Democratic House Whip James Clyburn sat down with Dan Gilgoff for an interview in U.S. News. What followed was a Q&A session so full of Biblical misunderstandings and Orwellian doublespeak that anyone with the slightest critical thinking skills and knowledge of Christianity would have to be left scratching their heads. He presented what I like to term “Religious Relativism,” or the notion that the teachings of a religion vary depending upon the beliefs and ideals of the person interpreting them.  Consider it the Christian big government version of radical Islam’s jihad.

Below I look at some of his more egregious statements, along with a rebuttal of each, since Mr. Gilgoff was not so prone to asking follow-up questions.

I feel before beginning this analysis that I should point out that I am in no way a social conservative. I was raised Catholic, spent 12 years in Catholic school and parted ways with the Church about a decade ago. But nonetheless, I cannot rightfully read such misrepresentations without disagreeing and setting the record straight, regardless of my religious affiliation.

Also, for reference, bold text in the block quote indicates the question being asked, while regular text indicates the answer given or statement made.

 When you became chair of the Democrats’ Faith Working Group in 2005, you said, “The Democratic agenda is deeply rooted in faith, but we have been less effective than we could be in communicating how our moral values guide our policies.” That certainly seems to have changed.

Members are becoming much more comfortable with expressing our policies in faith terms. For a long time, constitutional issues were so near and dear to Democratic officials that we were just too guarded with all of that. Anything that even seemed like it would in any way violate constitutional principles we just stayed away from.

It’s worth noting that Rep. Clyburn is essentially stating here that at one time the Democratic Party was deeply concerned with Constitutional questions, but now…not so much. Unless of course the question at hand concerns the funding of facilitators of child prostitution rings such as ACORN. Then and only then can the strictest reading of the Constitution be adhered.

Do you worry that Democratic concerns over abortion coverage can derail healthcare reform?

Oh, no, no. Those concerns will be resolved . . . . We have to just make sure that everybody feels comfortable.

Of course the comfort of our elected representatives is of paramount importance. Heaven forbid they be required to practice what they preach as part of their Faith Working Group. Faith, much like the Constitution, is not meant to be called upon at the slightest inconvenience. Rather, it should only be looked to when asked to make politically inconvenient choices.

Are the concerns of antiabortion advocates about healthcare reform valid? Some Democrats say they’re a smoke screen to derail reform.

Yes, they are very valid concerns. One of the reasons we exist is because the speaker feels there ought to be an entity within our caucus to keep these issues front and center. So Rosa DeLauro knows that there are things of the faith persuasion that are pretty much Catholic centered. She’s the go-to person when it comes to this.

Is Rep. Clyburn also inclined towards asking the Hamburgler to guard his purchases from McDonald’s while he’s in session? If Rosa DeLauro is the best example to be offered up from motley crew of the Faith Working Group, that’s certainly a bad omen. If one were to look at Rep. DeLauro’s voting record as it concerns abortion, she would have to be considered the less-than-ideal candidate to tackle abortion concerns. Faith based, indeed!

What has the group accomplished recently that you’re proud of?

Believe it or not, the faith community was big in [passing] our climate change bill. Something that I’ve always been taught is stewardship. It’s the watchword in most religious teachings, and there’s nothing more evident in stewardship than our responsibilities to the climate, to the Earth. It was a tough bill to get 218 on, and I don’t think we would have been able to get there if there wasn’t the kind of climate that faith groups helped us create.

It’s true that stewardship of the Earth is a significant part of the Christian faith. God created the Earth, not for humanity to squander and pillage. But at the same time much of the concern shown by those trying to protect the planet goes beyond stewardship, to a form of gaia worship. Human beings have a duty to protect the planet because it is one of God’s creations, but also because it provides us with sustenance to the human race. Our actions on this planet affect others, and so we should not ruin the Earth’s bounty because of the negative consequences that others will have to endure. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. But conversely, Christianity is explicitly against acting in such a way that will bring injury to others. All analysis of this cap-and-trade bill that Clyburn pushed shows that it will lead to misery and suffering for a vast majority of Americans. Such is the antithesis of the moral espoused by Christianity.

And they’re very much involved in this healthcare bill. I believe if James were writing his epistle today, he would go beyond clothing [the poor]. He would demand that we take care of the sick and the shut-in as part of expressing our faith. Most religious groups see it that way.

I cannot argue with giving time and energy, donating and volunteering to help those are less fortunate. This is the epitome of Christianity, to build the kingdom of Heaven here on Earth. But it is inconsequential to the health care bill. The key word there is “giving.” This involves individual choice, not a faceless government requiring you, under penalty, to provide to the poor and needy. Human beings have been helping those less fortunate long before welfare existed.

What do you say to religious conservatives who argue that those kind of biblical exhortations are directed at individuals, not the government?

What is the government if it’s not individuals acting collectively on behalf of the common good? That’s what we are. So I would not argue with that point. I would agree.

The problem is that Clyburn, and all liberals, are completely corrupting the notion of what a government is. This statement can only be true if the government could reasonably claim to know what all of the governed want. To forcibly take from one and give to another, under the guise of “helping” is opposed to the core tenets of Christianity. Christianity teaches that humans possess free will, not seen in any other of God’s creatures. It is not charitable, in any way shape or form, to undermine the free will of anyone in order to help another.

A government is a social contract between citizens, in which they give up certain powers and freedoms for the protection of their natural/God-given rights. It is not some entity which exists to lift a few men up by using other men as stepping stones. And this is just as Christianity is not some faith or religion which would encourage us to forego personal responsibility in favor of our government doing charity in our stead.

Representative Clyburn should learn these lessons as part of the Faith Working Group, and cease using his misunderstanding of Christianity to push his version of big government. At the very least, he should be thankful that he decided not to go to seminary, and instead went to law school. At least there no one is interested in the truth.

By now many Americans are probably well aware of the video on youtube showing school children singing the praises of President Obama. If not, well, here it is:

The response given by the school stated:

Dear Burlington Township Families:

 

Today we became aware of a video that was placed on the internet which has been reported in the media. The video is of a class of students singing a song about President Obama. The activity took place during Black History Month in 2009, which is recognized each February to honor the contributions of African Americans to our country. Our curriculum studies, honors and recognizes those who serve our country. The recording and distribution of the class activity were unauthorized.

 

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dr. King, Principal of B. Bernice Young School, directly.

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Christopher M. Manno,

Superintendent of Schools

Considering that it is now fully encouraged that such acclaim be sung towards the President to the tune of religious songs, the following are recommended for teachers who are prejudiced against their students sounding like the early nineties band Crash Test Dummies.

To the tune of the The First Noel:

Barack Obama, is more than a man

He was sent from Chicago to lead us by hand

He changed the world by speaking the truth

And stopped climate change to protect the youth.

Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama

He is the One who will save us from us!

To the tune of Silent Night:

Barack Obama, President

Came to us, not hesitant

Bipartisan and post-racial

Get the world to love us you shall

Lead with eloquent speech

Lead with eloquent speech

And for those who object to any religious concepts being brought into their classroom, the following song has been written.

To the tune of Auld Lang Syne:

Should the old ways be forgot,

And the world rid of drama,

Should the old ways be forgot,

And in Age of Obama

For Obama, my dear,

For Obama,

We’ll take a public option yet,

For Obama.

 Also, the NEA suggests that the following be recited every morning before the official start of the school day:

Barack Obama,

Who art in D.C.,

Hallowed be thy name.

Health reform come,

Thy will be done,

Here as it is in Chicago.

Give us this pay,

Our stimulus bill.

Three million jobs to save or create,

As we find ourselves empty of hate.

And lead us not into inflation,

But deliver us from Republicans.

Amen.

These songs and many more will soon be available on CD or preloaded Ipod, sung by the children from the KidsBop line, for the low low price of $34.99 and $399.99, respectively.

As most Americans are by now no doubt aware, with the notable exception of Charlie Gibson, the House and Senate have voted recently to deny ACORN the right to feed at the federal trough. The Senate was the first to act, a revelation which caused a bewildered Nancy Pelosi, when questioned about the defunding, to feebly attempt to fight off her botox treatment and furrow her brow in confusion.

Not to be outdone, the House quickly acted to take federal funds away from those kiddy trick turning helpers at ACORN. Both votes were pretty unanimous, and in fact were probably the most bipartisan effort put forth by our venerable leaders in congress since the era of healing began. Today, however, along comes Jerry Nadler (D- NY08) to valiantly defend the Constitutional rights of a criminal enterprise to offer advice to sex trafficking pimps while being eligable to receive 8,500,000,000 dollars in taxpayer money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). That’s right, 8 point five billion! From us. To assist with prostitution.

It’s now apparent who was meant to be stimulated by the ARRA.

Quoth Jerry Nadler, steward of the Constitution:

“Today’s Republican Amendment is in blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder … Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial, and that’s what this Amendment does. Whatever one may think of an organization, the Constitution’s clear ban on Bills of Attainder is there for the protection of all of our liberties.”

Jerry scores points for understanding this basic Constitutional concept, but fails for applying a broad liberal brush when he says:

“A little while ago, the House passed an amendment to the bill that we were considering that says no contract or federal funds may ever go to ACORN, a named organization, or to any individual or organization affiliated with ACORN. Unfortunately, this was done in the spirit of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution, constituting a Bill of Attainder.”

Where Nadler’s argument falls apart is in his liberal assumption that refusing to dole out taxpayer money is in some way a violation of ACORN’s rights. This is explicitly not the case. The founders added the clause to Article 1 in order to keep Congress from doing the job of the judiciary. The goal was to ensure that congress would not deprive any person or group of liberty or property for purely partisan gains. However, ACORN has no right to be given Government (read: taxpayer) money. This exists purely as a privilege. Congress has, as part of its budgeting powers, the right to say where federal money can and can not go.

I would agree with Jerry Nadler if the House voted to take possession of all of ACORN’s properties and to throw its employees in jail, but that is not the case. ACORN and its employees were not stripped of any rights by the House’s actions.

Still, I cannot help but wonder where Jerry Nadler was when the U.S. government took over Chrystler and GM, or when the House voted to strip AIG’s employees of their bonuses. Could it be that since the three aforementioned companies are profiteers, whereas ACORN exists ”solely to help people” that Nadler let the Constitution off the hook those day? 

Or did he pull an Obama and simply vote present?

President Obama, along with all of his true believers and comrades in the Democratic Caucus have been pushing the notion that HR3200 will create a health insurance exchange where consumers can shop for different health insurance premiums, one of which will be the public option. Their claim is that this exchange will encourage competition, which will necessarily cause prices to decrease. I applaud the President and his fellow Democrats for being able to grasp the concept that competition is a good thing, which does indeed lower prices. It seems, however, that their understanding of competition is sorely lacking. They want the American people to believe that simply having multiple options when it comes to a product is the same thing as having a healthy competitive market. The problem with this logic is that it misses key components of true competition; components which will not exist if HR3200 passes, and will therefore make their exchange completely noncompetitive.

The first element of true competition is choice. The consumer is at liberty to decide whether or not they want to buy the product. If they have a particular want or need for the product, they are free to make the decision to buy it and in so doing, then choose from the providers. At this point they can decide what features work best for them, and thus purchase the one with the most fitting options. Conversely, they can decide that their money is better spent elsewhere. The problem with this proposal is that it takes away the ability of the consumer to decide whether health insurance suits their wants and needs through the imposition of fines and penalties. The IRS becomes the strong-arm of the government, forcing citizens to buy health insurance or be punished thusly. Any wise consumer, being given the options of paying for something and paying for nothing, will use their money to have something. But making a choice by government diktat is not the same as being able to decide, without coercion, what one wants to do.

The second element of competition was touched upon above. This is the concept of product variability. What does one find when they peruse an automobile dealership? Do they find one car with all the same options and all in the same color? Or, perhaps, is one treated to an assortment of cars, in all shapes, sizes and colors with different features added throughout? As stated previously, consumers don’t all have the same tastes, and so will differently weigh that which is available to them. While one might want a sedan with power locks and windows, another might want the same car but decide to save money by purchasing one with manual locks and windows. Even still, a third consumer might opt for an SUV or sports car. The point is that manufacturers can differentiate themselves by offering their customers variation. If an automobile company did indeed produce only one car in one color, we might not be too surprised if we found out that it went out of business.

But the bill currently before Congress does not allow for those options in terms of purchasing health insurance. The bill requires a minimum level of coverage from insurance companies, as well as a cap on out of pocket expenses. Gone will be the “injury or illness” type of policies with low premiums and high deductibles, replaced with policies that require wellness and prevention testing. This will be anti-competitive by nature, since high deductible plans are, by their very nature, cheap because they put most of the risk on the consumer.

Next one must consider the cost of manufacturing when it comes to competition. Every company has different levels of efficiency, different wages that they pay their employees and different levels of overhead. These differences are primarily the reason why U.S. auto manufacturers have been unable to compete with foreign manufacturers for so long. The big three have been bogged down by such exorbitant labor costs for so long that they had a difficult time creating a comparable product for the same price as their competitors. Granted, insurance is a different kind of product, where the price is based both on the product and on the consumer, but nonetheless the idea remains the same. Insurance premiums vary based on the level of risk being taken on by the company. This is the reason why life insurance costs more when one gets older, because of the increased likelihood that the policyholder will pass away.

Since those on the left have been happy to make the auto insurance analogy, let’s make a similar one here. Higher premiums for auto insurance get paid by people who fit certain sets of criteria. If one is young, has a history of poor driving, drives a new car or lives in an area where car theft is commonplace, they have more costly auto insurance. Yet the left does not desire to make sweeping changes to the auto insurance market because of this “discrimination.” The simple fact is that people in these groups are more likely than others to have to file a claim, thus causing the insurance company to have to pay more money. The Democrats wish to pass this bill, which does not allow health insurance companies to adjust prices based on age, sex, etc. It is understandable to attempt to enforce anti-discrimination laws where it is fitting, but the simple fact is that certain groups are more likely to require high cost medical care than others. And either way, the truth is that this is a false dilemma between discrimination and no discrimination. The fact is that there is not one single trait in a person that determines rates, but rather a myriad of facts that actuary’s consider.

Considering all of these components which make a market truly competitive, and also considering the ways in which HR3200 wishes to strip those components out of health insurance, one must start to question this health insurance exchange. While the Democrats swear it will lead to lower prices and increased competition, there’s little in the bill which actually allows for that. And this article hasn’t even touched on how badly the public option will skew the market! Either our leadership has a serious misunderstanding of what competition truly is, or they hope that the American people fail to accurately understand. Regardless of which it is, the last thing this bill will do is lead to more competition.

Physicists and Engineers (read: nerds) like to get all wee-wee’d up when discussing the Laws of Thermodynamics. These discussions will often span across all fifty seven states, and even across languages. The Laws of Thermodynamics end up being debated by scientists speaking English, French, Sanskrit and Austrian. But what are the Laws of Thermodynamics, and why is it important to learn about them?

The truth is, they’re probably not important at all. I haven’t really read about them, so I don’t have all the facts, but nonetheless I think that they’re stupid. For the sake of argument, however, let’s try to consider one of them, even given my limited understanding. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I have arbitrarily decided to focus on, states:

“In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.”

I would hope that this statement should be transparent enough, but for the Neanderthals out there, allow me to translate. Entropy is nothing more than a fancy way how saying how mixed up something is. It’s a level of…mixedupness. So this is very clearly stating that processes cause the universe to become more mixed up, and never less. Another way of putting this second law would be to say that:

“Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.”

This is why it was so important to weatherize federal buildings. In the winter, heat will naturally want to escape, wasting precious taxpayer dollars. Never fear, though, I’m sure that once the government cures cancer, they will get around to tackling that pesky 2^nd law of thermodynamics.

Where was I going with this tirade again? Ah yes! In the interest of making sure that science is returned to its rightful place in our society, I’ve decided to take these purely theoretical concepts of the 2^nd law and entropy, and have applied them to the only sciences that really matter: political and social science.

With that, I have developed the following axiom, which I call the Law of Increasing Governmentropy:

“In a nation, a law that is passed will tend to increase the governmentropy of that nation.”

Governmentropy can be defined, quite simply, as the size and complexity of the Government running a nation. In other words, it’s a measure of how mixed up a government is! The best part is that since Governmentropy is a constantly increasing entity, claims of “I inherited this mess” must always be logically true. This axiom guarantees that our elected officials can remain punch-drunk and can spend their time attempting to improve their bowling scores to show up those hoity-toity special Olympians.

Of course, as with that goofy other second law, we can rewrite this one as follows:

“Tax dollars cannot spontaneously flow from the Government back to the people who paid those taxes.”

And that, boys and girls, is all too true.

Vice President Elect Joe “J-O-B-S” Biden recently announced that he will be the working families czar, a very important role for Mr. Biden, considering the fact that being Vice President is less than a fulltime job. Once he’s done figuring out which article of the constitution describes the executive branch, VPE Biden will frantically get to work on tasks such as: making sure the middle class is growing; making sure they’re not “being left behind”; making sure that they get all the luxuries only affordable to members of congress. It’s a job that can only be done by a member of the executive branch, I assume, one as difficult as President Elect Obama’s job of putting gas in Peggy the Mooch’s car and paying her mortgage.

But beneath the lowbrow insults that I am hurling at the next President of the World and his head “honcho” is a much more serious and dangerous situation, which is namely the continuous attempt of our Democratic overlords to “build the middle class” via methods that are akin to making a chilly house warm by setting it on fire. When Democrats talk about “building the middle class,” they’re never referring to policies that would actually benefit those who are too poor to be rich, but too rich to be poor. Examples of such useful policies would be: providing cheap and abundant sources of energy; balancing the budget to allow for lower income and property taxes; increasing the standards of public education to allow more Americans to be competitive in the world.

Instead, the policies that Democrats choose to push forth are policies doomed to failure, such as increases in minimum wage, card check and refundable tax credits that essentially amount to welfare. The desire therefore becomes not to help the middle class, but to use government fiat to pull those in the lower strata of the socioeconomic ladder into the middle class. However, government does not create wealth. It only redirects it through force. And in the end, the only ones who benefit are those who lack the will and desire to create prosperity for themselves, and that is by taking from the upper echelons of society, where it is believed there is much wealth to spread.

As Democrats’ policies are carried out, the true middle class, people who are self-sufficient and whose only desire is to work, have their families and be happy are forgotten. They end up paying as the cost of goods and services increases due to higher labor expenses and decreased margins for businesses. Lacking the government assistance only given to the poor and the high paychecks only seen by the rich, the middle-class falls by the wayside and finds life to be harder.

So, one may ask, what is the best way to really help the middle class? Forget czars. Forget refundable credits. Run a responsible government which works to stay out of everyone’s lives and instead strives constantly for fiscal responsibility. Then the middle class can find real success.

Skepticism, traditionally, is the notion that one should suspend all judgment in the investigation of facts. Skeptics are those who use logic and reason in the pursuit of truth, relying on genuine evidence rather than on emotion and intuition. The great skeptic David Hume said:

“All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability”

Hume believed that we must be ever cautious in our assumptions and beliefs about the world. And while his harsh skepticism got him in a great deal of trouble with many groups, his wisdom in regards to our defense of untenable hypotheses is nonetheless something to always consider.

 In current times, the term skeptic has been given a negative connotation, mostly by those who wish to advance the belief in anthropogenic global warming. They liken climate change skeptics to deniers of the holocaust and those who believe the Earth to be flat. The claim of such Goremongers is that the evidence is so strong, that to reject the hypothesis amounts to a complete loss of reason. They wish to make climate change skepticism seem like the opposite of genuine skepticism, based on preconceived notions or political and economic affiliations.

However, the point of skepticism is not necessarily to believe something once you find evidence. But rather, the point is to question the evidence when it seems that the evidence is contradictory or counterintuitive. To that end, climate change skeptics can be grouped into the following categories, based on which evidence they reject. For each group, there are subsets, and it need not be the case that a person fits into only one group.

1.) The Earth is not warming. This group explicitly rejects the notion that the Earth has warmed. It is the weakest position, since evidence indicates that temperatures have indeed increased over the last century.

2.) The Earth is warming, but the data…

a.) Is too corrupted by human influence, scientific adjustments and urban heat islands to be in any way meaningful

b.) When averaged to some nebulous global mean, is too imprecise to determine changes over small time scales

3.) The Earth is warming, but scientifically…

a.) The Earth is currently rebounding from the Little Ice Age, and that all through human history there have been cold and warm periods.

b.) The warming has stopped, and that over the last decade, temperatures have been dropping

c.) The climate system is too complex to understand, and too complex for there to be a reliance on the fallacy of a single cause, in this case CO2.

4.) The Earth is warming, and the effects will be…

a.) Good for humanity and the world in general, regardless of the cause. Higher temperatures allow for longer periods of vegetation growth, and certainly there is more danger and suffering as a result of low temperature.

b.) Negligible compared to the effects of enacting draconian  controls on CO2 emissions.

c.) Nowhere near as bad as the dire predictions of Al Gore and the IPCC.

5.) Carbon dioxide levels…

a.) Historically trail increases in temperature.

b.) Are not linearly proportional to temperature increases. Instead, there is a logarithmic relation, as the ultraviolet absorption spectrum for CO2 is narrow, which leads to smaller gains in temperature as CO2 increases.

c.) Are at a historical low, and should be higher to ensure stronger and healthier plant growth, and thus a stronger and healthier human race.

6.) The science of global warming…

a.) Is based entirely on computer models that give different results, are unable to recreate historical data and have no basis in reality.

b.) Is politically and economically motivated

c.) Is shrouded in secrecy, and that climate scientists are unwilling to share their data and methods, in clear violation of the standards of scientific research.

d.) Relies on unverifiable assumptions and approximations.

e.) Focuses too greatly on CO2, while disregarding other greenhouse gases, such as water vapor.

I have no doubt that there other ways to group these skepticisms, and as stated previously, it is not necessary to agree with only one of them, or with all of them. Upon deeper evaluation, some of them might actually overlap. However, it is important to know what aspects of the “settled science” one is skeptical about before being able to engage those who fervently believe in the dangers of global warming.

Again, we should remember Hume, who also said:

“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities”

During the Presidential campaign that seemed like a lifetime ago, then Democratic candidate and now President-Elect Barack Obama made a promise, largely in the debates, that to counter the extreme budget shortfall that was bound to arise from the bloated wall street bailouts, he would:

And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.

And also:

I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don’t work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper.

 And from the third debate:

 Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven’t made a promise about…

…

Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

…

We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don’t work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.

 But now the President-Elect is telling a different story:

“The consensus is this: We have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again — we’re going to have to spend money now to stimulate the economy. … [W]e shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after; that short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession”.

Far from being at issue is the President-Elect’s propensity towards saying one thing and doing another. One can easily make the claim that at the time he proposed utilizing pay-go and a Carteresque line-by-line budget analysis, the nation was unaware of the recession we were facing. This is easily argued, considering that by the time the third and final debate rolled around, the stock market had already sunk to its lowest, home prices had been in decline for almost a year if not more, and there were a slew of other economic indicators that we were receding.

The problem at issue here is the fact that President-Elect Obama wishes to tell us that deficits are unimportant in the short term, because we need to fight the recession. It is thinking taken straight from the New Deal, which history tells us was probably more disastrous for the economy than anything else, since the heavy government burden only served to deepen the effect on business owners. And now, right in the vein of FDR, soon to be President Obama wants to push forth bailouts and stimulus packages in the hopes of giving the economy a shot in the arm.

But aside from inflating the deficit, there is a problem with bailouts and stimuli: they don’t work!

A bailout, by its very nature, does nothing but put money into the pockets of unprofitable businesses by taking money from businesses and people who are. Government does not create capital. It only redirects it. So by running up a huge deficit to support failing industries in the short term, the government does nothing more than take from the successful in the long term by increasing their tax burden and handcuffing their ability to direct their capital how they see fit.

Stimulus packages offer the same dilemma. We saw the $300 billion stimulus during the summer, which failed to bolster the economy. The problem with the stimulus was that by paying money to 100% of tax filers now, regardless of tax liability, the government guaranteed that in the future, the 60% of workers who actually pay taxes will be left to foot the bill. The next stimulus package, which will also rank in the hundreds of billions, will do the same, but with goals that are far vaguer. Obama wants to use the proposed stimulus as part of a green jobs program, where workers performs tasks such as making homes more energy efficient.

But the details are lacking. Jobs such as siding a house are skilled labor. Certainly he doesn’t expect that layabouts happen to know how to install siding, windows or furnaces? Who will these people work for? If they work for the government, that is a frightening concept, as the government can set their pay wherever it chooses. If they’re put to work on government offices, there will be no competition, and costs will skyrocket. Businesses will suffer from the lack of work. This bill will then be passed on to the taxpayer. And if the army of green workers is put to task on private buildings, they will either be too expensive to be affordable or, if their salaries are coming from taxpayers, will be so cheap to make private businesses not competitive. Either way, there will be a great loss of private capital due to suffering businesses and higher tax burdens.

The best thing the President-Elect could do to fix the recession is forget bailouts and stimuli. He should work on lowering the deficit and taxes to allow businesses and individuals to have more money now and in the future. It seems that the best option would be to do nothing. No meddling. Put a spending freeze into effect. Let the economy correct itself. But when presented with the idea of a spending freeze, Obama said:

The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.

The real problem is that since being elected President, Obama has completely left the operating room.

Nickelodeon is currently, and has been for some time now, advertising their youth environmental indoctrination program, the Big Green Help using the child stars of their TV shows. Of course, this is in no way surprising to me, since Nickelodeon is one step away from being a children, tween and teen’s version of MSNBC: wrong all the time, but completely unfaltering in how wrong it can be. Nickelodeon wants to teach the children of the world that Global Warming is the greatest danger the world has ever faced. Ever ever.

In the Big Green Help, kids play a video game featuring NickToons characters, and fight the oh-so-evil CO2 polluting monsters. I won’t point out the ethical issues of using the pressure provided by successful peers and idols to goad children into making “climate pledges.” I won’t even point out that CO2 isn’t pollution. Not only that, I won’t point out the irony of having kids pledge to decrease water usage, power usage and so forth by playing a non-essential, power consuming video game on a computer.

Human induced climate change is to today’s generation of youngsters what the peak of the cold war was to my parent’s generation. Children today stay up at night, fretting over what might become of the world if the ice caps melt, or if Tuvala sinks underwater. Where will we be if the poor polar bears, completely unable to defend themselves from anything have no ice to which they can return?

I often lament the fact that, as a child, I never had anything that scared me so thoroughly I woke up in the middle of the night, sweating profusely. Sure, there was acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, cancer caused by high voltage power lines, the fact that Gorbachev had the mark of the devil. But none of these ever really stuck. Nothing ever caused panic attacks for me or the general population outside of the anxiety ridden. But that’s a sad tale for another day.

Global Warming is a crisis! Or, as Al Gore would say, “Global. Warming. Is. The. Greatest. Threat. The. Human. Race. Has. Ever… … … … Known.” To those of us who are more rational, there is slightly more disturbing threat presented by Global Warming. Or, more specifically, presented by the threat of the threat of Global Warming. Unlike previous crises, Global Warming brings about an angst that is existential in nature. And by existential, I do not mean like that of John McCain, discussing in the first debate the fact that Iran EXISTS and is dangerous. I mean existential angst in the vein of Sartre and Kierkegaard, of the variety in which human beings, by nature of being free, feel great dread over the fact that they are prone to mistakes, and such mistakes might and will have disastrous effects.

Previous crises were about fear, about the fact that the average person could do little or nothing to stop the impending doom. But angst is a different beast. Today’s youth are being told that Global Warming is not a problem that is confined to being dealt with by our leaders, but instead will be solved by everyday actions. Kids are even being asked to pressure their parents to live more environmentally responsible lives, even if it is by government fiat. To them, it is not a problem if the government decides to tell us what light bulbs we must use, or that we cannot heat our houses above a certain temperature, or that we must recycle or drive a hybrid. There is a long list of small liberties that today’s children are being led to believe that it is acceptable to surrender in order to preserve the safety of the world.

But as Benjamin Franklin said , “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

As someone who went to school in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania, this story intrigued me. Very sad and psychologically scarring for the poor child. Maybe licenses should be required for people to be parents.

The sad case of a boy names Adolf

Seriously, for these people to believe that their child will have a normal life, they must be absolutely oblivious.

Update: Some commentary.

I think that this sort of problem is indicative of a level of ignorance possessed by many people. I don’t say that to sound mean or offensive to anyone who happens to have given their child a strange name. But it is a problem that people need to think about before naming or raising their children. Parents have a great responsibility, and the decisions that they make determine who their children end up being.

Children face enough problems simply on the basis of being children, that it’s unfair and, in a sense, abusive to behave in such a way. I don’t advocate that the state should take this child away based solely on a name. But other aspects of the article, such as the preponderance of Nazi paraphenalia in the house is cause for concern. Even still, I would not necessarily claim that the children should be taken away because their parents may be bigots.

It’s just a shame that this poor child will likely have to suffer much of his life for such an unnecessary reason.

Previously, I discussed how it is inherently possible for people of two differing ideologies to draw their conclusions from the same principles. Looking at the principles of conservatism I discussed:

1.) Belief in a limited government which is contracted with its citizens to minimally interfere in their lives and to defend them from harm.

2.) Belief in a specific moral order that grants us both rights and responsibilities

3.) Belief in a system of values which enable individuals to best maintain their rights. This system includes hard work and family as a cornerstone.

One can understand how it is possible to have conservatives who end up with drastically different opinions, if they believe that one or two principles are far more important than others. This is how we end up seeing some social conservatives who push for big government populism, fiscal conservatives who are pro-choice, and every other combination of issues that could be imagined.

However, what we inevitably end up with in any attempt to discuss social issues are arguments from different camps. We can only ever view issues from our own positions on policy, with reason and pragmatism getting lost as a result. Where we find ourselves unable to agree, we must instead look to principles to find common ground. Therefore, I will attempt to approach the social issues from a position of principles, rather than my own view on the policy, in an attempt to find common ground.

Abortion is always the most hot-button issue, so I hope to not alienate anyone in this initial discussion. The most extreme pro-life view dictates that abortion is always morally wrong, and that the government is participating in murder by allowing it. The most extreme pro-choice view is that abortion should be allowable up until the moment the baby takes a breath, and that it is not alive until it is completely independent from the mother. As with any position at the margins, both of these views can be seen as flawed. I will not discuss the flaws, but will instead point out that both views attempt to analyze the topic narrowly, without looking at the bigger picture.

If we outlaw abortion, we will not stop it from happening. We will have only criminalized it. Rather than actually fixing the problem, we will have simply washed our hands of it. Our consciences will be free, knowing we have made it illegal, but we still see it occurring. Conversely, if we allow partial* or live birth abortions, we will be simply allowing the death of a child who, on its own, would have likely been capable of surviving. If the purpose of abortion is supposed to be to save someone the cost of carrying a child, or the stigma of being pregnant, what reason is there to legalize techniques that require women to carry a child almost to term?

There is no simple solution. What gets lost in the debate is the real question: why do abortions occur? Is there a specific demographic that sees higher abortion rates than others? Is it due to socioeconomic status? Age? In those groups, is it due to lack of education? I recall a news report of teens some time ago who were using Mountain Dew as a contraceptive. Surely this can only be viewed as a failure of parents and the educational system.

Since it is always easier to say that one is for something or against something, this is the where we end up in our political discourse. But being simply pro-life or pro-choice is a false dilemma, and ignores other options for combating the problem. It should be in this regard that we attempt to solve the issue, rather than finding ourselves in a perpetual stalemate.

I am confident that a practical application of our principles could solve the problem. But the question is: who has the political courage to propose such applications of principle?

Next post, I will discuss gay marriage, provided there is the desire to see it.

*I maintain that I am pro-choice, but not to the point where I agree with this terribly sickening practice.

Staunch_Libertarian wrote a post earlier that attempted to discuss, in a civil fashion, social issues and the conservative movement. However, the attempt got off to a shaky start, when s/he stated:

 The three-legged stool is falling apart, and in my opinion the social conservatives are the most divisive leg. I wish to do two things here. One, I want to articulate why I don’t think social issues are conservative at all.

 Unfortunately, this seems like it was quite the wrong way to begin a discussion in a civil fashion, especially when one considers that social conservatives are one of the strongest and most loyal legs of the Republican stool. Now, this is not to say that fiscal and defense conservatives are not vitally important to the party. As a member of those groups, I would be undermining myself to make such a claim. But, often, to listen to members of the latter two groups, one would have a hard time knowing if there should be a D or an R next to their name. When the main point espoused by the Democratic presidential candidate is that he wants to lower taxes for 95% of Americans (regardless of how impossible that is), with no clear rebuttal or plan from the Republican candidate, speaks volumes about the current situation.

Social issues have become the identifying mark of the Republican Party. This fact is a double edge sword. The SoCon platform is not strong enough to draw away voters who agree with it but traditionally vote Democratic, such as African Americans, but it is strong enough to push away potential voters who lack the political courage to confront the left’s ideas that SoCons are rabid, frothing at the mouth Christians. The positive fact is that social conservatives come out to vote, and they do so with more loyalty than anyone else. On November 4^th, 2008, the SoCons came out, while the fiscal conservatives were nowhere to be seen. This is striking, considering the fact that this Presidential cycle was largely devoid of the typical debates on social issues.

So why is the Republican Party tearing itself apart at the seams? Why are so many of the intelligentsia focused on removing the SoCons from the political debate, where they will inevitably find somewhere else to lend their support? This could only serve to weaken the party. To me, this excommunication drive comes down to misinformed notions such as those of Staunch_Libertarian, who claim that social conservatism is not conservative at all. This can only be true if we narrow the definition of conservatism to be the same as Libertarianism. But the two are not the same! Not only that, we’d also have to kick out the leg of the defense conservatives, as they also do not live up to libertarian ideals.

The key is instead to understand what it means to be a conservative, what the most basic principles are, and then work from there to understand why certain conservatives choose to support the leg that they do. From there, we can see what aspects of society are leading us away from these ideals, and attempt to use our principles to fix them.

But first, we need to understand what it means to be politically conservative in this country. In my mind, the conservative movement is centered around the following:

1.) Belief in a limited government which is contracted with its citizens to minimally interfere in their lives and to defend them from harm.

2.) Belief in a specific moral order that grants us both rights and responsibilities

3.) Belief in a system of values which enable individuals to best maintain their rights. This system includes hard work and family as a cornerstone.

I’m sure some will disagree that these may not be exact tenets of conservative thought, but they seem close enough to me. By stressing one property over another, we fall into different categories which all serve to prop up the Republican stool. We may not always agree that one specific tenet is more important than another, but in general, our guiding beliefs come from these core conservative principles.

In a later diary entry, I will focus on what aspects of our society and nation are problematic, and how all three groups can attempt to come together to solve them, using our principles as a guideline.

An article out of the National Review Online today discusses the Barack Obama birth certificate issue, an issue which has been plaguing Obama since before the election. In it, NRO states:

The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)

What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?

This is a similar argument made by those at HotAir, who argue that the matter is relatively unimportant, because it makes conservatives who believe it sound like crackpot 9/11 Truthers. HotAir likes to use the ad hominem that, because Phillip Berg, a 9/11 truther, is leading the campaign, it must be incorrect. These are specious argument, because they completely ignore the rule of law upon which this country was based.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that for many who believe Obama is not naturally born, the entire purpose is to make his presidency illegitimate. Much of it might come from fringe conspiracy theorists, but that is beside the point.

Logic and reason were the basis of our constitution. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the President was free from all foreign influence. Even though Obama has spent most of his life living in the United States as a US citizen, if he was born in Kenya, he is legally not naturally born. Therefore, he cannot be President. This is not a technicality. It is the constitution.

The problem is that they are looking at this from an illogical point of view. The election of Obama plays out as a logical argument:

If you are a natural born citizen, you can serve as President.

Barack Obama is a naturally born citizen.

Therefore, Barack Obama can serve as president.

This is referred to as Modus Ponens, referred to as confirming the antecedent. If we look at it in terms of Modus Tollens, or denying the consequence, we would say:

If you are a natural born citizen, you can serve as President.

Barack Obama is not a naturally born citizen.

Therefore, Barack Obama cannot serve as president.

I have no doubt that 64 million Americans cast their vote for Barack Obama. I have no doubt that if the United States Supreme Court ruled that he was ineligible, there would be a great deal of civil unrest and chaos. But at the same time, I have no doubt that if he is ineligible, and yet serves as President anyway, we will face a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen.

We cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution we enforce. And the fact that NRO would take this stand, for no greater reason than to coddle the masses, is sickening and is the antithesis of conservatism.

We cannot undo the election. But we must follow the law. If the way the law is written is unjust, then it should be changed or amended. But it cannot be ignored. If he is incapable of serving as President, Obama should never have been able to run in the primaries to begin with!

I’d hate to see the Supreme Court decide another election, but I’d also hate to see the constitution trampled in the interest of fairness.

In the wake of the financial crisis, there has been much ballyhooing about what the government will do to fix the aching economy. From bailouts to stimuli to Barack Obama personally filling the gas tank of Peggy Johnson, everyone is trying to reach their hands into the government coffers, hoping to pull out as many greenbacks as they can before seeing the inevitable bottom of the barrel. But there is an obvious fact that the moochers, CEOs and elected officials amongst us are missing: by its very nature, government is unable to do anything.

Read More →

In the days following the Presidential election, the Obama team quickly made a transition from campaigning to running some terribly nebulous Office of the President-Elect. On this website, our Dear Leader-Elect proposed a term of mandatory civilian service for high school and college students, perhaps as some odd form of payment for their fervent support of him during his near half-term presidential campaign. The proceeding outcries and proofs of Godwin’s Law led his campaign, er, transition team, to scrub the text and replace it with something a little more palatable.

what came about as a result was a proposal that had been suggested during the third Presidential debate: that, as compensation for their mandatory voluntary service, America’s youths would be given $4,000 to be used towards the cost of college. Disregarding the Orwellian triplespeak of proposing what is in essence paid mandartory voluntary service (I use all three adjectives because it is truly impossible to know what the actual proposed policy is), there are some other problems with this proposal.

Read More →

There is an article today in the Wallstreet Journal Online, which discusses the truly damaging effects that a single nuclear weapon could have in the hands of our enemies. Brian Kenndey writes,

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Contrary to being the stuff of some half-brained sci-fi novel or movie, this is a real and genuine threat. When coupled with the recent and sustained cyberattacks on the pentagon as well as the McCain and Obama campaigns, it reveals an area where the United States is badly in need of being on the forefront: technological defense.

Read More →

Dictionary.com defines evidence as

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Also, it defines the word consequence as

1. the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier: The accident was the consequence of reckless driving.
2. an act or instance of following something as an effect, result, or outcome.
3. the conclusion reached by a line of reasoning; inference.
4. importance or significance: a matter of no consequence.
5. importance in rank or position; distinction: a man of great consequence in art.

A great deal of concern has been created by the media and Global Warming alarmists by the mounting evidence which indicates that the world is warming, and that it is mankind’s fault. However, one need only analyze their supposed evidence to realize that what they are really attempting to do is obfuscate the truth. Peppered into their colorful language is a clear attempt to mislead the people they view as ignorant masses into believing the tale that they have crafted. They do this by purposely confusing evidence and consequence.

Read More →

With the DOW now having reached an absolutely abysmal 11 year low, it looks like the economy is continuously sliding further and further down the toilet. I have no doubt that the Democrats in congress will blame this on rich and greedy investors who refuse to shed away their hard-earned money.

The clueless masses, unaware of how economies work, will be duped by a complicit media into thinking that this mess is nothing more than the failure of Republican policies and eight years of President Bush. Emboldened by the supposed mandate, the 111th congress and the new administration will begin to practice a new branch of economics that I like to call Obama-Pelosi-Reid economics, or Oprenomics.

Years from now, economists will be discussing how significant a failure such policies were.

Read More →

From Junkfood Science:

“The more we look to the government to protect us, the more freedoms we lose,” said one resident. This became a reality today when government health officials went after an 84-year old tradition and told the nuns at St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that their church dinner of homemade posole, tamales and biscochitos was against the law. Every December 14th, after the Our Lady of Guadalupe procession, church ladies have served traditional posole and biscochitos for parishioners and the public. The Environment Health Department, however, determined the potluck was a threat to public safety and a violation of the city’s food ordinance.

Read More →

Let me preface this with the following. In life, I am a fairly quiet person. I rarely make my opinions known on many of life’s hot topics. This is partly due to my own shy disposition. It is also due to the fact that, in life, you don’t always get to choose the people with whom you spend time. This is especially true for me, since most of the people in my life are people who were actually in my wife’s life first. Because I migrated to the Nutmeg State for her, I often find myself surrounded by company who do not share my ideological convictions.

Therefore, the best way for me to ensure domestic tranquility is to try to keep my mouth shut when she drags me to see her friends and family. Thankfully my wife awards my kindness and civility by letting me ramble on about my frustration later.

The benefit is that this predicament has enabled me to observe liberals at their very best (or worst).

Read More →