The Left was quick to surmise that the Boston Marathon bombing came from some sort of "right wing activist."
According to PMS-NBC's Iraqi Defense Minister act-alike Chris Matthews, "Domestic terrorists...tend to be on the far right." CNN Analyst Peter Bergen asked "Right-Wing Extremists to blame for explosions?" Salon.com writer David Sirota said "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a White American."
Not surprisingly to anyone without a deep desire to blame political opponents, it turned out the bombers were Islamic Jihadists.
It's hardly the first time the Left has immediately blamed conservatives in general and the Tea Party in specific. When James Holmes was identified as the shooter, the Left immediately jumped to suggest that he was a Tea Party member. When Jared Loughner went on a shooting spree, killing six people and severely injuring several people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Left immediately suggested Loughner was a Tea Partier. He wasn't. Officially he was a registered Independent, but his writings suggested not a right wing extremist but a left wing extremist!
While some could argue that Islamic Jihadists are officially on the "right wing" they are not modern American conservatives in any way. They are more extremely right-wing than a monarchist. So while some liberals will claim Islamic Jihadists are "technically right-wing" it is yet another liberal false-equivalency. Same can be said of right-wing extremists like the Ku Klux Klan. It is a classic liberal false equivalency, just as it would be false to
lump in most American liberals with Communism. (Comparing them to
European style Socialism is fair based on a true equivalency of
policies. Communism is inaccurate.)
The Tea Party stands for classic American ideals like keeping government as small as reasonably possible, keeping taxes as reasonably low as reasonably possible, and keeping people personally responsible for their own lives. The Tea Party is not extreme in the first place...it is classic American conservatism. The attempt to lump us in with Islamic Jihadists is an incredible lie.
Ultimately, every time there is an attack the Left will openly hope and suggest it is a Tea Partier, and so far it just keeps ending up being Jihadists. Maybe, and I know this is asking for a lot, maybe the Drive-By Media could knock off the politically based speculation and...oh I don't know...report the news?
I guess that'd be too much to hope for these days.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The 2nd Amendment was NEVER about Hunting, Personal Security
You'd be surprised to find how many liberals believe this...and why wouldn't they? It's what liberal teachers are teaching our children in public schools. I'll bet you this quote never comes up:
Don't get me wrong, personal security makes the Right to Bear Arms further necessary. While major cities and even smaller towns had some law enforcement, just like today the sheriff couldn't stop a robbery at the sight unless he happened to be on site at the time. Despite what liberals in their Happy Imagination Hats believe, you can't call the police if someone is trying to assault you, at least in most cases.
However, the reason for the Second Amendment, was, is and always will be is to ensure that the citizens of the United States are capable of remove our government if the government ever becomes tyrannical.
(I AM NOT suggesting that such a revolt is currently necessary, nor should this post be construed as a call for such a revolution. Anyone who takes this post to mean we should revolt is wrong.)
It turns out the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that our nation could stand up against our own government if it was ever necessary. So far, in the over 230 years of this nation's history, such a revolution has not been necessary -- but only a fool would assume that it is 100% impossible for such a need to arise in the future.
Therefore, if the United States government has a particular firearm, citizens DO in fact "need" to be able to purchase the same firearms, just in case we need to remove a future tyrannical government. Whether we would need an M16 rifle for hunting deer or bear is irrelevant. We would need that if we ever needed to overthrow a tyrannical government (which would absolutely have those weapons, because duh).
Liberals have either missed the point of the Second Amendment or are willfully ignoring it. The Second Amendment is about protection from tyranny from within. Plain and simple.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: The Supreme Court Says...
This one comes from yet another conversation with my Twitter friend "Jeff." This time our debate was on abortion. This was his final response:
"Jeff" has just demonstrated a class liberal rhetorical fallacy: The Supreme Court said X, ergo X is a fact.
For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.
Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue. Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong. Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States.
If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865 and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.
The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.
 |
| This is not "Jeff's" real Twitter page although it is his real tweet. @UpstateMetFan is my Twitter handle, not "Jeff's" |
For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.
Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue. Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong. Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States.
If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865 and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.
The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Letter Bag: Does the Bible Promote Liberalism?
Well sports fans, it's time for the
Biblical Conservatism Letter Bag! Although this time we got something very,
very rare: A legitimate question and not anonymous to boot! So, unlike previous
Letter Bag posts where I get to make up a fun nickname, we're going to answer
this one straight:
I happened upon your website when I googled the bible and
conservatism. I googled the subject because I attend church with god loving
people who are sometimes pretty liberal. What do you say when people bring up
the redistribution of wealth is supported by Jesus because of scriptures such
as "give all you have to the poor and follow me" then they don't and
then Jesus says "it's harder to get a rich man in heaven than a camel to
go through the eye of a needle". Like you I am a Christian conservative,
but I find myself having to defend conservatism more and more even with church
friends. Also, do you recommend some reading material on this subject?
Thank you for your time,
Daryl
Dear Daryl:
It's definitely a claim a lot of liberals like to make. Most
are Neighborhood Liberals
who mean well but just don't understand the line between Jesus' command to
care for the poor and the Left's attempt to say government should care for
everyone.
I ask them "Show me the part in the Bible where Jesus says 'give your money to the government, and let the government care for the poor.' "
Of course, there is no such passage! Which is particularly interesting considering that the government in Christ’s time was, at least partially, the church!
Let’s look at God’s original plan to care for the poor:
I ask them "Show me the part in the Bible where Jesus says 'give your money to the government, and let the government care for the poor.' "
Of course, there is no such passage! Which is particularly interesting considering that the government in Christ’s time was, at least partially, the church!
Let’s look at God’s original plan to care for the poor:
When you reap
the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather
the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or
pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner.
I am the LORD your God.
- Leviticus 18:9-10
- Leviticus 18:9-10
And here’s another example:
When you reap
the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field
when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall
leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 23:22
It’s interesting that there’s no mention of the government taking care of the poor, am I right?
It’s interesting that there’s no mention of the government taking care of the poor, am I right?
That's because Jesus didn't command us to let
government take care of the poor, but rather instructed US to directly care for
them. In the time of Jesus it meant giving alms. Today, the practical
application is largely through giving to our churches and other charities, not
the government, although directly providing for those in need is also possible.
I suspect you're dealing largely with what I
refer to as "Neighborhood Liberals."
Neighborhood
Liberals tend to see only the compassionate
intention of government programs, rather than the results. They legitimately
care, but don't bother to look at the results of these big government programs.
As far as the supposed Biblical railing on
wealth, ask them if they think Abraham entered the Kingdom of Heaven? How about
King David? There were many heroes of the faith who God blessed with wealth.
The Bible never says wealth is evil, but only
the LOVE of money. Not only that, but
there is tremendous hypocrisy on the Left on this subject. They claim the
Constitution has a "Separation of Church
and State" which by the way is not in the Constitution at all) but then
want to use Biblical principles to push their agenda.
It is indeed frustrating!
Ultimately, if you’re dealing with a Neighborhood Liberal,
ask them if they want to see the poor actually helped, and then explain the
complete failures of liberal programs to actually HELP the poor. Conservatives
DO want to help the poor. We just want to ACTUALLY HELP THE POOR, not just give
them free benefits that never lift them out of poverty. We don’t want to set a
bunch of money on fire in an effort to help without actually helping.
Furthermore, the Bible is not a socially liberal document by today’s standards (although it certainly was in its own day). The woman caught in adultery was not told “Neither do I condemn you, go and keep doing exactly what you were doing because that’s who you are.” She was told “Neither do I condemn you, go and SIN NO MORE.”
The liberal mentality is “everything you’re doing is fine, period,” and “to love the person, you must love their actions.” This is not the Biblical mentality AT ALL. The Bible preaches “love the sinner, hate the sin” and “go and sin no more.” Despite what liberals will tell you, the Bible doesn’t promote the liberal mentality of “if it feels good, do it.”
Furthermore, the Bible is not a socially liberal document by today’s standards (although it certainly was in its own day). The woman caught in adultery was not told “Neither do I condemn you, go and keep doing exactly what you were doing because that’s who you are.” She was told “Neither do I condemn you, go and SIN NO MORE.”
The liberal mentality is “everything you’re doing is fine, period,” and “to love the person, you must love their actions.” This is not the Biblical mentality AT ALL. The Bible preaches “love the sinner, hate the sin” and “go and sin no more.” Despite what liberals will tell you, the Bible doesn’t promote the liberal mentality of “if it feels good, do it.”
Ultimately, the Bible is not, nor has it ever been a liberal
book. Attempts to do otherwise are either Neighborhood Liberals are misguided
enough to believe that compassion equals government spending or Activist
Liberals who want to falsely convince people to follow their mentalities.
Daryl, thanks for writing and for reading!
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Static Budget Predictions
In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed raising the Federal Minimum Wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour. Liberals have, of course, trumpeted the idea as raising standard of living for the poor (a concept Biblical Conservatism refuted in Compassionate Intentions (No Results Required) a few weeks back). Today we're going to focus on another claim liberals have made: Raising minimum wage will only cost employers X, and therefore shouldn't be a financial hardship!
Setting aside the fact that this claim ignores that employers rarely do what liberals say they "should" do because liberals often ignore the realities of human nature (which is subsequently why socialism and communism don't work and capitalism does, but I digress) -- this claim also uses the fallacy-ridden practice of Static Budgeting.
Liberals will tell you, using this principle that an employer with ten minimum wage employees who average thirty hours a week will only have to pay $525 more a week and that shouldn't require much of a price increase to compensate!
Other than the fact that this "only $525 a week" is somebody else's money (therefore making it awfully easy for that liberal to make that claim) there is a second massive hole in this claim: it ignores the chain reactions within the price increase that a business owner has to plan for in raising prices to compensate for the new wages he is required to pay. Let's bring up a few of these unseen potential costs:
These four examples are not the entirety of the hidden costs of raising minimum wage. Each of these four are potential costs associated above and beyond the static prediction that liberals give considering ONLY the immediate cost of raising minimum wage -- the cost in the payroll ledger.
Liberals love to budget the projected costs of anything statically. They love to ignore the reactions that may happen in a free market that are catalyzed by the initial change. They love to ignore the predictable market reactions to any change. It doesn't work that way. Liberals love to pretend that the laws of physics that also apply to a free market doesn't apply when they raise minimum wage, taxes, etc. don't actually apply. They expect their action to not set up a chain reaction.
Except that's what always happens. Static budget predictions never come true. There are just too many other things that effect the cost of a minimum wage increase, or tax increase, or healthcare mandate that aren't taken into effect. Business owners don't just compensate for the costs that will DEFINITELY happen. They compensate for the costs that COULD happen, because failure to do so could cause their business to collapse.
Ask yourself what THAT would do to people's "standard of living?"
Setting aside the fact that this claim ignores that employers rarely do what liberals say they "should" do because liberals often ignore the realities of human nature (which is subsequently why socialism and communism don't work and capitalism does, but I digress) -- this claim also uses the fallacy-ridden practice of Static Budgeting.
Liberals will tell you, using this principle that an employer with ten minimum wage employees who average thirty hours a week will only have to pay $525 more a week and that shouldn't require much of a price increase to compensate!
Other than the fact that this "only $525 a week" is somebody else's money (therefore making it awfully easy for that liberal to make that claim) there is a second massive hole in this claim: it ignores the chain reactions within the price increase that a business owner has to plan for in raising prices to compensate for the new wages he is required to pay. Let's bring up a few of these unseen potential costs:
- The business may not be able to swallow the increased costs and therefore may cut their employees' hours to compensate.
- The above cut in hours could impact the quality of service for their customers. For example, a fast food restaurant who cuts customers will necessarily move more slowly in their food preparation. That means they will not only be able to serve fewer customers in a day -- which cuts their incoming revenue -- but they may also lose customers over that, further cutting their incoming revenue.
- The business will need to raise the prices of their product. When prices go up, many customers will buy the product less frequently. That means, again, a cut to incoming revenue.
- Some of the suppliers of the materials business owners require to supply their customers needs may also pay their employees minimum wage, which means that their operating costs may go up.
These four examples are not the entirety of the hidden costs of raising minimum wage. Each of these four are potential costs associated above and beyond the static prediction that liberals give considering ONLY the immediate cost of raising minimum wage -- the cost in the payroll ledger.
Liberals love to budget the projected costs of anything statically. They love to ignore the reactions that may happen in a free market that are catalyzed by the initial change. They love to ignore the predictable market reactions to any change. It doesn't work that way. Liberals love to pretend that the laws of physics that also apply to a free market doesn't apply when they raise minimum wage, taxes, etc. don't actually apply. They expect their action to not set up a chain reaction.
Except that's what always happens. Static budget predictions never come true. There are just too many other things that effect the cost of a minimum wage increase, or tax increase, or healthcare mandate that aren't taken into effect. Business owners don't just compensate for the costs that will DEFINITELY happen. They compensate for the costs that COULD happen, because failure to do so could cause their business to collapse.
Ask yourself what THAT would do to people's "standard of living?"
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Theory Over Experience
"You're just going to have to trust me on this one...I'm the one with the degree in Economics, remember?"
This was an argument I once heard from a liberal when I had the audacity to question the predicted results of a minimum wage increase. The general point of this was "I'm an expert, you aren't, so my opinions are above your questions."
This is different from true expert testimony, by the way. A true expert, when giving testimony, has to do more than establish their credentials by their vocation or degree, at least with a person who does not know enough about them to trust them at their word.
Often times, it usually focuses on education, rather than real world experience. Academics (that is college professors or researchers) tend to think their book smarts far outrank the real-world experiences of others. To give an example, having a degree in Economics often gives a person knowledge of Economic theory, but given the diversity of theories it doesn't necessarily give them understanding of what actually works in the real world (often it doesn't, actually). A person who has actually run a business understands more than a person who studies theories.
When it comes to the effect of a minimum wage increase on both the real spending power of a minimum wage employee as well as on the employer, I can claim real-world expertise. Why is that? Because I managed a national chain restaurant for a few years and oversaw a minimum wage increase. During that time, I saw the effect on pricing of our product and discussed how it effected some of my long-term employees (especially those who were actually making above the minimum wage because they earned raises).
I told this person that the real impact of the increase would be an economic drop because business owners would have to increase prices and cut hours. Further I explained it would be a real money loss to the employee who had already earned raises over minimum wage and a zero real dollar gain to those who were making the old minimum wage.
I was told my real-world expertise doesn't matter, because they had a study from an Economist that proved the increase was positive. The Economist quoted hadn't run a business. They just knew the theory behind the increase.
It's the same mentality that claims that Keynesian Economics works based on theory. Keynesian Economics doesn't have real-world success stories, just failures. If we were applying real-world success to our choice of economic planning we'd follow a school of economic thought like Supply Side Economics or the Austrian School of Economics, both of which have seen historical success.
Bottom line is this: Real world experience means more than theory, because it's been exercised in practice.
This was an argument I once heard from a liberal when I had the audacity to question the predicted results of a minimum wage increase. The general point of this was "I'm an expert, you aren't, so my opinions are above your questions."
This is different from true expert testimony, by the way. A true expert, when giving testimony, has to do more than establish their credentials by their vocation or degree, at least with a person who does not know enough about them to trust them at their word.
Often times, it usually focuses on education, rather than real world experience. Academics (that is college professors or researchers) tend to think their book smarts far outrank the real-world experiences of others. To give an example, having a degree in Economics often gives a person knowledge of Economic theory, but given the diversity of theories it doesn't necessarily give them understanding of what actually works in the real world (often it doesn't, actually). A person who has actually run a business understands more than a person who studies theories.
When it comes to the effect of a minimum wage increase on both the real spending power of a minimum wage employee as well as on the employer, I can claim real-world expertise. Why is that? Because I managed a national chain restaurant for a few years and oversaw a minimum wage increase. During that time, I saw the effect on pricing of our product and discussed how it effected some of my long-term employees (especially those who were actually making above the minimum wage because they earned raises).
I told this person that the real impact of the increase would be an economic drop because business owners would have to increase prices and cut hours. Further I explained it would be a real money loss to the employee who had already earned raises over minimum wage and a zero real dollar gain to those who were making the old minimum wage.
I was told my real-world expertise doesn't matter, because they had a study from an Economist that proved the increase was positive. The Economist quoted hadn't run a business. They just knew the theory behind the increase.
It's the same mentality that claims that Keynesian Economics works based on theory. Keynesian Economics doesn't have real-world success stories, just failures. If we were applying real-world success to our choice of economic planning we'd follow a school of economic thought like Supply Side Economics or the Austrian School of Economics, both of which have seen historical success.
Bottom line is this: Real world experience means more than theory, because it's been exercised in practice.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Disagreement = Hate
You disagree with gay marriage? You must be homophobic! You disagree with illegal immigration? You must be racist! You disagree with spending trillions on welfare? You must hate the poor! Right? Right!
At least that's what liberals would have us believe. In short, to love a person, you must love their actions too. Anyone who is a parent or indeed anyone who has a child in their life knows this is foolishness. I love my nephew, but that doesn't mean I love the smell of his diapers. When I was a child, my parents loved me. They didn't love the fact that I once forged my father's signature on a poor test that had been sent home to be signed.
There was a clear separation between the actions and the person. You can love your adult child while disapproving of the fact that they are living with their significant other while being unmarried. You can love the poor without wanting to give them government handout after government handout that encourages them to stay in poverty.
The same is true for issues like gay marriage. As those of you who read this blog know, I am opposed to gay marriage.* It's not a secret. That doesn't stop me from befriending a gay person in any way. Actually, my high school best friend is gay. (We grew apart due to distance, not due his preferences.) He unequivocally knew how I felt about his lifestyle, but he also knew I was his friend and loved him like a brother.
Despite what liberals tell you, it is more than possible to love a person while disliking his actions. Jesus modeled this exact principle in the Gospel of John:
3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 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.
7 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.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 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. 10 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?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11
Jesus modeled precisely the OPPOSITE of this attitude of "if you disagree with a deed, you hate the person." In fact, he demonstrated the principle of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Jesus explained the truth of this matter: You can love a person without loving their actions. You can love a person while disliking/disagreeing with their actions.
So why do liberals bring up this ridiculous accusation? Simple. They want you to be subconsciously forced to agree in action with their mentalities. So many people's decision to believe that "homosexuality is genetic" is based on this rampant claims of "hate!" despite the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence.**
Add in the claim that being opposed to gay marriage is identical to being opposed to interracial marriage (and therefore being opposed to gay marriage is exactly the same as racism) and too many Americans have buckled, including far too many Christians, because they don't want to be considered "hateful."
As with most other Liberal Rhetorical claims, this one is about shutting down debate. Yet the truth is it is clearly possible and reasonable to dislike a person's actions and still love the person.
* To be more specific, I am opposed to applying the label of "marriage" to homosexual unions. I respect the Constitution -- specifically the 14th Amendment's requirement of Equal Protection under the law -- so I also say that government should in no way hinder the creation of a similar union amongst homosexual unions with the same legal rights while noting that it isn't an identical union as marriage. To me it is no different than saying that my driver's license to drive a standard car is not the same thing as my friend's motorcycle license.
** Although the Drive-By Media takes any so called "study" (barely tested hypotheses, mostly), the vast majority of the respected Biology community has not even touched this issue, so drawing this conclusion is sophistry. Furthermore, to claim that any genetic condition is therefore how God intended the person to be is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of sin nature theology. Simply stated, when sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell, so many issues began to enter human DNA. This includes but is not limited to genetic conditions like diabetes, auto-immune diseases, digestive disorders like Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Diseas; not to mention genetically inherited addictions like so-called "Crack Babies."
At least that's what liberals would have us believe. In short, to love a person, you must love their actions too. Anyone who is a parent or indeed anyone who has a child in their life knows this is foolishness. I love my nephew, but that doesn't mean I love the smell of his diapers. When I was a child, my parents loved me. They didn't love the fact that I once forged my father's signature on a poor test that had been sent home to be signed.
There was a clear separation between the actions and the person. You can love your adult child while disapproving of the fact that they are living with their significant other while being unmarried. You can love the poor without wanting to give them government handout after government handout that encourages them to stay in poverty.
The same is true for issues like gay marriage. As those of you who read this blog know, I am opposed to gay marriage.* It's not a secret. That doesn't stop me from befriending a gay person in any way. Actually, my high school best friend is gay. (We grew apart due to distance, not due his preferences.) He unequivocally knew how I felt about his lifestyle, but he also knew I was his friend and loved him like a brother.
Despite what liberals tell you, it is more than possible to love a person while disliking his actions. Jesus modeled this exact principle in the Gospel of John:
3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 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.
7 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.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 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. 10 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?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11
Jesus modeled precisely the OPPOSITE of this attitude of "if you disagree with a deed, you hate the person." In fact, he demonstrated the principle of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Jesus explained the truth of this matter: You can love a person without loving their actions. You can love a person while disliking/disagreeing with their actions.
So why do liberals bring up this ridiculous accusation? Simple. They want you to be subconsciously forced to agree in action with their mentalities. So many people's decision to believe that "homosexuality is genetic" is based on this rampant claims of "hate!" despite the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence.**
Add in the claim that being opposed to gay marriage is identical to being opposed to interracial marriage (and therefore being opposed to gay marriage is exactly the same as racism) and too many Americans have buckled, including far too many Christians, because they don't want to be considered "hateful."
As with most other Liberal Rhetorical claims, this one is about shutting down debate. Yet the truth is it is clearly possible and reasonable to dislike a person's actions and still love the person.
* To be more specific, I am opposed to applying the label of "marriage" to homosexual unions. I respect the Constitution -- specifically the 14th Amendment's requirement of Equal Protection under the law -- so I also say that government should in no way hinder the creation of a similar union amongst homosexual unions with the same legal rights while noting that it isn't an identical union as marriage. To me it is no different than saying that my driver's license to drive a standard car is not the same thing as my friend's motorcycle license.
** Although the Drive-By Media takes any so called "study" (barely tested hypotheses, mostly), the vast majority of the respected Biology community has not even touched this issue, so drawing this conclusion is sophistry. Furthermore, to claim that any genetic condition is therefore how God intended the person to be is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of sin nature theology. Simply stated, when sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell, so many issues began to enter human DNA. This includes but is not limited to genetic conditions like diabetes, auto-immune diseases, digestive disorders like Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Diseas; not to mention genetically inherited addictions like so-called "Crack Babies."
Thursday, April 4, 2013
iPhone: American Ingenuity that didn't need Government
Like so many other Americans, I own an iPhone. It's a tremendous device. It amazes me to no end that I carry with me in my pocket a little five ounce device that is significantly more powerful and capable than my family's first computer, which we got on Christmas Day of 1993. (Back then, this computer was a technological marvel with it's 14k Dial-Up Modem, 300 MB of RAM, 2X CD-Rom Drive and Windows 3.1 Operating System.)
Then, (relative) disaster struck on Easter Sunday. I dropped my phone and it landed just right that the protective case didn't stop the large, spiderweb crack I got in my screen. Thankfully, I had purchased insurance on my phone and after paying the deductible and waiting a day for it to ship, I received my replacement phone.
I expected I would spend hours the day I received my replacement re-downloading apps, inputting passwords ad nausea, and resorting my apps into the convenient folders I'd set up, because I'm that OCD. That's what I expected. It wasn't what I did.
Thanks to one of the many terrific features built in to the iPhone, I was able to backup all my apps and settings before activating my old phone. Once I turned on my new phone I merely restored the backup I had saved and BAM! my new phone began to install all my apps, photos, contacts, ringtones, notes, podcasts, you name it, right back on to my new phone while I worked. My new phone was in my hands at 9 am, and by noon it had re-downloaded everything for me and my phone was restored to it's former glory.
I'm continually amazed at the innovation and quality of American companies. Between my iPhone and my Kindle Fire HD Tablet, I've become a fully integrated modern computer device user. (Those who know me would think this is hilarious since I didn't even own a laptop computer until 2010, didn't have a tablet until I won my Kindle Fire in a contest this past November, and didn't have a smartphone until this January.)
Apple is an American success story. It began, as we all know, in a garage by Steve Jobs and his partner Steve Wozniak. It grew to provide personal computers, and later to revolutionize the smartphone and computer tablet markets with the iPhone and iPad.
When the original iPhone launched in 2007, the smartphone market was owned by Blackberry and it's primary competition was the Blackberry Curve 8300. The iPhone, in a sentence, blew the Curve out of the water. It was a level of technological achievement above competition that mobile phones haven't seen since.
Here's what was the most impressive thing about it: Apple Incorporated in general and the iPhone in specific did not require government "investment" or "stimulus." Despite what the Left and our President seem to believe, most major technological innovations in our country come from the private sector without government interference. (The majority of innovations that came from government came from the military, specifically products the military developed for it's own use and were adapted for civilian use -- see cellular phone, computer.)
As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously stated, "If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap than his neighbor, though he builds his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door." With the iPhone, Apple did indeed build a better mousetrap, and the world did indeed beat a path to their door. All without the help of government.
Then, (relative) disaster struck on Easter Sunday. I dropped my phone and it landed just right that the protective case didn't stop the large, spiderweb crack I got in my screen. Thankfully, I had purchased insurance on my phone and after paying the deductible and waiting a day for it to ship, I received my replacement phone.
I expected I would spend hours the day I received my replacement re-downloading apps, inputting passwords ad nausea, and resorting my apps into the convenient folders I'd set up, because I'm that OCD. That's what I expected. It wasn't what I did.
Thanks to one of the many terrific features built in to the iPhone, I was able to backup all my apps and settings before activating my old phone. Once I turned on my new phone I merely restored the backup I had saved and BAM! my new phone began to install all my apps, photos, contacts, ringtones, notes, podcasts, you name it, right back on to my new phone while I worked. My new phone was in my hands at 9 am, and by noon it had re-downloaded everything for me and my phone was restored to it's former glory.
I'm continually amazed at the innovation and quality of American companies. Between my iPhone and my Kindle Fire HD Tablet, I've become a fully integrated modern computer device user. (Those who know me would think this is hilarious since I didn't even own a laptop computer until 2010, didn't have a tablet until I won my Kindle Fire in a contest this past November, and didn't have a smartphone until this January.)
Apple is an American success story. It began, as we all know, in a garage by Steve Jobs and his partner Steve Wozniak. It grew to provide personal computers, and later to revolutionize the smartphone and computer tablet markets with the iPhone and iPad.
When the original iPhone launched in 2007, the smartphone market was owned by Blackberry and it's primary competition was the Blackberry Curve 8300. The iPhone, in a sentence, blew the Curve out of the water. It was a level of technological achievement above competition that mobile phones haven't seen since.
Here's what was the most impressive thing about it: Apple Incorporated in general and the iPhone in specific did not require government "investment" or "stimulus." Despite what the Left and our President seem to believe, most major technological innovations in our country come from the private sector without government interference. (The majority of innovations that came from government came from the military, specifically products the military developed for it's own use and were adapted for civilian use -- see cellular phone, computer.)
As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously stated, "If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap than his neighbor, though he builds his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door." With the iPhone, Apple did indeed build a better mousetrap, and the world did indeed beat a path to their door. All without the help of government.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Ganging Up On Opponents
Pop quiz for my conservative friends: Have you ever gotten into a debate, probably online, with a liberal friend? Has it ever been a one on one debate? Yeah, me neither.
Liberals use a similar convincing tactic that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. They gang up on an opponent, primarily using Appeal to Ridicule, but also just as often they use Argument from Verbosity or Elephant Hurling (throwing up dozens of arguments so that the opponent cannot get a solid foothold on the debate).
Ultimately the goal of this tactic is, as most liberal rhetorical tools, to shut up your opponent. I dealt with this for years growing up, starting with 8th Grade Honors Social Studies. I was the sole conservative in the class, or at least the sole vocal conservative in class filled with good-intentioned, cockeyed liberals. Occasionally we'd end up in debates on modern culture, politics, etc. The teacher (who I will call Mrs. Z.) , in an effort to give all students a chance to talk, would attempt to let all have the chance to talk about their opinion. Unfortunately for me, that meant responding to about ten points when my turn came around. Thankfully, Mrs. Z gave me time to respond, but I still had to deal with ten issues.
This continued for many years in school with the same cast of characters. The only exception was in AP History in 11th Grade where the teacher, Mrs. T, gave me and my conservative compatriots (I guess I convinced a few people along the way) equal response time.
Then came Facebook and the Facebook Debate. Now I was entering in debates with multiple parties and finding myself ganged up on. One friend, who we'll call John, was fond posting statements and articles just to bait a debate...and John's liberal friends would join in on the attempted gang attack. This leads to one of two options.
Option One: Attack from two points. Reminiscent of Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville, the two liberals will give different attacks at the same time, causing their opponent to have to divide their attention (and search for sources).
Option Two: The "Me Too" tactic. In this case, a less informed liberal will attach himself to the other, more informed liberal's argument and try to throw in a few other details in support or simply ridicule the conservative.
Ultimately, the answer to this tactic is threefold. One, take your time. Don't fight their fight. Respond as you can as thoroughly as you can. Two, call them out on this tactic and demand they give you the chance to respond. Three, bring in some help. Don't try to engage in a five on one debate. Bring in a friend or two to back you up. Even the odds, at least somewhat.
In the end, liberal rhetoric isn't based on facts, so they have to use other tactics to win a debate. Ganging up is a favorite. But, like all aspects of liberal rhetoric, we can defeat them with sound reasoning.
Liberals use a similar convincing tactic that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. They gang up on an opponent, primarily using Appeal to Ridicule, but also just as often they use Argument from Verbosity or Elephant Hurling (throwing up dozens of arguments so that the opponent cannot get a solid foothold on the debate).
Ultimately the goal of this tactic is, as most liberal rhetorical tools, to shut up your opponent. I dealt with this for years growing up, starting with 8th Grade Honors Social Studies. I was the sole conservative in the class, or at least the sole vocal conservative in class filled with good-intentioned, cockeyed liberals. Occasionally we'd end up in debates on modern culture, politics, etc. The teacher (who I will call Mrs. Z.) , in an effort to give all students a chance to talk, would attempt to let all have the chance to talk about their opinion. Unfortunately for me, that meant responding to about ten points when my turn came around. Thankfully, Mrs. Z gave me time to respond, but I still had to deal with ten issues.
This continued for many years in school with the same cast of characters. The only exception was in AP History in 11th Grade where the teacher, Mrs. T, gave me and my conservative compatriots (I guess I convinced a few people along the way) equal response time.
Then came Facebook and the Facebook Debate. Now I was entering in debates with multiple parties and finding myself ganged up on. One friend, who we'll call John, was fond posting statements and articles just to bait a debate...and John's liberal friends would join in on the attempted gang attack. This leads to one of two options.
Option One: Attack from two points. Reminiscent of Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville, the two liberals will give different attacks at the same time, causing their opponent to have to divide their attention (and search for sources).
Option Two: The "Me Too" tactic. In this case, a less informed liberal will attach himself to the other, more informed liberal's argument and try to throw in a few other details in support or simply ridicule the conservative.
Ultimately, the answer to this tactic is threefold. One, take your time. Don't fight their fight. Respond as you can as thoroughly as you can. Two, call them out on this tactic and demand they give you the chance to respond. Three, bring in some help. Don't try to engage in a five on one debate. Bring in a friend or two to back you up. Even the odds, at least somewhat.
In the end, liberal rhetoric isn't based on facts, so they have to use other tactics to win a debate. Ganging up is a favorite. But, like all aspects of liberal rhetoric, we can defeat them with sound reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)