Liberal Rhetoric 101: Verbosity

Debating with liberals, as we've discussed in our Liberal Rhetoric 101 Series, is fraught with tricks to hide the fact that the average liberal has few actual arguments to back up their arguments.  One of the biggest tactics is verbosity...simply shouting down your opponent.

It's happened many times in my own debate life. I remember one time when I was in high school I attempted to explain the conservative opposition to abortion to a girl I worked with at my part-time job.  We'll call her "Stella." I tried to explain to Stella that my concern that it may be a human life, and that human life was sacred, and that it wasn't ok to just destroy a human being for personal convenience. Her response? She shouted at me "Keep your laws off my body!" That was her ENTIRE ARGUMENT. Stella completely ignored the fact, central to my entire point, that the baby's body ISN'T her body.

Actually, I tried to explain that point. Stella simply repeated that it was her body and I had no right to say what she could do with it. She had no intention of engaging in a discussion of whether or not what she was saying held one ounce of water, which is particularly important since my argument centered entirely upon the idea that the unborn child, while residing IN her body was not in fact PART of her body, and she was in fact destroying SOMEONE ELSE'S body.  She had no intention or desire of discussing this topic with any level of logic, facts, or even hearing my opinions. She just wanted to shout me down.

(This person also felt she was a crusader for free speech, but had no problem with pulling my "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Democrat" bumper sticker off my car. I bring this up because I want you to understand the level of logic...so none...she was working with when debating me.)

I tried very hard to explain that I had a deeper concern than her tropes about "a woman's body," specifically ensuring that no human being is destroyed indiscriminately.  I tried to explain my firm belief that it was not acceptable to destroy an innocent human being. Her response? "You're not a woman, so you don't have a say in this issue." Except it was more like "HOW DARE YOU! YOU'RE A MAN! YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW A WOMAN WOULD FEEL SO SHUT UP!"

Right. In an issue pertaining to human life, only women get a say.  If I have a child and my wife wants to smother the baby with a pillow, I have no say, because I'm not a woman...because reasons. This is the logical equivalent if one is assuming that an unborn child is human. That's my concern. That is my reason. Stella, however, had nothing to argue with except for yelling catchphrases.

Unfortunately, the only way to combat verbosity is to simply refuse to debate if they don't stop shouting...deal with the first point they make without letting them change the point of the debate.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: The Fallacy of Consensus

This rhetorical fallacy is better known as argumentum ad populum. What it means, in layman's terms is "everybody knows X is true."

Examples the Left loves to trumpet:

- Everybody knows man-made Global Warming is a fact.

- Evolution isn't just a theory, it's a fact. There are no legitimate alternative theories.

Actually, neither are proven facts. Yes, there is widespread belief in both, largely due to the fact that they are taught unopposed in schools and due to significant Group Think amongst the scientific communities who support both.

For the record, I am not a scientist, nor do I have any intention in engaging in a debate on either topic. They are simply not my area of expertise, and to attempt to argue for them would do nothing but set back those who have studied them in their goal of entering into a legitimate discussion on the topic. (So don't try to debate them with me in the comments or on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook page. I'm not going to do it. I'm no more qualified to argue these points than President Obama is to argue Economics, and unlike the POTUS I'm wise enough to recognize my shortcomings.  Offense intended.)

Any questioning of these ideas is met with ridicule from their colleagues. Ask Michael Behe.

When Behe began to argue his Theory of Irreducible Complexity the Biology community, specifically the Evolutionist wing, began to jump down his throat and pile on against him.  Combining that piling on with Appeal to Ridicule and you have many other members of the scientific community refusing to even consider the potential validity of Behe's argument.

The scientific response would be to conduct opposing experiments in an attempt to disprove Irreducible Complexity by demonstrating that the cells that Behe argues are irreducibly complex could in fact be functional at a lower level of complexity. Instead we get ridiculing of those who dare to question the Group Think.

Furthermore, true science should always be called to perpetually question it's own findings. The two above branches of Biology (Evolutionary Biology and Climatology) have shown a complete lack of desire to question their current positions. Instead of doing what most other branches of science do (continuing to perform experiments to check the validity of their current hypothesizes) they instead continue to argue that everyone agrees, therefore they can simply conduct experiments to further prove the existing "fact."

There are political implications as well. As most uniformed voters: "Everybody knows that Democrats are more compassionate than Republicans." (This is both a great example of a political meme and of the Neighborhood Liberal trap of compassionate intentions with no concern for results.

The bottom line is this: Consensus is neither science nor reality. It simply means it's either been repeated several times or group think has set in. Don't accept (and therefore be silenced by) consensus.

Liberal Rhetoric 101 in Review

Back in January, I started a series here at Biblical Conservatism on Liberal Rhetorical Tactics called liberal Rhetoric 101. Today, I want to briefly review what we've learned so far:

In our first topic, we discussed The Fallacy of the Single Cause, specifically discussing how liberals like to attribute the economic boom solely to President Clinton's 1993 tax incraese.

In Appeal to Ridicule, we talked about the liberal practice of insulting their opponent and making them feel stupid for daring to disagree with liberalism.  As if my examples within the article weren't sufficient, two liberals actually felt the need to prove my point for me!

In Political Correctness we talked about the liberal practice of controlling how people talk and think by saying certain words/ideas are off-limits because they're "offensive."

In False Equivalency, we discussed how liberals incorrectly compare something a liberal politician wants to implement to something that a historic conservative did that was successful.

In False Cries of Racism we talked about how liberals just cry "racist!" to stop debate.

In Memes we talked about liberal repetition of catch phrases that have no basis in truth so people begin to believe they are reality.

Finally, we discussed Compassionate Intentions (No results required), the liberal practice of focusing only on the intentions of a program and not the results of it.

We will continue our series Liberal Rhetoric 101 later this week. Thanks for reading!

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Compassionate Intentions (No results required)

For the most part, our Liberal Rhetoric 101 series was focused on moves by Activist Liberals.  This particular move is generally one by good-meaning Neighborhood Liberals. Unlike the rest of these liberal tactics, this is most often pushed by our Neighborhood Liberal friends. They mean well, they just miss out on the logic of the situation. Then the Activist Liberals use their well meaning (and easily manipulated) counterparts to push their plans.

Let me give you a classic example: Raising the minimum wage. I spent the last day having a debate with a liberal friend on Twitter who keeps arguing the point that raising the minimum wage somehow helps workers. While it is often bothersome to spend your time trying to explain Economics to a Neighborhood Liberal, it's also a fine showing into their logical thinking.

(Normally I'd insert the quotes from this person's argument. I'm not going to, mostly because I actually like this person. He means well. He seems like a good guy. Just blissfully unaware of the lack of positive results of liberalism.  We'll call him "Jeff.")

"Jeff" believes that raising  minimum wage helps workers because it "gives them a 30% wage increase." I'm paraphrasing "Jeff" here but that's the gist of the statement.

I've attempted to explain to "Jeff" that this 30% increase as only in nominal value and not real value. I further tried to tell "Jeff" about the reactions that predictably will occur when minimum wage increases like employers cutting down on hours for their employees as well as the increases that will follow in prices of such inflation-triggering products like food and gasoline (since grocery stores and gas stations pay their employees minimum wage) meaning that in short order, while the nominal value of a minimum wage paycheck will increase the real value will not.  "Jeff," bless his heart, responds with lovely platitudes about how employers "should want" to pay their employees more and essentially ignores the realities of real value and focuses on only nominal value. "Jeff" remains blissfully unaware of the realities.

"Jeff" means well. He doesn't bother looking for the results of liberal programs. All he knows is he wants to be compassionate and he believes the liberal platform is compassionate. "Jeff" believes liberal programs "help people" and that's all that matters. Results don't matter, because the liberal media sources "Jeff" consumes never discuss the results of those policies.

Too many Neighborhood Liberals fall into the same trap "Jeff" does. I have a friend, a pastor, who believes that liberalism is fulfilling the Christian mandate to care for the poor. (I've asked him time and again to show me the part where the Bible tells believers to give their money to the government and let the government care for the poor...he can't do it. Yet he can't wrap his head around the fact that Jesus told US to care for the poor DIRECTLY.)

It's difficult to reach these Neighborhood Liberals. They've been taught to think only on the compassionate intentions of liberal programs.  With Activist Liberals, our goal is to defeat them in the Arena of Ideas. With Neighborhood Liberals, our goal is to win them over.  It can be done. We must, however, ensure we are focused on showing them that conservatism is more compassionate in our results. It's a slow process, but with the Neighborhood Liberal it's a winnable battle.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Memes

No, not that sort of meme.

I'm talking about the Republican "War on Women." Or how about "Republicans want old people to die."  How about when Bill Clinton was being impeached, the story that Clinton was "on trial for having sex" (rather than for committing perjury). Or the argument throughout Election 2012 that "the economy was way worse than Obama knew...and if he hadn't acted it would've been much worse."

The list can continue on and on. The liberal tactic is to repeat these memes over and over and over again.  Eventually, the less intelligent amongst us begin to believe these stories and repeat them as facts. Eventually, after months of repetition from Democrats with the willing participation in broadcasting from the Drive-By Media, the unintelligent amongst us start to believe this is true.

How about this one: In the late 90s, Bill Clinton was being impeached for having sex.

Actually, here's what really happened. In 1994, Paula Jones alleged that then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton had sexually propositioned her. She filed a Civil Suit against then President Clinton. In that suit, President Clinton was called to testify about his relationship with Jones and other women.  The name Monica Lewinski came up as a result. Clinton was asked if he had had sexual relations with Lewinsky, which he famously testified that he had not. He was later proved to have lied in that testimony, committing the crime of perjury.

(For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, perjury is defined as willfully giving false testimony under oath in court.) 

It was for this crime of perjury that he was under investigation and it was for that same crime of perjury (which is a felony).  It was for perjury, not sex, that Clinton was impeached. The US Constitution provides for a trial by the United States Senate, known as Impeachment, in Article II Section 4 of that exaulted document:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

(For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, "high crimes" equals "felonies.")

Clinton was impeached for committing a felony. Perjury. Not for having sex.

These two memes are but a few of the many employed by liberals. Who can forget "Republicans are mean spirited" and "Republicans want old people to die quickly" in recent years?

Or how about the latest favorite of the Left: Conservatives take actual issues that the President impacts (i.e. higher gas prices) through his policies: "Gas is $4 a gallon...thanks Obama!"  This is a legitimate criticism because the President's policies of minimal drilling, refusing the Keystone Pipeline and continuing to push his fantasy "Green Energy" have caused the prices to go up, at least in part.

Liberals, however, are using this as an opportunity for ridicule. You'll see on social media statements like "My coffee maker broke today and now I can't have coffee...thanks Obama!" The goal of this meme is to suggest that blaming Obama for high gas prices is as illegitimate as blaming Obama for Mr. Coffee dying after ten years. Except it isn't. It's a false equivalency in meme form.

Much like pretty much everything in the Liberal Playbook, it's all based on falsehood repeated...and repeated...and repeated. The answer for conservatives, as always, is fight for the truth. Fight as hard as is needed to win this war of words. Our message is logical and clear. Sometimes we just have to fight through the foolishness.

Stewardship Good, Environmentalism Bad

What's the difference, you ask?

Simple. It's a recognition that the resources on our planet are there for humans to use. God gave us this planet, and it's resources, to use. That includes natural resources like oil and natural gas.

It's important that we are careful as we can reasonably be, no question. There's a great line from a favorite classic movie called Treasure of the Sierra Madre. It tells the tale of three men who go into the mountains of Mexico to search for Gold. At the end of their mining operation, the experienced old miner in the group speaks of the importance of closing the mine after they have exhausted the gold from it,

"We've wounded this mountain. It's our duty to close her wounds. It's the least we can do to show our gratitude for all the wealth she's given us." 

This, my friends, is an example of proper stewardship. It wasn't about "protecting the fragile mountain" after taking the gold out of it. Environmentalism would suggest we should not go get that gold in the first place. Ditto for oil, coal, and so forth.

The same kind of environmentalist baloney that suggests we shouldn't (responsibly) go get the oil in the ground. Take the BP Oil Spill in 2010. British Petroleum cleaned up the oil it could. The reason I use the word "could" is not because BP was unable to clean up the remaining oil, but rather because the Earth took care of itself before BP could complete cleanup. It turns out there is actually bacteria that eats oil. You heard that right: it essentially eats oil. The oil was gone before BP could finish removing it.

This is an example of the brilliant design of this planet. There is actually a bacteria present that breaks down oil. Earth is able to heal itself, much like the human body is able to heal itself. In the case of oil, these bacteria act for the planet the same way white blood cells act for the human body.

The human body serves as a great analogy for the Earth. We do need to care for our bodies. We need to not be stupid with them. Such safety choices like wearing helmets when playing full contact football and not snorting cocaine are reasonable acts of stewardship toward the human body. Ditto for washing our hands before eating and after using the bathroom. 

What we don't do to protect our bodies is refuse to go near another person, refuse to ever eat food at a restaurant, or anything else that can cause your body to contract germs. It's unreasonable to try to do so.

Another good analogy is our cars. The majority of car accidents happen while driving the car (as opposed to when the car is parked). We don't refuse to drive. We put seat belts and airbags in our cars. We design them with crumple zones so the car, and not the passengers, absorb the shock of a collision. Further, we put motor oil in the engine, transmission fluid in the transmission and brake fluid in the brake lines to ensure the car runs smoothly.

What we don't do is we don't stop driving our cars.

Yet environmentalists want us to stop getting resources out of the Earth because they call the Earth "fragile." We're going to somehow damage the planet. The fact that the planet has survived earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor crashes, a worldwide flood in the days of Noah, and more makes it clear that the planet IS NOT FRAGILE. Our planet can adapt itself and heal itself.

We should be good stewards of the planet. When we drill for oil we should close the wounds in the Earth. But we should not stop drilling. We should close up the mines we open for coal when we're done. We shouldn't stop getting the coal.

Stewardship, which means taking care of the Earth while responsibly using it's resources. Stewardship is good. Environmentalism, which is treating the Earth as helpless so we don't use the resources God gave us is bad.

"Racism" Ad Hominem Delegitimizes Correction of True Racism

It seems like the last week and a half has been dedicated to the topic of false cries of racism.

It all started with last Monday's Liberal Rhetoric 101: False Cries of Racism.   It was then continued when our Twitter friend Watered Down started proving the exact point of Monday's article. But one issue has gone without discussion, and it is important to bring up: There still is SOME legitimate racism in our country.

For the record, this racism goes both from white Americans toward minorities AND from minorities toward white Americans. (The later is particularly noteworthy coming from black Americans toward white Americans.)  This legitimate racism is significantly smaller than it was fifty years ago, but it still exists.

I'd like to address two points on this topic. The first is simple: There is nothing else we can do through legislation to combat racism.No matter how much the thought police try to do otherwise, there is no way to stop people from thinking racist thoughts. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 completed all that could be done via passing a law or a court case. There's nothing new to be added by passing new laws.

Two, by crying "racism" every time somebody argues with a minority liberal it de-legitimizes any attempt to deal with the real elements of racism in the nation. How? (Remember, this cannot be done by legislation.) Education is one key, but largely through the educational forces of NOT constantly bringing up race.

When I was in elementary school, this principle was in full force, at least in my town in Upstate New York. There were students of different races present. We didn't talk about it. We didn't have sensitivity training. We didn't ask those students how they felt being a black student or an Asian student. You know why? Because they were just plain STUDENTS. Just like everybody else. IT WORKED!  We just saw PEOPLE!  Then the PC Police came in and started pointing out race and playing the race card. 

Crying "racism" is now a joke. Nobody serious takes it seriously. That's because at least 98% of the time when somebody calls someone else "racist" it's using racism as an equivalent to "how dare you disagree with a liberal who happens to be a minority!"  The remaining 2% of the time when there is legitimate racism is brushed aside as just another ad hominem. We can't deal with what remains of real racism because cries of racism has become a punchline.

Then again, we are talking about liberalism, aren't we? Liberalism, as I've said before, isn't about results. It's about their own power. The Activist Liberal hierarchy would rather call people who dare to question Barack Obama's policies "racists" whose motivation is anything but race because it solidifies their power. It lets them shut down debate, which is what we discussed last week. What it doesn't do is help the cause of actually eliminating true racism. In fact, it makes it harder.

Twitter Files: Proving the Point from "False Cries of Racism"

It's almost too easy. Yesterday I post a blog called Liberal Rhetoric 101: False Cries of Racism. Today, I get this tweet:

 

Since I'm kind enough to not give this person's name and potentially subject them to internet ridicule at the hands of readers who didn't see the part in the Rules for Comments about following Wheaton's Law, I'm instead going to refer to give this person another name. To make my friend happy, I will refer to our friend as Watered Down. (For the record, @UpstateMetFan is MY Twitter account, not the Watered Down's.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Watered Down:

First and foremost, you've just proven my point. You have given no actual argument for the United States being racist.  The closest thing was your claim that "the sins of slavery have never been redressed."

Well, Watered Down, I assume you would like the United States to pay a bunch of money to the descendents of slaves, who, in case you were confused, were never actually slaves. Further, that money would be paid by people who never owned slaves. You know how I know this with 100% certainty?  BECAUSE SLAVERY WAS OUTLAWED OVER 147 YEARS AGO! Nobody is old enough to qualify.

Secondly, it turns out that the sins of slavery WERE redressed. Specifically, they were redressed from 1861-1865, when 364,000 men from the United States lost their lives fighting the Confederate States, in addition to an addition 281,000 who were wounded. That's right, my friend. 645,000 men were killed or wounded on the Union Army side alone to end slavery.  (That, by the way, doesn't include the 312,000 Confederates who also were killed in battle). 

The total number of men who died in a war to end slavery was 625,000 in addition to 645,000 wounded. That's 1.27 million men dead or wounded. From a spiritual standpoint that's 1.27 million men whose blood was shed to purge the sin of slavery from the United States.

So you see, Watered Down, not only is your claim of racism a typical liberal false cry of racism, backed up with nothing, it was also completely wrong.

Oh, but this wasn't the last of ol' Watered Down and his responses! Here was another:

Beginning to feel sorry for Watered Down now. His knowledge of history is so far off. In fact, the Civil Rights Act was passed by 80% of Republicans in the House and 82% in the Senate. Ooops! (Source)

Notice how Watered Down failed to give a really any argument at all? Nope, it's just that somehow racism is in the DNA of conservatives and Republicans. This is backed up by...ummm...nope not logic...nope not science...nope not history...ummm....

Watered Down went on to talk about the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act without mentioning (or likely knowing) that it was 18 Democrats and a mere 1 Republican who performed the filibuster.

Then, when faced with this real evidence over hearsay, old Watered Down decided to bring it home with the old gem that liberals love about how "the Democrats USED to be the Republicans and the Republicans USED to be the Democrats." Because, as we know, Democrats don't like their history so they try to steal the Republicans' history. Those who know the real history of Democrats and Republicans know what a farce that story is...but folks like old Watered Down don't give a lick about facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line is this is just another liberal who is smugly replying to a conservative's words, completely unaware how well he's proving my point. And you truly have to love debating an opponent who is that unaware of reality!

Liberal Rhetoric 101: False Cries of Racism

Of all the liberal rhetorical tactics we've discussed, this one possibly is the most upsetting to me. We've all heard it: "You just don't like Obama because he's black!"

My response, as many of you have heard is this: "You're right! I don't like Obama because he's black.

And I didn't like John Kerry because he was black...wait, no...

And I didn't like Al Gore because he was black...wait...

Oh and I didn't like Bill Clinton and that was definitely because he was black...

Jimmy Carter? Sure didn't like him. Must've been because he was black...

Then there was Lyndon Johnson. Didn't like him because he was black right?"

Actually, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson all are/were white men. They were also liberals, just like Barack Obama. And that's the real reason I don't like Obama. I don't like liberals (in government).

Yet recently a coworker claimed (with 100% seriousness, by the way) that Michelle Obama "would be the next Jackie Kennedy if she wasn't black."

Right. Michelle Obama is missing out on something because she's black. Of course.

It can't be that Michelle Obama doesn't have the class and mild mannered grace of Jackie Kennedy, right? It can't be that Jackie Kennedy never tried to force parents to feed their children what she says is best for them? Or maybe because Jackie Kennedy didn't look down on everybody and expect us to generally let her run our lives?

Nope, it can only be because she's black. We cannot possibly have another reason for disliking Barack or Michelle Obama but the color of their skin.

As always, this tactic of Liberal Rhetoric is all about shutting down disagreement. Liberal arguments and talking points often have zero basis in fact. There is no history to back up Obama's Keynesian Economic policies or to suggest they would finally work this time. There's no history to suggest raising taxes won't stagnate the economy.  But liberals can't argue THAT point. They have to shut down the debate. So they call us racists.

When they do, just scroll up and ask them about John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson. All black men who we didn't like. Wait. Sorry. LIBERALS we didn't like (regardless of skin color). Because that's our real problem with the Obamas. They are liberals.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: False Equivalency

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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:

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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.

Liberal Rhetoric in Action: Appeal to Ridicule

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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