Yesterday Barrack Obama FINALLY released his long form birth certificate and (probably) ended the controversy over Obama's being a natural born citizen. That said, I feel it is time to address the usual accusation levied by the Drive-By Media whenever Obama is criticized: "You're only saying that because he's black." Actually, no, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's sadder than sad that I have to keep tearing down that statement, but since Liberals are going to keep making the accusation I'm afraid I must. Obama being black had nothing to do with the questions about his lineage. His father being Kenyan kind of did, but that's a very important distinction. There was a legitimate cause, not just indiscriminately targeting a black man, to question Obama's status as a natural born citizen due to his father being a citizen of another nation. If his father was from Germany, Greece, Canada, Ireland, etc, the same questions would have been asked. There were questions as to his place of birth and also to whether or not a person whose father was not a citizen qualified as a natural born citizen. Unfortunately the founders didn't help much with specification there. As always, "you're racist" is the only argument Liberals seem to have available to silence critics, but it's not the reason Obama's birthplace was an issue!
First off, let's tackle the REAL reasons why certain Conservatives began questioning Obama's birth place: They are afraid of what Obama would do (in '08) and what he HAS done as President (in '11). Largely, the Birther movement was an attempt to get Obama out of office as quickly as possible. Was it always a bad way to accomplish that goal? Perhaps. But let's not confuse people wanting Obama to no longer be our President because of his policies with people wanting Obama to no longer be our President because of his race.
Liberals would have you believe that questions about a Presidential Candidate's birthplace are unique to Obama. As usual, history doesn't bear that out (1):
President Chester A. Arthur (R): Arthur was the child of a natural born US citizen (his mother) and a naturalized US citizen (his father who was born in Ireland). Many Democrats claimed that Arthur was actually born in Canada, and/or claiming that his father's naturalized citizenship made President Arthur not a naturalized citizen.
Charles Evans Hughes (R):
Hughes served as Governor of New York, Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Also, in 1916, he ran for President against Woodrow Wilson. It was argued that Hughes was not a citizen because his immigrant father was not a naturalized citizen when he was born, even though he was physically born in the United States.
Barry Goldwater (R): The 1964 Republican Presidential nominee was born in Phoenix, AZ in 1909. At that point, Arizona was a U.S. Territory, not a state (it was admitted to the Union in 1912).
John McCain (R) Senator John McCain was indeed born to American parents, but born in Panama at Coco Solo Naval Base. In 2008, questions were asked as to whether or not McCain was a "natural born citizen" because he was not physically born on American soil. The Senate passed a resolution stating McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born to two American citizens and born on an American base (which is accepted to be American soil).
These are four examples of other individuals whose natural-born citizenship was challenged. There have only been seven total such serious challenges in history. There are but a few examples of this phenomenon, because only one office in the United States requires a person to be a natural born citizen: President of the United States. (It is De Facto Law but not De Jure Law that the Vice President, given that his purpose is to fill the Presidency if it is vacated, should also be a natural born citizen.) Since only a relatively few people have run for that office, there are only a few examples. Governors, Senators, Congressmen, and the like must be citizens but are not required to be natural born. They must be naturalized citizens, and in most cases it requires a certain number of years of citizenship. But only President requires a natural born citizen.
Was the issue of Obama's birthplace ever going to be a winner for Conservatives? Probably not, but it also had absolutely nothing to do with Obama's race. I've said it over and over again here: Conservatives don't oppose Obama because he's black. Conservatives oppose Obama because he's radically Liberal. Otherwise explain why Conservatives vehemently opposed John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter. Liberals always want to discount their opponents. Anyone who opposes Liberalism is always said to be either stupid, racist, heartless and evil, or some combination of the three. That's because Liberals don't want to debate ideas because there are no successes of Liberalism in practice in recorded history. Conservatism is packed with it. The Birther issue was no different.
Many of the Birthers are just nutty. Many of them probably believe the Moon landing was faked too. Others were simply looking to get Obama out of the White House as quickly as possible to protect the country from further damage to our freedom courtesy of Obama. The final group, which includes people like Sean Hannity, Donald Trump, and (far less famously) me, began to question the situation only a few months ago as Obama fought so very hard to make the questions go away rather than simply producing the long form birth certificate he produced yesterday. Not a bit of it had to do with race. Activist Liberals won't stop the ad homonym attacks of racism because they simply have no better argument to give.
To my fellow Conservatives who are tired of being called racist, it's a baloney argument. We all know it. They know it. To my Neighborhood Liberal friends who I know read this blog, would you please get on the people on your side of the aisle to drop the unnecessary attacks and debate ideas? I disagree with you but you're good hearted people. As yourself, do you really believe the Conservatives you know and are friends with are racist? I didn't think so. So I'm asking you, please go after the Activist Liberals you know and tell them to knock it off with the mudslinging!
Activist Liberals, I ask you the same question I ask regularly: What are you, afraid of a fair fight?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Natural Born Citizen Clause
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Green Energy: Another Liberal Pie in the Sky Lie
On the heels of the EPA forcing Shell Oil to abandon oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean because the drill site is 70 miles away from a village of less than 250, (1) it's time to call Obama out on his energy policies. Obama wants us to believe that the Left's beloved alternative fuels are a real option to maintain the United States' energy needs. He keeps talking about wind and solar power like they are developed and ready for mass use. It's not. He wants us to believe it's possible to have enough ethanol to replace gasoline. There isn't.
The Left wants us to believe that the problem isn't lack of supply in the oil. Yet they cannot (or will not) explain why it is that when George W. Bush allowed oil companies to begin the process of preparing to deep water drill and to drill in Alaska, the price of a gallon of gas dropped from over $4 per gallon to under $2 per gallon! Let's compare the oil prices under Bush before and after he allowed more drilling and after Obama cut back on drilling again (2):
That's right, sports fans. Bush left Obama with gas prices under $2 per gallon. Obama has overseen a rise to over $4 per gallon. Obama's policies of cutting out deep water drilling thanks to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (which has been completely cleaned up in record time, by the way), the President has overseen gas prices doubling over his tenure with more price increases expected. He can't even blame Bush for this one! His solution? "Green energy."
Green Energy SOUNDS great doesn't it? Using natural resources for cheap, renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, the reality slaps this idea in the face, and hard. In an article in 2006, while the Drive-By Media was busy trying to tear down George W. Bush, USA Today published a study (3) saying ethanol won't solve any problems. Noted in that article, ethanol "would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used."
12%, gang, ethanol could only supply 12% of our fuel needs, even if every acre of corn in America was used. As is, gas stations advertise that the gallon of gas you purchase may include up to 10% ethanol (so a mix of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol). For the record, true flex fuel vehicles use a mix that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Furthermore, the study states that neither ethanol nor other biofuels, such as those made from soybean, "can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies." So even if we could create enough fuel to meet our needs, the food markets would suffer because of it! The same article stated, ""The agricultural effects of such a large-scale program would be devastating."
Yet Obama wants you to believe these alternative fuels can indeed help reduce your fuel costs and even replace gasoline in the short term. The truth is ethanol can't, and even if it could it would cause major chain reactions that would harm the food supply in America. In the words of one of my favorite TV shows, that myth is busted.
How about solar power? (4 - Sources) Can we harvest enough solar rays to power our lives? Not according to the many sources I find on the internet. One source tells me that it would take $10-12 TRILLION to install enough solar power panels to fuel the United States. That would require the entire GDP of the United States for one year. That is every cent of every dollar made by every American. That alone is a problem. Secondly, I've scoured the internet looking for one, ONE mind you, reputable source that would suggest that there is enough SPACE in this country to create enough solar panels to harvest enough solar power to fulfill our energy needs. Currently, solar power consists of less than 1% of our current electricity. (5)
So it would take $10-12 Trillion to create enough solar energy to fulfill our energy needs. For the record, it takes $500 Million - $1 Billion to build a nuclear power plant. If we build 100 nuclear plants in America it wouldn't cost 1% of the cost of coming up with enough solar energy to handle our energy needs. Solar is not financially possible, while given reasonable government regulations, widely expanded nuclear power is easily available.
I can hear the Liberals now: Don't you think it's worth it to never have to pay for energy again? First of all, I live in The Real World. We cannot come up with $10-12 Trillion, period, so there's no use pretending we can. As my father told me (and probably your father too), money doesn't grow on trees. That money doesn't exist and you cannot cause it to exist to live up to a Liberal ideal. Secondly, considering the amount of solar panels that are required to power a standard residential home (200 sq. ft for a 2,000 sq. ft home, aka the entire roof basically) and the fact that most office buildings are largely vertical and not horizontal (in other words not having proportional roof space for the amount of square footage) it makes it less likely that there is enough room to put solar panels enough to power our nation. Not to mention the fact that at this particular latitude there is only so much sunlight available and many estimates doubt that there is indeed enough solar power to be harvested. So even if we could plant fields of money trees to come up with the $10-12 Trillion to build the solar harvesters needed (which again, can't be done) it is highly questionable that we can indeed harvest enough solar power to meet our energy needs. Oh and by the way, can't power a car on solar power. So even if all the other barriers could be dealt with, we still need cars.
Next comes another Liberal favorite, wind power. Unfortunately there are issues with wind power. (6) For one, due to the intermittent nature of wind, conventional power plans must be kept running, because powering them up and shutting them down would cause more CO2 emissions than leaving them up and running. (This is of course assuming the preposterous claim of Liberals that CO2, aka the stuff plants breathe, is bad for the environment.) Then when wind is strong, the turbines collect as much electricity as they can hold and have to be turned off. Throughout Europe, it is reported that turbines are usually operating at only 20% of capacity. Yet the American Wind Energy Association plan for 30%. Yet another example of Liberals living in an ideal situation rather that doesn't pan out in the Real World.
Then when wind is at its highest levels, turbines often have to be turned off, because if they are left running the turbines can be harmed! Oh, and don't forget that buildup of bugs, dirt, salt, etc on the blades of the turbines significantly reduce the energy output of wind turbines. What about safety? Well, there are a reported 43 fatalities due to wind turbines in America. Liberals are guessing, I suppose, that there must be hundreds more deaths by nuclear power in America, right? Actually, in forty years of using nuclear power in America, there have been 43 fewer deaths due to nuclear power than due to wind. (For those of you from Palm Beach, that means there have been zero fatalities due to nuclear power in the United States). Yep, zip, zero, nada for nuclear, 43 for wind. (7) So apparently it's not as safe either!
Then there's hydroelectric power. This particular form of energy actually works pretty well. Unfortunately, there is only limited ability to use it. The reason is that it requires a natural source of water rushing by gravity, (that'd be a waterfall, for those of you from Palm Beach). The places which are capable of being used for hydroelectric power (like Hoover Dam and Niagara Falls) are already being used. In other words, we cannot expand our hydroelectric capability to meet our energy needs.
So-called Green Energy is a fairytale being told by Liberals to idealists who believe it is possible to have zero-emission energy. The reality is wind power is less than 1% of our energy consumption, solar is also 1% of our energy consumption. They're nice supplements, but not capable of widespread use. They're at capacity. Hydroelectric is a good bit more of our power usage but again, we're at capacity. Talking up Green Energy is a way for Liberals to try to ride two horses with one rear end by satisfying their radical base with limits to creation of real energy like oil drilling and nuclear power, while also telling reasonable Americans that they are trying to obtain more energy to help their pocket books. Green Energy is a farce. We need to drill for oil. We need to build nuclear power plants. We need real solutions, not the Liberal pie in the sky lie that is Green Energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Eye Opening Chart: Gas Prices under Obama
(2) Gas Prices: Bush vs. Obama
(3) Study: Ethanol Won't Solve Energy Problems
(4) Solar Energy, Solar Power: Why Isn't It Used More?
Problems with Solar Power
(5) Energy in the United States
(6) A Problem With Wind Power
(7) Wind Energy -- The Breath of Life or the Kiss of Death: Contemporary Wind Mortality Rates
The Left wants us to believe that the problem isn't lack of supply in the oil. Yet they cannot (or will not) explain why it is that when George W. Bush allowed oil companies to begin the process of preparing to deep water drill and to drill in Alaska, the price of a gallon of gas dropped from over $4 per gallon to under $2 per gallon! Let's compare the oil prices under Bush before and after he allowed more drilling and after Obama cut back on drilling again (2):
That's right, sports fans. Bush left Obama with gas prices under $2 per gallon. Obama has overseen a rise to over $4 per gallon. Obama's policies of cutting out deep water drilling thanks to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (which has been completely cleaned up in record time, by the way), the President has overseen gas prices doubling over his tenure with more price increases expected. He can't even blame Bush for this one! His solution? "Green energy."
Green Energy SOUNDS great doesn't it? Using natural resources for cheap, renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, the reality slaps this idea in the face, and hard. In an article in 2006, while the Drive-By Media was busy trying to tear down George W. Bush, USA Today published a study (3) saying ethanol won't solve any problems. Noted in that article, ethanol "would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used."
12%, gang, ethanol could only supply 12% of our fuel needs, even if every acre of corn in America was used. As is, gas stations advertise that the gallon of gas you purchase may include up to 10% ethanol (so a mix of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol). For the record, true flex fuel vehicles use a mix that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Furthermore, the study states that neither ethanol nor other biofuels, such as those made from soybean, "can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies." So even if we could create enough fuel to meet our needs, the food markets would suffer because of it! The same article stated, ""The agricultural effects of such a large-scale program would be devastating."
Yet Obama wants you to believe these alternative fuels can indeed help reduce your fuel costs and even replace gasoline in the short term. The truth is ethanol can't, and even if it could it would cause major chain reactions that would harm the food supply in America. In the words of one of my favorite TV shows, that myth is busted.
How about solar power? (4 - Sources) Can we harvest enough solar rays to power our lives? Not according to the many sources I find on the internet. One source tells me that it would take $10-12 TRILLION to install enough solar power panels to fuel the United States. That would require the entire GDP of the United States for one year. That is every cent of every dollar made by every American. That alone is a problem. Secondly, I've scoured the internet looking for one, ONE mind you, reputable source that would suggest that there is enough SPACE in this country to create enough solar panels to harvest enough solar power to fulfill our energy needs. Currently, solar power consists of less than 1% of our current electricity. (5)
So it would take $10-12 Trillion to create enough solar energy to fulfill our energy needs. For the record, it takes $500 Million - $1 Billion to build a nuclear power plant. If we build 100 nuclear plants in America it wouldn't cost 1% of the cost of coming up with enough solar energy to handle our energy needs. Solar is not financially possible, while given reasonable government regulations, widely expanded nuclear power is easily available.
I can hear the Liberals now: Don't you think it's worth it to never have to pay for energy again? First of all, I live in The Real World. We cannot come up with $10-12 Trillion, period, so there's no use pretending we can. As my father told me (and probably your father too), money doesn't grow on trees. That money doesn't exist and you cannot cause it to exist to live up to a Liberal ideal. Secondly, considering the amount of solar panels that are required to power a standard residential home (200 sq. ft for a 2,000 sq. ft home, aka the entire roof basically) and the fact that most office buildings are largely vertical and not horizontal (in other words not having proportional roof space for the amount of square footage) it makes it less likely that there is enough room to put solar panels enough to power our nation. Not to mention the fact that at this particular latitude there is only so much sunlight available and many estimates doubt that there is indeed enough solar power to be harvested. So even if we could plant fields of money trees to come up with the $10-12 Trillion to build the solar harvesters needed (which again, can't be done) it is highly questionable that we can indeed harvest enough solar power to meet our energy needs. Oh and by the way, can't power a car on solar power. So even if all the other barriers could be dealt with, we still need cars.
Next comes another Liberal favorite, wind power. Unfortunately there are issues with wind power. (6) For one, due to the intermittent nature of wind, conventional power plans must be kept running, because powering them up and shutting them down would cause more CO2 emissions than leaving them up and running. (This is of course assuming the preposterous claim of Liberals that CO2, aka the stuff plants breathe, is bad for the environment.) Then when wind is strong, the turbines collect as much electricity as they can hold and have to be turned off. Throughout Europe, it is reported that turbines are usually operating at only 20% of capacity. Yet the American Wind Energy Association plan for 30%. Yet another example of Liberals living in an ideal situation rather that doesn't pan out in the Real World.
Then when wind is at its highest levels, turbines often have to be turned off, because if they are left running the turbines can be harmed! Oh, and don't forget that buildup of bugs, dirt, salt, etc on the blades of the turbines significantly reduce the energy output of wind turbines. What about safety? Well, there are a reported 43 fatalities due to wind turbines in America. Liberals are guessing, I suppose, that there must be hundreds more deaths by nuclear power in America, right? Actually, in forty years of using nuclear power in America, there have been 43 fewer deaths due to nuclear power than due to wind. (For those of you from Palm Beach, that means there have been zero fatalities due to nuclear power in the United States). Yep, zip, zero, nada for nuclear, 43 for wind. (7) So apparently it's not as safe either!
Then there's hydroelectric power. This particular form of energy actually works pretty well. Unfortunately, there is only limited ability to use it. The reason is that it requires a natural source of water rushing by gravity, (that'd be a waterfall, for those of you from Palm Beach). The places which are capable of being used for hydroelectric power (like Hoover Dam and Niagara Falls) are already being used. In other words, we cannot expand our hydroelectric capability to meet our energy needs.
So-called Green Energy is a fairytale being told by Liberals to idealists who believe it is possible to have zero-emission energy. The reality is wind power is less than 1% of our energy consumption, solar is also 1% of our energy consumption. They're nice supplements, but not capable of widespread use. They're at capacity. Hydroelectric is a good bit more of our power usage but again, we're at capacity. Talking up Green Energy is a way for Liberals to try to ride two horses with one rear end by satisfying their radical base with limits to creation of real energy like oil drilling and nuclear power, while also telling reasonable Americans that they are trying to obtain more energy to help their pocket books. Green Energy is a farce. We need to drill for oil. We need to build nuclear power plants. We need real solutions, not the Liberal pie in the sky lie that is Green Energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Eye Opening Chart: Gas Prices under Obama
(2) Gas Prices: Bush vs. Obama
(3) Study: Ethanol Won't Solve Energy Problems
(4) Solar Energy, Solar Power: Why Isn't It Used More?
Problems with Solar Power
(5) Energy in the United States
(6) A Problem With Wind Power
(7) Wind Energy -- The Breath of Life or the Kiss of Death: Contemporary Wind Mortality Rates
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Obama Releases Birth Certificate, Questions Still Remain
Today, Barrack Obama FINALLY released his long firm birth certificate. It all seems a little funny, and I still have questions.
As of the writing of this post, I do not have the answers to these questions. I wish I did. That being said, I'm going to ask the questions anyway in the hopes that in a few days I'll be able to follow up with answers. Here goes:
If Obama had this birth certificate all along, why did it take him three years to produce it?
It's a bit fishy, isn't it? I've stated several times that I could produce my birth certificate within hours if someone needed it. I know right where it's located. It's in a small fire safe in my home along with other important personal documents like my social security card and my life insurance policies. It's not at all hard for me to produce. So why did it take Obama so long to produce his birth certificate? If it was this easy, why now? Why all of a sudden when a national figure is asking questions does Obama produce what he wouldn't produce as eligibility to run for President?
If there was always this birth certificate, why did Hawaii Governor say there wasn't one?
It was only a couple months ago, after a lot of bluster about how he would find the birth certificate, Governor Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii (a Democrat) stated, "There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii – absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii." (1) Yet here we are, a mere three months later, and Obama all of a sudden has it. How is this so? Why, if it was so easy for Obama to produce, why couldn't the Governor of Hawaii find a copy in the state archives?
Warning: The next question does use a historical term for black people that is now defunct. Please recognize it is only being used in historical context and is meant in no way to be a slur.
Why is the term "African" written as Barrack Obama, Sr.'s race? Isn't that highly historically inaccurate?
In the early 1960s, the accepted medical term for persons of African decent was "Negro." That was the term people used. It was not a racial slur (the other "n-word" most definitely was), it was a medical term like "Caucasian." (2) The root of the word begins with Portuguese immigrants to the New World in the 1400s. It is an Anglicization (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's "turning a word in a foreign language into an English word") of the Portuguese word negro (adj.) meaning the color black.
Not until the late 1960s did the language change to use the English word "black" as the description for persons of African decent. Referring to individuals of African decent as "African" or "African-American" did not begin until the 1990s. This is a historical fact.
Personally I feel this is the most intriguing question in the issue. Are we to believe that, somehow, the person who filled out the President's birth certificate was thirty years before his time in using language that nobody was using in those days? Even if the person filling out the form was highly progressive for his day, the term would be "Black," not "African," because races were, for the sake of such records, categorized, much like Caucasians are not, and never have been, categorized today as "European" today.
Conclusion:
I have none yet. However I'm left with just as many questions as I had before Obama released his birth certificate. I recognize that I may be way off base and it may well be that Obama was indeed a natural born citizen. I'd rather not be talking about this, because I think Obama's record will cost him far more votes than anything else.
Yet along with my fellow members of the blogosphere, I will continue to ask the questions. I hope in a few days or weeks I can answer these. I give my word that if all these questions are answered satisfactorily, I will post that. Those of you who read this blog regularly know I am not a Birther. However, the Drive-By Media won't ask these questions, so we on the internet must. I look forward to answers. But it still smells fishy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Hawaii Governor Abercrombie Admits There Is No Obama Birth Certificate
(2) Race Terms Used in 1960 for Birth Certificates
As of the writing of this post, I do not have the answers to these questions. I wish I did. That being said, I'm going to ask the questions anyway in the hopes that in a few days I'll be able to follow up with answers. Here goes:
If Obama had this birth certificate all along, why did it take him three years to produce it?
It's a bit fishy, isn't it? I've stated several times that I could produce my birth certificate within hours if someone needed it. I know right where it's located. It's in a small fire safe in my home along with other important personal documents like my social security card and my life insurance policies. It's not at all hard for me to produce. So why did it take Obama so long to produce his birth certificate? If it was this easy, why now? Why all of a sudden when a national figure is asking questions does Obama produce what he wouldn't produce as eligibility to run for President?
If there was always this birth certificate, why did Hawaii Governor say there wasn't one?
It was only a couple months ago, after a lot of bluster about how he would find the birth certificate, Governor Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii (a Democrat) stated, "There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii – absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii." (1) Yet here we are, a mere three months later, and Obama all of a sudden has it. How is this so? Why, if it was so easy for Obama to produce, why couldn't the Governor of Hawaii find a copy in the state archives?
Warning: The next question does use a historical term for black people that is now defunct. Please recognize it is only being used in historical context and is meant in no way to be a slur.
Why is the term "African" written as Barrack Obama, Sr.'s race? Isn't that highly historically inaccurate?
In the early 1960s, the accepted medical term for persons of African decent was "Negro." That was the term people used. It was not a racial slur (the other "n-word" most definitely was), it was a medical term like "Caucasian." (2) The root of the word begins with Portuguese immigrants to the New World in the 1400s. It is an Anglicization (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that's "turning a word in a foreign language into an English word") of the Portuguese word negro (adj.) meaning the color black.
Not until the late 1960s did the language change to use the English word "black" as the description for persons of African decent. Referring to individuals of African decent as "African" or "African-American" did not begin until the 1990s. This is a historical fact.
Personally I feel this is the most intriguing question in the issue. Are we to believe that, somehow, the person who filled out the President's birth certificate was thirty years before his time in using language that nobody was using in those days? Even if the person filling out the form was highly progressive for his day, the term would be "Black," not "African," because races were, for the sake of such records, categorized, much like Caucasians are not, and never have been, categorized today as "European" today.
Conclusion:
I have none yet. However I'm left with just as many questions as I had before Obama released his birth certificate. I recognize that I may be way off base and it may well be that Obama was indeed a natural born citizen. I'd rather not be talking about this, because I think Obama's record will cost him far more votes than anything else.
Yet along with my fellow members of the blogosphere, I will continue to ask the questions. I hope in a few days or weeks I can answer these. I give my word that if all these questions are answered satisfactorily, I will post that. Those of you who read this blog regularly know I am not a Birther. However, the Drive-By Media won't ask these questions, so we on the internet must. I look forward to answers. But it still smells fishy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Hawaii Governor Abercrombie Admits There Is No Obama Birth Certificate
(2) Race Terms Used in 1960 for Birth Certificates
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Liberal Attempts to Co-Opt Jesus Christ
With Easter two days ago, sadly we were also treated to Liberals trying to pretend Jesus Christ is a Liberal. As Rush Limbaugh stated on Monday, this is what Liberals see as the only use for Jesus. To Elected Liberals, who see all religions as crutches to help weak people get through life, Jesus can only be used to promote their policies.
Before I continue, I want to again state unequivocally my faith. I am a born-again Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He came to Earth, walked amongst us for 33 years, was crucified for the sins of mankind and rose again on the third day, which we call Easter. I believe Jesus Christ is alive and well and that He reigns with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. I believe He is returning as He promised, and that right quickly. I also believe Jesus told us EXACTLY who He is and what is truth in His Word, the Holy Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible and beyond reproach as the documentation of God's truth.
Finally, please be aware that the Bible says:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." - Hebrews 13:8 (1)
Thus, Old Testament verses are as useful as New Testament verses on the subject of what Jesus believes. There is no distinction between the statements of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit through prophets and directly to people in the Old Testament and the statements of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
Please note I won't go into the scriptures as deeply on this because I have a longer paper I want to publish here once it's ready fully discussing the principles of Biblical Conservatism.
Anyone who has read more than two posts on this site know that Jesus is not a Liberal. Any arguments against this can be torn down easily. Liberals will tell you Jesus "accepted everyone" as an argument that Jesus would accept all lifestyles, even those that include sins like homosexuality and promiscuity. This is inherently false. It takes Jesus out of context. Here's the truth: Jesus Christ accepts all PEOPLE but does not accept all BEHAVIORS! Consider the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John:
The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11 (2)
If Jesus was a Liberal as Liberals claim, wouldn't He have said "Go, everything you're doing is fine, you were born that way." He didn't! He said "Go and sin no more." Herein lays the real difference between Jesus Christ and Liberals. Jesus accepts all people, but not all their actions. Christ knows who he created people to be, and that their bodies were not created for adultery. He accepts the woman, but that acceptance requires her to follow Him. Following Jesus means doing all in your power to put on Christ and to reject sin. Of course, this doesn't mean Christians must never sin and that we're expected to suddenly become perfect. We aren't. But we are expected to do our best to turn from our sin. In other words, if someone is now knowingly living a lifestyle of sin (like promiscuity or homosexuality) they must stop.
Or perhaps you might say that Jesus was opposed to wealth, as Liberals are opposed to wealth. Yet the Bible does not speak against wealth. Instead, it speaks of places where God BLESSED the righteous with wealth!
The LORD has blessed my master greatly, and he has become great; and He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys. - Genesis 24:35 (3)
Or perhaps this passage:
Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
Who delights greatly in His commandments.
His descendants will be mighty on earth;
The generation of the upright will be blessed.
Wealth and riches will be in his house,
And his righteousness endures forever. - Psalm 112:1-3 (4)
Or here:
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day. - Deuteronomy 8:18 (5)
The Bible speaks of God BLESSING people with wealth, how can you claim Jesus believed wealth is evil? The truth is Jesus never condemned money. The Bible does say:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1 Timothy 6:10 (6)
The Bible does say the LOVE OF MONEY is evil, but money itself is not. God speaks throughout the Bible of blessing people with money, provided it does not become a false idol to people. So it is unreasonable to believe Jesus is opposed to people becoming wealthy.
Or how about taxes? Liberals believe it is just to tax those who are wealthy at a higher rate than others. The Bible had two forms about tax in the Bible. The first, the temple tax (Exodus 30:11-16) was the same amount for all people, one half shekel. The second is the tithe. The tithe was the same percentage from all people, 10% of that person's income (Deuteronomy 14:21-23). That's the exact same percentage of tax on all people. That's a flat tax, people.
So many Liberals like to say that under a flat tax, richer people wouldn't be paying "their fair share." I disagree. Let's look at three individuals:
Person A: $20,000 annual salary
Person B: $200,000 annual salary
Person C: $2 Million annual salary..
Under a Biblical Flat Tax (10%) let's look at what each person would pay:
10% Flat Tax
Person A: $2,000 per year in federal taxes
Person B: $20,000 per year in federal taxes
Person C: $200,000 per year in federal taxes
As you'll see, as God blesses a person with more income, their tithe and taxes would increase exponentially. Furthermore, with more money in the economy, one can expect lower unemployment which means more taxpayers and ultimately increased tax revenue. It's a historical fact! (7)
How about caring for the poor? Jesus must have supported government spending on the poor, right? Actually no. In both the Old and New Testaments, God tells individuals to care for the poor.
If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. - Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (8)
That's right, YOU give to the poor. Directly. Don't give to the government and have the government redistribute the money. You do it. That's not Liberalism. That is Conservatism!
Another Easter is passed so Liberals will cease using Jesus to support their policies for another year. But every year, without fail, Liberals, especially in the Drive-By Media, will try to co-opt Jesus based upon their false premises of compassion. I say it again, unequivocally: Jesus Christ is not a Liberal. Jesus said YOU take care of the poor. Jesus instituted flat taxes in Israel. Jesus doesn't tell people to keep up their sins without accountability. Jesus is a Conservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All Scriptures taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
(1) Hebrews 13:8
(2) John 8:3-11
(3) Genesis 24:35
(4) Psalm 112:1-3
(5) Deuteronomy 8:18
(6) 1 Timothy 6:10
(7) "Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates" from Heritage Foundation
(8) Deuteronomy 15:7-8
Before I continue, I want to again state unequivocally my faith. I am a born-again Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He came to Earth, walked amongst us for 33 years, was crucified for the sins of mankind and rose again on the third day, which we call Easter. I believe Jesus Christ is alive and well and that He reigns with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. I believe He is returning as He promised, and that right quickly. I also believe Jesus told us EXACTLY who He is and what is truth in His Word, the Holy Bible. I believe the Bible is infallible and beyond reproach as the documentation of God's truth.
Finally, please be aware that the Bible says:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." - Hebrews 13:8 (1)
Thus, Old Testament verses are as useful as New Testament verses on the subject of what Jesus believes. There is no distinction between the statements of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit through prophets and directly to people in the Old Testament and the statements of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.
Please note I won't go into the scriptures as deeply on this because I have a longer paper I want to publish here once it's ready fully discussing the principles of Biblical Conservatism.
Anyone who has read more than two posts on this site know that Jesus is not a Liberal. Any arguments against this can be torn down easily. Liberals will tell you Jesus "accepted everyone" as an argument that Jesus would accept all lifestyles, even those that include sins like homosexuality and promiscuity. This is inherently false. It takes Jesus out of context. Here's the truth: Jesus Christ accepts all PEOPLE but does not accept all BEHAVIORS! Consider the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John:
The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11 (2)
If Jesus was a Liberal as Liberals claim, wouldn't He have said "Go, everything you're doing is fine, you were born that way." He didn't! He said "Go and sin no more." Herein lays the real difference between Jesus Christ and Liberals. Jesus accepts all people, but not all their actions. Christ knows who he created people to be, and that their bodies were not created for adultery. He accepts the woman, but that acceptance requires her to follow Him. Following Jesus means doing all in your power to put on Christ and to reject sin. Of course, this doesn't mean Christians must never sin and that we're expected to suddenly become perfect. We aren't. But we are expected to do our best to turn from our sin. In other words, if someone is now knowingly living a lifestyle of sin (like promiscuity or homosexuality) they must stop.
Or perhaps you might say that Jesus was opposed to wealth, as Liberals are opposed to wealth. Yet the Bible does not speak against wealth. Instead, it speaks of places where God BLESSED the righteous with wealth!
The LORD has blessed my master greatly, and he has become great; and He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys. - Genesis 24:35 (3)
Or perhaps this passage:
Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
Who delights greatly in His commandments.
His descendants will be mighty on earth;
The generation of the upright will be blessed.
Wealth and riches will be in his house,
And his righteousness endures forever. - Psalm 112:1-3 (4)
Or here:
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day. - Deuteronomy 8:18 (5)
The Bible speaks of God BLESSING people with wealth, how can you claim Jesus believed wealth is evil? The truth is Jesus never condemned money. The Bible does say:
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1 Timothy 6:10 (6)
The Bible does say the LOVE OF MONEY is evil, but money itself is not. God speaks throughout the Bible of blessing people with money, provided it does not become a false idol to people. So it is unreasonable to believe Jesus is opposed to people becoming wealthy.
Or how about taxes? Liberals believe it is just to tax those who are wealthy at a higher rate than others. The Bible had two forms about tax in the Bible. The first, the temple tax (Exodus 30:11-16) was the same amount for all people, one half shekel. The second is the tithe. The tithe was the same percentage from all people, 10% of that person's income (Deuteronomy 14:21-23). That's the exact same percentage of tax on all people. That's a flat tax, people.
So many Liberals like to say that under a flat tax, richer people wouldn't be paying "their fair share." I disagree. Let's look at three individuals:
Person A: $20,000 annual salary
Person B: $200,000 annual salary
Person C: $2 Million annual salary..
Under a Biblical Flat Tax (10%) let's look at what each person would pay:
10% Flat Tax
Person A: $2,000 per year in federal taxes
Person B: $20,000 per year in federal taxes
Person C: $200,000 per year in federal taxes
As you'll see, as God blesses a person with more income, their tithe and taxes would increase exponentially. Furthermore, with more money in the economy, one can expect lower unemployment which means more taxpayers and ultimately increased tax revenue. It's a historical fact! (7)
How about caring for the poor? Jesus must have supported government spending on the poor, right? Actually no. In both the Old and New Testaments, God tells individuals to care for the poor.
If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. - Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (8)
That's right, YOU give to the poor. Directly. Don't give to the government and have the government redistribute the money. You do it. That's not Liberalism. That is Conservatism!
Another Easter is passed so Liberals will cease using Jesus to support their policies for another year. But every year, without fail, Liberals, especially in the Drive-By Media, will try to co-opt Jesus based upon their false premises of compassion. I say it again, unequivocally: Jesus Christ is not a Liberal. Jesus said YOU take care of the poor. Jesus instituted flat taxes in Israel. Jesus doesn't tell people to keep up their sins without accountability. Jesus is a Conservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All Scriptures taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
(1) Hebrews 13:8
(2) John 8:3-11
(3) Genesis 24:35
(4) Psalm 112:1-3
(5) Deuteronomy 8:18
(6) 1 Timothy 6:10
(7) "Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates" from Heritage Foundation
(8) Deuteronomy 15:7-8
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Inherent Racism of Liberalism
Last month I penned a post The Real History of Democrats and Republicans. Since then I was told that Republicans are inherently racist by a Liberal who could not present a single example of racism by Republicans and backed their argument based on the fact that a) I couldn’t prove that I’m NOT racist (an argumentation fallacy, by the way, the burden of proof is on the affirmative) and b) if I wasn’t a racist I’d know all the evidences for the Republican party’s inherent racism. Coupled with this brilliant demonstration of Liberal logic, I was also asked by a (Conservative) friend how the Democrats indeed went from being legitimately radically right wing to being radically left wing.
The former conversation, which legitimately gave me a headache due to its foolishness and the latter conversation brought up an excellent question which bears discussion: How did the Democratic Party go from the right wing to the left? What happened to the legitimate racism of the Democratic Party? History shows that no, the Republican Party of today is not the Democratic Party of yesterday, regardless of what Liberals who hate their party’s history would like you to believe. So what happened to Democrats? Did they turn on a dime and cease their racism?
To answer that question, one must understand the ultimate mental disorder that causes racism. Personally I have never believed the canned answer from school that racism is a product of fear. Rather, I believe racism is a product of a controlling spirit. (For those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that’s the desire to control other people’s lives to make yourself feel powerful.) It’s the same set of mental issues that causes bullying. Racism is about subordinating people to your desires. Same goes with slavery, and, if you will follow me on this intellectual journey, Liberalism.
If you’re a regular visitor to Biblical Conservatism, something tells me you’ve seen Roots or some other fictional account of slavery, you’ll hear historically accurate accounts of slave owners referring to their human chattel as “like children” or “too stupid to make their own way.” In reality, of course, slaves were intentionally kept ignorant so that they did not know enough to follow the natural human desire for freedom. (For those of you from Palm Beach, ignorance is defined as "the state of being uninformed.") Slaves were thought to be incapable of caring for themselves, and actually being better off being slaves so their masters could care for them. (In reality of course, given the same freedom to achieve people of all races are capable of achieving great things.)
Now compare this to the modern Democratic Party. Minorities are told they can’t achieve without affirmative action programs that give special consideration to them because of their race. They are told they need government to provide them with food through food stamps, healthcare through Medicaid, and income through unemployment insurance or welfare. You can’t obtain high wages without a Union to take care of you. Just vote for Democrats and they’ll provide you with your food, healthcare, and income.
Here’s the hard truth that Liberal Academia never told you: Democrats never stopped being racist. Liberalism is a highly racist doctrine. It believes that minorities can’t achieve on their own, that minorities need Liberals to take care of them. Instead of being legal property of slaveholders, minorities are now expected to work the Liberal plantation by voting Democrat. The only thing that has changed from the days of segregation is a change in the method of control. Instead of separate bathrooms, restaurants and train cars, Liberals now use the welfare state to keep minorities down. It is masquerading as benevolence, but it still serves to control the lives of others.
Except this controlling spirit isn’t limited just to race anymore, it extends to anyone who can be convinced to let Liberals run their lives. They tell you that you can’t decide what kind of food to eat for yourself, so they have to make trans-fats in restaurants illegal to protect you from yourself. You aren’t smart enough to make the adult decision to smoke, even though you know the health detriments, so we have to force you to stop. The exact same controlling spirit that caused slavery, that caused segregation, that caused certain individuals to tell other people “you have to do what I say” is now being directed at all people who are willing to be controlled by Liberals.
You’re too stupid and you’re like a child and need to be cared for stopped being directed only at black people and was pointed at everyone. Now everybody is too stupid to care for themselves and need their masters, the government, to care for them.
Compare this to Republicans, who, by the way, have continued to say that people of all races can achieve through their own hard work. You can do it, and you can do it on your own. You can work hard in high school and get yourself into a good college. You can work your way through college on your own and get a good job. You can work your way up in a company and earn yourself pay raises and promotions to better yourself. With the blessings of the good Lord, the sweat of your brow, and the freedom God created you to possess, you can achieve great things for yourself! You don't need government to do it...YOU can do it!
I, for one, am sick to death of being told that Conservatives and Republicans are racist. We're not opposed to giving minorities government benefits in large quantities, we're opposed to giving PEOPLE government benefits in large quantities. We are opposed to government being the provider in people's lives, regardless of what they look like. We want to teach people to fish, not give them fish.
Liberals, on the other hand, think you can't achieve, that they have to help you to let you achieve. They believe this is especially true if you are a minority. They tell minorities that you can't succeed on your own, you need our help. Anyone else think THAT sounds racist?
Yet Conservatives are told that we are the racists. We’re told we’re racist because we believe people of all races can indeed achieve, all by themselves, if they are just given freedom to achieve. We’re racist because we don’t want to buy the votes of minorities by making them comfortable enough in poverty that they are willing to stay in that poverty. We’re told we’re racist because we believe that if people of all races are given the opportunity to achieve they will indeed achieve just as well as any other person. We say “yes YOU can.”
Here's the truth: Liberalism is racist. Any philosophy that says that you can't achieve something due to your race is racist. It does not matter if you claim you have a good heart in your racism...many southern masters claimed that of their slaves, too. A truly post-racial philosophy doesn't tell people all the reasons they are victims and why they can't succeed. A truly post-racial society says, "The racism of the past is over. Now you can achieve on your own with the same hard work as anybody else. We are all the same, and now we all have the same opportunities. Do what you can with those opportunities, we're rooting for you!"
It's the Liberals who say you can't. It's Conservatives who say you can. So which philosophy is racist? Answer: Liberalism.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Racist Cries at Tea Party Are Ad Homonym and False
The latest accusation of "racism" directed toward the Tea Party has hit the fan, in the form of a private where Obama is depicted as a monkey. For the record, here is the picture:
Liberals, with their typical assumptions, went straight to calling it racist. To Liberals, what else could it be but racism, right? It's the typical ad homonym argument from Liberals which attacks first and asks questions second. Of course, the media doesn't mention the fact that it was a joke directed at birthers, saying this is the reason why Obama won't show a birth certificate is because his parents weren't human. Yes, I know calling black people "monkeys" was a favorite of legitimate racists forty years ago. I also know Democrats frequently use the exact same type of rhetoric directed at Republicans and nobody sees an issue. They use it to call someone a fool. Consider this image:
History proves Conservatism and disproves Liberalism. Liberals can't stand toe to toe with Conservatives on policy. They are TERRIFIED politically of the Tea Party because the Tea Party offers Americans a real choice, which the old guard Republican Party doesn't offer. So they try to tear us down. They call us racist so they can claim that we're illegitimate. We aren't illegitimate. We're the voice of common sense in a nonsensical world.
I challenge every Liberal who reads this to stop the mudslinging. The Tea Party is not racist. We are rejecting a socialist President, not a black President. Drop the ad homonym arguments and fight fair. Or are you afraid of a fair fight?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Google Images
(2) Google Images
(3) Google Images
(4) Democrat Party Donkey - Google Images
 |
| (1) |
 |
| (2) |
Liberals, of course, see absolutely nothing wrong with this particular image. They explain it as calling Bush a fool. It's not possible, of course, that the image of Obama was calling him a fool in a family of fools, right? It has to be racist. They draw out the race card constantly as it pertains to Obama. I will grant you, perhaps the monkey imagery was in poor taste given the racial past of our nation. That being said, Obama's supporters have used the "you're racist" argument to silence opponents since he hit the national scene. Don't believe me? Then explain to my why THIS image was also called racist:
 | ||
| (3) |
To anyone not looking to find racism in an image, this looks like a clever pun on the symbol of the Democratic Party Donkey (4) and calling Obama a fool. Yet the exact same Liberals claimed this, too, was racist. Because racists in the past called black people donkeys right? They didn't? Huh.
Herein lies the real issue. Cries of "racist" are used by Liberals to silence Obama's critics. They would like you to believe that if Obama was white, there would be no such objections to his policies from the Tea Party and Conservatives. They'll tell you the facts back it up in history. Of course, that means we disliked the policies of these politicians because they're black too, right?
 |
| 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee Senator John F. Kerry (D) |
 |
| 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton (D) |
 |
| 39th President of the United States Jimmy Carter (D) |
 |
| 36th President of the United States Lyndon Johnson (D) |
Wait a second, all four of those men are white! Yet Conservatives didn't like their policies either. Yet all four of these men have one major thing in common with President Obama. are you ready? THEY'RE ALL LIBERALS! Yep, that's the common thread between all four of them. Conservatives did not like any of them politically. In their day, each one of them was attacked for their policies very similarly to the way Barrack Obama is being attacked now.
Let's look at the other side of this coin. According to Liberal rhetoric, you'd believe Conservatives only support the following politicians because they're white, right?
 |
| Conservative Columnist and Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain |
 |
| 55th Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal (R) |
 |
| Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (R) |
 |
| Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Appointed by President George H.W. Bush (R) in 1990) |
Wait a minute...those people aren't white. There are two men of African decent, one man of Indian decent and one man of Cuban decent. Shouldn't the supposedly racist Conservatives and Tea Party members hate these men too? Yet these individuals are actually Tea Party favorites!
Here's the point: The Tea Party isn't racist. Conservatives aren't racist. It's just an ad homonym argument Liberals who don't want to enter into a real discussion with us. As I've demonstrated time and time again, Conservatism has a major advantage over Liberalism: results. Conservatism works. Even the examples Liberals try to give for Conservatism failing, the real issue is Liberalism hampering Conservatism.
For example, Liberals will tell you Reaganomics didn't work because of the huge deficits created in the 80s. Of course, what they don't tell you is that Reagan doubled tax revenues, while Liberal Democrats in Congress continued to spend $1.80 of what was brought in. In other words, Liberals were spending 180% of tax receipts. When tax receipts were increased to a point where, if spending remained the same, should have resulted in a 20% surplus, the Liberals in Congress instead doubled their spending also, leaving with an equal percentage of deficit and a higher total dollar amount of deficit.
I challenge every Liberal who reads this to stop the mudslinging. The Tea Party is not racist. We are rejecting a socialist President, not a black President. Drop the ad homonym arguments and fight fair. Or are you afraid of a fair fight?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Google Images
(2) Google Images
(3) Google Images
(4) Democrat Party Donkey - Google Images
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Debating with Liberals
After a recent debate with a Liberal on Twitter, I was subjected again to the Liberal’s idea of rhetorical debate. Believe it or not, for the informed debater it is not at all difficult to defeat their argumentation. You see, Liberal argumentation is fraught with rhetorical fallacies that are all too easily taken down utilizing a few simple rules of debate.
Before I continue, I would like to take time to establish my credentials with regards to this subject. For those of you who do not know me personally, I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the College at Brockport (part of the State University of New York) in Communication Studies. It is one of the top schools in New York for the study of Communications and Rhetoric. My education included Rhetoric Theory, Rhetorical Critique, Argumentation and Debate. Since that time I have used these skills in the fields of sales and marketing, currently for a national radio conglomerate (my company’s social media policy requires me to not specify which company).
As I stated above, certain rhetorical fallacies are rife within the Liberal dialectic. For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, a fallacy is an illegitimate form of evidence in a debate, and dialectic is the overall series of arguments used by a particular group. For the purpose of this demonstration, I will primarily use the issue of Global Warming, specifically man-caused Global warming. The first fallacy is called the fallacy of expertise.
The Fallacy of Expertise
The fallacy of expertise is the belief that if someone is an expert, everything they say is beyond reproach. What is important to know is that in a court of law and a debate, expertise must be demonstrated. First and foremost, so many of Liberals so called experts are not experts in their field at all. Look at Al Gore. Al Gore is not a scientist. Yet he is treated as an environmental expert. What is his education? The former Vice President has a bachelor’s degree in Divinity (that is theology for those of you from Palm Beach) and a graduate degree in Law. So what precisely makes Al Gore an expert in climate science? The answer is nothing. Yet we are told he is an expert by Liberals and are expected to treat his claims as scientific. Why, because he claims himself an expert. Herein lays the first part of the fallacy of expertise: people who claim themselves experts without actually being qualified as an expert. Liberals expect to be assumed experts regardless of their actual expertise.
What if the person is actually a legitimate expert? For example, I due to my education and vocational experience I can claim a level of expertise in the field of rhetoric. Yet I must still demonstrate that expertise with valid evidence. Herein lays the second part of the fallacy of expertise. Man caused Global Warming has not been demonstrated to be true. Few people argue that the temperature of the Earth has changed over time. The difference between the argument of Liberals and Conservatives is the cause. Conservatives believe that the Earth’s temperature is in a state of constant flux. It warms and cools in cyclical fashion. In essence, the Earth was designed by its Creator to be self-regulating. Even Liberal scientists’ claims back up this fact. Forty years ago we were told that we were heading for a new ice age. Now the same Liberal scientists claim the Earth’s temperature is rising. If one were to follow the Liberal stream of logic (a difficult task to be sure) one would surmise that man has corrected his mistakes in reversing the effects of Global Cooling.
However, Liberals do not like to enter into such debates. It’s devastating for their case. Rather, they start telling you the names of experts that agree that Global Warming is true. They don’t feel the need to show the evidence, they just say “this expert” or “that expert” agree with them. In a court of law and in a debate, this is an inadmissible argument. It must be presented with specific evidences which demonstrate the case. Liberals, of course, do not like tearing this down, which may lead them to this argument:
The Fallacy of Consensus
Liberals claim that all reputable scientists agree with their position on Global Warming. Of course, they are already utilizing the fallacy of expertise by rejecting one sizable group of scientists while accepting those who agree with them. It is false to believe that all reputable scientists agree with the claims that man caused Global Warming. It is not true at all. A significant group of scientists in fact do not believe man has anything to do with Global Warming. Yet these Liberals will tell you no reputable scientist agrees with denial of Global Warming. Of course, they do not actually even attempt to debate the scientific evidences against the Global Warming, they simply assume that because a particular individual disagrees with them they must be wrong. The false assumption that one is absolutely correct without questioning is a fallacy. True science is based upon evidence, not consensus. Once a Conservative tears down the fallacy of consensus, expect this argument next:
The Fallacy of Bias
The Liberal with whom you debate will then often attempt to tear down the lack of evidence given by their side by trying to tear down the other person whom is arguing with their so-called experts. Rather than dealing with the fact that the consensus is not scientific, they instead start listing the biases of your side. They will tell you that those who reject the principles of Global Warming are part of the energy industry or large businesses, essentially those who theoretically have the most reason to oppose environmental regulation.
Buried deep within this assertion is the idea that Liberal scientists are not bias, in fact they would tell you Liberals aren’t biased period. Listen to what they tell you about the Liberal Media. They claim their scientists are arguing facts alone, while of course refusing to present those facts (fallacy of expertise). The truth be told, the only person who is ever unbiased is the person who doesn’t know enough about the issue at hand to have an opinion, and that person could never claim expertise on that particular subject.
The only things that are truly unbiased are facts. Now particular facts can be demonstrated to not be factual if one examines them. Yet the personal bias of the person who presents the facts should be immaterial if their statements are indeed facts. To say that someone who has a vested interested does not eliminate facts. Let me offer an analogy. Let’s say you owe me ten dollars. You go to pay me back and hand me a five-dollar bill, claiming that because the amount owed can be paid off with a single bill of identical size, shape and color can be paid off. I tell you no, either give me a second five-dollar bill or I will return the five and you hand me a ten-dollar bill. I am indeed biased in this situation, as being paid less than I am owed is detrimental to my personal interest. Yet there is nothing false about my statement. I am owed ten dollars, and I expect to be paid ten dollars. My bias doesn’t change the fact that you have not paid me ten dollars you owe me, and even though a five-dollar bill is the same shape, size and color as a ten-dollar bill, it is not worth ten dollars.
Similarly, if somebody is speaking evident truth, it does not matter if they are the most biased person ever on that particular subject. If the facts back them up, their evidence is sound. Period.
Similarly, if somebody is speaking evident truth, it does not matter if they are the most biased person ever on that particular subject. If the facts back them up, their evidence is sound. Period.
The Fallacy of the Negative
Once you reach this point, Liberals will try to get you to prove that their assertion isn’t true. Global Warming isn’t a good comparison here, so let’s go to another favorite point from Liberals: racism. Liberals will often assert that Conservatives and Republicans are racist. It’s an ad homonym argument to be sure (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL that’s a single insulting attack without merit). When you ask them to give an example of Republican racism, they will tell you to prove you aren’t racist. How do you prove the absence of something? The truth is you can’t prove that you AREN’T something. That is why in our court system it is the prosecution’s job to prove that someone is guilty. You are innocent until proven guilty. If you have never done anything to demonstrate racism, that is all that you can do.
If someone claims you are racist, they must prove it. To ask you to prove a negative is a pure fallacy. They must prove it is true, otherwise they have no leg to stand upon.
The Fallacy of Verbosity
Which brings us to the final favorite fallacy of Liberalism: shouting you down. At this point, it has become increasingly clear to the Liberal that the facts harm their case. They will now proceed to try to try to throw so many arguments at you that you cannot deal with them all, thus claiming victory by sheer number of arguments. This is also known in rhetorical circles as “elephant hurling.” This usually takes the form of repeating canned slogans from bumper stickers, blaming George W. Bush for every ill in the nation from deficits to uneven tire wear to polio, or just rattling off talking points at you. The answer is to take the very first thing the Liberal says and start to refute it. When you're done, move to the second, etc.
Conclusion
Eventually what will happen is your Liberal friend will decide, after spending minutes, hours, days, weeks, millennia trying to convince you, they will declare that you’ll have to agree to disagree. For the record, this means you’ve won. Liberals of this sort are usually terrible at losing. So they decide it’s time to stop arguing because you’ve trounced their case. If they were as open minded as they pretend to be, they’d start questioning their opinion, yet since they’ve bought into the lie that their entitled to their wrong opinion, they will instead leave the discussion. (Side note: if you’re debating on social media like Twitter, they may disappear from the conversation entirely. They may also try to reopen the discussion out of the blue days or weeks later when they think of what they believe is a good answer to your arguments.)
What is important to remember above all else is that Conservatives have an unwitting ally in debates with Liberals: the truth. Conservatism has a history of successful results. That’s why when we talk about our side we talk about successes of our programs, where Liberals talk about the laws they’ve passed without mentioning the successes of those laws (or lack thereof). When Conservatism has been tried, it has worked every time. When Liberalism has been tried, it has never failed to fail.
I can hear some of you asking, “Why bother to argue with this sort of Liberal at all?” Simple: You’re not just trying to persuade that Liberal, you are trying to persuade all who hear the discussion. There are many people who are relatively apolitical who will be persuaded to be Liberal because they want to be compassionate. This is your opportunity to win them to the side of compassionate results, Conservatism. And at the end of the day, it’s more important to persuade five listeners than one Liberal whose mind is already made up.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Dear Nancy Pelosi: We Don't WANT to Agree with You!
Last week, Nancy Pelosi urged Republicans to “take back their party.” She believes that if Republicans would just forfeit and act like Democrats, elections won’t “mean that much.” Anybody surprised? Nancy Pelosi does not want to lose the sweet deal she and the Democratic Party have had with the GOP the last fifteen years or so. Ever since the Republicans took over the House of Representatives for the first time in generations in 1994, the Democrats have had Republicans who are terribly quick to play the “compromise” game which translates into giving the Democrats half of what they want when Republicans are in power. Of course, Democrats proceed to get 100% of what they want when they are in power, meaning Democrats always get the long end of the stick.
Pelosi sees the writing on the wall. She realizes the political threat that we in the Tea Party represent. Her perfect world where Liberals are guaranteed at least 50% of their desires in all political dealings is about to go bye-bye because we will continue to hold the leadership of the Republican Party to the fire when they are too quick to compromise. Pelosi, along with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and so many other Liberal Democrats are trying to appeal to the RINOs in the Republican Party to “take the party back” so we can go back to everyone being varying degrees of Liberal.
My message to the Republican Party is (please grab the nearest Republican Party leadership member of whatever rank you can find and shout this at them): DON’T DO IT! Pelosi is not out for your better good and she is not out for the best for the country. Nancy Pelosi is concerned with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. She knows real competition from the GOP is the end of the sweet deal she’s had for years. Yet if we want the country to go back to what made America great in the first place, we MUST fight.
Despite what Liberal academics keep telling you, “getting along” isn’t necessarily a good thing, and neither is “getting things done.” As far as “getting along” is concerned, there is nothing wrong with civil discourse. That being said, civility is not an issue that Conservatives need improvement. What was the last time you heard a news report about a rank and file Conservative threatening somebody’s life? (Newsflash, the Ku Klux Klan does not have Conservatives. They have fascists.) What was the last time that Republicans said that Democrats want old people to die and if they live they want them to eat dog food? The answer is never. Even though Liberalism is legitimately a racist mentality, how often do you hear Conservatives call Liberals racist? (PS I’m going to delve into that further in an upcoming post when the news cycle gives me a day that doesn’t require a timely response.) The answer is you don’t hear that at all from Conservatives. From legitimate nut-job extremists like the KKK (who are the REAL right-wing extremists by the way) you hear that, and from Liberals (who are legitimate left-wing extremists).
There used to be something called the Arena of Ideas. Notice the sports metaphor. In the Arena of Ideas, people let their ideas compete with other ideas. People debated. They discussed ideas based not on intentions but on results. People were vying not only to persuade each other but to persuade all who were hearing the debate. Ideas competed like sports teams with the scoreboard being elections.
We’ve lost that in our society, and that is sad. One of the things Liberal Academia has brainwashed people into believing is the idea that we should all happily coexist with our differing ideas and never try to persuade each other of our own ideas. While this is a good idea at a family reunion or even at the office, in the area of political discourse that is baloney. Political ideas ought to be competing for votes. Conservatives are generally fine with this concept, while Liberals don’t want to have to stand up for their opinions in the Arena of Ideas because their ideas don’t provide results.
Rush Limbaugh has recently commented that Conservatives have a distinct advantage in this political discourse: the truth. What Conservatives want to put into practice WORKS. We have a history of successfully raising more tax revenue through lower taxes. We have a successful track record of booming economies where EVERYBODY is doing well. Liberalism has nothing but stories of laws passed (regardless of their success) and good intentions. When you look at the results of Liberal polices what do you see? You see stories of crippling debt and deficits, failed programs which we’re told we need to keep pouring money into so they will work. Look at the War on Poverty. We have set piles upon piles of money on fire in order to fight poverty and yet the only real result of the War on Poverty is to make poverty a more comfortable situation (and one that people are willing to stay in) and more poverty.
As such I think it is quite obvious why Liberals do not want to go toe to toe in the Arena of Ideas. That’s why Liberals have to say that Republicans want to take away senior citizen’s health care by ending Medicare and that Republicans want to eliminate Social Security. Of course, they do not want that. No Republican has recommended ending Social Security or ending Medicare. Some have suggested means testing Social Security and Medicare, perhaps changing the retirement age for Social Security, all very reasonable (and fiscally sound) recommendations. If Liberals actually spoke their intentions truthfully it would sound like this:
“We propose to spend taxpayer dollars on whatever will get us votes. Do you want government to pay you to sculpt sculptures or paint paintings? Even if it’s lousy? Sure. You’re going to vote for us right? We will pay for absolutely everybody to receive food stamps, even if you have plenty of money to pay for food. You’re going to vote for us right? We will spend however much money we need to so that you will vote for us, and if we don’t have the money we will borrow it.
“By the way, you’re not smart enough to decide what food to eat. We propose that you let us decide for you what you should eat. Don’t worry, we’ll make sure you don’t have that make smart decisions for yourself or be free to make bad ones. You should never smoke cigarettes because they’re bad for you, but we do need the tax dollars we get from it so keep smoking, but be aware that we’re going to talk about how bad it is for you. Bear in mind we TOTALLY want you to keep smoking though…we need the tax dollars to buy votes.
“Green Energy is not close to being developed. We don’t have enough wind and solar technology to power a sizable farm much less to power the country. Nonetheless, we want you to pretend that solar and wind power to replace fossil fuels. Oh and please pretend ethanol is developed enough to be useful on a massive scale, regardless of the fact that there isn’t enough land in the world to grow enough corn to power the United States for a week and a half. Oh and it’s going to cause the price of food to go up a ton. But you feel guilty about something or other so you’ll believe us about this Green Energy, so it will definitely make you feel better (even though it won’t do a darn thing to save the planet.
“In conclusion, vote Democrat, we’ll give you anything you ask for, funded by taxpayers.”
You couldn’t get elected Dog Catcher with that rhetoric. Conservatives can talk about freedom to choose for yourself, about self reliance, about the successes of Economic Conservatism, the Laffer Curve and the increase in tax revenue when tax rates are kept low. In short, we have positive things to talk about. In a straight up debate about ideas, Conservatives will win.
This is why Nancy Pelosi wants Republicans to agree to forfeit the true advantage we have in the truth. She knows that the Tea Party is calling for the GOP to stand up and fight toe to toe and to talk about the truth that we have in our back pocket. She wants us to pretend we’re even close on ideas so that the American people don’t see the legitimate differences between Republicans and Democrats. When the choice is between Democrats and Diet Democrats in the GOP, many people will just go with Democrats. It’s similar to when people said “New Coke tastes like Pepsi. I might as well just drink Pepsi.” Continuing the metaphor, however, when Americans are given the choice between Pepsi and Coca-Cola Classic, Coke wins. Conservatives (and by extension Republicans) are Coca-Cola Classic. When we stand for the Constitution, we’re baseball, apple pie, and road trips to the Grand Canyon.
When we stand up and say we’re Conservatives and here’s what we stand for, we win. Real Conservatism wins every single time it’s effectively communicated. Liberalism never fails to fail when it’s put into practice and never fails to lose when Conservatism succeeds in explaining what Liberalism means.
Nancy Pelosi, the Tea Party isn’t going anywhere. You’re easy days are done. You now have to deal with political discourse. Deal with it, because we’re here to stay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)