readings in US History


As part of my classes in US History, I require students to read books and write summaries of them. Here's a short and quite incomplete list of some books that I can recommend to take a closer look at US History. You'll note that I lean toward military history. Your tastes may differ. 

What are some of your favorites?

Early US History:

James West Davidson, After the Fact - A fascinating look at the history that isn't covered in a typical textbook.
Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned - An interesting book that gives a question and answer format to talk about all the history that the textbooks gloss over. Be sure to read the revised edition, which includes information on the Clinton administration and 9/11.
Frederick Douglass, Autobiography - Douglass wrote this book in part to prove that he did indeed escape from slavery and became an educated proponent of abolition.
Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington - A fairly concise biography of one of the great people in US history. Check out Ellis' other book Founding Brothers as well.
Shelby Foote, Shiloh - Okay, it's historical fiction, but it's a terrific account of what it was like to fight at Shiloh during the Civil War.
Ben Franklin, Autobiography - One of the truly great men of history, his autobiography is on my personal required reading list of U.S. history.
Adam Goodheart, 1861: The Civil War Awakening - A readable account of the ideas and events leading up to the first battle of the Civil War. It includes a lot of ideas not expressed in other books and places the accountability of the war directly on the inability of the US to compromise on the question of slavery.
David McCullough, 1776 - A popular and readable book that gives a modern interpretation of the military events surrounding the establishment of the US.
James McPherson, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution - One of the best on the Civil War. Check out his other books.
Edmund Morgan, Puritan Dilemma - Edmund Morgan is one of the better historians in colonial history. You can also check out his biography of George Washington.
Edmund Morgan, Benjamin Franklin - A great biography of a most interesting man.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense - Here's where it all started. Although a little difficult because of the language, this is well worth studying to understand the foundations of American Liberty.
Marion Starkey, The Devil in Massachusetts - Salem has always fascinated me and this is a good place to start.
Ronald C. White, Jr., A. Lincoln: A Biography - A good biography of the great president's life. This covers his entire life, not just the Civil War period.

Later US History:

Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers - A readable account of Easy Company of the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. Heartrending and funny at the same time. First rate storytelling of the US soldiers who fought in the war.
Stephen E. Ambrose, Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors -A good introduction to these two which also sheds light on the controversial period of the war between the U.S. and the Sioux. Quite readable.
Rick Atkinson, Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War - This is fabulous reading. Atkinson's writing is compelling and the story is a fair representation of the Gulf War.
Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War - This book is about a mostly forgotten episode in Somalia. Written in journalistic style, this is not for the weak of stomach. It lacks some of the historical background I would have liked to see but is a quick read.
Sean Cashman, African-Americans and the Quest for Civil Rights 1900-1990 - A good outline of the civil rights movement in the US.
Laura Hillenbrand, Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption - A readable and inspiring biography of Louis Zamperini, an Olympic distance runner, who served on a B-26 bomber during WWII. He faced tremendous trials in combat, in surviving a month in a rubber raft, and as a prisoner of war to the Japanese.
Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History - Although longer than the others (669 pages) Karnow's book is readable and will give you a good background on the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Don't skip the sections on the earlier history, especially the French invovlement or you'll miss out on some important background.
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite - Sociology of who really runs the country. Kind of dry reading, but an important contribution to understanding the US.
David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd - Sociology of individualism as it developed in the 20th century. Also kind of dry, but groundbreaking.
Frank Thompkins, Chasing Villa - A look at the clash between the U.S. and Mexico's Pancho Villa.
Robert M. Utley, The Lance and the Shield: The Life and Times of Sitting Bull - I have a lot of respect for Robert Utley and consider him the finest of historians who cover American Indians.
Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA - A thoroughly readable and chilling account of how the CIA formed, what it's original goals were, and how it got derailed by politics and its own agenda.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Tips When You Buy Your New Gun


Whenever there is a mass shooting, either by wackos or by terrorists, the immediate response from the left is to posture for more gun laws. In direct response to political posturing that threatens the Second Amendment, the people of America go out and buy more guns.

I applaud those who wish to protect themselves and their loved ones buy purchasing a gun. That said, I want to offer a warning, yes, a warning to those who are considering buying a gun.

1) Take gun safety training.
I strongly encourage you to take gun safety training. Guns are tools, albeit deadly ones. Treat guns with respect and they will serve you in the purpose they were intended, to help defend you in a deadly situation. Remember the basic rules of gun safety:
  1. Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
  2. Never point your gun at anything you don't want to destroy.
  3. Be sure of your target and beyond.

2) Shoot at the range. All the time.
One of the scariest (yes, scariest) things I can think of is someone buying a gun, strapping it on, and feeling secure in having a gun with them, at the same time never having fired the gun. You must know how to fire your gun - not just any gun - the gun you just bought to carry with you. For example, I prefer shooting a full-sized 9 mm, or S&W 40, or a .45 ACP to shooting a .38 Special revolver with a 3" barrel. Why? Because the little revolver kicks like a mule and the muzzle flash burns my hand. Hence, I carry a larger gun. I enjoy shooting it at the range and am comfortable with it.

If you're not used to shooting your gun, get used to it. Shoot it at the range. Go to the range regularly to get the feel of the gun. Take the time to learn how to shoot your gun accurately.

3) Take a tactical shooting class.
There's a world of difference between shooting a handgun at the range and drawing and shooting under pressure of deadly contact. Take a tactical shooting class to become familiar with stance, drawing, aiming, and firing. Learn how to move and take cover. Learn how to double tap. Learn how to reload. Especially learn how to stay away from situations where you may need a gun.

4) Take the responsibility seriously.
Carrying a weapon means that you have a responsibility to protect the Second Amendment in a grown-up and responsible manner. Don't take the decision to carry a weapon lightly. When you carry a handgun you have the onus to recognize a potentially dangerous situation, to protect yourself and those around you.

Remember that if you should ever draw and fire a weapon in self defense, you will be responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you shoot yourself accidentally, you'll wind up with a large and messy hole in your body. If you shoot your friend accidentally, you'll go to jail. If you shoot an innocent bystander, you'll go to jail. If you shoot a dangerous perp, you'll be the hero.

5) Get a good holster.
Do not ever stuff a gun in your pocket or down your pants. That's a one way ticket to disaster. Get a good holster, making sure you can actually wear the thing. Comfortable holsters are your best friend when carrying a gun. There's a holster I can recommend from Crossbreed. If you carry a handgun in your purse or bag, get a good holster that covers the muzzle of the gun and keeps it clean.

6) Learn the law.
Learn the laws for carrying a gun. Here are a few things to consider:
  • Better safe than sorry with a police officer. Know the law when it comes to interacting with the police.
  • Here's an article from Guns & Ammo that outlines the basics.
  • Learn and know the places where you cannot carry a weapon, for example, bars, school campuses, police stations, and many government buildings.
Take care out there, and enjoy and respect your new gun.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Whinyism - The Left Just Keeps Getting More and More Annoying


The left keeps getting more and more whiny and annoying in their demands for whatever it is they think they want. These whiners don't really know what they want, except for some vague sense of entitlement. How are rational people supposed to understand what they want? I call this new trend among the left, whinyism.

Sometime in the not-too-distant past, whinyism replaced the left's attack on America and American culture. Instead of demanding their usual Marxist progressive changes to the economy, government, and social institutions, the whiners now demand that anything deemed offensive be eradicated. In their view, the world should hand them whatever they want on a 24 carat gold platter. Anyone or anything that gets in their way becomes the enemy.

Here are some brilliant examples of whinyism from just this past week.

Whinyism 1 - Uncomfortable 11th Grade Students
Mark Twain's story, Huckleberry Finn, has the dubious honor of being a top banned book in the US. Many argue that Twain's treatment of the subject of blacks is too racist for students' tender minds. Among some teachers and librarians, we should never be exposed to foul language such as the word negro, or especially nigger. (Of course, English teachers have no qualms about exposing students to the most foul and depressing language of, say, Catcher in the Rye.)

Once again, the debate over banning Huckleberry Finn has arisen, in Philadelphia schools (source). This time, however, a group of brainwashed students complained that the book made them feel "uncomfortable" and wasn't being "inclusive." The book was removed from schools in the county where those students complained.

As one school principal put it: "We have all come to the conclusion that the community costs of reading this book in 11th grade outweigh the literary benefits."

Yes, we must never allow students to be uncomfortable with any ideas contrary to progressive dogma. That is a community cost that must never be paid.

Whinyism 2 - Outraged Administrator
In Southern California, Ben Shapiro, a popular conservative radio talk show host, was invited to speak at a high school. His presentation was interrupted by an socialist school administrator who sent the students back to class. The crime? Shapiro made a comment about poor people being bad at handling money (source).

Of course, to progressives, the poor have absolutely no responsibility for themselves or their own welfare. Poor people are a monolith and must be taken care of by taxing the rich.

What struck me as whinyism, however, was the school administrator's reasons for sending students back to class. It is a mass of obfuscation and confusion:
I’m at a point right now where, quite frankly, I’m going to dismiss students. With all due respect, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Shapiro represents a narrative that he is providing to all of you guys based off of his opinion, what he believes and what he wants to share with all of you. I know that the education was there for all of you to understand, left-side, right-side, whatnot, but also the opportunity to allow for him to impress on you some of his opinions on certain things, and I think a lesson was there for you to understand.
The lesson, of course, is that no narrative that contradicts progressivism will be tolerated. With muddled thinking like this, it's no wonder our nation's education is dying.

Whinyism 3 - What's in a Name?
At a small college in Pennsylvania, students have banded together to demand that one of the buildings be renamed (source). The building, Lynch Memorial Hall, was named after a longtime president of the college. But, of course, to the whiny, offended students, the word "lynch" has racist overtones and offends them.

Perhaps all people with unfortunate names will now be banned from society? Perhaps they will be required to ring a bell and shout "Unclean! Unclean!"? How would Jack Black respond to that? Or how about Christian Bale? Or how about the Austrian footballer Christian Fuchs? (Which of his names is most offensive?)

Whinyism 4 - Too Aryan
If getting offended by a building's name isn't a sure sign of whinyism, how about getting offended by someone's looks? Camille Paglia, a modern socialist social critic, condemned Taylor Swift in a recent article (source). Condemning Swift and her "posse," Paglia suggested that Swift "retire that obnoxious Nazi Barbie routine."

Let's review this one. Paglia feels perfectly justified in commenting on Taylor Swift by condemning her as 1) one of the most evil political movements in the whole of history, and 2) as a doll, because of Swift's looks.

Conclusion
The whinyism of the left grows ever more shrill, unfocused, bizarre, and petty. Yet it is dangerous because it allies itself with politics and the power elite represented by Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi. It is especially dangerous as it is now the norm within our educational system. Now that nearly every school has developed whinyism as its central doctrine, entire generations of children will grow old without ever growing up.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Religious Freedom Is At Risk Due to Global Climate Change


With the Western media circus trying to spin the danger of Islamist terrorism into a whirlwind of nonsense, one unlikely danger has appeared which I find quite disturbing. I recently read a news item from the Associated Press (Source) about the climate summit in Paris. Some of those involved in the summit have decided that religion and churches need to be brought on board to make people "believe" in the dangers of global climate change. To these scientists and politicians, the ideology of climate change just isn't reaching a wide enough audience. To really "sell" the idea of global climate change, we should employ churches and religion.

Think about what that means. Scientists who want to spread their dogmas of global warming want to enlist churches to make people believe in the dangers of global warming. Here's the idea from the AP article:
The world will not act enough on climate change,..."until we teach this in every church, every mosque, every synagogue, every temple."
This is nothing less than the attempt by ideologues to impose changes to religious doctrine in order to bring about changes in the new world order. This is like Henry VIII telling the Church to change the rules of marriage so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon. This is like Louis XIV telling the bishops they couldn't leave France to appeal to the Pope. While those in charge have changed names, suggesting political leaders dictate what should be preached over the pulpit is still a bad idea.

It is a dangerous abuse of power. It is abhorrent. It can be nothing more than propaganda - using biased information to lead people to a certain political view. Yet, such propaganda is completely acceptable to progressives who think they know better than everyone else in the world how to run governments and now, apparently, religions.

Such propaganda should be immediately suspect among church leaders. Unfortunately, the current Pope has made a career out of preaching the gospel of climate change, setting a standard for other church leaders to follow. Think of the dangers if all believers are taught to give in to governments which want to make radical changes to the world order based on a flimsy climate theory.

Such propaganda is also the antithesis of scientific discovery. When so-called scientists want to appeal to religious faith to convince people of the "reality" of global climate change, we should immediately suspect that science has indeed failed to live up to its own standards of proving hypotheses to form theories.

The US Constitution's 1st Amendment was written because the Founding Fathers knew of the dangers to religion and to people if government dictated religious belief. They knew the history of England with its civil wars between Catholics and Protestants when one king or another gained power. The protection of the free exercise of religion must be maintained in order for a people to remain free to disbelieve what government preaches.

I'll end with a quote from one of the great propagandists of all time, Joseph Goebbels, with only slight changes to the text:
[Progressivism] is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon [Progressivism] will be the religion of all [Americans]. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel.
If you are unsure what the consequences are of Goebbels' "liberation," I suggest you read William Shirer's important history The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.