Liberal Rhetoric in Action: Appeal to Ridicule

Earlier this week, I wrote an article in Biblical Conservatism's series Liberal Rhetoric 101.  Specifically, I spoke about how liberals use ridicule rather than facts to shut down debates. As I wrote in the article:

You'd think if liberals were as intellectual as they'd have us believe, they would consider this tactic and perhaps stop their ridicule. Granted, some liberals may have read this post and actually adjusted their rhetorical habits. This I do not know. Two, however, I know did not. In fact, these two individuals actually PROVED MY POINT better than I ever could!

Names and images have been removed from these tweets/FB updates, save for my own Twitter handle, which is @UpstateMetFan. (All Tweets were screen-shots taken from Tweetdeck.)

By my count, this individual directly insulted me five times, ridiculed me six times for daring to even question Darwinian Evolution (even though this wasn't even the topic of the post but was simply an example of where liberals use Appeal to Ridicule), and rebuked me for daring to question the exulted scientific community five times. Also, and this will appear in a future installment of Liberal Rhetoric 101, there were four instances of the Fallacy of Consensus (essentially stating "everybody believes X so you should believe it too.")

Was this person the only one who chose to ridicule rather than debate? Why not it wasn't! We have another example, this time from my personal Facebook page (and not the Biblical Conservatism Page, which you should go like by the way because there's lots of fun information and other goodies available).




You might be tempted to think this was a clear setup. You might think this must be a joke, since this person used PRECISELY my words "LOL that's dumb because...(reasons)."  I assure you it isn't, because I know this individual personally...have for nearly twenty years. He'll probably even read this post. (Sorry man, you can't sent me up like this and expect no response.)

Once again, there is a lack of actual evidence or argumentation. Rather, there is a clear and obvious demonstration of the very principle I have mentioned. The argument begins with announcing how dumb I am, and then proceeds to give no actual argument except for "scientists agree so don't argue with the mighty men in lab coats" and "that point you referenced isn't real because reasons."

Honestly, it seems like many liberals still believe they are using a logical and legitimate form of argumentation. Thankfully, these two individuals have taken it upon themselves to prove my point in a far better way than I ever could on my own. Perhaps I should that them.

Best of Biblical Conservatism - Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Raising Corporate Taxes Costs CONSUMERS

Today, we bring you a new feature on Biblical Conservatism that we'll be test driving throughout the next couple months: a mid-week Best of Biblical Conservatism Post, to compliment new posts on Monday and Thursday.

Today's post comes from July 13, 2011. At that time, we were in the heat of the last Debt Limit Battle.

This week, as the Debt Limit battle continues, we've been explaining the truth behind the liberal talking points that the Drive-By Media won't tell you. Today, we're going to dive into the truth behind the liberal idea that raising taxes on big businesses won't effect us, the middle class taxpayer.

As usual, liberal are applying an expectation of static consequences to a new tax. liberals always assume businesses don't change their behaviors or, in this case, their prices, when taxes are increased. There's an unfortunate truth behind it: Corporate taxes are ultimately passed along to the consumers. That means YOU are paying for it. Liberals would have you believe that if government imposes a tax on Proctor and Gable, for example, that means Proctor and Gamble just pays the extra tax out of their profits. In reality, the cost of that tax is rolled into the cost of that bottle of Tide you're buying. Either that or they step back production to continue to maintain the same profit margins. (1) Lower production means fewer employees, by the way.

That's the problem with liberal economic assumptions; they always assume the rosiest of scenarios. Unfortunately, raising those corporate taxes hurts you. It means either the company cuts production and people lose jobs or the price goes up. Either way, it hurts the middle class. That's the problem liberal don't tell you: you pay for that tax increase.

Don't believe me? Did you know that the United States Fuel Tax and state fuel taxes were hypothetically supposed to be levied on the gas station? Guess what, it isn't. You pay it. It's included in the prices. (Somewhere in the history of the gas tax the gas stations and the government dropped all pretenses and just advertised the price as "all taxes included). Before you lambaste the "evil gas station owners," the current Federal gas tax is at $0.18 per gallon and the average gas station's profit on a gallon of gas is $0.07-$0.10 per gallon. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means the tax is somewhere between $0.08 to $0.11 per gallon OVER their profits.)

For the most part, gas stations make their money selling you a Mountain Dew, a pack of Twinkies and a tin of Altoids, not on gas. Even on a full tank they're only making a buck or two profit. If I fill my car's 13 gallon tank (I drive a Chevy Malibu for those who care), that means a gas station on the high end of the profit range is making $0.91 - $1.30 of profit on me, once a week. Meanwhile, the government is making nearly twice that amount taxing you. So who's the one who is gouging you again?

No, there's no legal way to force the corporations to not roll those taxes into their prices. By the way, they aren't doing anything wrong. They are simply maintaining a net profit margin that makes their investment (aka risk) worthwhile. It's either going to lead to cutting production (which means cutting workers) or raising prices.
Don't believe the liberal lie: Raising taxes on corporations isn't raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. It's raising taxes on you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Appeal to Ridicule

I can't tell you how many times I've entered into a debate with multiple liberals over the years where they start their response to my argument by saying "LOL that's dumb because reason."

This tool of the Left is used pretty well constantly. It stops people from investigating the realities of liberal claims (see Global Warming). It causes people to refuse to consider legitimate alternative theories to Darwinian Evolution. (As I've said countless times, Darwinian Evolution specifically means macroevolution, that is, change from one species to another over time. This is opposed to microevolution, which is genetic adaptation within the same species i.e. over time dogs develop strong senses of smell and hearing which helps them survive; however these dogs stay dogs.) It causes people to call themselves "moderates" when, in their heart of hearts, they are indeed conservatives but they won't use the appropriate label in order to avoid ridicule.

It's purely a psychological form of debate. The goal is to make one's opponent feel stupid for believing what they believe, thus they back down. This tactic, when used in a public forum, also leads to piling on. If you've ever had a debate on Facebook, this has probably happened to you. Usually one liberal starts in with the ridiculing of the person who disagrees. Then another comes in to join in, making the opposition feel stupid for believing what they believe.

The goal specifically to make you stop debating. What's important to know is that if these liberals had a good argument, they'd probably use that instead. Chances are they don't have a point. They don't have an argument. Facts are the enemy, so these liberals have to circumvent the issue.

Don't surrender to an enemy with wooden guns, my friends. Just be prepared to demand the liberals make an actual argument and back it up with facts. Period.

Mr. President, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seriously, Mr. President, what part of this do you not understand?

Why do I say this? Oh, I don't know, probably because the President and large quantities of American liberals, of both the Neighborhood and Activist variety, seem to think the 2nd Amendment says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the President and Congress deem this less necessary because reasons."

Except it doesn't say that. It says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that would be the end of this Amendment. That other stuff above isn't in there.)

So perhaps it's time once again to give a Constitutional History lesson to our President, the Constitutional Law professor.

THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD.

(That was the sound of me banging my head against my desk in frustration that such an explanation is necessary.)

Some of you, including our President, have been laboring under the assumption that the Second Amendment was in place to ensure that Americans had the ability to protect their homesteads against wolves, or thieves, or for use in hunting, or some other such thing in the early days of our nation before widespread police protection.  It also wasn't just about the ability of the people to have a "Well-regulated Militia," which is now unnecessary because we have a standing military.

It wasn't.

Actually, if you look back on the founding of our nation, you will find that our nation was founded because the Founders overthrew a tyrannical government that was taking away our rights. While we hope the ballot box and a free press (however biased and clearly stilted to the side of liberalism) should make this need unnecessary, the moment a free people find themselves being oppressed by a tyrannical government, we have the God-given right to overthrow that government.  

(I am not advocating such a revolution at this time, by the way, I am simply teaching a history lesson on the reason for the Second Amendment.)

If history has shown us anything it is this: An armed government with an unarmed populace leads to tyranny. When the National Socialist Party (aka Nazi Party) took over Germany, one of the first things Adolf Hitler did was take away all guns (save for the Gestapo and the Military, of course). He wasn't the only one. Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung in Communist China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Saddam Hussein in Iraq...I can continue for pages...all removed guns from their citizens hands, while keeping them for themselves.

There was a reason why our Founding Fathers put the Right to Bear Arms in the Constitution. It wasn't to protect hunters rights and it wasn't just to protect citizens against invaders of their homes. It was to protect us from a tyrannical government. 

Any government that wants to limit that right makes me very scared. I'm especially scared when a President wants to do that, because unlike the Supreme Court and Congress, the Executive Branch's power is largely centered on one person.

To answer the question that is repeatedly asked, Why do we need "assault rifles" or "high capacity magazines?" Because the government has them. If we ever need to overthrow that government (and I am not suggesting we need to at this time) we need to be able to defend ourselves on equal footing.

So perhaps, Mr. President, former Constitutional Law professor, that might just be the reason the Founding Fathers said, and I again quote,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Period. End of discussion.

Best of Biblical Conservatism Failing Dr. King: How the Left Ignores the Dream

Two years ago on Biblical Conservatism, I took time to reflect on how the Left in America fails to live up to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous dream.  Today, on the day after Martin Luther King Day, I felt it was a good time to once again repost that reflection. 

In 2011, America celebrated the 25th Martin Luther King Day. As it has in the past, this day brought to mind a panel discussion I was priveleged to join back in 2001 (my senior year of high school) sponsored by Umoja (student lead-group at my school). I was known in my high school as one of the best Conservatives (a small pool of talent in a New York state high school I must admit). A Liberal friend, with whom I had enjoyed many great debates with through our honors History and English classes over the past years, was a member of the group Umoja’s branch at my school. The goal of this panel was to discuss race relations 33 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I will never forget this event. It was the day I truly understood how the American Left has failed Dr. King's dream.

The panel consisted of some black students and some white students. I recall most vividly the stories of "racism" that some of these students claimed to have experienced at our school. Included among the most prominent "offenses" as being asked questions about their hair and how difficult it was to manage! I have always believed that the greatest problem that caused racism in America was ignorance. If this is the case, how is it racist to ask questions in an effort to understand? Further, aren't questions like this a demonstration that our generation does in fact recognize that race differences are purely skin deep...that black people are simply PEOPLE...people who have different physical traits but otherwise 100% the same!

If I may step away from the point of this article for one moment, I'd like to take time to explain the real purpose of race. The physical traits of different races on Earth were caused due to the process of physical adaptation as people moved into different parts of the World. For example, the physical traits of people from eastern African descent. People in Africa generally have long and lanky frames. Their skin has a high amount of melanin in their bodies because melanin is essentially sun block built in to the human body. The more melanin a person has in their skin, the more they can be in the sun without the sun's rays damaging their body. The lanky frame and high amount of melanin in black person's body is the ideal combination of traits to dissipate heat and to withstand the longest possible time in the sun.

People of northern Asian decent are generally shorter and squatter. They have thicker, darker hair and almond shaped eyes which reduce the glare of snow and ice. They tend to have flatter noses because that shape nose is less exposed to cold. People of Asian descent often have minimal facial hair because a man's breath often condensates on the beard, making the face colder. These traits make a person of northern Asian decent best able to withstand the cold temperatures of northern Asia. Both these examples show that the human body adapted to its surroundings!

Back to the original story. The one question that I recall as if it was yesterday from that panel discussion from ten years ago was "How do you see yourself as a minority or majority in America today?" I remember I was quite bothered by this question because it ignored the point of Dr. King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Dr. King said famously:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."(1)

Yet these students wanted to talk about people in categories based upon the color of their skin! I spoke about my personal beliefs on race: That skin color is exactly the same as eye color...a physical trait. I do not consider people to be different than me if they have blue or brown eyes (I have green eyes, for the record). I do not consider a person different from me if they have blonde hair or black hair or red hair (I have brown hair, for the record). I also do not consider people to be different because they are of Asian descent or African decent or American Indian decent (I am of European Decent, for the record). These are only physical traits. They DO NOT MATTER to me!

Another statement made was "Everyone is at least a little racist." I stand living proof that this is not true! My response to this was: "I look at you and I see a person. You look at me and you see a white person. Who do you think is REALLY racist here?" I said then, and I still say now, that the person who sees a fellow human being through the lens of their race is the racist, regardless of what that racist person's skin color happens to be!

The truth is the Left has failed Dr. King's dream. They have spent a generation telling minorities that they can't succeed on their own. They have spent a generation telling minorities they need the Democrat party to fight for them because they can't fight for themselves. The Left has spent a generation crying racism every time someone argues against a policy of a minority. Look at Barrack Obama. The Left should be thrilled that the Right debates President Obama's policies on merit alone if they were living up to Dr. King's beliefs. But the Left instead cries racism because we criticism Obama. The reality is we ARE judging Obama by the content of his character...and we don't like that content! I despise President Obama's policies with my eyes closed...his race does not matter. I am the same person who liked the idea of Condoleezza Rice running for President at one point because I liked the content of her character. I oppose Obama's policies because he is a Socialist, not because he is black! Something tells me that you, my readers, oppose Obama's policies for the same reason.

The Left has failed Dr. King's Dream, and done so intentionally. They fail the Dream because it means they can't use race to convince minorities to vote for them. The Right, on the other hand, has succeeded. We as Conservatives do judge people by the content of their character. We happily support Conservative minorities like Condoleezza Rice, Judge Clarence Thomas, Governor Bobby Jindall of Louisiana, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and others. Because it's about the ideas, not the skin tone. We argue against minorities who are on the Left, like President Barrack Obama, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. It is for their policies we oppose these men. If they were white, we'd fight them just the same.

So I ask you what I asked ten years ago: If the Left looks at a man and sees a white man or a black man or an Asian man and the Right looks at a man and sees a man, who is the racist? It is the side that sees simply a man that has fulfilled the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Current Gun Control Laws Didn't Stop Newtown Shooting

The President and the Democratic Party are trying very hard to create new gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings last month. Because Adam Lanza used a legally obtained gun, right?

Oh wait, he didn't. He used stolen guns that were obtained illegally.

Actually, Lanza was stopped from purchasing guns legally by in-place gun control laws. He committed multiple gun crimes before , stealing his mother's guns (4 counts), unlawful carrying of a pistol without a permit, carrying those guns into a gun-free zone, carrying them without a carry permit, I can go on and on. In total he broke 41 laws in perpetrating his crime. That includes 27 counts of First Degree Murder. Of the remaining fourteen laws he broke, thirteen were gun-control laws.

There were thirteen gun control laws that were ALREADY IN PLACE that Adam Lanza broke in perpetrating his horrible crime. Please, do tell me how a fourteenth law would've helped? More importantly, please tell me all about how criminals follow laws.

Yet the President wants to ram through more gun control legislation in the wake of this horrific event. Will it stop criminals like Adam Lanza? I mean, he didn't mind breaking the existing thirteen gun control laws that were in place before his crime.

The only people who will be stopped from carrying weapons with new Gun Control laws are the law abiding citizens. In other words, the innocent victims will now be at a disadvantage. The criminals will still get illegal weapons. It's been said that as little as 5% of gun crimes are committed using legally obtained guns. If this is true, (or even if the 5% number isn't perfect, it is indeed a fact that the majority of gun crimes use illegal guns) then the only answer is for the law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.

Remember, both Adam Lanza in Newtown, CT and James Eagan Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of the Aurora, CO shootings this past summer, were breaking existing gun control laws in perpetrating or allegedly perpetrating, respectively, their crimes. If the current laws aren't working, why would new ones work?

So what is the solution?

The question we should be asking after this year's recent rash of shootings is, in my opinion, how can we ensure that law abiding citizens are able to protect themselves and others when a crazed gunman comes in to perpetrate such a crime. In Aurora, CO, why wasn't there a law abiding citizen able to stop James Eagan Holmes (allegedly)?  When the shooting occurred, I had discussed seeing Dark Knight Rises with a good friend who has a concealed carry permit the day after the Aurora Shooting.  Let's call him Joe (because that's his name).  I remember thinking, while everyone was worried about copycats at future showings of Dark Knight Rises, "If that happens at my showing, I'll be with a law-abiding, trained citizen who can DO SOMETHING about the crime in progress."

The bottom line is this: Gun Control laws only keep the law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It doesn't stop the criminals.  They sure didn't stop Adam Lanza. 

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Fallacy of the Single Cause

One of the things Biblical Conservatism has focused on as a running theme is liberal rhetoric and talking points. Today, we're going to begin a series talking about the actual rhetorical tactics used by liberals to formulate their arguments.

Our first issue is the Fallacy of the Single Cause. Specifically, a Single Cause fallacy is one where the argument is that "We did X (small thing) and thus Y (huge, overreaching thing) occurred!"

Let me give you some examples. A classic one is the Clinton Argument. We're seeing this argument brought up frequently now. The claim is that "Clinton raised taxes, and we had a booming economy and a budget surplus."  The use of this fallacy is simple: We are to assume BECAUSE taxes went up the booming economy and budget surplus happened. Economic history proves otherwise. There were a host of other issues, including the end of the Cold War, the internet boom, cuts in spending forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, and tax cuts that happened later (also forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress) that deserve the credit long before an increase in taxes deserves it. (Especially because actual tax revenue went down after Clinton raised taxes.) 

Yet we are pitched the lie that "taxes went up, so did revenue, which lead to a balanced budget and a booming economy."

Another example of this fallacy is one that a friend likes to present: "There are more people who live below the poverty line in red states than blue states, therefore conservative government doesn't lead to prosperity as conservatives claim."

So much is wrong with this argument. First and foremost, the poverty line is a poor statistic. It's based on a national average median income of $50,054 per year for a family of four (we'll round that to $50,000 per year for simplicity's sake). The poverty line for the same family of four is $23,021 per year (again for simplicity's sake we'll call that $23,000).

There are so very many questions that aren't asked or even considered in this false claim. For one, the poverty line and median income are not adjusted for Cost of Living. Blue states, as a whole, have much higher cost of living than red states. Of the top ten most expensive states to live in, nine are blue states. The tenth is Alaska (which is a very unique state in terms of cost of living, as is Hawaii). All ten of the top ten least expensive states to live in are red states.

A family of four making $22,000 per year in a state like Tennessee has the same buying power as a family of four living on nearly $38,000 per year in Rochester, NY (where I live.) A family of four can certainly live on that income. That family is not below the poverty line in blue New York. Let's call the family in Tennessee the Fletchers and the family in New York the Flynns. The Flynns and the Fletchers can buy the exact same things with their respective incomes. Yet the red-state dwelling Fletchers are considered "below the poverty line." The blue-state dwelling Flynns are considered "above the poverty line."


This is just one factor that points out the false logic in this argument. There are many others. Liberals don't point it out. They simply repeat their argument. Ditto for the Clinton Argument.

As always, the solution is simple. We must break down these factors and force the liberal with whom you are debating to present a Prima Facie case (that is, present that their claim is true at first blush). Until they do that, it's nothing more than a false debate.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Proves Two Big Points for Right

If you read Biblical Conservatism last week, you saw my take on the big Fiscal Cliff deal: It's a joke.  A pathetic game of make-believe by Washington liberals that the problem is lack of revenue, not excessive spending, enabled by cowardly Republicans who were afraid to be blamed again (we were blamed anyway).

That being said, two important conservative points have either now been made or will be made as a result of this deal.  

The point that the Left has unwittingly conceded is this: Apparently the Bush Tax Cuts weren't just "tax breaks for the rich" since, according to the liberal talking points, only the top 2% constituted the rich. Considering the Left now wants to trumpet how they "cut taxes" for the middle class, aka 98% of taxpayers, clearly the Bush Tax Cuts WEREN'T just for the rich. Apparently 98% of the people whose taxes were cut were in the Middle Class. JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS SAID IN 2000!!! Oops. 

For the record, at this point, no taxpayer is seeing their taxes were cut, except in the baloney jargon of Washington where your official tax rates that you never paid that were in place for a day mean more than the tax rates that were in place by twelve years. If you pay taxes and you are in that bottom 98%, your tax rates are staying the same as they have been now for twelve years. They haven't been cut.

The second point is this: The Left now has their revenues. Supposedly, they've claimed all they want is a "balanced approach" which combines new revenue with cuts. They've got their revenue increase. They've said that if we gave them revenue, they'd cut spending. Where are the cuts in spending? (Spoiler: There won't be any real cuts from Democrats that aren't forced by Republicans, and if you believe there will be, I've got some ocean front property in Idaho to sell you.)

So let's see the other half of President Obama's "Balanced Approach" yes? Oh wait, there's more spending not less in the bill...and the President has no intention of making real cuts.  As always, President Obama's spending plans are as balanced as a single person sitting on one end of a teeter-totter.

Here's the simple fact. The Fiscal Cliff deal was a joke, just as I wrote last week. But it does involve two points proven. Apparently the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts WEREN'T just for the rich. Apparently 98% of the people who got their taxes cut weren't rich, according to the Left's own language. Two, the Left has their "increased revenue." 

Now let's see the cuts. 

(I'm not holding my breath.)

If We Treated Other Education Like Abstinence Education

A debate sprung up on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page. Essentially, a couple liberals started repeating the meme that "you can't stop kids from having sex, so it's important we teach them how to do it safely."

I made the point that actually no, it's entirely possible to teach kids to wait to have sex until marriage. I know this for a fact because my church does a weekend retreat for parents and children every year called "Passport to Purity." One year it's teenage girls with their mothers, the next it's teenage boys and their fathers, and so on. We teach these teens the Biblical reasons to wait to have sex until marriage. We teach abstinence seriously, not as a joke. Here's a shocker: Kids actually follow through with it! The large majority!

So I got to thinking, what if we taught other things to kids with the level of seriousness schools teach abstinence?

"Using heroin is bad for you. It can lead to the spread of diseases like Hepatitis and HIV, lead to addictions, cause you to do things you wouldn't normally do, and even can lead to death by overdose. But we all know you crazy kids are going to do heroin. So, today we're going to talk about how to use heroin in moderation as well as the importance of using a clean needle each time you shoot up."

I bet some of you are laughing at the silliness of this story.  Yet this is the way abstinence is taught.

How about another example? Bullying. Schools are cracking down on bullying. What if bullying was treated this way:

"Bullying is bad. It's emotionally scarring and physically harmful to others. But since we know you crazy kids are going to bully each other, here are some padded boxing gloves. Please wear them when you beat up a kid for his lunch money."

One more example:

"You should never cross the street without looking both ways. But you're kids. We know you're not always going to look both ways. So make sure whenever you cross the street, be sure you're wearing a helmet as well as elbow and knee pads. Never cross the street without protection."

It turns out we can and do teach kids to abstain from activities ALL THE TIME. We teach them to "Say No to Drugs." Nobody argues the point. We teach children not to take candy from strangers. Nobody argues the point. We teach children to wear their seat belts. We teach children never to cross the street without looking both ways. None of these activities are hard to teach children. The big difference is we take it seriously when we teach children not to do drugs, not to bully, to wear their safety belt in cars, and to look both ways. Abstinence we treat as a joke. And that's the real problem.

The Fiscal Cliff Deal is a Joke

A massive joke at that.

Seriously, friends. The President spent the past few months whining and crying about how we needed to have a "balanced approach." Really what he was saying is "WAH WAH WAH LET ME RAISE TAXES!"  There was no reason to raise taxes. These increases aren't helping solve the deficit in any real way. 

As I said a couple weeks back, the Obama plan was only going to cover nine days of deficit spending. That number was based on raising taxes on those making over $200,000 a year. This was supposed to raise $85 Billion in new revenue. The deal raised taxes on those who make over $400,000 a year, which, according to the best information I could find, raises $62 Billion in new revenue. (Of course that's with static budgeting. The actual amount will likely be less.) Combine that with a whopping $15 Billion in spending cuts (sarcasm) you've got enough money, assuming these numbers (which are heavy on accounting tricks) that gives us enough money to run the government for seven days.  Add in the sunset of Obama's payroll tax holiday, you might (and I emphasize might) cover one more day.

We currently borrow money to run the government for 127 days a year. Every year. That translates into over $1.3 Trillion in deficit spending. We're going to add over $5 Trillion to our national debt by the time President Obama leaves office in 2016, we will have a national debt of over $20 Trillion. When the President took office, it was just shy of $12 Trillion. That means, including interest, the President will have added EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS to our national debt. But hey, he's also added enough revenue to cover LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of his increased spending.

My friends, I couldn't be more disappointed in this deal. This is a JOKE. We are spending more than we have. The problem isn't insufficient revenue. Neither the tax increases the President wanted nor the ones he got are going to make a darn bit of difference. In fact, we cannot tax our way out of this debt. It is simply not possible.  You could not raise enough revenue to pay for our spending if we simply confiscated 100% of all income above $1 for all people who earn $100,000 a year or more to pay for our current spending. Especially when you consider the fact that this includes 99% of all employers in the country. Oh, and NOBODY BUT NOBODY is going to work all year to earn $0. Period. Not going to happen.

Once again, the Liberal Media has conspired with the Democrat Party to sell the American People a set of invisible clothes. Our real problem remains ignored. The Republican Party has, at least in part, shown themselves to be cowards, which means I for one have no hope. Somebody talk me off the ledge here, because the world's biggest conservative optimist is starting to feel hopeless.

Right to Work Doesn't Infringe on "Workers Rights"

This has become the repeated meme by Unions and the Left in general: Right to Work legislation, which stops unions from forcing employees from joining the union and paying dues as a requirement of employment, takes away "Workers Rights."

Even a momentary examination of this claim will tell you this is completely bogus. What "rights" are being infringed upon? Can workers no longer join unions in Right to Work states? No, they're still perfectly welcome to join unions.What about the right of unions to collectively bargain for their members. Does Right to Work legislation stop that? Nope. Does Right to Work legislation repeal legal protections for workers like workplace safety laws, overtime pay requirements, minimum wage laws, or any other legitimate union victory? Not even a little bit.

The only thing being "infringed" upon is the ability of Big Labor to force people to join their ranks. As a matter of fact, as the label suggests, these laws gives a new right to the worker: the right to decide IF they want to join the union or not. Workers in these 24 states can now choose whether or not to pay union dues and thus receive union benefits. It's entirely up to them.

Claiming that Right to Work legislation takes away workers rights is like Netflix claiming "if there's no law requiring people to join Netflix, the government is taking away people's ability to have movies delivered to their home by mail!" Nobody is required to join Netflix, but it's available to any adult willing to pay the membership fee. If you agree to join Netflix and pay the monthly membership fee, you get the benefits of membership, namely movies mailed to your hours or streaming online. Not requiring that membership of all adults with televisions and DVD players does not stop anyone from joining Netflix and thus getting the benefits.

Any person in any state, whether Right to Work state or not, who works in auto manufacturing is still welcome to join United Auto Workers. Any teacher in any state, whether a Right to Work state or not, is welcome to join the Teacher's Union. 

In a Right to Work states, workers who are eligible are still perfectly able to join the union. They are welcome to join the union, and thus get the benefits of union membership.  They are also welcome to choose NOT to join the union and thus forgo the benefits of union membership.  It's that simple. Nobody's rights are infringed upon. Period.

Best of Biblical Conservatism - Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed

This week, I'll be away on my annual Christmas Vacation. So today and Thursday, our new publishing days, I'll be posting Best of Biblical Conservatism articles that I feel are pertinent to our current moment in time. Merry Christmas!

Liberals have been stepping it up recently their cries to fix our deficit problems in states and on the federal level with the same solution this bunch has been promoting for years, "tax the rich."  Between cries at protests and dear old Michael Moore stating that the money owned by the wealthy is a "natural resource," (1) we've been bombarded by the same pie-in-the-sky easy solutions which require no sacrifice from those who cry for it.  Just tax someone else more, because "they can afford it", then all our troubles will be solved.

I've gone into great detail on the immorality of simply soaking those in our society who produce and succeed for more tax revenue (2) as well as the fiscal failures of those policies and the fiscal successes of reduced tax rates as it pertains to both the economy and to actual net tax revenue (3).  For now, however, I'm going to set these issues aside as I continue to present a preponderance of evidence against these policies over time to instead point a logical fallacy which continues amongst liberals. Buckle up, friends, because we're about to take a trip to a place I like to call The Real World!

Warning:  Entrance into The Real World requires you to consider consequences of all actions.  In The Real World, every action has a consequence. We cannot, and will not, pretend that by instituting a particular fiscal policy, nothing will happen save for the targeted goals of the policy.  You've been warned.

Let's pretend that you are a business owner.  You own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state.  Your business employs 500 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year (4), giving you a payroll $22.5 Million annually.  That means your company's employees pay the federal government approximately $5.625 Million each year in taxes (5).  Let's also pretend that your state has a 10% state income tax, meaning that your employees pay that state $2.25 Million in taxes to that state.  This company's gross revenue is $40 Million each year (6). The company's building costs, operating costs, benefits costs, complying with federal regulations, etc comes to $12.5 Million. The company is making a reasonable net profit (7) on the widgets, cogs and sprockets of $5 Million each year, a 12.5% profit, while employing 500 people and paying those people a salary which pays $11.25 Million each year in aggregate tax revenue to the Federal and State government toward the things the government is currently funding (8). 

Let us now pretend that the state government decides to place a 10% tax on the corporate value of all businesses within that state in an effort to close a state budget deficit.  The Acme Widget Company is now assessed a $4 Million annual tax as a result.   As the owner, you conclude that your company needs to continue making a 12.5% profit for it to be worth having a business. After all, you didn't open this company just to give people jobs and benefits.  You took a risk that you could create widgets, cogs and sprockets for more money that it costs to produce. Each year you put up $40 Million and end up with $45 at the end of the year. But now your PROFITS are being cut not 10% but 80% as a result of this tax, because taxes are based not on profit but on the total worth of the company.

You now have some options.  In order to maintain profitability, you can lay off some workers.  Laying off 100 employees will close the gap. If you do that, however, you are now removing THEIR tax revenue from the state and federal government because they are no longer receiving a paycheck.  Thus the loss to state government is $1,000,000 in tax revenue, meaning government's net gain in funding ISN'T $4 Million, it's now $3.6 Million due to the lack of tax revenue from your now unemployed workers.

You are also now making 20% less widgets, cogs and sprockets for the businesses who use them, but that's okay because those companies have also had to lay off workers to help keep THEIR company profitable due to this new tax, which leads to the unemployment of 10% of their employees and the loss of THEIR tax revenue.One of your clients, for example, the Johnson Air Conditioner Company, is now producing 10% fewer air conditioners and are now having to charge more per air conditioner to maintain THEIR profitability, causing the cost of a unit to go up.  This in turn causes sales of air conditioners to drop 10% because people at a certain level decide to go without. This leads to Sears employing less air conditioner salesmen, and the subsequent loss of THEIR tax revenue.  Oh, and don't forget, since your company now has 20% fewer workers, you're company is now producing 20% less and bringing in 20% less profits which reduces your company's total gross income which reduces the total tax receipts the state is receiving from you, because the tax is a percentage.  If the gross revenue of your company drops, so does the amount you are paying in taxes.

All of a sudden, there is less money coming into the government than before.  They intended to close a deficit, but instead ended up eliminating taxpayers and causing less revenue to come in.  To deal with their mounting deficits, they decide to raise taxes on corporations again and the process begins anew.

See, here in the Real World, we don't pretend that all economic decisions have static consequences.  We recognize that the person who is taxed will do something to compensate instead of just taking the loss.  And, of course, there is one other thing this business can decide to do. They can decide to move their company all together!  Perhaps they decide to move their company to a state like Florida where there is no corporate tax and no state income tax! So now your state isn't just losing 20% of the employees' tax revenue they receive but now they are losing 100% of revenue, $2.25 Million each year, in tax revenue from that company.

Or maybe, as the owner of the Acme Widget Company, you decide that the taxes on both the state and federal level are ridiculous, so you decide to pull the company out of America entirely and set up shop in Mexico.  You are free to do that, government cannot stop you from it. Now, between the federal and state governments, there is a loss of $12.25 Million in tax revenue because every single employee of your company is no longer paying taxes because they don't have a job at the Acme Widget Company.  Further, because Acme is no longer there to supply your widget, cog and sprocket needs, Johnson Air Conditioner has to find a new supplier which costs them 20% more in parts.  In order to maintain their profit margins, Johnson has to lay off some employees, produce less air conditioners, raise their prices, and the cycle begins again.

You see, the problem with Liberal Economic policy is that it is based upon unrealistic expectations of the reactions of the business owners.  The people who instituted this 10% corporate tax expected to simply receive $4 Million in additional tax revenue but instead caused a chain reaction which removed part or all of the tax revenue this company was creating through it's employees taxes.  The owners of this business are free people.  They are not serfs of the land required to remain in the state that they are currently located or the nation they are currently located. The numbers in my example may be arbitrary but the reactions of the business are not.  This is what has happened and what does happen when business taxes are increased.

Those of us who live in the Real World don't have the luxury of pretending that these businesses will simply decide to eat the loss, make less profit and continue to provide the same products in the same quantities and continue to employ the same number of people.  It's not really going to happen, and there's no way government can force them to do it.

Friends, the above example explains why Capitalism is the only financial system that works while still protecting the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals.  Socialism and Communism require either people to act contrary to their nature and be 100% selfless without any consideration to consequences to themselves, or employing a command government which takes away rights.  For Communism to NOT take away any person's rights, individuals have to willing take less in an effort for the greater good.  This is inherently contrary to human nature. 

People under most circumstances do not intentionally harm themselves in order to help others.  There are certain, very noble exceptions like military service.  To those of you who have served our country in this capacity, thank you for keeping us free.  I appreciate you more than you could know.  Yet we must note that that sacrifice is in order to protect those other individuals rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The vast majority of people do not intentionally harm themselves to ensure that government can continue spending and spending and spending.  If they would, we wouldn't have deficits in government, and these Liberal economic policies would've worked previously when they have been tried.  They haven't.  Also, no amount of harping and scolding by Liberals has lead to these employers and producers to wanting to do themselves financial harm.  Once again, since you can't force them to, we are at an impasse.

Furthermore, for these policies to be successful, one must also expect Government to behave responsibly.  History has shown that an unchecked, irresponsible government that gets used to spending 50% more than they take in in revenue will continue to spend proportionally as they see an increase in revenue.  I have given the example before of the Reagan years.  Under Reagan, net tax receipts (that's the total amount money in dollars and cents received in taxes by the Federal Government for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) doubled. Deficits, however, expanded.  Since revenue doubled, plain old fashioned logic tells us that the problem wasn't insufficient revenue...we had twice what we had before!  Had government simply MAINTAINED it's spending levels, we would have had a balanced budget.  Yet government did not spend less.  They spent $1.80 for every $1 that was brought in...the exact same proportional spending they had spent before the increased revenue.

At that time, government was used to spending 180% of tax revenue.  Today, government is spending about 200% of what it takes in, requiring us to borrow the same amount that we take in in taxes.  The problem is government is used to spending twice what they bring in as tax revenue.  History has shown us that government, left unchecked, will not spend less with more money.  They will simply increase spending on par with the increases and the problem continues.  In fact, it becomes proportionally larger!

However, there is another side to this concept. What if Government decides to CUT taxes on these businesses. Let's say we keep the same basic numbers. Again, you own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state. Your business employs 400 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year, giving you a payroll $18 Million annually. Your company's annual worth is now $39 Million.  Your company is paying a 10% corporate tax to the state at $3.9 Million.  You're making the same 12.5% profit on your investment, a net profit of $3.75 Million.  Suddenly a Conservative state legislature and a Conservative Governor take office.  They want to create a good climate for business in your state.  They permanently repeal that 10% corporate tax. 

Since you are a good businessman, you realize that your business now has $3.9 million in new capital for the next year.  You could pocket that $3.9 Million and spend it on whatever you like, at which point everything you buy is going into the economy because someone has to make the product you buy or provide the service you buy.  You could stick that money in the bank where your bank uses that money to give loans to other people to buy a home or a car or to start their own business.  You could invest it in other companies via the stock market.  Under any circumstances, that money is working in the economy.  But perhaps instead you decide that you could invest that money into your own business. So you invest that money right into your business. 

For starters, you hire 85 people in order to produce more widgets, cogs and sprockets.  Because you have more people on the job you can make more widgets, cogs and sprockets every day.  So you figure you can now sell those widgets, cogs and sprockets for less a piece so you can undercut your competition and gain market share.So now your price is lower than the widgets, cogs and sprockets company down the street.  More businesses buy their widgets, cogs and sprockets from you because of your great prices. Business rises another 10%, so now you have 10% more revenue ($4 Million more).  Since the last reinvestment into your business was so successful, you decide to invest that money into the company as well.  You hire 85 more people at $45,000 per year which causes you to produce more, sell each widget, cog and sprocket at less, allowing you to lower your prices.

All of a sudden, more people are working.  At this stage you've hired a total of 170 new people at $45,000 per year.  Each of those new hires who you are now paying $45,000 per year are paying 10% in state income tax for a total of $7.65 Million in new tax revenue.  That's more than you were paying in corporate tax...nearly twice!  Let's not forget that these employees, who were previously unemployed, now have more disposable income.  They're more likely to go out to eat, to buy a new car, to go on vacation.  Someone has to make and serve that dinner, someone has to make that car and sell that car and service that car, someone has to book that vacation, someone has to fly the plane to the vacation, someone is a flight attendant, someone has to work the desk at the hotel.

I'm not making this stuff up.  This is what historically happens when the producers in the world have new capital available to put into their business.  The majority of large business owners with successful businesses see their business as a sound investment. If their business is steadily turning a 12.5% profit, they believe that they can, over time, increase whatever new money they now have by 12.5% over time.  And remember, even if they do keep that money for themselves it still goes to work in the economy.  The only place where money doesn't go to work for the health of the economy is in the hands of government, because government spends without producing anything.

Once you look at economic policies based upon the results and the reasonably expected consequences of those actions, it becomes crystal clear what the best plans.  The good intentions of liberal polices cannot be logically expected to come to fruition.  It's just not reasonable to expect.  Economic policy consequences don't happen in Ideal World, where Liberals think up these policies.  Economic policy consequences occur in The Real World. 

So let me ask you something:  In the Real World (where you do in fact reside), what set of economic policies are going to yield a robust, growing economy with low unemployment?  Good.  Now if you want a healthy, robust economy, I think we both know what way you should be voting.  Vote for good results, not for good intentions.  Because compassion of result is what really matters, not compassion of intent!  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Michael Moore Thinks Wealthy People's Money Is A 'Natural Resource' And Should Be Shared

(2) It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER
     by Christopher C. Bastedo

(3) Conservatives are the Center by Christopher C. Bastedo

(4) Average Salary.  Some make less, some more.

(5) Based upon an average Federal tax rate of 15% on the average salary of $45,000 per year

(6) Gross Revenue = All Revenue Brought in Over One Year

(7) Net Profit = Gross Revenue - All Business Expenses

(8) Figure obtained by calculating 15% of payroll to Federal Tax and 10% of payroll to State Tax 

Best of Biblical Conservatism: It’s Merry Christmas…Get Over It

This week, I'll be away on my annual Christmas Vacation. So today and Thursday, our new publishing days, I'll be posting Best of Biblical Conservatism articles that I feel are pertinent to our current moment in time. Merry Christmas!

Earlier this week, I attended my company’s nondescript “Holiday Party” where we had a nondescript “Holiday Tree.”  I’m officially done with it.  I’m tired of the political correctness, and I don’t just mean the fact that I enjoy getting shocked looks when someone says someone is Indian and I respond “dots or feathers?”  Yes, I do enjoy poking the liberal politically correct machine.  I also enjoy calling homeless people “hobos” but that’s really just because “hobo” is a fun word.  All that aside, there is something I’ve got to say to the liberal politically correct machine, and please, listen carefully:  It’s Merry Christmas.  Get over it.

That’s right, Merry Christmas.  You see, it used to be that “Happy Holidays” was a short way of saying “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.”  Now it’s become this way to not dare to offend someone.  It used to be that you said Merry Christmas to basically everybody, and then if you had Jewish friends you wished them Happy Chanukah.  I’ve got news for you liberals:  95% of Americans celebrate Christmas, according to Gallup.  You got that?  95%...and the other 5% is not being injured in any way by being wished a Merry Christmas. 

For the last few years, I’ve been intentional to wish people Merry Christmas.  Do you know what they say?  They thank me!  They thank me for saying Merry Christmas…they’re tired of “Happy Holidays” too.  That beautifully decorated tree in your living room?  It’s a Christmas tree.  It’s an old German Christian tradition that goes back about five centuries.  Santa Claus?  That tradition comes from Saint Nicholas, a Christian saint who would leave gifts in people’s shoes quietly and without being noticed. 

Most importantly, and this cannot be minimized: Christmas is about Jesus.  Christmas is the day we celebrate God sending His son to Earth to walk amongst us, to live the human condition for 33 years, then to go to the cross and suffer the worst execution man ever devised…for you and me…and then rise from the grave the victorious King!  Christmas is the beginning of the greatest story ever told!  Please hear me when I say this:  Jesus is the reason for the season, and I’m not ashamed to say it!  My savior was made incarnate man, and that’s why we celebrate Christmas. 

I’m tired of hearing Happy Holidays.  It’s Merry Christmas! (To my Jewish friends, Happy Chanukah!) Beyond that, this season is about Jesus!  Jesus is the reason for the season!  Now join me in saying it:  MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Biblical Conservatism Week in Review - 12/17/12

Guest Post: Why Are You Defending the Rich?

Today on Biblical Conservatism, we have our favorite (and here-to-date only) guest poster, my good buddy, the JC_Freak! This post dates back to before Election 2012, but I felt it was still worth having on Biblical Conservatism in the wake of the Fiscal Cliff debate.

"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.

As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?

So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.

A Matter of Motivation

The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.

In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.

The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?

It's OK To Have A Little Class

Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.

So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.

I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.

Economic Justice

The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.

I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.

Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.

Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.

As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.

You can read Martin Glynn's blogging at The JC_Freak.



Newtown Shooting SHOULD NOT Be a Political Football


Yet the Left begins it's cry again for more gun control. The attitude repeated is "if we had just had Law X in place, this never would've happened!" It's a sad but true fact that the American Left will use any crisis to push their agenda, up to and including circumventing the Second Amendment.

Nobody has a better answer for this attitude than our old pal Condescending Wonka:

While a bit crass, this meme is 100% correct. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of this horrific crime, clearly had no respect for laws. After all, murder has been illegal in the United States since before it was a nation. Actually, it's illegal in every Western country. Yet this man chose to commit this crime.

The fact is, while the exact statistics are hard to pin down, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed not with a legally purchased weapon but an ILLEGALLY purchased weapon or an unregistered gun. Take for example Aurora, CO, the site of this summer's shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." This town had some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It did not stop the criminal. What it did stop was the law abiding citizens in that theater from having their own weapons for defense.

Yet some on the Left want to use this event to once again press their agenda of making the 2nd Amendment weaker and weaker. As always, the Left is happy to find rights that are somehow written between the lines of the Constitution (see: "Right to Privacy") but if a right is actually written IN BLACK AND WHITE then clearly the founders didn't really mean it the way it's clearly written. 

The bottom line is this tragic event should not ever be a political football. It should not be used by the Left to continually push their agenda. The reality is passing new gun laws will only take defense weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals will find ways to get their guns. Or, perhaps they'll just use another weapon to perpetrate their crimes. Either way, these new laws won't help stop any gun violence.

I conclude with this little ditty, courtesy of our founding fathers:

Emphasis Added

Newtown Shooting SHOULD NOT Be a Political Football

Yet the Left begins it's cry again for more gun control. The attitude repeated is "if we had just had Law X in place, this never would've happened!" It's a sad but true fact that the American Left will use any crisis to push their agenda, up to and including circumventing the Second Amendment.

Nobody has a better answer for this attitude than our old pal Condescending Wonka:

While a bit crass, this meme is 100% correct. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of this horrific crime, clearly had no respect for laws. After all, murder has been illegal in the United States since before it was a nation. Actually, it's illegal in every Western country. Yet this man chose to commit this crime.

The fact is, while the exact statistics are hard to pin down, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed not with a legally purchased weapon but an ILLEGALLY purchased weapon or an unregistered gun. Take for example Aurora, CO, the site of this summer's shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." This town had some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It did not stop the criminal. What it did stop was the law abiding citizens in that theater from having their own weapons for defense.

Yet some on the Left want to use this event to once again press their agenda of making the 2nd Amendment weaker and weaker. As always, the Left is happy to find rights that are somehow written between the lines of the Constitution (see: "Right to Privacy") but if a right is actually written IN BLACK AND WHITE then clearly the founders didn't really mean it the way it's clearly written. 

The bottom line is this tragic event should not ever be a political football. It should not be used by the Left to continually push their agenda. The reality is passing new gun laws will only take defense weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals will find ways to get their guns. Or, perhaps they'll just use another weapon to perpetrate their crimes. Either way, these new laws won't help stop any gun violence.

I conclude with this little ditty, courtesy of our founding fathers:

Emphasis Added

Guest Post: Why Are You Defending the Rich?

Today on Biblical Conservatism, we have our favorite (and here-to-date only) guest poster, my good buddy, the JC_Freak! This post dates back to before Election 2012, but I felt it was still worth having on Biblical Conservatism in the wake of the Fiscal Cliff debate.

"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.

As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?

So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.

A Matter of Motivation

The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.

In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.

The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?

It's OK To Have A Little Class

Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.

So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.

I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.

Economic Justice

The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.

I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.

Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.

Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.

As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.

You can read Martin Glynn's blogging at The JC_Freak.