Aaron Opine

Finding Time for God

2011-12-21T06:00:00.000-08:00

Photo by Sujit kumar

Life goes by at lightning speed. I recall being a child and wondering why it was taking so long to grow up. Now each passing year seems to go faster than the last and I wonder why time can't just slow down. It's less than a week until Christmas and I still haven't found time to finish my Christmas shopping (for my wife...so you know it better get done!). In the midst of this chaos what get priority? Going to work certainly seems important; so I'd put that high on the list. Changing the oil in the car is important, but you can fudge that a couple hundred miles and it's not going to make a big difference. What about finding time for God?

The answer depends highly upon your religious proclivity. The atheist just laughs and says something about how smart he is and that science is his savior. The agnostic doesn't care while the deist doesn't think God cares. The scientologist claims he is his own god and therefore justifies spending exorbitant amounts of time for "god" - just look at that religious group and try convincing me I'm wrong. The catholic makes time from exactly 9:00 AM to 9:55AM every Sunday, but not a moment longer. The protestant makes just enough time to make more time than anyone else in the congregation. Reverend Jesse Jackson makes time as long as it advances his social agenda, but not if it doesn't.

Maybe the better question to answer is: why does it matter if I find time for God? I'm certainly no role model for finding time for God, but I can definitely answer the question. If I compare a week wherein I've spent a lot of time for God (writing, reading the Bible, praying, etc.) I am much happier, less stressed, and much more focused on what is really important in life. By contrast, weeks where I don't spend time on God are usually filled with stress, anger, and a disproportionate concern for things that don't really matter. Consider by analogy why that might be.

Imagine if you needed to travel between point A and B and decided to purchase a Cessna Citation to fulfill this need. On the surface, it might seem like a great solution and owning a sleek private jet is certainly appealing to most of us. However, if points A and B are only separated by 10 miles your purchase is a horrible solution; in fact, you would quickly loathe taxing down roadways crowded with cars, parking would be a disaster, refueling would be next to impossible, and the cost far in excess of a more appropriate form of transportation. You might also do some jail time for trying to drive and airplane down the roads, but that's beyond the scope of our analogy. It's not that a Citation is a bad airplane, it's that it isn't designed to be a 10 mile commuter car. Imagine how much better the Citation performs when it's being used in the way it was designed.

Just like the airplane, we were designed by God with a specific purpose. Determining our purpose isn't always easy, but the less time with God the farther we are from finding it. It should be no surprise to me that I am happier the more time I spend "with" God because I am closer to realizing my purpose. When I'm not finding time for God it's a lot like driving my private jet down I-5 in the middle of Los Angeles during rush hour.

The aforementioned might describe why it's important to find time for God, but how do we accomplish it in the midst of busy lives? First, by properly prioritizing our lives - and God should be number one. Attending church, small groups, and bible studies are all excellent ways to focus - plus they're usually more relaxing than pandering to the beckoning calls of the strip mall. Second, finding time for God isn't all about going to church. Throughout any day there are a multitude of opportunities to pray for help, give gratitude, or offer simple praise. It needn't be a showy unfurling of your prayer mat whilst bowing in mock reverence. In fact, I think of it more as a conversation throughout the day...something similar to texting God. For example, when I go hiking I like to stop, take in the beautiful scenery (did I mention I live in Colorado?), and say a simple prayer of praise for the majesty of Creation. At work it's often a prayer to help me stay focused and work hard. Third, reading the Bible is valuable, but I find it much more rewarding to do so with a good study guide to explain the connections and parallels I would otherwise miss. I was once timid and easily dissuaded by secularists who challenged Biblical truths and made accusations about apparent paradoxes or incongruities in the Bible, but having read the Bible with the aid of christian apologetics I am confident, have much greater understanding, and can easily refute the challenges. Consequently, I understand the logical consistency that can only come from a God-created universe and my faith is never stronger.

Ultimately, we can make plenty of time for God during the day. Doing so requires abandoning some classical ideas of God being only present and accessible through church, although church is always important. It takes a conscious effort to focus on God, but the rewards are much greater than you can fathom. Indeed, the meaning of our life is fulfilled when we live according to our design, and our design is revealed through our closeness to God.

Tebow: Headlines for the Right Reasons

2011-12-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

Photo by: Jeffrey Beall

A Colorado native and long-time resident, I have been an ardent Broncos fan since I watched my first football game. When the Broncos signed Tim Tebow I was excited because I knew of his deep religious convictions and I was glad his influence was coming to Denver, regardless of his capabilities. Of course, when he began his winning streak (Broncos vs Patriots aside) it was merely icing on the cake. Not surprisingly, Tebow has summoned forth a preponderance of critics, some rebuking his skill and many others chiding his religious zeal. Yet I wonder, with my bias aside, is there anyone else garnering headlines this year that is a more positive role model?

Looking back on 2011 and contemplating the individuals who captured the majority of our newsprint (and pixels) the list looks something like this:

Lindsay Lohan: In and out of court for drug and alcohol problems and has become the poster child of Hollywood self-destruction

Kim Kardashian: Reality TV's latest example of a dysfunctional family; married for an insultingly short 72 days; more concerned about appearances than anything of real value

Osama Bin Laden: Died a cowards death after years in hiding; greatest claim to fame is the murder of thousands of innocent people

Lady Gaga: Best known for her eccentric style and backwards sense of morality; wore a dress of raw meat to protest eating meat (because apparently killing animals for no other purpose than fashion is far better)

Jerry Sandusky: Scumbag child predator, enough said.

Herman Cain: GOP primary candidate who showed promise, but became embroiled in scandal over claims of sexual harassment and adultery

Steve Jobs: Apple founder and icon who dies of pancreatic cancer...not than anything is wrong with this, but there's not much that's overtly positive or negative

The list could become quite lengthy, but overall I cannot think of another individual who has exerted as much positivity over the news as Tim Tebow. He has shown himself of upright character and optimism even amid scathing criticism and a loss to the New England Patriots. Moreover, he stands up against those who challenge his beliefs even though they are not politically correct. In fact, Tebow challenges the rest of us, whether we agree with him or not, to stand up publicly for our beliefs in a confident and respectful way. He leads by example to show us that we can battle against the cultural current.

As long as Tim Tebow continues to honor God, remain humble, and stay positive his influence will have good ramifications. I am thankful for a person who is making news based on his moral and upright character and optimism. In a world rife with negativity, pestilence, and moral depravity it is refreshing to see so much coverage on the other end of the spectrum. Although the almost miraculous fourth quarter wins have been exciting to watch and certainly a part of his rise to fame, I believe the largest portion of Tebow's positive favor is a consequence of his peculiar positivity.

Headline Rewind week of Dec 12

2011-12-16T14:14:00.000-08:00

Moving to Canada Just Became More Attractive

Canada announced it is dropping out of the Kyoto Protocol, a long-standing, ill conceived, and ineffective piece of globalism slated as the panacea to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Proving its new conservative leadership is more logical and realistic than the USA's, Canada has provided yet another piece of evidence that it is a nation worth living in. However, I will still not be moving to Canada because I'm not about to give U.S. liberals that kind of satisfaction.

President Obama Sizes up the 2012 Competition, but Remains Ignorant of his own Failures

Obama again invoked liberal rhetoric when interviewed about his thoughts on the GOP candidates for the 2012 presidential race. For the second time in less than a week, Obama decried them as conservative ideologues (apparently not knowing what a real conservative is) who wish to promote the wealthy at the expense of all others. He further asserted that the economic ills we face today are a consequence of three decades of failed conservative economic theory.

Apparently, Obama doesn't realize that conservatism has been waning steadily over the last 100 years; most notably ever since FDR graced us with socialism run amuck. Contrary to a [true] conservative view, our nation has become ever more shackled by government regulation making a "free market" system farther and farther from reality. Instead, we have transition closer to the liberal utopia of total government control, but in spite of this trend we have still suffered economic recessions, accounting scandals, government corruption, and multiple Ponzi schemes (not just Social Security). In the past three years, the trajectory towards statism has only worsened under the "leadership" of Obama whose first two years in office included Democratic party control of the entire government. Therefore, Obama's suggestion that conservative ideals have made this country worse doesn't measure up to reality. Lacking any success of his own, because his Marxist views have never and will never work, Obama is instead waging a campaign war preying upon the ignorance of many and the like-mindedness of a few while leveraging his dishonesty via a sympathetic media.

Iran Begs to be Bombed

In its latest nose-thumbing to the rest of the world, Iran downed a U.S. stealth drone intact and also began maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz to blockade oil shipments from the region as retaliation against economic sanctions. These events come shortly after attempting to assassinate foreign dignitaries on U.S. soil and ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons. To any fair minded American these are all obvious evidences that Iran needs to be severely punished. However, President Obama continues to prefer his typical approach to international relations: pretentious huffiness. Watch out Ahmadinejad...Obama might roll his eyes at you!

The Government Saves Christmas at Kmart

Photo by: Caldorwards4

Oh wait...no it didn't. Instead, anonymous private donors across the country have been paying off layaway accounts at Kmart stores. Many of the unsuspecting benefactors have been surprised by calls from Kmart staff informing them their layaway accounts are paid up and they can claim the merchandise; it has come as a perfectly timed Christmas blessing. Although the payoffs weren't part of a government social welfare program (as liberals suspected), we can be assured the IRS will attempt to collect taxes on the "income" these lucky families have received via the payoffs.

America Makes Significant Strides Towards a National Religion

Atheist Alliance International logo

Despite the Constitution's First Amendment Establishment Clause preventing Congress from establishing a religion, the United States continues its steady march towards a national religion. Across the country this Christmas season the free exercise of Christianity has been impeded and the state religion imposed in its place. In California, public school teachers were barred from decorating their classrooms with offensive things like poinsettias and stockings; Boca Raton, Florida has outlawed any "holiday symbol" in public places; Rhode Island's governor Lincoln Chafee has called the state's illuminated and decorated tree a "holiday tree" avoiding the apparently controversial name: Christmas Tree. Atheism, the religion of randomness and meaninglessness, has instead been propped up as the national religion. Atheists have successfully launched campaigns against Christianity, apparently offended by anyone who practices a religion that is not their own. However, government officials have not forbade the use of public places for the placement of Atheists' religious symbols and messaging.

The "God Particle" the End of God?

2011-12-14T21:48:00.000-08:00

Photo by: alpinethread

The scientific community is atwitter with rumors of the empirical discovery of the Higgs Boson via recent results from Switzerland’s Large Hadron Collider. Often, such discoveries are hailed as another nail in the coffin of theism; further proof the universe doesn’t need God to exist. Physicists have gone so far as to nickname the Higgs Boson the “God Particle” for its purported final link between the naturalistic origin of the universe and our universe today. However, this type of thinking is so illogical it should be insulting to the droves of PhD’s who proselytize it while also calling into question their judgment and reasoning ability.

The failed logic goes something like this: the more we know about the way the universe works, the less need there is for mythological gods to explain the unknowns. In essence, they believe the only reason God exists is as a filler to prevent cognitive dissonance - a way for people to make sense of the incomprehensible. Perhaps they have spent too much time learning of Greek mythology whereby the Greeks invented gods to explain the forces in the universe without needing to understand the underlying physics behind the phenomena. While Greek mythology may be responsible for shaping the physicists perspective of God and religion, it still doesn’t excuse their naiveté.

Let’s put this into better context via analogy. Reverse engineering is a technique employed to understand how a competing technology works so it can be leveraged for someone else’s benefit. This why we never want our military technology to fall into the hands of an enemy (such as a stealth drone being downed and confiscated by Iran) – we don’t want enemies to use our technology against us. Through disassembly and testing it is possible to recreate the engineering and knowledge that led to the technology. For example, Iranmay be able to learn how our stealth aircraft technology works by reverse engineering the downed drone and consequently develop its own stealth drones, or build defense technologies to ward off our drones.

In effect, Iranian scientists may go from knowing very little about U.S.stealth technology (or drone technology) to knowing almost everything about it. At the completion of their reverse engineering, the Iranian scientists will not proclaim they have proven the stealth drones were spontaneously self-created through random, naturalistic processes. Yet, doing so is equivalent to scientists’ claims that learning more about particle physics proves the universe came into existence through random, naturalistic means. Instead, the Iranians will reaffirm their initial assumption that the drones are byproduct of intelligent design.

No one reverse engineers something of purely random origins because it would be, by definition, meaningless. The expectation for reverse engineering is that the subject matter was designed and constructed by rationale beings using sound engineering principles conforming to consistent physical laws. Therefore, the very act of “reverse engineering” nature, so to speak, belies the expectation that nature has a logical Creator. If there were no Creator then the universe must be the consequence of purely random events with no basis for consistent fundamental physical laws; thus, reverse engineering would be futile.

Before the CERN physicists can design an experiment they must first assume a universe created by an intelligent, logical being. In fact, trusting their own cognition assumes they are the consequence of a consistent, logical Creator; the alternative is “intelligence” derived from nothing more than random chemical reactions over billions of years. In other words, the ability to design, conduct, and interpret experiments pre-assumes the universe and human cognitive ability are logical and consistent. Concluding the empirical affirmation of the standard theory of physics is the death knell of religion first borrows the necessary logic and consistency from the Judeo-Christian religion to make operational science possible before concluding the Judeo-Christian religion is disproved by the results. Perhaps Iran will use the same reasoning and pile carbon fiber, titanium, and aluminum at the end of a runway in hopes that a stealth drone will spontaneously manufacture itself and take to the skies – after all, stealth drones are clearly the consequence of time and chance; not some fable about intelligent designers creating them in a factory in America, right?

Headline Rewind - Week of Nov. 14

2011-11-18T14:17:00.001-08:00

Obama Administrations Continues to Snub Nose at Transparency

The only thing transparent about the Obama Administration is the toilet water into which he is flushing his campaign promise for government accountability. In a fresh round of Congressional testimony before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee, the CEO of consulting firm ECSI described the pressure from Obama Administration officials to redo their analysis after the number of projected job losses resulting from Obama regulations on the Coal mining industry were too high for their liking. The firm refused, citing a little something known as intellectual honesty. The Administration didn't want to show the true impact of more of its burdensome regulations upon the American middle class; given the consultant's refusal to lie, the Administration terminated ECSI's contract.

Black Friday Beckons

Still a week away, many are already getting ready to indulge in the customary, day-after-Thanksgiving, Black Friday melee. A couple in St. Petersburg, Florida began their campout at Best Buy on Monday - that's 12 days before Black Friday. It would be much more impressive, however, if someone would camp outside the Best Buy in Anchorage 12 days in advance.

NYC to Occupy: Vacate

Photo by Debra Gaines

New York Mayor Bloomberg finally found the gumption to evict Occupy protestors from Zuccotti park. Many arrests were made as police officers moved in on protestors who had refused to leave during the early morning hours. In the process of clearing out the remaining mess of tents, tarps, and other structures left by the protestors, workers discovered garbage, feces, and hypodermic needles...and yet the protestors wonder why they can't find jobs? Really!!?? It's bad enough they want more government handouts, but apparently they also expect taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up after themselves - I'm sure they'd also like us to pick their boogers and wipe their butts.

In a related story, the city of Washington D.C. is opting to continue permitting protestors. City officials suggested the protestors were good for local business. However, it may simply be that Occupy protestors effectively bring down the per capita crime and drug use rates in D.C.

Ex-Coach Sandusky Makes a Good Case for Bringing Back the Stocks

As the Sandusky scandal continues to unfold at Penn State, Jerry Sandusky made a public attempt to defend himself. Speaking without a lawyer present (obviously), Sandusky revealed just how perverse he really is. Sandusky, and the filth like him, make an excellent argument for bringing back the humiliating punishment of the public stocks. Although I'm not sure he would survive very long.

God and Liberty - Part V

2011-11-14T06:00:00.000-08:00

The following is part of a five-part series discussing the inextricable link between God and Libertyin the context of challenges to religion on the fallacious notion that our Founding Fathers intended a secular nation. The consequences of a Godless society are considered and the historical precedence for religion in U.S.politics is explored.

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understandthe importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation betweenchurch and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

Part V shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and provides recommendations for achieving it.

Part V – So now what?

Did the Founding Fathers intend the United States to be a Christian nation? It depends upon how you define “Christian nation.” The Founders most certainly did not intend for the free exercise of religion to be restricted provided the practice of other religions did not infringe upon the natural rights of the population, were moral, and did not break the law. However, they clearly intended Christianity to be a part of American government and central to the derivation of proper law. For 171 years the United States fulfilled that intent; it wasn’t until the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education trial that supreme court justices, 8 of the 9 appointed by uber-progressive FDR, that the Establishment Clause was perverted into its present day legal interpretation. The question is: What do we do now?

First, we must recognize the current trend is a problem and understand the ramifications. Recall that only meaninglessness can be derived from an a priori belief the universe, and everything contained within it, is a result of completely random, naturalistic phenomena. Consequently, morality and therefore law cannot be objective under an atheistic view. Similarly, Part III showed that non-Judeo-Christian religions cannot provide an objective basis because they also lack cogent logical derivations for morality. Thus, if we abandon our Judeo-Christian religious values we are destined to erode into amoral practices and eventually degrade as a society.

Atheists like to counter that they act morally and therefore this concern is unwarranted. However, this missed the point entirely. Confined to an atheistic worldview, one cannot know what is or is not moral; therefore, their moral behavior can only be understood in a Christian context. Because the universe and all life is created by God and mankind is created in the image of God we should rationally expect people to have a general sense of right and wrong. Under any other worldview this would not be a reasonable expectation.

This by no means implies that abolition of all religion (particularly Christianity) from government would immediately result in moral decline. General societal sense of morality and legal precedence would still be in effect. However, as time progresses, upon what basis would the courts adjudicate their decisions; namely on matters involving ethics and morality? Because the Court would no longer be permitted to base its judgment on the objective moral principles it must resort to some other measure or morality. Is it whether or not someone is injured? This might be an acceptable method for some cases, but what defines injury? Is injury only physical harm or does it include psychological harm? What if the defendant was also injured, perhaps in a case of self-defense – wouldn’t the victim also be guilty of injuring the defendant? Morality could be decided democratically by majority vote, but what happens when the majority is immoral? More poignantly, what happens if the majority is Christian and they decide morality on the basis of their worldview – wouldn’t this still be an unacceptable outcome to the likes of the ACLU?

No matter which alternative scenario is envisaged, the result always ends with irrational subjectivity. The need to maintain an objective reference for morality is evident. However, we’ve already come far down the path of extricating the Judeo-Christian religion from our nation’s governance. This leaves us with two choices. The first is to lobby our government to act legislatively to change the law and give our courts a new basis for evaluating future cases. Doing so would probably require a constitutional amendment to revise the wording of the First Amendment and is, quite frankly, highly improbable.

The second option is feasible but requires a new perspective: properly recognizing atheism as a religion. According to the atheist faithful, their positions are based upon science and are irreligious. However, a lack of belief in God is not a lack of belief in anything. Quite to the contrary, atheism is the arduously held belief that there can be no supernatural explanation for anything. It presupposes that all unknowns can eventually be explained in a naturalistic way – an obvious statement of faith. In addition, an atheist answering the fundamental question posed in Part I, why does the universe exist, is unable to answer without imbuing purely ideological opinions. Atheism is, by definition, a religion.

By officially (through legislation or legal precedence) declaring atheism a religion the impetus to remove Christianity from government is eroded. Atheism and its beliefs have been indoctrinated into our public schools, national parks, colleges, news, and politics without the legal challenge of “separation of church and state.” Once this same treatment is applied, those raising legal challenges to “religion” in government will likewise be obstructing their own beliefs. Of course, this only curtails the suits against Christianity and does not reinstate it into our judicial code or national ethos.

Reviving the Christian ethos requires enough time to overcome generational inertia. Our schools’ curricula should be revised to include specific and arduous instruction in logic and reasoning. Specific attention should be paid to the derivation of morality, the eternal questions of right and wrong. Such instruction could be, and rightfully should be, completely devoid of any particular religious indoctrination. However, it must be rigorously taught. This means oxymoronic liberal-logic is not permitted – in other words, statements like, “whatever makes you happy” or “it’s not fair” cannot go unchallenged. Students must be tested on their ability to construct positions on the basis of sound logic and they must be made aware of their presuppositions. This instruction cannot begin in grade school through high school, it must begin in the colleges where new teachers are receiving their instruction so that they can pass it down to their students. Otherwise, the current whimsical, irrelevant ideology espoused to them – and subsequently by them – will make it impossible for them to instruct our children about proper logic and reason.

This approach may seem anti-religious itself, but remember the discussions in Parts I through IV showing how other presuppositional ideologies implode when taken to their logical ends. Instruction in logic compels students to consider these ends and reformulate their own presuppositions into rational, logically defensible a priori beliefs. Secondly, this concept favors no religion or ideology so it should face no opposition (aside from atheists who realize the fallaciousness of their beliefs but hold to them out of dogma). Third, you may disagree with my entire dissertation, but in proposing this approach I am willing to let logic be the ultimate test of truth at the risk of being proven wrong – a risk I consider extremely improbable.

Note also that I am not proposing Christianity be inserted as a State religion. The free exercise of religion was, is, and should always be an important aspect of the United States of America. Requiring citizens to practice a particular religion does nothing to instill someone’s faith in that religion. Bona fide faith in God is the ultimate hope, but it most come to everyone on a personal level; not at the threat of being punished by government. On the contrary, my proposal de-establishes atheism as the state religion and equips everyone with the proper intellectual tools to make the decision on their own.

If I did not believe in the logical robustness of a God based presuppositional belief I would never be willing to leave the fate of my nation to chance. Because I have evaluated the logical ramifications of alternative beliefs I am confident the outcome of my proposal is a resounding reinstatement of the moral principles and unalienable rights that can only be justified in the context of the Judeo-Christian God.

Headline Rewind - Week of Nov 7

2011-11-11T06:00:00.000-08:00

Occupy Protestors Prove Math Isn’t Their Cup of Tea

Opinion polls for the Occupy [bowel] movement are showing plummeting public approval. Depending upon the poll, the Occupiers have about a 30% approval among Americans calling into question the group’s 99% claim. Perhaps it is the 53% of earners who actually pay taxes that are upset by the group’s vociferous demands for government handouts that has turned off many would-be supporters. Alternatively, it might be the 31% of respondents from Occupy Wall Street that believe violence is justified in pursuit of their ends. Of course, I would rule out the rampant violence against police, destruction of public and private property, or the obstruction of businesses resulting in job-losses caused by Occupy.

Regardless of the reason, Occupy’s claim of representing 99% of the populous doesn’t add up. Maybe that’s why so many are swimming in tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt - they simply couldn’t figure out the arithmetic that would have proved an ivy league arts degree isn’t a good investment.

Iran Thinks We’re Stupid

Photo by Daniella Zalcman

Iran’s Ahmadinejad still insists his nation’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Apparently, Ahmadinejad thinks we’d also leave our kids with the neighborhood pedophile because he gives them a lolipop. On the other hand, the Obama administration’s inept response to the brewing crises might in fact prove we are that stupid- or at least the majority of Americans who elected the President are.

Thank goodness for Israel, a nation with the common sense to prep for the inevitability of a nuclear Iran despite the willful ignorance of the rest of the World.

MexicoAnnexes California

Photo by Esparta Palma

A Federal judge upholds California’s Morgan Hill Unified School District ban on pro-American clothing on the fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo, as it will now be known). In 2010, the school district banned students from wearing American flag shirts, and other pro-U.S. clothing, on May 5^th. Although, this is a big holiday in Mexico, the School District seemed unaware that California was, at the time, a part of the United State of America – not Mexico. The Federal court ruled that the ban was not an affront to the First Amendment protections of free speech leaving one to conclude that California must therefore be a State of Unidos Estados de Mexico, or the judge simply confused the U.S. State with the Mexican State of Baja California…an honest mistake.

The Union Fix - Part 2

2011-11-10T06:00:00.000-08:00

In part one of “The Union Fix” I introduced the immediate step towards dismantling the strangle hold unions have on U.S. manufacturing. In part two, I discuss the longer-term solution to finally break the cycle of anti-competitiveness and bring manufacturing back to our nation.

In Washington State, the IAM waged a strike on the Boeing Company in 2008 resulting in months of delays and lost production. After reaching a contract agreement, Boeing sought assurances from the IAM that it would not strike again. When the IAW failed to meet this demand Boeing made the decision to build a second 787 assembly line in North Carolina, a right-to-work state. Although now embroiled in a highly publicized lawsuit against Boeing over the decision, the IAM provides a perfect example of how unions price themselves out of the manufacturing labor market and drive companies to alternative markets.

The Boeing case also illustrates part of my proposed solution. Twenty-two of our nation’s States are right-to-work states. However, the liberal foothold in the remaining 28 States is unlikely to relent sufficiently to permit the adoption of right-to-work laws. Therefore, we need a compelling compromise.

Large corporations are forbade from controlling too much of a given market per existing anti-trust laws. The word monopoly in the halls of the Federal Trade Commission is a springboard to action and eventual divestiture of assets from the offending firm. However, these same principles have not been applied to unions. Unions that represent all employees to a particular firm or industry have a monopoly on that labor market. Therefore, we should extend anti-trust laws to unions via legal precedent or legislation. In so doing, no single union would be able to have a monopoly on labor.

The outcome of this step would be a dismantling of the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Change to Win Federation. In addition, no one union could represent all the employees in a particular trade at a single company. Therefore, more than one union would be required; in cases where no additional union is ratified, at least a portion of the employees would not be unionized. In all cases, the unions would be forced to compete with one another for members. Competition would tend to put downward pressure on dues and inherently limit the amount of money available for political manipulation.

This solution is effectively a compromise in that it still allows a closed shop for unions, it preserves worker’s rights to unionize, and it gives workers greater choice in representation. Finally, from the perspective of the firms, there would be competition in the labor market giving the companies greater flexibility over the compensation packages. In turn, this helps prevent ludicrous pension benefits, exorbitant wages for menial labor, and ultimately makes the U.S. manufacturing industry more competitive against a world of low priced alternatives.

God and Liberty - Part IV

2011-11-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understandthe importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

Part V shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and provides recommendations for achieving it.

Part IV – History of “Wall of Separation between Church and State”

Undoubtedly, the most common phrase in the government vs. religion battles is “Separation between church and state.” Most Americans probably don’t have any idea where this phrase comes from; much less what it really means. In present times it has become the catch phrase of those who wish to strip any religions mention (particularly Christian religions) from any public place. However, truth is a vociferous enemy of revisionist history and wanton logic and in reality it was a matter of reassurance to a populous of varied Christian denominations.

In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson penned the following letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. In Connecticut, Baptists were a minority and they were likewise concerned that the preponderance of political representation (local, state, and federal) from other denominations would cause them to be subjugated to the more dominant denomination. Jefferson was pointing out that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prevented any faction of the United States political apparatus from “establishing” a particular religion.

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the DanburyBaptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the DanburyBaptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Since the writing of this letter – most notably since 1947 – the phrase “Wall of Separation Between Church and State” has been used to successfully argue that there shall be no mention of religion in any public venue. However, this was certainly not Jefferson’s intent. Jefferson was simply elucidating what the First Amendment already said: Congress can’t establish a state religion. If he was implying anything further he would certainly be stepping outside his Constitutional authority as president; only a Constitutional amendment could ratify the Establishment Clause. Yet his letter has formed the basis for several legal actions going far beyond the intent of the First Amendment even to the point of violating it outright, such as the ACLU suing the Tennessee Board of Education to prevent teachers from wearing or bearing any objects that could suggest a Christian subcontext, or even praying with students as part of the National Day of Prayer.

Many like to argue that Jefferson was an atheist or agnostic and thus inclined to view the First Amendment in this way. However, this is a false representation of Jefferson’s religious views. He was most likely a Deist, but certainly not agnostic or atheistic. Certainly no self respecting atheist would provide the salutation found in the last paragraph of the aforementioned letter. Moreover, such a supposition of Jefferson ignores blatant historical truth. Jefferson’s reply to the Danbury Baptist Association was dated January 1, 1802. On January 3, 1802 Jefferson attended church in the House of Representatives, as was his usual custom. (Church services were held every Sunday in the Capitol building until 1866.) Had Jefferson intended the current interpretation of his infamous phrase it would defy all reason for him to attend Christian religious services in the epicenter of U.S. government without any objection.

Indeed the question is begged: why did it take until 1947 (Everson vs. Board of Education) for the Supreme Court to take Jefferson’s 1802 letter as evidence for the Founder’s belief that government and religion should be completely disengaged from one another? The answer is ideology.

The World is rife with examples of mixed ideology. Some heated exchanges can be had by taking a stance in the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax (see…I’ve revealed my bias), Creation vs. Evolution debate, and the subject separation of church and state issue within American government. Much like my question in Part I, “Why does the universe exist?” there are ways to derive each person’s a priori beliefs. These personal presuppositions are what cause us to formulate opinions and positions on issues – the role and breadth of government in society is one such issue. A debate about the philosophical merits of the courts’ decisions regarding religion and government is pointless and likely to be never-ending with neither side of the philosophical spectrum yielding from their fundamental beliefs.

Instead, it is instructive to consider who the Supreme Court justices were in 1947 during Everson. Not surprisingly, 8 of the 9 justices were appointed by FDR, the father of modern American liberalism (second only in chronology to progressive Woodrow Wilson). To suggest that a president’s Supreme Court appointments are without bias is to live in ignorance of the judicial records of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, both appointed under the reign of the ultra-liberal President Obama. Likewise, it is easy to see how the progressivism of FDR became instrumental, via his court appointees, to the decision of Everson. Once Everson was “on the books” it became only a matter of legal precedent for all subsequent cases on this issue barring an act of Congress to change the law.

Thus we see that today’s objections to as much as a whisper of religion regarding anything resembling a public entity is not based upon the intentions of our Founding Fathers; instead it is the consequence of ideology run amuck. It is unlikely that those popping the cork on their champagne bottles following the court decisions supporting their dubious claims to the extrication of religion considered the following two paradoxes:

1) In seeking legal action against religious establishment (predominantly Christian) the separationists have established a state religion: atheism. This is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause which they reference as the source of authority in their cases.

2) By upholding atheism as the only belief system permitted by government, they seek to derive just proper law from a philosophy that can only offer meaninglessness (see Part I) and therefore lawlessness.

In conclusion, it should be readily apparent through this limited discussion, that the Founders of our nation most certainly did not intend a government completely devoid of religions influence. To the contrary, their intent was to establish a government on the basis of unalienable rights afforded by the “Creator.” James Madison wrote that “religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.” George Washington said in his farewell address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” John Adams wrote, “…it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” The true intentions of the Founders could not be clearer.

It is no accident the treacherous and deadly regimes led by the likes of Mao and Stalin were strictly atheistic – law and morality are entirely subjective when there is no basis for it and the slaughter of millions of innocent citizens is defensible without religion. Any derogatory references by the Founders to religion must be considered in the context of the times where differences between Christian denominations had been the source of civil and multinational wars throughout Europe. In America, all colonies except Rhode Island had established official churches – of varying Christian denominations. Therefore, it is easy to understand the motivation of the Founders to establish a form of federalism that did not alienate one State’s religious preference. Likewise, they did not want to descend to fighting amongst the states like Europe. The Founders well understood logic and reason (it was still a part of basic educational curriculum at the time) and they knew a government devoid of religion was based upon nothing. Consequently, the U.S. government was based upon objectivity and common sense that can only come from God. To follow the current trend is to descend into a deep chasm of illogical senselessness.

The Union Fix - Part 1

2011-11-03T06:00:00.000-07:00

Photo by Bill Burke

Any non-imbecile can tell you that unions have exacerbated the decline in manufacturing in the United States. Their demands made upon the threat of work stoppages have enabled them to amass pension funds that have crippled the likes of Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Many States and municipalities are likewise stumbling under the weight of massive public employee union pension programs. Like the foreign substance invading a festering wound, we must winnow the power of unions in our country to restore our predominance in manufacturing. There are two key steps towards stripping unions of their power and influence in order to reinstate our manufacturing base and thereby strengthen our economy (Note that addressing the unions must be done in concert with far reaching tax and regulatory reform – resolving our union problem with not be sufficient alone). The first is immediate action to be taken by sensible persons holding unions positions; the second is longer-term and can only be accomplished at the State and Federal levels.

The first step is for all concerned union represented employees to become objectors. When I graduated from college I went to work for a company that was infected with an agency shop union. Initially, I chose to be a Beck Objector (see Communication Workers of America v. Beck for legal history), but still paid an “agency fee” which was nearly as much as the full union dues. About a year later I learned that a significant portion of my agency fee was being used as campaign contributions towards democratic candidates. Under Section 701(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967, employees with bona fide religions objections cannot be coerced into supporting unions. I wrote a letter to the union showing how every candidate supported by my fees was an abortion advocate. I concluded by confirming that I view abortion as an unethical and abhorrent per my religious convictions. The union agreed (as required by law) to allow me to contribute to a non-religious charity of my choice instead of paying union dues.

Although not all union represented employees are similarly inclined to depose of unions, it is quite likely that many would be put off by their union’s prolific use of union dues to support the campaigns of politicians and legislation that offends their religious sensibilities. Therefore I encourage all union employees to investigate how their dues are spent – following the paper trail all the way to the AFL-CIO if necessary. With the veil of faux-legitimacy lifted, I’m willing to wager many more union employees would become religious objectors. Doing so would strip unions of the more than $400 Million they spend annually on political influence that has effectually stripped our nation of its competitiveness and propelled us closer to socio-Marxism.

For more information about becoming a Religious Objector I encourage you, or your union worker friends, to visit www.choosecharity.org and www.nrtw.org.

This step is critical and immediate. However, it is not sufficient to curtail the influence, and therefore damage, of unions over our government. Next week I will share step two – a longer term solutions with greater reach and impact.

God and Liberty - Part III

2011-10-31T06:00:00.000-07:00

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understandthe importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logically coherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation betweenchurch and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

Part V shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and provides recommendations for achieving it.

Part III – Who’s Religion?

A legitimate question to ask at this point is, “Who’s Religion?” In other words, why should we believe one religion over another; why do we adopt the Judeo-Christian worldview instead of the Buddist worldview, for instance? Evaluation of the logical consequences of several religious categories’ core beliefs can answer these questions.

First, the atheist religion is easily eliminated from consideration. Atheism requires the origin of the universe and everything in it to be of completely random, naturalistic mechanisms. There is no possible explanation for the abstract, non-inheritable aspects of humanity such as morality, conscience, and philosophy in general. A direct logical consequence of atheism is that everything must be entirely meaningless – clearly this cannot be a rational source for deriving unalienable rights nor proper law.

Second, we can eliminate all polytheistic religions (e.g. Shinto, Mormonism, Mayan Religion, Jainism, Hinduism). Under such a regime there could be no unified source of morality, much less logic. We could never know to which deity we belonged; therefore, we could not understand our purpose, or even surmise the existence of purpose. A universe under the control of many competing deities would be as bungled as our federal government. At best, natural laws derived from such a system of religious belief would be arbitrary and constantly changing.

Third, we can eliminate all religions that teach any form of self-actualization or self-as-god (e.g. Bon, Christian Science, Druze, New Thought, Scientology). The logical consequence of these religions is somewhat similar to polytheistic religions, only worse. If we are all god-like individuals then how could there ever be any consistent paradigms under which to evaluate morality? Likewise, we might be able to self-claim purpose, but everyone else’s purpose would be relative to our own; extending this rationale to each individual in existence creates massive circularity with no possible resolution. Any sense of morality stemming from these religions is completely arbitrary and exists only to fill the blatantly obvious shortcoming of this philosophy.

Fourth, religions that teach God or gods exists but with no interest in humanity (e.g. Deism, Islam, Epicureanism) cannot be used because without an interest in humanity, there is no way to know God. If God does not care about humanity then he most certainly cannot have purpose for our lives. If we do not have meaning or purpose for God then how can we claim unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property as explained in Part I of this series? Even if there were a purpose, a disinterested god would never reveal that purpose to us; thus, we would be no better off than under a atheists regime.

Through logical evaluation of the many varied religions of the world it is evident that only Judeo-Christian religion can offer the basis for unalienable rights and a foundation for the formation of proper law. We must have a God with purposeful intent for his creation, one consistent source of objective morality, and a means of receiving information about God in order to understand these things. The Judeo-Christian worldview is the only one that meets these criteria: a loving God with a personal, consistent interest in his creation; God is also the source of just, objective morality; and the Bible is the revealed word of God. Consequently, God is necessary for our liberty and the continued well being of our nation. Those who try to remove God from our government unknowingly (and sometimes knowingly) doom our nation to eventual despotism.

God and Liberty - Part II

2011-10-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded byour government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understand the importance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation betweenchurch and state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

Part V shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and provides recommendations for achieving it.

Part II – God and Government

This world’s propensity for evil threatens to infringe upon our rights. As individuals we may not be capable of standing against evil factions; therefore, we enter into a social contract: In order to more fully protect our unalienable rights we agree to form governments to establish positive laws. Some philosophers have argued in favor of monarchy while others, notably Locke, argued in favor of republicanism. Given the influence of Locke’s ideas on the founding fathers it is no accident the U.S. Constitution begins with “We the People…”

The concept of individuals forming governments is logically consistent with natural law. If individuals are the rightful bearers of unalienable rights, then it stands to reason only an individual can enter into a social contract with a government. Any tyrannical form of government whereby a ruling minority proclaims the right to establish a de facto government with or without the consent of the governed is a violation of natural law. An unjustly formed government is prone to equally unjust punitive laws. By contrast, a just government granted its power by the governed is infinitely more likely to spurn unjust positive laws.

Imagine a world in which every person lives according to their God-given purpose. There would be no violence, no injustice, and certainly no need for laws; much less the penal system that comes with them. However, God gave us liberty through free will – the will to choose God’s purpose for our lives or our own. In principle, it is the choice of God or not God. In the beginning there was only God’s purpose and it was “very good.” It wasn’t the very good you associate with a well flavored, over-priced coffee drink, it was the exact definition of very good – good in the sense of something completely without evil.

As soon as Adam and Eve used their liberty to chose evil they no longer were fulfilling the totality of God’s purpose. Being their Creator, God was well within his right to obliterate his creation, but he had mercy and allowed them to remain, albeit with the castigation of toiling in life, culminating in eventual death. Thus was established the basis of punishment and proper law.

What is just and unjust, good and evil? Absent any definition we are left to develop our own criteria. Whose criteria are correct and how do we know? The notion that evil is anything that harms another is overly simplistic as there are numerous examples that blur the line. Moreover, what is harm – is harm limited to physical harm, or can it include psychological harm? Is harm relative? In a God-created universe the answer is straight forward: God is good. Thus, whatever is not God is, by definition, evil. It follows that living outside of God’s purpose is therefore evil, and yet how can we possibly know God’s purpose for someone else’s life?

Thankfully, the ultimate judgment resides with God, not us. However, there are still instances within the confines of our limited human existence wherein we must take immediate action to cease further usurpation of our rights. For this purpose we have the Ten Commandments and the Levitican laws – much of which has been relied upon as an objective basis for the practice of law within our nation, serving as a reference for many Supreme Court justices who recognize their inability to affect judgment without objectivity.

Perhaps this sounds like a lot of religious garbage to you? Have you considered the alternative?

I previously established that there can be no unalienable right to life, liberty, or property within an irreligious existence. This has far reaching logical consequences. If there are no unalienable rights, then for what purpose do we enter social contracts with government? A common response is that we function better as a society working together. Often this is followed by references to behaviors within groups of wild animals such as packs of wolves who will hunt together. Such observations are compelling…to an extent. Certainly, pack behavior fits nicely into the survival narrative – the sole source of motivation in an atheist’s universe. However, it reaches a practical limit when the pack becomes too large. The weaker wolves will not have food to eat and will die off. By extension, wouldn’t this philosophy advocate the death of people who are incapable of working, or who are too poor to subsist on their own? If true, then governments would form only to the extent that survival and well-being is guaranteed for its citizens; specifically, those deemed too weak or incapable would die and the size of the governed be inherently limited. There is no justification for compassion for the poor or disabled under such rationale.

Sadly, this type of thinking isn’t too far removed from reality. Abortion in the United States was largely pushed to the forefront by the Eugenics movement in the early part of the 20^th century. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a eugenics supporter and urged the use of abortion, contraception, and sterilization of poor women (and black women, whom she considered genetically inferior) to “cleanse” the gene pool. In a universe derived from meaninglessness it is not difficult to justify such barbary because there is no right to life; thus, a baby conceived into a poor, homeless, unloving, or accidental reality can have no purpose. What few realize, or are willing to admit, is they are likewise purposeless under this regime. Any arbitrary criteria for worth can be envisaged and applied because there is no other basis with which to refute it. Take for instance the Nazi Holocaust.

Nazi’s tried at Nuremberg after World War II referenced American eugenics as a source of inspiration and validation for their genocide. The Nazi’s used identical arguments to claim non-Aryans were genetically inferior and not worthy of life. They took this failed, atheistic worldview to its logical end by attempting to create a world government for the most genetically qualified people. Yet in a meaningless universe, this is not evil – in fact, there can be no objective good or evil in an existence devoid of purpose. Within this worldview, the Nazi’s might as well be correct because there is no basis to prove otherwise.

It is little wonder that in every example of totalitarian governments, the leaders have despised religion. Under the truth found in God we know everyone is meaningful and our rights are unalienable – these are condemning facts to a ruler bent on domination. Religion is banned in such nations because the subservience of the populous depends upon them being unaware of their meaning. Having such knowledge could compel them to rise against the unjustness much in the way the American colonists rose up against Great Britain.

I highly doubt those who file suit against every minute religious “infiltration” of our government would consciously chose a form of government derived from the atheist’s worldview. However, their unchecked litany of litigation eventually results in a tyrannical government devoid of God-given purpose and liberty. Here again we see the irony of proclaiming fighting for “separation of church and state” done to protect liberty because its inevitable end is a stark loss of liberty.

Headline Rewind - Week of October 17th

2011-10-21T13:48:00.000-07:00

Capitalism to Blame for Death of Toddler in China

Photo by Boris van Hoytema

In a horrific tragedy in Foshan, China, a two-year-old girl toddling across the street is struck by two vans - neither driver stops. Video of the incident shows the first driver realizing he hit the child, slowing, then continuing. Eighteen people walked by the little girl laying in a pool of blood in the street before someone picks her up and helps her. Wang Yue, the girl, died at a hospital from her injuries.

The Associated Press is heaping blame on China's "economic growth and rising prosperity." A Chinese psychologist is quoted as saying, "Rapid urbanization not only affects China or Foshan, but anywhere in the world where you have a lot of high-rise buildings, where there is high population density, then the relationship with the neighbors, and with each other is affected." Apparently the AP and Chinese citizens cited by the media outlet have never heard of China's One Child Policy which was instituted in 1978, well before any semblance of capitalism entered the communist nation. (Special Economic Zones weren't enacted until the 1980s). Also missing from the list of realities is the prevalence of female infanticide resulting from the policy and cultural favoritism of men. The bodies of infant girls have been left in street gutters for decades, but apparently it is all caused by economic prosperity and not habitual immorality derived from a largely Godless society.

Senate Breaks Record and Does Right Thing Twice in Same Decade

Unprecedented in recent history, the U.S. Senate made two good legislative decisions. The first was voting down President Obama's full "jobs bill" last week and the second was voting down his pared down "jobs bill" this week. Seemingly unaware of the Democratic party's majority in the Senate, President Obama proceeded to chide Senate Republicans for "obstruct[ing] a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again." Of course, the Senate would have passed the bill had it not been for Senators Nelson and Pryor (Democrats), but the President again failed to tell the truth.

No word yet on whether the politicians in D.C. will ever get over their incessant need to play politics with every issue and actually do something to benefit the U.S. economy: such as deregulating, lowering and simplifying taxes, and drastically cutting government spending.

The U.S. Begins Manufacturing Homosexuals (Was this part of Obama's jobs plan?)

A lesbian couple in California (of course) is giving their 11 year old son hormone blocking drugs so he can decide if he is a boy or a girl - apparently his anatomy wasn't a good enough clue. In a development only shocking to his two moms, Tommy (now called Tammy) began insisting he was a girl at age 3. The drugs are intended to delay onset of his physiologically normal adolescent testosterone to allow Tommy to remain confused. In a world where the nature versus nurture origins of homosexuality are still hotly debated, this pair of women appear intent to manufacture their own gender confused child. Sadly, it will ultimately be Tommy who suffers the ill effects.

Muammar Gaddafi Dead

Libya's 69 year old tyrannical despot was killed while running from advancing rebel forces. Libya is now considered under control of the National Transition Council, a provisional government headed by Mahmoud Jibril - a U.S. educated politician. However, it was reported on October 10, 2011 that Jibril intended to resign once liberation was achieved - opening the door for democratic elections to put representatives from Hamas and other like-minded terrorist organizations in power. Perhaps Libya can be the newest Terroristocracy in the Middle East.

God and Liberty - Part I

2011-10-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

Part I discusses the true origin of liberty and I don’t mean the liberty afforded by our government – I mean true liberty.

Part II compares government under religious and irreligious extremes to understand theimportance of God’s influence in establishing just governance.

Part III addresses the question of which religion can be used to form a logicallycoherent and objective basis for morality.

Part IV looks at the history of the infamous phrase, “a wall of separation between churchand state,” and examines the efficacy of its current interpretation.

Part V shows the direction we must go as a nation to preserve liberty and provides recommendations for achieving it.

Part I – The Origin of Liberty

The United States became a nation through a grand self-declaration of independence on July 4, 1776. The American colonialists-turned-revolutionaries fought a valiant and victorious battle against Great Britain to back up the audacious claim made in their Declaration of Independence. In 1788 the Constitution of the United States was ratified. A new nation was born that would stand as the bastion of liberty for centuries to come because of its religious influence.

Ironically, many citizens of this very same nation today writhe at the suggestion that religion is, or could be, responsible for the political innovation of the United States. Moreover, these same individuals consistently seek legal injunctions against those who make even a faint religious overture in connection with anything vaguely resembling a government institution. They do so presumably because their atheistic sensibilities feel threatened. More likely, it is their vile contempt for opposing views compounded by their inability to make coherent arguments against Christian apologists that has caused them to resort to their own religious censorship as a last resort. The irony is the liberty they claim to defend through religious persecution could not exist without the religion they are persecuting – the Judeo-Christian religion, specifically.

Perhaps my claim strikes you as bold, unfounded, or – if you’re a member of the ACLU’s Facebook fan page – blatantly uninformed. However, my proof would be insultingly obvious to any self-respecting American were it not swept under the rug of revisionist history and political correctness. I suspect there are very few American citizens that have read the Declaration of Independence, but this is my starting point; it’s no coincidence as this is also the starting point of our great nation.

Although the entire document is well worth a read, the most relevant sentence is from the second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

At the time of its writing, the truths mentioned were self-evident as well known logical outcomes based upon the prevailing political and moral philosophy of the time. The concept of unalienable rights can be traced back to John Locke (although there is some dispute among historians, the National Archive still lists John Locke as one of the primary influences). He ascertained that there are certain rights based on natural law which are unalienable – meaning they could not be taken away. He further reasoned that these natural laws must be granted by our Creator, God, for the purpose of fulfilling His will in our lives.

Natural law is a philosophical construct predating Locke. In fact, the concept of natural law was not necessarily associated with or deemed to be God-granted by all philosophers. It is reasoned that natural laws are byproducts of nature – an outcome of our surroundings and environment. This would pave the way for an atheistic interpretation if it weren’t for one simple question: Why?

According to some philosophers, natural law is an outcome of consciousness. For example, my body can be enslaved, but my conscious is free to think as is pleases. Therefore, the nature of human consciousness dictates that liberty must be ubiquitous – a law of nature. While this explanation may seem sufficient for showing the existence of natural law in an atheistic universe, it doesn’t go far enough. Specifically, why do humans have a conscious in the first place? With no conscious there could be no absolute liberty.

Consider Locke’s first unalienable right: Life. We might observe our world and see that new life is fundamental. Yet concluding that the right to life is unalienable simply because the cycle of life occurs doesn’t go far enough. We must ask, “Why is there life?”

An atheistic world-view cannot answer the why questions. We can keep asking why until we must provide a reason for the beginning of the universe. I’ll save you some time and jump right to the question: why does the universe exist? The atheist can only answer that it was a random event without meaning or purpose; consequently, anything that follows from a random event must also be without meaning or purpose. For example, assume I pick a completely random number (note that even this example cannot be as random as the origin of the universe because it involves a logical human mind engaging in an activity, picking a random number, for a particular purpose). If I multiply, divide, add, subtract, square, invert, round, or do any other mathematical operation with that number the answer is equally useless and meaningless. Imagine presenting that number during a board meeting at the office:

You: “…and on this slide we have 1,463,288.”

CEO: “What does that mean?”

You: “Well that, sir, is a number.”

CEO: “Yes, I can see that, but for what purpose are you showing it to me?”

You: “Ahh, yes. A good question. I’m showing it here because I multiplied 731,644 by 2.”

CEO: “And what is 731,644?!”

You: “A number.”

CEO: “I KNOW IT’S A NUMBER, WHAT DOES IT MEAN??!!!”

No amount of number crunching could add any meaning to the random number. Likewise, no subsequent events can add any meaning to a universe that occurs via some spontaneous, random event. Under this regime, the existence of life is likewise meaningless: an outcome of randomness. If meaningless, then how could there ever be a right to life? We can try to assign meaning, just as I can try to say that 731,644 is the company’s gross revenue, but it doesn’t make it true. More grotesquely, assume all life is obliterated. So what? If it was a random accident in the first place, then who cares? If there is no purpose to original life, then there is no purpose to a subsequent life, then there can be no purpose to the last life; therefore, there is no reason to protect life so why not just nuke all life?

Now consider the alternative. Assume 731,644 is your company’s gross revenue. Now multiplying it by 2 has meaning – it’s twice the gross revenue. It might be that’s how much money you need to make next year to pay all your current liabilities. Likewise, if the universe and the life within it is the outcome of a creative act by a loving God, then it has meaning. Even the most abstract work of art has meaning. An artist might claim it is a meaningless painting, but even something done intentionally without meaning was meant to be meaningless – it has purpose. Under this scenario, life is meaningful. There’s a reason you and I exist – to fulfill God’s purpose. Because we are all extensions of God’s purposeful creation then each of us must likewise be equally valuable to that purpose. Consequently, none of us have more purpose than another.

Think about the ramifications for a moment. If Adam and Eve are part of a meaningful, purpose-filled event, then anything or anyone derived from them must be of equal meaning. If God intended for the children of Adam and Eve to have no purpose He would not have created them with the ability to reproduce because there would be no reason to. (Not to mention that He literally commanded them to “Be fruitful and multiply.”) Because we are all descendents of Adam and Eve, we must likewise be of equal meaning. As such, there are no humans that are accidents; none of us are without purpose. It follows logically that we must all therefore be here to fulfill a purpose. The only way to fulfill that purpose is to live; thus, we all have a right to life.

Our right to life is unalienable for two reasons: 1) we are all of equal purpose, so no one’s life is dominant over another; thus, I cannot rightfully take away your right to life. 2) We are all subservient to God; thus, He alone can decide if we are worthy to live and because we are living we must be deemed worthwhile.

Consider further the right to liberty. If our lives are purposeful, then we must be allowed to fulfill that purpose. If we are constrained for reasons beyond our own actions – e.g. slavery – then we are unable to fulfill our purpose. Therefore, the right to liberty is unalienable, revocable only by God. Yet it is God who established the greatest example of liberty: free will. God gave Adam and Eve, and all their descendents, the freedom to choose God’s purpose or our own purpose.

Our conscious is a necessity for cognition – a prerequisite to understanding and therefore fulfilling our purpose. A universe derived from pure randomness has no use for consciousness because there is no purpose. Life existing in such a circumstance continues to exist only to the extent it is able to survive competing forms of life. In the vernacular of atheists, this form of existence is driven solely by survival of the fittest. An organism’s “fitness” can only be attributable to its physical characteristics, but conscious is independent of anything physical. Conscious is not a genetic trait; thus, its existence cannot be explained by an atheistic worldview. Consequently, liberty cannot be an unalienable right in an atheist’s universe because a person’s physical body can be limited by another and with no conscious there is nothing that retains its liberty.

Finally, we have Locke’s third unalienable right: the right to property. Locke reasoned that we must have a right to property in order to fulfill our purpose. If we cannot be assured the uninterrupted possession of the implements of our purpose, then we cannot fulfill our purpose. Assuming we have made the choice to live according to our purpose, then we cannot be denied our right to property. Moreover, in order to acquire property we must trade our life for it. We trade time, moments of our life, to work for the money we use to purchase property (more than just real estate). Now allowing someone to retain his property is equivalent to taking away his life; because we all have a right to life we must also have the right to property paid for with our life.

Without God there are no unalienable rights: no life, no liberty, no property. Without God, there wouldn’t have been any consciousness to recognize the tyranny of the King of England; consequently, there would never have been a United States of America. Yet the God that grants us these rights is being forced out of our government by legal challenges posed by predominantly atheistic organizations. In future posts on this topic I will explore the consequences of such actions and explore how we can effectively combat further erosion.

Headline Rewind

2011-10-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

Headlines from the week of October 10, 2011

The United States of America is now a Dictatorship

Photo by Steve Jurveston

Facing mounting Congressional gridlock, President Obama realized his dream by declaring the United States a dictatorship – of which he is the dictator. Although toying with the idea since the time of his youthful interactions with Marxist mentors and bringing it into fruition via his cornucopia of regulatory czars, his sagging poll numbers and uncooperative legislature finally pushed him over the edge, “My instruction to…all the advisers sitting around the table is…identify all those areas in which we can act administratively, without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.”

So much for being a uniter and working with Congress. Of course, it is difficult to speak with members of congress when you are constantly traveling across the country for your reelection campaign.

Herman Cain Becomes GOP Frontrunner in Latest Poll

Photo by John Trainor

Captain Underdog, Herman Cain, rises from obscurity to top of the GOP presidential candidates according to the latest poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. It remains to be seen if he can hold his lead, but his success has drawn the ire of the establishment black community. Apparently, Cornel West and Harry Belafonte have never seen a black man who wasn’t a victim. Moreover, Cain’s success and conservatism has prompted some in the black community to label him an “oreo.” This doubly racist label is intended to deride Cain for being “black on the outside, but white on the inside;” that’s in contrast to Barak Obama who is just white on his mother’s side.

African Antelope Tackles Mountain Biker

In an online video-gone-viral, an antelope is seen tackling a mountain biker during a bike race. Although the details are sketchy, it is suspected that the antelope was hired by PETA to provide footage for their latest over-the-top ad campaign following in the footsteps of their now infamous “Save the Whales” and “Payback is Hell – Go Vegan” campaigns. PETA is well known for reaching beyond social norms in efforts to promote eating habits that are motivated by their lack of ability to distinguish between animals and humans.

Several U.S.Cities Discover Voids in their Downtown Areas

Across the country several cities have discovered voids in their downtowns. Thankfully, they are only intellectual voids caused by the vacuous intellect of the self-named “Occupy” protestors. After a month of occupying Wall Street in New York, the protestors are yet to offer a cohesive message; although hatred of large corporations and a masochistic love of totalitarian government and welfare society appear to be common themes. Lacking anything concrete from the protestors, the following list may be a helpful summary:

Photo by David Shankbone

1) Big corporations are bad – but their social media, smart phones, telecommunications networks, bullhorns, sleeping bags, tents, markers, cardboard, clothes, shoes, cameras, and food are okay to use for protesting against them.

2)Millionaires shouldn’t have so much money – unless they are a celebrity supporting the protests in which case they’re cool.

3)People who earn their money lawfully and don’t want to give more of it to the government are greedy – people who do nothing but want other people’s money are not greedy.

4) Big banks that got bailed out are evil – big unions that got bailed out are good because they support the protests.

5) Big corporations that lobby government officials to gain power are evil – democratic politicians who take that money to gain power and give government money to the same corporations are good because they support the protest

6) Democracy is apparently a process whereby no one is more important than anyone else (except the guy directing everyone else with a bullhorn), everyone repeats everything the one important guy says, and all decisions must be decided by unanimous vote.

The protestors, very many of whom are college students, are also doing an excellent job illustrating the decline in U.S. universities by virtue of their clear inability to formulate a logical or coherent message. Their protests should be directed at their universities for charging insurmountable tuition while simultaneously draining their brains of reason; of course, their ultra-liberal professors already told them it was Wall Street’s fault.

In addition to other celebrity appearances, famed documentary filmmaker Michael Moore visited the protests. It is not known if he will produce a new documentary about the protests but, if he does, it is sure to be a “Twilight Zone” meets “Pee Wee’s Playhouse” expose.

Morons on Wall Street

2011-10-07T13:41:00.000-07:00

The protestors participating in Occupy Wall Street are expressing their First Amendment right to free speech, one of the privileges of a free society. For this I applaud them - provided they do so lawfully. In addition, I find some common ground with their objections to the bank bailouts and their apparent desire to eliminate the Federal Reserve. I am also likewise dismayed at the weight and influence large corporations (and other special interests) carry with the government. However similar our objections might be, the protestor's motivations and end-game couldn't be more dissimilar and, once again, the liberals and left-wing zealots reveal their completely illogical and irrational philosophies.

Someone among the protestors has taken the liberty to create a "list of demands" for Occupy Wall Street. After I finished reading the list, and wiping away my tears (of laughter), I began to wonder how many of the people protesting on the streets would think these were good ideas. Based upon the composition (unions, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, etc.), I'm guessing quite a few would think these demands are fantastic. Heck...I might even quit my job and loaf around as long as the government is doling out money for nothing.

Lists derived from second-grader intellect and lack of personal accountability aside, the Occupy Wall Streeters are missing the bigger picture. What they protest is a logical consequence of what they demand. The bank bailouts were a direct result of a government operating under the socialist mentality. Likewise, the reason corporations have so much power is because the government has so much power. Big business, just like big unions and other big special interests, have a lot of money; they use their money to "buy" politicians. If our government didn't control so many aspects of our lives (e.g. taxes, education, health insurance, healthcare, food, etc.) then these special interests wouldn't be able to exert control via the government. Therefore, the solution is not a bigger government, but a much, much smaller government.

China offers an excellent example. Prior to the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) established by the Chinese government in the 1980s, China had a huge income disparity between the political class and everyone else. Only after they allowed free market principles in the SEZs did a middle class emerge. However, in China it is still common, indeed customary, to bribe public officials in order to conduct business. Therefore, the powerful political class and the wealthy continue to conspire with one another to maintain power and control. The big-government, socio-marxist government desired by Occupy Wall Street would have similar consequences and actually make the situation worse.

Unfortunately for conservatives, the Left is afforded unquestioned latitude in what they can claim without being questioned. For example, they claim they are the 99% and the mainstream media complacently agrees when they are in fact a very small minority of Americans. It is up to each of us to stand up against their bogus claims and challenge their political philosophies whenever possible. This doesn't necessarily mean marching against the throngs of uninformed students on Wall Street, but it does entail standing up to ignorance in our everyday contacts with co-workers, store clerks, and friends. Simple logical reasoning and historical references are sufficient ammunition against the wanton idiocy of the Occupy Wall Street mentality.

Budget Cuts: Free Haircut

2011-08-23T20:57:00.000-07:00

I sat forlorn in a discount haircut franchise watching as my hair fell to the floor whilst what remaining on my head began looking similar to unwanted patches of crab grass in my lawn. I handed over my $5.00 off coupon and grimaced as the total still came to $12.00. Why was I paying money for a haircut I could from a chance encounter between my head and the weed whacker in my garage?

Then it occurred to me: why not use the weed whacker to cut my own hair if it’s is going to look like an industrial accident anyway…at least it would be free. Okay, maybe that’s a little extreme, but an electric trimmer later I was hacking away at my own head. Even better – it was an improvement over the little franchise place.

In my never-ending quest to save money I had reached the pinnacle of frugality. At an average of $15.00 per haircut every 4 weeks I am now saving roughly $195 per year. The investment was $35 for a trimmer and guards that should last for several years. Of course, I still haven’t priced out the Dracula collar shirts to hide the back of my head – that pesky part where I never can tell what I’m cutting.

Although I recommend this cost cutting approach, it is not right for everyone. Women, for instance. Typically the electric trimmer is best used for cutting hair to relatively short lengths: perfect for the butch look, but not so good for the more contemporary female styles. It is also inappropriate for anyone with the deranged kitchen mop style prevalent among teen males.

And a final note: be sure not to use the trimmer for “edging” your hair unless it is so designed. Turns out the hair trimmer I bought is intended for use only with guards; without a guard it also trims skin. The upside is you always know exactly to where to trim your hair – scar marks the spot.

Jobless Recovery...or Just a Jobless Non-Recovery?

2011-08-16T20:59:00.000-07:00

Recent headlines have pondered the apparent paradox of economic recovery without corresponding increases in jobs – called the “jobless recovery” by some. I believe I have resolved the apparent conundrum using a detailed analytical technique. Don’t blame your politicians because few of them are familiar with this methodology, and no liberal has ever heard of it. I like to call this special technique…common sense.

The nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an oft cited indicator of economic well being. United States’ GDP, in real dollars, fell in 2008…then fell more in 2009…then supposedly increased in 2010. Woo Hoo! Recovery! Right? If it was a sign of recovery, then where are all the jobs?

Liberals have the answer: big, bad corporate America shipped them overseas! Not to mention all those evil companies that found ways to do the same, or more, work with fewer employees. Who knew we would all be giving up our minimum wage jobs to be replaced by an electronic kiosk? Of course, if the electronic equivalent of a primate can do your job maybe it was time to get some new skills anyway. I hate to say it, but liberals are wrong again (I think we should call Guinness and see if it’s a new world record).

In reality, we don’t have jobs because we also don’t have a recovery. The calculation for GDP includes government spending except for all transfer payments (thinks like social security, welfare, unemployment, etc.). Based upon the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ (BEA) numbers, nominal GDP increased more than what is attributable to non-transfer payment government spending increases in 2008, 2009, and 2010. However, if transfer payments to citizens are included in government spending, then government spending increases actually outpaced GDP increases. These numbers are tabulated, below.

Year	Gov't Spending	Nominal GDP	GDP change from 2006	Gov't Spending Change from 2006
2006	4099	13,377	0	0
2007	4361	14,028	651	262
2008	4720	14,291	914	620
2009	5017	13,939	561	917
2010	5245	14,526	1,149	1145

Government transfer payments are normally excluded from GDP because these monies are accounted for in other measures of GDP. In other words, the government gives someone money, that person spends it on alcohol and cigarettes, then the BEA measures it when it computes the production of alcohol and cigarettes. If it counted it as government expenditures towards GDP it would effectively be counted twice.

If you’re a liberal, you’re thinking that I’ve just proven social welfare works to stimulate the economy. “See! When the government spends everyone wins!” However, if you’ll put down your granola and “medicinal herbs” I can explain why this isn’t a good thing. The fact that government spending accounts for the apparent increase in GDP explains why there are no jobs: there is no recovery. In fact, there is further economic decline. It might be tempting to suggest the government’s spending improved the economy, but these transfer payment increases are mostly attributable to unemployment benefits or “stimulus” monies; all of which are temporary and limited either by mandate or by national debt crisis, or both. Bona fide economic recovery by the private sector would be based upon long-term prospects and real economic benefit (such as real demand).

Real government stimulus would build new infrastructure that generates new economic activity. It would be evidenced by continued economic output after the government’s spending was completed. However, there has been no such stimulus coming from the U.S. government; therefore, there will be no government-funded economic recovery. It is questionable if there ever has been (don’t get me started on FDR and the Great Depression). The bottom line is that we will not see job recovery until the private sector has reason to believe it is safe and profitable to invest in U.S. jobs. For the slower readers (if you voted for Obama you’re a slower reader…in case you were wondering), that means United States must become business friendly again: less regulation, or at least stop adding more regulations; more favorable tax structures; and a secure national currency.

The Government Car Buying Program: An Analogy

2010-11-10T15:26:00.000-08:00

Imagine for a moment the government determines owning a late model automobile is the right of every American (actually, this isn’t too hard to imagine). Congress and the President rationalize that it isn’t fair for only a small percentage of the population to afford a new car. They believe it is their prerogative to introduce and pass legislation establishing a government car-buying program to grant every American the “right” to own a new car. Further, they defend their position by asserting the Founding Fathers couldn’t have even dreamt of modern automobiles when they wrote the Bill of Rights; if they had, they most certainly would have included the right to own a new car. Moreover, the constitution calls on the Feds to support the general welfare of the populous – and a new car is most assuredly necessary for the general welfare.

Bolstering the urgency of implementing a car purchasing program is the rampant increase in car prices over the last decade. Car dealers have been unscrupulously charging more and more for their cars leaving poor Americans at an ever greater disadvantage. The President launches a town hall style crusade to sell Americans on the need for a car purchasing program. He rants against the greedy car dealers who have been including options on their cars at higher costs to consumer just to make more money knowing the banks will cover it as part of their car loans. Various guest speakers come to the podium to lament the plight of owning an old car that breaks down routinely causing them to lose hours at work, rack up a horrendous repair bill, and make it even more difficult to purchase an ever more expensive new car. A few dissenters in the audience ask the President questions, but he manages to avoid answering them by sticking to his lengthy talking points.

The banking industry already provides car loans to consumers and is concerned the government wants to establish a single-payer system for purchasing cars. Their lobbyists go to D.C. and defend their interests. After much negotiation and promises for generous campaign contributions, the legislature amends the draft bill, despite the outcry from purists in the party who believe a single-payer system is the only way to properly implement a fair car purchasing program. The new bill resembles a compromise of interests. It requires banks to lend to everyone, regardless of pre-existing payment problems or bad credit. Banks are also forbade to establish restrictions on the total amount of cars or total dollar value of car loans a person can have at any given time. Offsetting the banks’ worry that these restrictions will undercut their profits, the bill further mandates all Americans to enroll in the car purchasing program – after all, people not choosing to have car loans are taking unnecessary risks by assuming their old cars won’t have mechanical problems. The bill provides for government subsidies for Americans the government determines are unable to afford monthly payments of a car purchasing program on their own. In addition, the bill creates a public option car purchasing program at no cost to enrollees who qualify.

Paying for this massive new bill becomes a point of contention. The legislature bounces revisions back and forth with the CBO until the initial analysis suggests a deficit neutral tax structure. Private car purchasing programs offered by the bank that are too generous will be taxed, a true “Cadillac” tax. In addition, the government is going to cut back Medicare costs by eliminating the free mobility scooter program. Despite the new taxes and Medicare cuts, the President assures the bill will bring affordable new cars to all Americans without adding to the country’s deficit.

The bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the President. As soon as the law’s provisions go into effect several banks inform customers that their monthly payments will be higher than thought because the provisions in the bill increase their costs. The President launches a tirade of accusations at the banks and suggests their opposition is because of their loyalties to the other political party. He accuses them of loving the failed status quo that left millions of Americans without new cars while making the banks rich beyond imagination. Still other banks cut back their existing programs because they fear them being taxed as “Cadillac” plans. Some banks cease offering the plans altogether because the law controls how much profit they can make and the provisions make it impossible for them to compete. These banks refer their customers to the government’s car buying program instead.

By the time the government’s car purchasing program is launched, four years after the bill was signed into law, millions of Americans are clamoring to join the government program because many more banks have stopped offering the program. The government welcomes them with open arms and begins righting decades of social wrongs by allowing all Americans to have new cars.

As the government program gets underway, the enrollees begin to purchase new cars. Contrary to the assumptions made by Congress and the President, enrolled Americans use the program to purchase cars without concern for the price. Driveways, garages, and public housing parking lots fill up with luxurious SUVs, trucks, and sports cars. Americans with old and new cars begin trading up to newer, more expensive models. In less than a month the entire year’s budget for the government car buying program is evaporated. In an emergency session, Congress agrees to double the funds for the program. Again, those funds evaporate as millions of Americans flock to the new cars. With a surge in demand, car prices rise quickly, but Americans take no notice because they car purchasing program continues irrespective of the costs. Where once they purchased based on what was affordable, now they are completely insensitive to the costs.

Seeing the impending budgetary doom, Congress holds another emergency session. Suggestions vary, but none of the politicians offer to repeal the program because owning a new car was deemed a fundamental right. Taking away the “rights” of Americans would spell doom for their reelection campaign and provide much campaign ad fodder to the opponent. Congress decides they need to use their significant purchasing power to negotiate better rates with the car dealers. Because the majority of Americans are on the government car buying program Congress tells the car dealers they will either play along with the new pricing or they will lose most of their customers. Car dealers agree to prices that are 50% of what they were originally charging. The President launches a media blitz to tout the success achieved by having a (almost) single payer system.

Private banks still offering the car buying programs attempt a similar tactic with the car dealers, but their smaller customer base is a less compelling negotiation. Several banks merge to create a greater customer base and improve their negotiating position. Car dealers yield some but private car buying plans are still paying rates far in excess of the government program. Several customers leave the banks in favor of the lower cost public option, even if it offers less choice. The small banks that didn’t merge and can’t compete either declare bankruptcy or cease to offer car buying programs. A few car dealers begin to participate only in private car buying programs because they are more profitable. Still others shutter their businesses because they can no longer make a profit. Remaining dealers lower their cost structures by reducing customer service and deferring maintenance on their facilities. Car manufacturers also feel the pinch and begin to lower their costs. They stop producing some models entirely, they begin to reduce features, and use lower quality parts to cut costs and stay financially viable. Several manufacturers go out of business entirely. The reduction in car dealers, banks, and manufacturers puts hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and commensurately more people join the rolls of the government’s “free” car buying program.

Despite the efforts and negotiated pricing, Americans are still buying new cars in record numbers and at alarming frequency. Congressional budgets are blown away with the excessive costs of the car buying program. Congress takes action and implements what it terms “common sense” restrictions on the car buying program. Enrollees in the program will be restricted to one new car every five years. In addition, only certain cars are allowed under the program. Married or single Americans are only allowed to purchase sub-compact cars. Americans with one to three dependents are allowed to purchase a compact car with a rear bench seat. In order to encourage more carbon-neutral family sizes, the government decides the cost of purchasing anything larger than a compact car will be borne by the consumer. The change brings demand for anything other than sub-compact and compact cars to near zero. Most manufacturers stop production on all other vehicles and more jobs are lost.

The car buying program makes used cars virtually worthless as Americans prefer using the mandated programs to buy new cars. The result is a rash of vehicles flooding junk yards all across the country. When the restrictions were implemented there became a market for used vehicles that were larger and nicer than the few remaining choices. A couple manufacturers continued to produce nicer, larger luxury vehicles and a handful of dealers remain in business by refusing any form of car purchasing programs and selling the nicer cars and the used cars now in demand. Of course, only more affluent citizens are able to purchase these vehicles. Cries of unfairness rise up from the population and the politicians begin to worry about their reelection.

Citing discrimination and environmental concerns, the government passes a new law making the selling of vehicles outside a car purchasing program illegal. Additionally, dealers are no longer allowed to accept private car purchasing programs while not accepting the government’s program. When a new car is purchased, the law mandates the old car be confiscated and sent to a recycling facility. The government further mandates that all new vehicles be manufactured 100% from recyclable materials. Citizens in possession of an “old” vehicle are allowed to keep it as long as they don’t attempt to purchase a new vehicle through the car buying program.

The change puts the dealers and manufacturers that were not working with the car buying programs out of business completely. In their stead, a black market for used vehicles takes root. Being traded covertly, these vehicles are not subjected to any provisions in the massive government regulations concerning automobiles: no emissions checks, no gas mileage limitations, no recycling, no safety standards and so forth. A few people are caught and imprisoned, but several large cartels manage to survive and many people become very rich from the scheme.

Customers no longer see the benefit of the private car buying programs which were higher cost, but offered better selection. Private banks begin to declare bankruptcy as their customers flock to the government program. Deeming them too big to fail, the government buys out the failing banks and rolls the last remaining private car purchasing program participants into the government program.

Although small in comparison, the new enrollees in the government program put additional cost pressure on Congressional budgets. The government again increases the interval between car purchases and imposes even more cost restrictions. More dealers shutter, requiring consumers to travel great distances to find a dealer only to be met with massive lines, product shortages, and non-existent customer service. Sensing the angst among citizens, the government steps in and assigns Americans to specific dealers with specific dates they are allowed to pick up their new car.

The government restrictions cause all but one manufacturer to remain in business. Further cost constraints cause the sole surviving manufacturer to declare bankruptcy. The government determines this manufacturer is too important to fail and takes over the company. Under the government’s control decisions are made by unqualified bureaucrats hired by career politicians who are beholden to special interest groups through their campaign donations made necessary for reelection. Costs sky rocket, innovation ceases, and quality nose dives. Only two car models are produced. They are then shipped to dealers based upon which politicians manage to sneak earmarks into unrelated bills thereby allocating cars to his or her district as a ploy to “buy” votes.

Amid increasing costs due to rampant mismanagement of automobile production, the government is again forced to take budgetary action. They extend the new car purchasing interval to 10 years. In addition, they determine anyone aged 26 or younger can simply use a parent’s vehicle; thus, only Americans older than 26 are allowed in the car buying program. Additionally, the elderly are deemed a safety risk that shouldn’t be allowed on public roads. Furthermore, the elderly could die at any moment which would be a potential waste of a new car; therefore, no one over the age of 60 is eligible for the car purchasing program.

Mismanagement continues to run rampant within the government. Concerned about the poor outcomes, the government hires thousands of new bureaucrats to try and rein in the problems. Strangely, things continue to get worse. Americans begin to protest in the streets over the poor quality and rumors of even more government restrictions on the car buying program. Congress takes to action again. They convert the car plant into a commuter bus plant and outlaw all non-bus automobiles at the urging (meaning big donations) of environmental lobbyists. The government concludes that the right to own a car had been improperly stated – it is really only a right to have transportation...

Obama’s Only Crisis Plan

2010-07-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration pulled out its favorite, and only, tool for dealing with a crisis: file a lawsuit. Responding to Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, the Administration filed suit alleging usurpation of the Federal government’s Constitutional role in foreign affairs, namely immigration. For those of us with a clue, this move is as idiotic as it is transparent.

President Obama’s disdain for our nation and its founding documents is no secret. Therefore, his abject failure to secure our borders is no surprise; in fact, his motivation for the suit is solely to draw attention to his latest proposed legislation: immigration reform. His solution is to give amnesty to illegals – if you don’t have any illegals then there can’t be an immigration problem (in his little mind). Moreover, Obama and his ilk need more votes and what better way to get them than by importing them from Mexico? Therefore, this lawsuit is symbolic because it firmly shows Obama’s true motives and lets American citizens know their security, prosperity, and our Constitution are a distant second to our Marxist Fuhrer’s political and socioeconomic aspirations.

Equally noteworthy is the repeated use of lawsuits for policy-making by Obama. Instead of going through the appropriate (Constitutional) avenues, Obama prefers judicial activism as evidenced by his prior writings, speeches, Supreme Court nominees, and his administration’s persistent use of lawsuits. In addition to being an affront to our Constitution, this approach is entirely ineffective at producing the desired results, further divides our country, and is a symptom of incompetent leadership. Given his track record, I wouldn’t be surprised if he delayed his Afghanistan troop decision while he tried to figure out who he could sue. He couldn’t sue our military personnel because it would be too difficult to send that many certified letters. He couldn’t sue Karzi because then it would be too awkward when he bowed to him. The Taliban is out because he didn’t have a proper address. Al Qaeda wouldn’t work because they are his muslim brothers. He couldn’t sue George W Bush because Bush would probably mess that up too. All that’s left was Israel, but that didn’t work out since Obama doesn’t recognize it as a sovereign nation – so there wasn’t anything to sue.

President Obama is like Wally from the Dilbert comic strip. Wally is always finding a way to get out of doing his work and Obama shirks his responsibilities by cranking out a lawsuit rather than a solution. Instead of working with BP and the oil industry to find solutions to the existing spill and the potential for future accidents, Obama sues BP. Instead of doing his job and enforcing the existing immigration laws, Obama sues Arizona.

More to the point, Arizona’s law would be entirely superfluous if the Feds would do their job and secure the borders. Contrary to Obama’s view of the Constitution and our nation, Arizona is a sovereign state that chose to join the Union and become a State for the apparent benefits of so doing. If the Federal government is failing to provide any benefit, it is within Arizona’s right to dissolve its union with the United States of America. Considering that the Fed is derelict in its constituted duties (common defense, international relations) while infringing upon States’ sovereignty through an ever-expanding overreach of its Constitutional bounds (healthcare, welfare, uber-taxation) it may be time for Arizona to secede – along with all the other disenfranchised States.

Standing Up Against Fradulent "Science"...Again

2010-06-18T12:41:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I check the internet to see how my posts are being distributed and potentially misused. I came across such misuse with a citation to my site posted on a website devoted to the religion of Humanism and Darwin worship (URL withheld intentionally). The posters regularly refer to creationists as “cretards” and seem incapable of formulating an argument based upon logic or fact, preferring instead to find solace for their foolishness in ad hominem attacks. In this instance, they pondered why creationists also frequently “deny” anthropogenic global warming. Contrary to their prolifically foolish notions, evolution and anthropogenic global warming are discounted by creationists because they are examples of determinism and unscientific theorizing based upon unsubstantiated bias.

The America Heritage Dictionary defines science as (a) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, (b) Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena, and (c) Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Too often definition (b) is misinterpreted to imply that observations of natural phenomena can only be explained by natural phenomena, but this is a self-imposed assumption that has no basis in the laws of logic. We can most certainly observe natural phenomena to understand the effects of unnatural or supernatural phenomena. Humanists routinely dismiss creation science out of hand because they claim science is only valid within the parameters of naturalism; thereby, they conclude that creation is unscientific. However, this conclusion is purely out of contempt for creationists and in ignorance of science.

All but the most remedial areas of study require inductive logic (as opposed to deductive logic) for the formulation of conclusions. The scientific method provides an excellent methodology for induction. Evolutionists and Creationists both rely upon inductive reasoning to reach scientific conclusions via the application of the scientific method. However, conclusions derived through induction can only be based upon examination of particular instances or generalities determined through experience. Because it is impossible to examine every instance it is likewise impossible to justify inductively determined conclusions. The reliability of a conclusion can be bolstered (although not proven) by repeatability; for instance, if an experiment is repeated and the results are identical, then it is possible to have high confidence in the conclusion, especially if it is repeated numerous times and by many different people. It is impossible to test evolution, creation, or AGW; therefore, the conclusions relative to these theories are not reliable in a scientific sense.

Consequently, we must develop models based upon our presuppositions (e.g. Creation, Evolution, AGW) and determine if real-world observations confirm or deny the model. For example, soft tissues discovered in a T-Rex fossil in the Hells Creek Formation in Montana bolster the Creationist model that predicts recent (thousands instead of millions of years) dinosaur extinction. Yet a single data point is insufficient for arriving at reliable conclusions; the aggregate data must also fit the model. Additionally, our bias should not cloud our judgment: Dr. Schweitzer concluded the soft T-Rex tissue indicates there are processes, heretofore unknown, that preserve soft tissue for millions of years. Similarly, our biases can confound our ability to reason soundly. AGW supporters oft refer to melting glaciers or the rate of temperature changes as proof of their models, but this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent because other possible explanations cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, the creationist is not untowardly critical of evolution and AGW because they are theories espoused by unrepentant sinners (as some posters contended), but because they are theories that can only be supported when data is interpreted through biased lenses. Granted that creationists also interpret through their own bias, but the difference is that evolutionists and AGW proponents are increasing the number of peripheral theories that must be affirmed to explain the unknowns in their observations while creationists are reducing the number. In the case of the soft dinosaur tissues, another theory (with no observational evidence) was developed to “explain” soft tissue preservation over millions of years.

Most importantly is the derivation of biases. Creationists’ bias is based upon a historical account from an infallible source which is repeatedly confirmed through evidence, for example: 1) anthropologists research historical accounts in the Bible and consistently find the Bible is accurate, and 2) geologic evidence is resoundingly consistent with the global flood described in Genesis. Furthermore, the premise of inductive reasoning is that the physical laws in effect today must have been, be, and continue to be consistent; otherwise, inductive scientific conclusions are useless as there would be no repeatability. Creationists rely upon the Biblical promise of the omnipotent God to maintain the laws of our universe, which he put in place, when they assess the reliability and cogency of their scientific knowledge. Humanists’ only assurance of consistent natural laws is that they haven’t changed within the span of recorded history. While this may seem cogent inductive reasoning, i.e. ample documentation of its repeatability, it is highly unreliable given their own assumptions: 1) if the universe is 14.5 Billion years old then their observed repeatability spans less than 0.0000003% of all time, 2) if the universe and everything in it came into being through entirely naturalistic (random) means there is absolutely no reason to believe the natural laws in effect today will not randomly change in the future, and 3) number two is bolstered by considering that for the universe to form per humanistic theories would require a decrease in entropy (taking the Universe as a closed system) between its emergence and now, thereby indicating the second law of thermodynamics, as it is understood in present time, has not always been consistent – clearly refuting their claim to repeatability. Therefore, humanists must rely upon a Biblical framework in order to successfully conduct scientific inquiry; yet, they routinely insist upon denying Biblical truths when drawing conclusions – which are often in stark opposition to the Bible.

AGW is deeply rooted in humanism, but it is not the reason it is largely discredited by creationists. Creationists are accustomed to recognizing fallacious reasoning and the illogical defenses for it. The fallacies of ad hominem, appeal to authority, false dilemma, affirming the consequent, and the complex question are rampant in rationalizations put forth by evolutionists; thus, when they appear in defenses for AGW, creationists easily recognize them and are suspicious. Humanists think nothing of arriving at conclusions by developing far-reaching assumptions with the pretense of investigating them later. AGW is no exception. Personally, I have analyzed the data and read the IPCC reports concerning AGW and found them to be rife with unfounded personal bias and unsubstantiated claims. The entirety of AGW rests upon the poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global average temperatures (which are reported only after absurd amounts of data reduction and without standard deviations) and the predictions of un-validated computer models which are programmed by persons with a bias towards believing that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature anomalies and which have already been shown incapable of predicting temperatures.

In conclusion, I first base my decisions and opinions on logic and common sense – neither of which apply to humanism. Second, I recognize I have a bias based upon faith in an infallible God while simultaneously realizing humanists have a bias based upon faith in randomness. Third, my bias is logically defensible while humanism breaks down under simple reasoning. Forth, as more evidence is collected and analyzed, both evolution and AGW have a divergence of proof with a geometrically expanding list of unknowns requiring immense amounts of unfounded faith in the hope that someday the evidence will reverse course and begin to converge. Suggesting that my disregard for evolution and AGW is based upon religious fanaticism is both inaccurate and sophomoric. The real reason creationists dispute both evolution and AGW is because of their common element: spurious logic.

President Obama vs. the Gulf Oil Spill

2010-06-14T22:18:00.000-07:00

For 56 days crude oil has been streaming into the Gulf of Mexico through a failed Blow Out Preventer situated on the ocean floor. President Obama is not responsible for the accident that caused the oil spill, nor is he responsible for fixing the leak; however, he is responsible for his ardent failure to lead the Executive branch of our Federal government in the performance of its duties.

Recently, Obama struck out against small government supporters saying (paraphrased), "Some of the folks who have been saying they want government to do less are now complaining that the government isn't doing enough." Certainly, one should expect more from a constitutional law "expert" such as the president, but given his bent towards destroying the Constitution his comment is not the least bit surprising. Perhaps he should read the words of the founding fathers, both the Constitution and their ancillary writings - such as the Federalist Papers. Through those works he would discover that the Tea Party movement is interested not just in repealing the damage done by an over-intrusive federal government; rather, it is also concerned with restoring the government to a form consistent with its Constitution. As such, the job of the federal government is to 1) provide for the common defense (of the states - not unions), 2) provide standards and measures, 3) resolve disputes between the states, and 4) FOREIGN RELATIONS.

Although our government is certainly incapable of solving the oil leak and oil cleanup because it lacks the expertise and equipment - it has a duty to negotiate and coordinate assistance from other nations per its foreign relations purview. Small government minded Americans are not asking for greater government involvement - we are asking for the federal government to do the job it is supposed to while ceasing to do the work it is not supposed to! When another country offers oil skimmers, it is the responsibility of the Feds to facilitate the assistance in spite of old laws that may preclude foreign vessels from working in U.S. waters. A real leader would have found a way to make it work.

Although the EPA is arguably beyond the scope of the federal government, it nonetheless exists and has the ability to regulate. Therefore, the President bears responsibility to waylay the EPA when it insists on an environmental impact assessment before permitting Louisiana to protect its sensitive coasts from encroaching oil. I'm quite certain many Tea Partiers would support a smaller EPA, but so long as it exists and has regulatory power it must perform its function - which would seem to be enabling the minimization of environmental impacts from the Gulf oil spill - not making it worse by beating a governor over the head with senseless bureaucracy.

Although we know the President can't resolve the oil spill problems because our government lacks the ability and equipment to do so (and the leadership, apparently). I certainly would not assign Obama the responsibility for the remedy or cleanup, but he assigned it to himself by accepting full responsibility. Once he realized he couldn't "suck [the oil] up with a straw," he backed off his claim to responsibility by blaming BP and instructing Eric Holder to investigate BP for criminal negligence. Although BP is clearly responsible for this disaster, investigating them in the midst of trying to fix the problem is a waste of resources and an abject failure to work towards a solution.

Lastly, we are witnessing a president who is so ensnared by his popularity rating that he is a complete failure as a leader, prefering to exhibit false anger and posing for endless photo ops in appeasement of the masses while getting nothing accomplished. A leader is forward-looking (i.e. stop blaming Bush), forthright (no you weren't there since day 1), and solution oriented (stop making more problems). Every American is well aware of the deft Obama spin machine, but the election is over and we need someone who knows how to lead the executive office of the United States of America.

President Obama, I don't need you kicking anyone's a** until you get your head out of your own.

Would Jesus Advocate Government Welfare?

2010-04-04T21:26:00.000-07:00

Today is Easter - the most sacred of all Christian holidays; yet I have been sent messages claiming that Jesus would want us to institute government welfare because he said we should support the poor and care for our fellow man. While I certainly don't disagree that one of Jesus' primary teachings was to love our neighbors, the suggestion that neighborly love, benevolence, or generosity should come via our government is neither Biblical nor wise.

Throughout the Bible we are told to give to our neighbor, but never to give to our government so that our government can take care of our responsibility to be generous. Matthew 22:21, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." In this passage Jesus clearly delineates between what is of this World and what is of God. If taxes paid to the government belong to the government and not God, then how would paying taxes be a substitute for doing God's work? Does anyone honestly pay their taxes in the belief that by so doing they fulfill God's intent for us to be generous and caring towards our neighbors? Wouldn't it be handy to just pay taxes and have all your Christian responsibilities to your fellow man taken care of? It's a nice thought (not really) but God knows the true intent of our heart: 1 Chronicles 28:9, "...for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts..."

Although God warns us to respect our government, he never suggests that we are to fulfill his will for our lives through government. The notion that God would want us to enact welfare programs through government is unfounded. Moreover, compulsory giving, a.k.a. taxes, is not genuine giving. Government benevolence is an oxymoron and rampant examples reveal how ineffective it is at meeting genuine needs. Most importantly, though, is the fact that God does not ask us to offload our responsibilities for caring for one another upon someone else, much less the government. It is our sole responsibility to directly help those in need and to, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

America Doesn't Need Pay-As-You-Go or a Balanced Budget

2010-02-26T13:29:00.000-08:00

Several times during his presidency President Obama has espoused the virtue of a balanced budget and enforcing pay-as-you-go for Congressional bills. Moreover, he revels in chiding the "previous administration" for not doing so. Not only are these vitriolic criticisms and notions of fiscal responsibility entirely laughable coming from the biggest deficit spending president of all time, they are not what the United States of America needs.

Pay-as-you-go may sound fiscally responsible, but only from the perspective of a politician. Paying for new legislation before passing it requires new taxes or cuts to other government expenditures. In other words, legislation has to be cost neutral...from the government's perspective. However, what Obama and his liberal ideologues fail to grasp is that such legislation is not cost neutral to taxpayers; likewise, to the whole of the U.S. economy. Liberals/Marxists/Progressives fail to comprehend (...a lot of things, but I'm addressing this specific topic only) that our federal government was developed to serve the good of the citizens - not the other way around. Furthermore, they do not understand that the public is not a financier for their unbridled spending.

More importantly, though, America doesn't need pay-as-you-go nor do we need a balanced budget because both imply the same, or greater, government engorgement upon our hard-earned money. We already can't afford the spending we have now - we can't afford the general budget, we can't afford the existing entitlement programs, and we certainly can't afford anything new. What America needs is a drastic reduction in government agencies, a drastic reduction in discretionary budgets afforded to our elected officials (Nancy Pelosi, for example), privatization or outright elimination of entitlement programs, elimination of foreign aid...in short, a complete overhaul of our government.

There is nothing wrong with our country's foundational principles or its constitution; in fact, if they were properly adhered to we wouldn't be in this mess. Starting from our Constitution and founding principles we need to rebuild our government. Only absolutely necessary programs or agencies should be reinstated, and only if they can be paid for with a modest tax. Taxes should be applied evenly across all citizens (i.e. no progressive tax), double taxation prohibited, and a maximum rate of 10% imposed upon the government via a new Constitutional amendment. Anything short of this approach is campaign rhetoric and prolongation of our government's fiscal disaster.

The Logical Fallacies of Anthropogenic Global Warming

2010-02-24T20:54:00.000-08:00

Climate-Gate has certainly dealt a tremendous blow to the validity of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, but some die-hard ignoramuses continue to assert it is true. Aside from outright reductio ad absurdum, AGW enthusiasts also frequently justify their belief using logical fallacies. I will cover a few of the more common logical fallacies (note that these are commonly used to defend many other ill-contrived ideas):

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

This is arguably the most oft used fallacy in the AGW debate. It's exhibited in statements like, "Global Warming is obviously happening because glaciers all over the World are melting." However, there are a lot of reasons why glaciers melt. In fact, glaciers have been melting ever since the ice age concluded - far earlier than the supposed commencement of man-caused global warming.

In fact, the assertion that the Earth is warming as a result of man made greenhouse gases (namely CO2) is itself a fallacy of affirming the consequent because there may be many reasons the Earth is warming (assuming, of course, that the Earth is actually warming). This fallacy can be spotted wherever someone is making the claim that a consequence is occurring as a result of a specific event or condition when there are other explanations that have not been eliminated from possibility.

The Fallacy of Appeal to Authority

The AGW faithful commonly claim that their position is valid because, "like, all the scientists say it's true!" This is the fallacy of appeal to authority (and is also flatly inaccurate). There is only one truth; even if every single living person earnestly believes something to be true doesn't necessarily make it so. It is not enough for "experts" to simply say something is true - the truth stands on its own and only through the use and understanding of incontrovertible facts can an expert, or anyone, come to understand the truth. Experts are individuals with a vast amount of knowledge in a particular area, but they're not infallible. People don't make the truth, they discover the truth.

A good example is NASA's Dr. James Hansen, a favorite AGW expert of Al Gore's. If relying on the expertise of "experts" such as Dr. Hansen was reliable, then we should be in the midst of an ice age because Dr. Hansen was among the "experts" declaring we were on the verge of it in the 1970s. Apparently, his flawless scientific mind made a goof and we were really on the cusp of a global warming epoch - or, perhaps, he was just confused about the freezing temperature of water.

The Fallacy of Reification

"The science clearly says mankind is causing the Earth to warm catastrophically." No, science does not, and cannot, say anything. People say things; as such, people must interpret scientific knowledge, observations, and data. Then they present their findings. Clearly, what is really intended by the quote is that an "expert" says something which refers back the previous fallacy, but what is connoted is that somehow the facts are self-evident although they most certainly are not.

The Fallacy of Ad Hominem

This fallacy is always presented when someone has no viable argument nor logical basis for his or her position and is a favorite among AGW fanatics. "You're just not evolved enough to understand the science!" Demeaning an individual, group, or competing idea is the lowest form of debate because it both fails to support the person's argument or defeat his opponent's position, and it has no relevance to the issue. If someone is resorting to the fallacy of ad hominem he is doing so in a feeble attempt to discredit the person - most likely because he believes appeals to authority are valid proofs and if an opponent is discredited then she would be unfit as an authority.

The Fallacy of the False Dilemma

This fallacy can be more difficult to spot, but it is also very prevalent in the AGW debate. For example, "either you realize that AGW is occurring or you don't think humans have any affect on their environment." In this case, the false dilemma is between agreeing with AGW or believing that humans have no impact on the environment. Realistically, you can comprehend that humans affect the environment, but causing calamitous worldwide warming isn't part of some make believe, all inclusive humans-ruin-the-Earth package.

Another example would be, "If you don't believe in AGW then you don't believe in science." Quite to the contrary actually.

Conclusion

While I could fill books with example after example of logical fallacies in the AGW debate, this should provide a succinct summary of the most common classification of fallacies often relied upon by the AGW faithful. Should you find yourself in a debate on this topic be sure to point out to your opponent his use of these fallacies. When you consider all the arguments presented as proof of AGW, they all fit within one of these categories (or possibly another logical fallacy not listed here). The two tenets of AGW are the correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global average tempertaure and the climate computer models. While not strictly a logical fallacy, correlation never proves causation - and the correlation is pitiful; it is only made presentable by using annual global average temperature variants because using raw data would render it completely statistically void. Computer models are only worthwhile if they can be validated and a global climate model can never be validated, not to mention that pesky little detail that the models have already failed to correctly predict average global temperatures. Finally, never forget the most important question, "What exactly is the correct temperature for the Earth?"