Recently on Biblical Conservatism, we talked about the liberal tactic of using Political Correctness to stop all arguments. As always, when challenged, liberals try another tactic they love: False Equivalency.
It came up in the discussion after last week's post Liberal Rhetoric 101: Political Correctness. A conservative raises a legitimate complaint of something a liberal does or says. The liberal attempts to compare the mountain they made out of a molehill to a legitimate offensive taken by a conservative.
I have few things that truly offend me. One thing I do ask that people do when around me is refrain from taking the name Jesus Christ in vain. It's a matter of my faith. In turn, I always try to give the same respect to those of other faiths. Yet I've had this compared to saying the phrase "Merry Christmas" more times than I can enumerate (by people who, by the way, have no actual connection to a mentally disabled person).
It's a false equivalency in it's finest form. "All offenses are equal." If I'm somehow bothered by the word Christmas, it's just as bad as me using the name of God to curse.
Here's another fine example:
During World War II and the 1980s, the booming economy largely resulted from military spending aka government spending, ergo, it's the same thing as Obama's Stimulus.
Except for, you know, reality. For one, military spending is something the government is SUPPOSED to do. One of the primary purposes of government is providing for a common defense. Secondly, and this cannot be overlooked: military spending by government is purely done as a consumer. Liberals like to prop up companies through "investing" aka spending money on future potentials. Military spending is buying existing products where private companies compete by creating the best product FIRST then attempting to win government contracts.
It's the difference between investment and consumption. When I bought a new car last year, I did not "invest" in Chevrolet. I bought a Cruze. I didn't buy it to help Chevy. I did it because it was the best car for my budget sold by the dealership I trusted. Also known as CONSUMPTION.
A third false equivalency perpetuated by the Left is calling the Occupy Wall Street movement "the liberal Tea Party."
Only a few problems with this: One, the Tea Party demanded that government leave them alone and become fiscally sound. The Occupiers wanted to be taken care of at the expense of somebody else. Two, the Tea Party always had permits. The Occupiers were illegally protesting without a permit. Three, there have been no reports of violence at Tea Party rallies. The Occupy movement was filled with reports of rape, assault, etc. Four, the Tea Party always cleaned up after itself. The Occupiers left a mess. Five, show me the Occupy candidates and how they were swept to power? Six, the Tea Party, despite baloney stories about the Koch brothers, was truly organic. The Occupiers were funded by George Soros.
I can go on and on with these false equivalencies. Bottom line, the Left doesn't live in reality, but tries to convince us they do by using these false equivalencies. Fortunately for the thinking conservative, it doesn't take much mining to uncover the truth in these claims.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Balancing Truth and Forgiveness
As a Christian in our modern politically correct world, we're constantly asked to put aside our beliefs and just "live and let live." Unfortunately, as Christians, we are also called the speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Sadly, too many of our fellow believers fail on one of these two requirements.
The more liberal amongst us fail to speak the truth. They fall prey to the liberal political correct mentality of not wanting to offend people so they instead believe the intellectually dishonest concept that "all faiths are different roads to the same God" or are equally valid etc.
This is logically impossible, because: 1. God either has a son or he doesn't, making it impossible for the God of Islam and the God of Christianity the same. 2. Jesus Christ is either the Messiah or he isn't, making it impossible for Judaism and Christianity to agree. 3. There's either one God or many, making all three of these religions not able to be the same as any polytheistic religion. 4. Jesus is either who He said he was: God, the Messiah, the fullness of the Godhead Bodily, one third of the Triune God; or he's either a liar and/or crazy person. Jesus being "just a good teacher" is not an option Christ himself gave us.
To use a Biblical comparison, the people who try to shoehorn their own Christian faith into these illogical compromises are the modern Sadducees, the sect that, in the time of Christ, was known for compromising their faith with Rome to get along.
Then there's the other extreme. The modern Pharisees. These individuals are the ones who strictly adhere to the Biblical truth, but do so by screaming at people about how they're going to Hell and even calling things sin that aren't sin. (For example, you show me where in the Bible it says that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol in reasonable moderation? If you think I'm wrong, go read John 2. Then explain to me why, at feasts, it would be practice for hosts to serve the best wine first and the inferior after people have well imbibed if it's just grape juice and not alcohol?) Believe it or not, as a Christian, these are the ones who bother me more.
The modern Sadducee tends to arrive at the conclusion that everyone is right in their beliefs out of a heart of love. They know someone of another faith that they care deeply about and do not want to believe they are unsaved. Rather than possibly ruin the friendship by evangelizing that person, they allow themselves to believe their friend is saved through Islam or Buddhism or whatever they believe.
How do we make that balance? How do we find ourselves between the Pharisee and Sadducee?
The balance is set out by Christ in the Gospel of John Chapter 8:2-11:
2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 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.” (Emphasis Added)
It is the sentence in bold that is the most pertinent. Jesus both forgave the woman caught in adultery AND laid out the expectation that she turn from her sin. He both loved and forgave her, while loving her too much to let her stay in her sin. That's who Jesus Christ is...He loves us enough to forgive us and loves us too much to leave us in our sin.
In real life application, as Christians this means we must hate sin. The actual act of sin, both our own and others, should be detestable to us.Yet, as Christ demonstrated, we must also love the sinner, as Christ loves us. It is both possible and reasonable for us, with God's help, to separate these two.
The more liberal amongst us fail to speak the truth. They fall prey to the liberal political correct mentality of not wanting to offend people so they instead believe the intellectually dishonest concept that "all faiths are different roads to the same God" or are equally valid etc.
This is logically impossible, because: 1. God either has a son or he doesn't, making it impossible for the God of Islam and the God of Christianity the same. 2. Jesus Christ is either the Messiah or he isn't, making it impossible for Judaism and Christianity to agree. 3. There's either one God or many, making all three of these religions not able to be the same as any polytheistic religion. 4. Jesus is either who He said he was: God, the Messiah, the fullness of the Godhead Bodily, one third of the Triune God; or he's either a liar and/or crazy person. Jesus being "just a good teacher" is not an option Christ himself gave us.
To use a Biblical comparison, the people who try to shoehorn their own Christian faith into these illogical compromises are the modern Sadducees, the sect that, in the time of Christ, was known for compromising their faith with Rome to get along.
Then there's the other extreme. The modern Pharisees. These individuals are the ones who strictly adhere to the Biblical truth, but do so by screaming at people about how they're going to Hell and even calling things sin that aren't sin. (For example, you show me where in the Bible it says that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol in reasonable moderation? If you think I'm wrong, go read John 2. Then explain to me why, at feasts, it would be practice for hosts to serve the best wine first and the inferior after people have well imbibed if it's just grape juice and not alcohol?) Believe it or not, as a Christian, these are the ones who bother me more.
The modern Sadducee tends to arrive at the conclusion that everyone is right in their beliefs out of a heart of love. They know someone of another faith that they care deeply about and do not want to believe they are unsaved. Rather than possibly ruin the friendship by evangelizing that person, they allow themselves to believe their friend is saved through Islam or Buddhism or whatever they believe.
How do we make that balance? How do we find ourselves between the Pharisee and Sadducee?
The balance is set out by Christ in the Gospel of John Chapter 8:2-11:
2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. 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.” (Emphasis Added)
It is the sentence in bold that is the most pertinent. Jesus both forgave the woman caught in adultery AND laid out the expectation that she turn from her sin. He both loved and forgave her, while loving her too much to let her stay in her sin. That's who Jesus Christ is...He loves us enough to forgive us and loves us too much to leave us in our sin.
In real life application, as Christians this means we must hate sin. The actual act of sin, both our own and others, should be detestable to us.Yet, as Christ demonstrated, we must also love the sinner, as Christ loves us. It is both possible and reasonable for us, with God's help, to separate these two.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Liberal Rhetoric 101: Political Correctness
"If it bothers people, why do you have to say..."
(Insert Quasi-Offensive word here. Retarded. Christmas. Whatever. Pick One.)
I've been asked this when I use the word "retarded." For the record, I use it to mean "stupid," because I believe the word retarded stopped meaning a person with a mental disability YEARS AGO, and we only remember that it used to mean a person with a mental disability because the PC Police yell at us for saying it.
I've said for years that nobody gets upset at the use of the words "mad," "crazy," and "idiot." The first two used to mean a person who was legitimately mentally insane, the third used to mean a person with a mental disability.
So I've openly fought to let this particular quasi-offensive term evolve into yet another synonym for "stupid." (Notice I said "quasi-offensive." That's because I know there are things that are LEGITIMATELY offensive. Like when people use the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as a curse word, or when people use legitimate racial slurs.)
Yet one question I keep getting asked "If it bothers people, why do you have to say it?"
Here's why: I'm not willing to yield to political correctness and let the Left say "You've offended me! You must stop talking now!" Which, by the way, is a tool the Left uses CONSTANTLY. They shut down debate using this methodology.
I was once scolded by a co-worker for referring to MYSELF as a "Guinea." For the record, and this cannot be ignored: I AM OF ITALIAN DECENT! Italians, at least in my part of New York State, use this term for each other ALL THE TIME! We've also been known to call ourselves Wops. No Italian cares, as long as it's a fellow Italian using the term. (PS - The person who was offended is not of Italian decent.)
It's become a shut down statement. "You don't get to keep arguing. You've offended me." Translation, "I get to disregard your facts because they aren't PC."
Most of the time, if these people are genuinely offended it's because they've been TOLD to be offended. Liberals actually TEACH other liberals to be offended at things that, on their surface, aren't offensive. (Usually it's Activist Liberals teaching Neighborhood Liberals.)
Kind, well-intentioned Neighborhood Liberals buy into this out of a genuine desire to be nice and not hurt people. Activist Liberals use this to stop debate and discussion, with their unknowing Neighborhood counterparts backing them up because "it's mean to say retarded!" and "You offend people who don't celebrate Christmas so just say Happy Holidays!"
My friends, even though the intentions of our Neighborhood Liberal pals are genuinely trying to be kind, the Activist Liberals are using these good intentions to shut up debate. In the end, we must not let ourselves to taken out by red herrings and blocking tactics.
(Insert Quasi-Offensive word here. Retarded. Christmas. Whatever. Pick One.)
I've been asked this when I use the word "retarded." For the record, I use it to mean "stupid," because I believe the word retarded stopped meaning a person with a mental disability YEARS AGO, and we only remember that it used to mean a person with a mental disability because the PC Police yell at us for saying it.
I've said for years that nobody gets upset at the use of the words "mad," "crazy," and "idiot." The first two used to mean a person who was legitimately mentally insane, the third used to mean a person with a mental disability.
So I've openly fought to let this particular quasi-offensive term evolve into yet another synonym for "stupid." (Notice I said "quasi-offensive." That's because I know there are things that are LEGITIMATELY offensive. Like when people use the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as a curse word, or when people use legitimate racial slurs.)
Yet one question I keep getting asked "If it bothers people, why do you have to say it?"
Here's why: I'm not willing to yield to political correctness and let the Left say "You've offended me! You must stop talking now!" Which, by the way, is a tool the Left uses CONSTANTLY. They shut down debate using this methodology.
I was once scolded by a co-worker for referring to MYSELF as a "Guinea." For the record, and this cannot be ignored: I AM OF ITALIAN DECENT! Italians, at least in my part of New York State, use this term for each other ALL THE TIME! We've also been known to call ourselves Wops. No Italian cares, as long as it's a fellow Italian using the term. (PS - The person who was offended is not of Italian decent.)
It's become a shut down statement. "You don't get to keep arguing. You've offended me." Translation, "I get to disregard your facts because they aren't PC."
Most of the time, if these people are genuinely offended it's because they've been TOLD to be offended. Liberals actually TEACH other liberals to be offended at things that, on their surface, aren't offensive. (Usually it's Activist Liberals teaching Neighborhood Liberals.)
Kind, well-intentioned Neighborhood Liberals buy into this out of a genuine desire to be nice and not hurt people. Activist Liberals use this to stop debate and discussion, with their unknowing Neighborhood counterparts backing them up because "it's mean to say retarded!" and "You offend people who don't celebrate Christmas so just say Happy Holidays!"
My friends, even though the intentions of our Neighborhood Liberal pals are genuinely trying to be kind, the Activist Liberals are using these good intentions to shut up debate. In the end, we must not let ourselves to taken out by red herrings and blocking tactics.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Economics 101: Raising Minimum Wage Doesn't Help Anyone
President Obama, in addition to his latest call for spending more money we don't have, is calling for raising the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. This of course sounds like a great way to lift up the poor amongst us. Except...
...except raising minimum wage causes employers to cut back on employees and have less people do the same amount of work. Because, as I've said so many times, business owners don't just bend over, grab the ankles, and take the hit. EVER. It's simply not what happens.
Historically, this is precisely what happens every time minimum wage goes up.
There is also a second factor, one that pundits who wear bow ties do not mention on the news: A lot of the products that set the pace of inflation are sold at establishments whose staff make minimum wage. The average grocery store employee and the average gas station attendant, for example, make minimum wage. (I'm not talking about department or store managers mind you. Just the average attendant at the gas station and the guy who stocks the shelves at the store.)
Food and gas prices more than anything else set the rate of inflation, because if it costs more to staff the grocery store, guess what? That gallon of milk and box of Frosted Flakes will go up. It's guaranteed. In fact a minimum wage paycheck at $5 an hour bought the same things as a minimum wage paycheck at $6 an hour. The net effect of that wage increase was only seen on paper. Otherwise it was worth nothing.
No matter how many times liberals expect business owners to bend over and grab the ankles when they raise taxes or minimum wage or whatever, what always happens is businesses adjust the prices of their products/services in order to maintain their profit margins. It is a fact of life. In a free market there is no way to force these business owners to stop raising prices to cover their recent cut in profit.
Not only that, but cuts in minimum wage take away from those employees at minimum wage jobs that have put in their time, worked hard, and earned raises. I've seen it from both the employee end and the management side.
When I was in high school and college I worked at a national fast food chain. I worked hard and received raises every six months like clockwork. By the time I had been there for two years, I was making nearly a dollar an hour over minimum wage. Then some politician decided it was a good idea to raise minimum wage. Just like that, I was making the same money as the new person they just hired.
Now I can hear you Neighborhood Liberals saying "Why didn't your employer bump you up to $1 an hour over minimum wage?" My friends, despite whether or not I deserved it (I did) and whether or not my immediate supervisors fought to get me a proportional increase (they did) they were unsuccessful because the company could not afford to give everyone who was making above minimum wage a proportional raise to accommodate. As it was, they had to raise prices just to cover the new cost of business.
Years later as a manager for the same company, some politician decided to raise minimum wage. I had employees who had worked for that particular restaurant for years. Their wage increase was about to disappear because of the new law. Oh, and just like I said above, the cost of basic products like a gallon of milk and a tube of toothpaste were about to go up as a result of this minimum wage hike, so the new minimum wage would have the same spending power as the old minimum wage.
I was able to fight for a handful of those employees to at least make A LITTLE over the minimum wage. If memory serves me it was $.25 an hour over minimum wage, but some of these people were earning anywhere from $.50 an hour to $1 an hour over minimum wage. In reality, those people saw their wages GO DOWN in terms of what they could afford to buy. They had less buying ability than they had before, because some politician decided to raise minimum wage. In terms of real world purchasing, these hard working employees saw their wage go down.
This is the real economic impact of raising the minimum wage, friends. It's not people making more money, at least in terms of real purchasing power. It's a bigger (or the same) digit in the paycheck worth the same or less as it was before. In the Real World economy, it doesn't amount to jack squat.
...except raising minimum wage causes employers to cut back on employees and have less people do the same amount of work. Because, as I've said so many times, business owners don't just bend over, grab the ankles, and take the hit. EVER. It's simply not what happens.
Historically, this is precisely what happens every time minimum wage goes up.
There is also a second factor, one that pundits who wear bow ties do not mention on the news: A lot of the products that set the pace of inflation are sold at establishments whose staff make minimum wage. The average grocery store employee and the average gas station attendant, for example, make minimum wage. (I'm not talking about department or store managers mind you. Just the average attendant at the gas station and the guy who stocks the shelves at the store.)
Food and gas prices more than anything else set the rate of inflation, because if it costs more to staff the grocery store, guess what? That gallon of milk and box of Frosted Flakes will go up. It's guaranteed. In fact a minimum wage paycheck at $5 an hour bought the same things as a minimum wage paycheck at $6 an hour. The net effect of that wage increase was only seen on paper. Otherwise it was worth nothing.
No matter how many times liberals expect business owners to bend over and grab the ankles when they raise taxes or minimum wage or whatever, what always happens is businesses adjust the prices of their products/services in order to maintain their profit margins. It is a fact of life. In a free market there is no way to force these business owners to stop raising prices to cover their recent cut in profit.
Not only that, but cuts in minimum wage take away from those employees at minimum wage jobs that have put in their time, worked hard, and earned raises. I've seen it from both the employee end and the management side.
When I was in high school and college I worked at a national fast food chain. I worked hard and received raises every six months like clockwork. By the time I had been there for two years, I was making nearly a dollar an hour over minimum wage. Then some politician decided it was a good idea to raise minimum wage. Just like that, I was making the same money as the new person they just hired.
Now I can hear you Neighborhood Liberals saying "Why didn't your employer bump you up to $1 an hour over minimum wage?" My friends, despite whether or not I deserved it (I did) and whether or not my immediate supervisors fought to get me a proportional increase (they did) they were unsuccessful because the company could not afford to give everyone who was making above minimum wage a proportional raise to accommodate. As it was, they had to raise prices just to cover the new cost of business.
Years later as a manager for the same company, some politician decided to raise minimum wage. I had employees who had worked for that particular restaurant for years. Their wage increase was about to disappear because of the new law. Oh, and just like I said above, the cost of basic products like a gallon of milk and a tube of toothpaste were about to go up as a result of this minimum wage hike, so the new minimum wage would have the same spending power as the old minimum wage.
I was able to fight for a handful of those employees to at least make A LITTLE over the minimum wage. If memory serves me it was $.25 an hour over minimum wage, but some of these people were earning anywhere from $.50 an hour to $1 an hour over minimum wage. In reality, those people saw their wages GO DOWN in terms of what they could afford to buy. They had less buying ability than they had before, because some politician decided to raise minimum wage. In terms of real world purchasing, these hard working employees saw their wage go down.
This is the real economic impact of raising the minimum wage, friends. It's not people making more money, at least in terms of real purchasing power. It's a bigger (or the same) digit in the paycheck worth the same or less as it was before. In the Real World economy, it doesn't amount to jack squat.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Dear GOP: When Will You Fight THIS Fight?
Over the last several years with the Republican Party, it's constantly been, "We're going to cave on THIS particular issue, (just this one time) and then we're REALLY going to fight NEXT TIME!"
Unfortunately for America, the moment Next Time becomes This Time there's some other "just this one time" to excuse not fighting. Washington Republicans cave yet again because they don't want to be blamed for what happens next by the Left's willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media.
It happened in December as the Fiscal Cliff approached. The GOP let President Obama raise taxes for reasons that no math on Earth can explain (although supposedly that $65 Billion was going to solve a $10 Trillion projected ten-year deficit) without extracting real, meaningful spending cuts. That day we were told "just wait until the Debt Ceiling battle!" Now we're at the Debt Ceiling battle and the Republican House has passed a debt limit increase, albeit a short-term one, that doesn't require cuts.
Friends, I want to be optimistic. I truly do. I want to believe that come May the Republican House will refuse to pass a budget without meaningful cuts. I'd also like to believe that someday I'll make $10 Million a year and live in a mansion. But I live here in the Real World and what I shake my Magic 8-Ball I see this:
Unfortunately for America, the moment Next Time becomes This Time there's some other "just this one time" to excuse not fighting. Washington Republicans cave yet again because they don't want to be blamed for what happens next by the Left's willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media.
It happened in December as the Fiscal Cliff approached. The GOP let President Obama raise taxes for reasons that no math on Earth can explain (although supposedly that $65 Billion was going to solve a $10 Trillion projected ten-year deficit) without extracting real, meaningful spending cuts. That day we were told "just wait until the Debt Ceiling battle!" Now we're at the Debt Ceiling battle and the Republican House has passed a debt limit increase, albeit a short-term one, that doesn't require cuts.
Friends, I want to be optimistic. I truly do. I want to believe that come May the Republican House will refuse to pass a budget without meaningful cuts. I'd also like to believe that someday I'll make $10 Million a year and live in a mansion. But I live here in the Real World and what I shake my Magic 8-Ball I see this:
I think I speak for a whole lot of conservatives when I say there won't be a whole lot of chances left for the Republican Party. Frankly, this could be their last one. It's time to do something real. The spending our nation has continued is flat out unsustainable. That's a fact. Furthermore, there is no evidence from history to show that Obama's Keynesian spending will all of a sudden begin to work, especially since it hasn't worked yet. (Don't let liberals tell you about the New Deal bringing us out of the Great Depression. That was accomplished only by the outbreak of World War II and government spending as a CONSUMER not as an investor.)
It's time to get your act together, GOP. Now. Not next time.
It's time to get your act together, GOP. Now. Not next time.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Best of Biblical Conservatism: Letter Bag: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism
Today, on Best of Biblical Conservatism, we have one of our most popular posts of all time!
I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here. The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere. Here was the comment:
Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)
The Tea Party is therefore liberal.
It's an interesting point, Anny. It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism. The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism. For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty. It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution. When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy. (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)
You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical. They aren't radical anymore. Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.
Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government. It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems.
Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.
What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy. For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)
Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day. The same is true of many other words. In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat." Does it mean that now, Anny? Of course not. Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.
In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism. Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.
Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments. Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require.
I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here. The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere. Here was the comment:
Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)
The Tea Party is therefore liberal.
It's an interesting point, Anny. It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism. The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism. For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty. It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution. When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy. (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)
You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical. They aren't radical anymore. Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.
Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government. It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems.
Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.
What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy. For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)
Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day. The same is true of many other words. In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat." Does it mean that now, Anny? Of course not. Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.
In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism. Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.
Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments. Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Simplifying Conservatism: Winning Elections in the Soundbite Era
It's become an issue for conservatives recently: How do we change our message to identify with voters?
Actually, the question shouldn't be how do we change our MESSAGE. The message isn't the problem. However, we need to change our MESSAGING.
(For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means don't change the platform, just change the description.)
Where conservatives are losing is not our message. The message of small government, personal responsibility, and freedom isn't the problem. The real problem is the way we PRESENT that message.
We can present all the charts and graphs and spew numbers until we're blue in the face, we won't win elections. Ronald Reagan didn't win two elections that way. Ronald Reagan won by presenting the conservative message in a way that average Americans could digest.
His message was simple: Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Yet today we're making it far bigger than it needs to be. The Democratic Party and liberals are good at it (even if they aren't telling the truth). Such examples are the fictional "war on women" and "the rich need to pay their fair share."
So what does our message need to be? How do we simplify conservatism to sound bites? Here are a few simple ways to talk about conservatism.
Dear Government: It's not your money!
If Americans have to live within their income, so does government.
Yes YOU can!
If you have $2 Trillion, you can't spend 3!
If you trust yourself more than the government, vote Republican.
What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was so confusing?
You can do it better without government "help!"
Freedom. Responsibility. Strength.
Compassionate results over compassionate intentions.
Every single one of these single sentence statements are in line with the conservative thesis. All hold the same themes as the conservative pillars of personal responsibility, fiscal sanity, and small government. But each one is explained in a single sentence instead of a long chart filled with obscure data and obfuscated (but accurate) facts.
We can certainly explain our positions in greater detail when need be, which puts us in an advantage over Democrats. Our positions make logical and mathematical sense, which also puts us in advantage over Democrats. Simply put, if we can get our messaging down, we will win. Period.
Actually, the question shouldn't be how do we change our MESSAGE. The message isn't the problem. However, we need to change our MESSAGING.
(For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means don't change the platform, just change the description.)
Where conservatives are losing is not our message. The message of small government, personal responsibility, and freedom isn't the problem. The real problem is the way we PRESENT that message.
We can present all the charts and graphs and spew numbers until we're blue in the face, we won't win elections. Ronald Reagan didn't win two elections that way. Ronald Reagan won by presenting the conservative message in a way that average Americans could digest.
His message was simple: Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Yet today we're making it far bigger than it needs to be. The Democratic Party and liberals are good at it (even if they aren't telling the truth). Such examples are the fictional "war on women" and "the rich need to pay their fair share."
So what does our message need to be? How do we simplify conservatism to sound bites? Here are a few simple ways to talk about conservatism.
Dear Government: It's not your money!
If Americans have to live within their income, so does government.
Yes YOU can!
If you have $2 Trillion, you can't spend 3!
If you trust yourself more than the government, vote Republican.
What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was so confusing?
You can do it better without government "help!"
Freedom. Responsibility. Strength.
Compassionate results over compassionate intentions.
Every single one of these single sentence statements are in line with the conservative thesis. All hold the same themes as the conservative pillars of personal responsibility, fiscal sanity, and small government. But each one is explained in a single sentence instead of a long chart filled with obscure data and obfuscated (but accurate) facts.
We can certainly explain our positions in greater detail when need be, which puts us in an advantage over Democrats. Our positions make logical and mathematical sense, which also puts us in advantage over Democrats. Simply put, if we can get our messaging down, we will win. Period.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Debunking the New Deal Argument (Part 2)
On Monday we began dealing with the New Deal Argument that liberals love to present: "The New Deal got us out of the Great Depression." Today, we're going to handle the second part of this argument, known as Military Keynesianism.
There is a second aspect of the New Deal Argument, which admits that it was indeed World War II was the reason that the United States got out of the Great Depression but claims that the government spending of World War II was the specific impetus for recovery, thus claiming the World War II spending by the government and subsequent recovery was an example of successful Keynesian Economics.
Now first of all, Keynesian Economics in it's pure form speaks to government spending in terms of investment. The World War II spending by the United States government was not investment it was consumption. Two, and this is far more important, the branch of Keynesian Economics known as Military Keynesianism essentially preaches that this military spending CREATES demand, rather than the other way around.
For those of your from Palm Beach County, this akin to saying "We produce a lot of military supplies so we therefore will HAVE a demand because of that increased supply."
In reality, what occurred in World War II was an organic demand not a created demand. (It turns out, no matter how much effort government makes to create a demand, if people don't organically want or need a new product they will not fly. See: Chevy Volt.)
Secondly, the argument of Keynsianism is that government can "invest" in various industries and therefore stimulate the economy. (Somehow government spending stimulates the economy, but letting people keep their own money doesn't. If your head hurts, well, so does mine.) Investment, however, involves a level of control. If I "invest" in a company I am somewhat of a partner. To some degree I have a say over what that company does. This is what President Obama has tried to do (to massive complete lack of success) with "Green Energy" leading to huge embarrassing failures with taxpayer dollars like Solyndra (and other, less buzz-worthily named but otherwise equally unsuccessful companies).
Compare this to what the United States government did during World War II. During World War II, the United States government didn't "invest" in military supplies. No. They BOUGHT military supplies. They were not INVESTORS, they were CONSUMERS.
The government acting as a consumer for a Constitutionally valid and appropriate reason is both not a front to freedom and also is not the premise behind Keynesian Economics. Government consumption and government investment are not synonymous. Otherwise, purchasing the Presidential limo would be considered "investing" in Cadillac and replacing Air Force One would be "investing" in Boeing. Also when I bought a can of soda earlier, I "invested" in Pepsi.
Yet again, this example of Keynesianism "working" is based on a faulty premise. Then again, what would liberal "successes" be if they couldn't move the goal posts?
There is a second aspect of the New Deal Argument, which admits that it was indeed World War II was the reason that the United States got out of the Great Depression but claims that the government spending of World War II was the specific impetus for recovery, thus claiming the World War II spending by the government and subsequent recovery was an example of successful Keynesian Economics.
Now first of all, Keynesian Economics in it's pure form speaks to government spending in terms of investment. The World War II spending by the United States government was not investment it was consumption. Two, and this is far more important, the branch of Keynesian Economics known as Military Keynesianism essentially preaches that this military spending CREATES demand, rather than the other way around.
For those of your from Palm Beach County, this akin to saying "We produce a lot of military supplies so we therefore will HAVE a demand because of that increased supply."
In reality, what occurred in World War II was an organic demand not a created demand. (It turns out, no matter how much effort government makes to create a demand, if people don't organically want or need a new product they will not fly. See: Chevy Volt.)
Secondly, the argument of Keynsianism is that government can "invest" in various industries and therefore stimulate the economy. (Somehow government spending stimulates the economy, but letting people keep their own money doesn't. If your head hurts, well, so does mine.) Investment, however, involves a level of control. If I "invest" in a company I am somewhat of a partner. To some degree I have a say over what that company does. This is what President Obama has tried to do (to massive complete lack of success) with "Green Energy" leading to huge embarrassing failures with taxpayer dollars like Solyndra (and other, less buzz-worthily named but otherwise equally unsuccessful companies).
Compare this to what the United States government did during World War II. During World War II, the United States government didn't "invest" in military supplies. No. They BOUGHT military supplies. They were not INVESTORS, they were CONSUMERS.
The government acting as a consumer for a Constitutionally valid and appropriate reason is both not a front to freedom and also is not the premise behind Keynesian Economics. Government consumption and government investment are not synonymous. Otherwise, purchasing the Presidential limo would be considered "investing" in Cadillac and replacing Air Force One would be "investing" in Boeing. Also when I bought a can of soda earlier, I "invested" in Pepsi.
Yet again, this example of Keynesianism "working" is based on a faulty premise. Then again, what would liberal "successes" be if they couldn't move the goal posts?
Monday, February 4, 2013
Debunking the New Deal Argument (Part 1)
Liberals seem to have two big arguments to back up their messes of policies: the Clinton Argument, which we debunked here on Biblical Conservatism nearly two years ago, and the New Deal.
The claim from liberals is that the New Deal is what got us out of the Great Depression. Somehow, they claim, all the government spending in the New Deal created a recovery.
History tells a different story. To what degree the unemployment dropped due to the New Deal it was a prop up, caused my government make-work agencies like the Public Works Administration.
The claim from liberals is that the New Deal is what got us out of the Great Depression. Somehow, they claim, all the government spending in the New Deal created a recovery.
History tells a different story. To what degree the unemployment dropped due to the New Deal it was a prop up, caused my government make-work agencies like the Public Works Administration.
Now, given the choice, I'll pick the government hiring people to build bridges over the handouts of the Welfare State. However, once you take away these government make-work programs you'll find unemployment at it's lowest of 17.9%.
You'll notice that unemployment began it's genuine and permanent recovery in 1939. Gee, what happened then? Oh, right, the United States started selling war supplies to France and Great Britain. Then you look at the difference betwen 1941 and 1942.
In fact, many economists surmise that the New Deal's massive taxes may have slowed the recovery, thanks to such policies as a LOWEST top marginal income tax rate as 63% (the highest was a whopping 94%). Who knew that taking tons of money from those who produce might stop them from producing. Shocker.
Thursday, we're going to talk about a second aspect of the New Deal Argument that other Keynesian argue. In short, they argue that sure, it was World War II that got us out of the Great Depression, but the spending during the war was Military Keynesianism therefore it was a success of Keynesian Economics.
In fact, many economists surmise that the New Deal's massive taxes may have slowed the recovery, thanks to such policies as a LOWEST top marginal income tax rate as 63% (the highest was a whopping 94%). Who knew that taking tons of money from those who produce might stop them from producing. Shocker.
Thursday, we're going to talk about a second aspect of the New Deal Argument that other Keynesian argue. In short, they argue that sure, it was World War II that got us out of the Great Depression, but the spending during the war was Military Keynesianism therefore it was a success of Keynesian Economics.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
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.)
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
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
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
Monday, January 28, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
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.
Monday, January 14, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
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.)
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.)
Monday, January 7, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, December 31, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)