Dec 26, 2010

Imagining God and Christopher Hitchens

Somehow I can't bring myself to believe my dog imagines me on all fours running for the food bowl at 5:00 pm every day or tearing out the patio door to chase a squirrel. However, I am delighted by the thought of my Pembroke Welsh corgi reclining in a tufted leather chair dressed in a paisley smoking jacket, reading glasses poised jauntily at the end of his long nose, with a pipe in one paw and a copy of G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy in the other. Christopher Hitchens prefers to believe that this human-animal distinction – this ability to imagine – is an accident of mutation over eons of evolution. What, exactly, is adaptive about my Alistair Cooke corgi fantasy, I can't, well... imagine.

I believe this distinction is explained by our Creator God who imagined and spoke us into being. We, not other animals, are made in God's image and likeness and therefore, we have this ability to imagine and, as such, are often capable of reflecting God's creative enterprise. Thus, an Alistair Cooke corgi nearly out of nothing.

I love Christopher Hitchens and I'm not just saying that to establish my Christian bona fides. I really do. What I see in him is a righteous indignation about the suffering of innocents. I deeply admire his commitment and passion to his cause. He's willing to get his nose bloodied over it and even put his own life in danger. I find this very attractive and heroic. It doesn't hurt that Hitchens has one of the sharpest minds of our era and is a master of the English language too.

Where Hitchens fails, however, is pride (it's always the pride, isn't it?) in his ability to reason. He cannot imagine how a good God could allow such abject misery and suffering in the world. And therefore, he rejects the very notion of God.

The Christian response to the paradox of a God who desires mercy and yet allows evil into the world is often answered by “evil is allowed to enter to reveal the glory of God.” This isn't the most intellectually satisfying response, is it? The best I can do is the old Jewish saying, “if I understood God, I would be him.” Both are inadequate to a man who rests all his understanding of the world on evolution and reason.

I like to imagine an omnipotent corporeal God with a restraining hand on Christopher Hitchens' forehead while the lesser, still beloved and magnificent creation, Hitchens, flails away with all the indignation he feels at injustice in the world, trying to land one good blow to make his point. If I can feel this way about a man I've never met and with whom I have profound philosophical disagreements, imagine how much more the Father, who sent his only Son to die for us all, must love and cherish such a man.

And so, I pray, Lord, if it be your will, please save Hitchens from his pride and his sickness. After this lifelong struggle, let his hand come to rest on Yours so that he may know Your Presence and make him an example, like St. Paul, of the good that is possible when we imagine You.

Oct 22, 2010

The Well-Deserved Bad Reputation of Good Intentions

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The original aphorism seems to have been, “Hell [itself] is paved with good intentions,” which is often attributed to St. Bernard of Clairveux, a doctor of the Church. Isn't it fascinating that in this formulation, good intentions aren't so much along the route one takes to Hell, but a sign that one is already there?

I once told a campus missionary she should avoid “God-talk” if she wants to be understood by the youth she aims to convert. Now I'm going to illustrate the point by explaining the problem with good intentions in a way only some in my audience will fully understand.

God, in the person of Jesus Christ, calls us to empty ourselves or die to oneself to make ourselves hospitable vessels for the Holy Spirit to indwell. We are to minimize the Ego, but being fallen humans, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to eliminate Ego altogether. However, when we succeed at hosting the Holy Spirit, good fruits are in abundance – with no regard whatever to our intentions.

Blessed are the poor in spirit,

for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life. “Period. End of issue.” - to borrow a phrase from my second-favorite Jew, Dennis Prager.

Practicing Christians are now dismissed. Lesson over. Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

Do dee do dee do... “oh, watch out there - you dropped your pencil!”

“See you same time next week. Don't forget your assignment!...”

“Test in two weeks.” Do dee dum dee do...

I now resume explaining, while limiting the “God-talk,” for the unbelievers. Please take your seats.

Let's analogize using the “virtue bank account” or “VBA.” The VBA is like the Hotel California (you can check out, but you can never leave) in that you really only want to make deposits. If you withdraw from your VBA, you are behaving in un-virtuous (in God-talk, “sinful”) ways. It is like the Hotel California in one other way... it is a death-trap.

See, tracking the balance of your VBA is all about YOU. It is about your virtue and your self-regard and your status among your peers. It has very little to do with actual goodness - for the love of God! Good intentions are its currency. And this particular currency is worth-less. Not worthless, but worth less than good results (fruitfulness in God-talk).

Example One. Let's say you worked for the government advising the president in a time of terrible economic hardship for the country. And let's say you had the idea to devise a system which would provide financial security for retirees. Let's call your plan Social Security. The plan would have workers pay into the system over their lifetime of work and then make withdrawals upon retirement. Theoretically, most people would end up withdrawing about as much as they deposited and any overages would be covered by revenue paid in by current workers. This seems to work when the ratio of workers to retirees is six or seven to one. Not so much when the ratio gets down to two to one or lower. Good intentions? In abundance! Unsustainable? You betcha! In God-talk, we'd call this plan a “false-promise.” For our purposes, let's call it a Ponzi scheme.

Example Two. Let's say you worked for the government advising the president in a time of terrible economic hardship for the country. And let's say you had the idea to devise a system which would provide health care for everyone... Oh, wait. We've already done this one... let's see, um – massive sovereign debt and unfunded liabilities... check, false promises... Ponzi scheme... check, check, increased suffering of innocents... check... net evil... check.

Example Two Redux. Let's say you want to do your part to care for the environment. In God-talk, this is called stewardship. Good intention? Check. You're convinced that recycling is a commonsense way to decrease the demand on limited resources. You decide to diligently recycle your newspapers to save the trees (Is recycling utter rubbish?)! What if the net effect of your recycling actually uses more non-renewable energy resources (oil) than the resources it saves (renewable trees)? What if transportation energy to haul your papers to the recycling plant and manufacturing energy to transform your waste paper into something usable is less efficient than the transportation and production of the newspaper in the first place? This is hypothetical, because frankly, I don't know the truth, but neither does anyone else. But, for the sake of argument, lets say the net effect of your good intention is increasing demand for and consumption of non-renewable fuel, the production of which has been limited locally in a heavily environmentally regulated and decent society (the U.S.) by the activities of well-intentioned environmentalists, effectively increasing demand and consumption of fuel from despotic environmentally disastrous societies such as in the Middle East, Sudan and Russia, for example. Good intentions... meet road to Hell.

Example Three. This is subtler yet. Let's say you are an elderly parent on a modest fixed income. You live relatively comfortably in your own home, but the financial stresses of paying your bills and shelling out every month for your expensive prescription drugs keep you on edge. You don't make long-distance calls to your kids despite your desperate loneliness because you're afraid you can't afford the expense. You worry about putting five bucks in the grandkids' birthday cards. So, your adult children agree among themselves to each make a modest deposit to your bank account every month to ease your anxieties. You make an unsolicited promise to them that you're spending as little of the money as possible so they'll all get something back when you die. You're making deposits in your VBA.

Unfortunately, your kids still aren't getting calls from you and you're still desperately lonely. You're still worried about the prescription drug costs and even refuse to fill some prescriptions because you can live without the medications although you'd be more comfortable with them. Your kids hesitate to call you because they hear the same complaints from you as before... and the repeated promise of “return” on their investment upon your death. Your deposits into your VBA have accrued exclusively to you and contributed exactly nothing to the good on their accounts. They would rather have their parent be serene, content and grateful for their show of concern than have their parent dead and receive a portion of the inheritance which came at the expense of their parent's happiness and well-being. You have stolen their virtue.

The previous case is the best example of good intentions gone awry. A priest once told me, “your life is not about you.” “Well,” an unbeliever might ask, “if it isn't about me, what is it about?” This is harder to answer without some serious God-talk. Perhaps, for the unbeliever, the best answer is, your life is about the truth. The truth is, as an elderly parent, you should receive your children's' charity with grace, and then pay the grace forward by delighting in the gifts. Let your children accrue something worthwhile to their own VBAs as well as contribute to your happiness.

The truth is, you'd contribute more to the well-being of the environment by picking up litter when you see it (a good moral test for any action is to ask, “what if everyone did this?”) and insisting on local oil drilling (Ethical Oil, by Ezra Levant) and nuclear energy production than recycling your newspaper.

The truth is, neither you nor anyone else in the electorate should put your faith in or vote for politicians making false promises. You will not be spared struggle and pain by the federal government, or if you are, like the early recipients of Social Security, your consolation will ultimately come at great cost to people utterly innocent of the decision to implement an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, who will have paid into the system the better part of their working lives, who will receive nothing when the scheme becomes insolvent. Your secure retirement came from stealing other people's future. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

The answer to “what is my life all about?” is more succinct for the believer. My life is about The Truth. The Way. And The Life. Sounds simplistic, but as we've seen, it isn't. The “my life is not about me” Ethos is big and expansive and life-affirming. It is actually the “my life is all about me” Ethos and the fixation with one's VBA which is narrow, niggling and soul-killing.

Am I suggesting, because of my disregard for the VBA, we shouldn't practice the virtues – prudence, justice, courage, restraint, faith, hope and charity? Not at all. I am saying the type of virtue which accrues by pride in our good intentions into our VBA is counterfeit. Satan has a counterfeit for every aspect of God's Kingdom and this is no exception. When your life is all about you, Satan has lured you into a death-trap. In contrast, when you make your life about reflecting the love and mercy of Jesus (or if you prefer, the small-t truth), you are truly poor in spirit (humble) and will be received into the Heavenly Banquet (produce truly good results). You'll probably even get a taste of happiness here on Earth.

I see our time is up. Class dismissed.

For extra credit, watch the following video of Andrew Klavan and his dog, Virtue, on illegal immigration, titled, Imagine There's No Border. If you were paying attention, you already know where this road is going...

Sep 17, 2010

The Audacity of Dopes

Here's a Tea Party proposal... how much money would we save, that is, the American taxpayers who fund this monstrosity, along with our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will be paying off the Chinese forever... if we eliminated whole departments, agencies, bureaus from our midst. This is going to be fun!

Start big - the Department of Health and Human Services. Has HHS improved your health or that of anyone you know? Have you received any "services" from it lately? Consider it cut.

Projected savings: $800,000,000,000

There! Doesn't that feel good? We've already shaved two-thirds off of this years projected deficit. I know this budget probably includes Medicare/Medicaid, but don't you believe if we addressed these expenses locally in a truly free market system, the costs would go down and we could serve our people more efficiently? Also, after Sebelius' little fascist stunt, I say kill HHS. Kill it dead.

Next is the Department of Defense. Notice DOD is already scheduled for reduction in 2010? I'm feeling generous here, since national defense is one of the main reasons government exists. And we know the rest of the West has pretty much opted out of the enforcement game, with a slight nod to Britain and Australia for their previous support. We should also acknowledge the Religion of Peace (ROP) is making it more obvious every day it's at war with western civilization. No cuts.

Next biggest are Social Security entitlements and the Treasury (including interest payments) which we can't even touch at the moment. No savings... yet.

For reasons mentioned previously (see function of government and ROP), we also can't mess too much with Veteran's Affairs or the Department of Homeland Security.

But now we can address those niggling annoyances which also happen to be antithetical to limited constitutional government:

Department of Agriculture: $150,000,000,000
Department of Education: $110,000,000,000
Office of Personnel Management: $70,000,000,000
Department of Labor (notice the huge increase this year and last!): $210,000,000,000
Housing and Urban Development: $60,000,000,000
Department of Energy: $40,000,000,000

Subtotal: $640,000,000,000

Add this to our HHS cut and now we're making some serious progress on our national debt:

800 billion + 640 billion = 1,440 billion
1,440 billion - 1,200 billion (projected deficit) = 240 billion we can put toward the debt.

I'm skipping over the Department of Justice and the Judicial Branch as, again, they're primary functions of government. Also, NASA. NASA is a pet I'd like to keep. Something like a goldfish in this zoo full of bloated government functions. Besides, every great country needs space toys.

International Assistance Programs: $35,000,000,000
Other Independent Agencies (major cuts by Obama here): $20,000,000,000
Department of Interior: $25,000,000,000
Environmental Protection Agency: $25,000,000,000
Department of Commerce: $25,000,000,000

Subtotal: $130,000,000,000

What about the Department of State, you say? Again, another primary function of government. I'm also keeping the Corps of Engineers. I have a soft spot for engineers. They actually make things and make things work. Same for the National Science Foundation, although if science continues to be used by the Left for political purposes, I'm whacking it too. That leaves the Executive Office of the President, which we'll take care of in 2012 and the Legislative Branch which we're working over this year.

GRAND TOTAL SAVINGS: $1,570,000,000,000

Can you believe how much money the feds take from you and borrow for this stuff?

There is nothing quite as satisfying as taking control of one's budget. I need a cigarette.

Sep 14, 2010

The Subspecies and Origin of the Leftist

It is clearer to me every day that my enemy and the enemy of western civilization is leftist ideology. It really is evil. Or, if you're uncomfortable with strong words like “evil,” let's say leftism is opposed to good. It is destructive to the happiness of the individual and tears at the roots of society, while promoting itself as having a virtuous concern for the common good.

Here's an example:

We live in such a morally confused and intellectually dimmed world, I feel compelled to explain up-front that I don't hate everyone on the Left, just leftist ideology. I mainly made friends with leftists in my youth because I was one. Some of them are still my friends even though I've moved on ideologically. And yet, as an example of how intellectually damaging the Left is, if you asked for my friends' private opinions of me, they probably would say I am “narrow” and “fixed” in my conservatism. Interesting – no?

There is a frustrating opacity one experiences in trying to relate to a leftist. I have devised categories – subspecies, if you will, which help explain the lack of transparency they exhibit: the “shallow” leftist, the “committed” leftist and the “vampire” leftist.

The Shallow Leftist

First, as Thomas Sowell has described, many leftists are subject to stage-one thinking. They tend to neglect the question, “and then what happens?” This makes their reasoning, if we care to call it that, very shallow. Perhaps “obtuse” or “his ideas are as intellectually interesting as a piece of dry white toast” would be more descriptive, but for ease of use, let's stay with “shallow.” You can't really penetrate the shallow leftists' thinking, because, well... they're not... thinking, that is.

The Committed Leftist

Second, sometimes the disconnectedness one experiences with the Left is because they are ideologically committed and know you would disapprove if they revealed their thinking. This is what we're seeing in the White House now. They have become as God and any doubts they ever have about the efficacy or morality of their plans is soon dispelled by Ego and Hubris. We don't have access to their reasoning because they know, if the public understands what they're all about, they will never be entrusted with the authority to accomplish it. Watching Obama's economic policy play out is like being at a seminar where the professor's theories are soon discovered to be horse puckey and the room is gradually emptying out while the professor “stays the course.” He's going to go to the bitter end whether the students like it or not, because, by god (he, himself), he knows what's good for them and they're going to take this medicine if it kills them!- I mean him... I think.

The Vampire Leftist

But the first two categories are not nearly as disturbing as this last one. This is the one which keeps me up at night... with a crucifix, a vial of holy water and a garlic necklace. There is a large portion of people on the Left comprised of good, intelligent and accomplished people who suffer what Gerard Vanderleun has dubbed the “Twilight effect.” I have called them vampires. I use the term reluctantly and with all the love of neighbor and desolation I feel at the mortal wound inflicted on them by leftist ideology. Perhaps immortal wound is more accurate, because, like the poor, the Left will always be with us it seems, no matter how many times the ideology proves to culminate in destruction and cruelty.

The vampire leftists are simply incapable of seeing themselves no matter how often or how compassionately you hold up the mirror to them. I know one or two “shallow” leftists; I know one or two “committed” leftists; but the vast majority of leftists I know personally, fall into the “vampire” category. And it is this spiritual blindness I find so horrifying. It isn't that they haven't reasoned through the issues... or that they have, but they don't want us to know what they've concluded... it is that they deny to you, and worse, to themselves, having come to the positions they hold as true.

I find having described these categories of leftists very helpful for clarity. But in addition, I think I've had an insight into the psychological/spiritual origins of such people... or, to rip-off Darwin:

The Origin of the Leftist

Leftist ideology teaches that the moral code is within (the heart, the “evolved” ability to reason) and explains moral failings without (the parents or society). This is the opposite of the conservative believer or, using the better term coined by Chesterton, the happy pessimist, who seeks his moral code externally (God and the Bible, traditional moral codes “evolved” over millennia) and explains his moral failings internally (Original Sin, his imperfections). The happy pessimist believes human nature contains dark aspects and is immutable, which makes him seek a power higher than himself for moral guidance and/or compels him to struggle against his own demons before seeking to impose his ideas of social justice externally. Admittedly, this worked better when our society held Judeo-Christian values more homogeneously.

Of course, there are as many jerks and buffoons on the Right as there are on the Left. And, there are wonderfully good people on the Left as well as the Right. But – and this is really the crux of the matter - leftist ideology tends to convince people of their own victimhood or the victimhood of the Lefts' favored minorities (what, Mormons aren't a minority?), which tends to make the recipients of victim status self-indulgent,self-pitying, narcissistic, dependent and unhappy. This is how individuals are ruined and whole segments of society are destroyed – the black family, for example. Individual leftists who have survived the onslaught have done so because they tend to personally live by conservative principles, while preaching, teaching and imposing leftist ideology on everyone else.

In case the problem with victimhood isn't glaringly obvious, let me suggest it destroys human dignity. The victim mentality makes one less attractive to a potential spouse or friends because there is nothing quite as unappealing as self-pity. Believing you're a victim also shackles you to your present circumstances and makes you less likely to struggle for self-improvement. Why bother when The Man (the Other, whatever group or structure is the oppressor) is responsible for all your woes? Nah – to improve your lot, you should agitate – or community organize – to make sure everyone else treats you better.

Leftism appeals to two of the baser human instincts as well. The first is the desire to remain childlike – to be coddled and made safe and not to have to buy your own health insurance until you're twenty-six. The second is an appeal to one's moral vanity: since I am a good person and I mean well, it shouldn't count against me that my ideology is so destructive to the good... and if you do count it against me, it just proves you are an evil greedy hateful conservative oppressor! Let's call this the “I'm ok... you're evil!” mentality.

How to deal with the Left? I'm tempted to advise, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals), even though it goes against my Christian ethic. I do believe we have done too little “targeting” of the Left when we're arguing with the shallow or vampire leftists. Obama's support for infanticide in his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have disqualified him with almost every decent person I know – had they known it. Therefore, my first suggestion is, name it; identify it. Don't keep quiet about what you recognize. In the case of the shallow leftist, I would just love them and cajole them. Maybe open the door a peek occasionally on the view they're missing. The vampire leftist is a difficult case because of the self-delusion involved. I think we have to pray for these people. It is a psycho-spiritual problem best left to God to fix. And finally, the committed leftist... these we have to fight, because, given the chance, they'll murder us.

Readings for the Roman Catholic Liturgy
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Reading 1
Wisdom 9:13-18b

Who can know God's counsel,
or who can conceive what the LORD intends?
For the deliberations of mortals are timid,
and unsure are our plans.
For the corruptible body burdens the soul
and the earthen shelter weighs down the mind that has many concerns.
And scarce do we guess the things on earth,
and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty;

but when things are in heaven, who can search them out?
Or who ever knew your counsel, except you had given wisdom
and sent your holy spirit from on high?
And thus were the paths of those on earth made straight.

Reading 2
A reading from St. Paul's letter to Philemon
I, Paul, an old man,
and now also a prisoner for Christ Jesus,
urge you on behalf of my child Onesimus,
whose father I have become in my imprisonment;
I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you.
I should have liked to retain him for myself,
so that he might serve me on your behalf
in my imprisonment for the gospel,
but I did not want to do anything without your consent,
so that the good you do might not be forced but voluntary.
Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while,
that you might have him back forever,
no longer as a slave
but more than a slave, a brother,
beloved especially to me, but even more so to you,
as a man and in the Lord.
So if you regard me as a partner, welcome him as you would me.

Gospel: Luke 14: 25-33
Great crowds were traveling with Jesus,
and he turned and addressed them,
"If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother,
wife and children, brothers and sisters,
and even his own life,
he cannot be my disciple.
Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me
cannot be my disciple.

Which of you wishing to construct a tower
does not first sit down and calculate the cost
to see if there is enough for its completion?
Otherwise, after laying the foundation
and finding himself unable to finish the work
the onlookers should laugh at him and say,
'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.'
Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down
and decide whether with ten thousand troops
he can successfully oppose another king
advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?
But if not, while he is still far away,
he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.
In the same way,
anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions
cannot be my disciple."

Aug 26, 2010

Gay Marriage? Yield * No * Quarter

Don't Support Gay Marriage? Fine...

... Bookworm's asking this:

My question for those opposed to gay conservatives who support conservatism on the most important political issue of the day is this: Can you afford to get into a divisive fight over what is, temporarily at least, a less significant issue than saving our entire country from frighteningly potential internal economic collapse and external terrorist and military attack? --Bookworm Room サ The blessings of gay conservatives
This is from the sidebar at the creative controversial conservative blog American Digest, by Gerard Vanderleun.

I have argued here and elsewhere that there are two fascist ideologies threatening western civilization and the American society which has been at its apex for at least a century: Leftism and Islamism. Sometimes I feel I'm part of a very small army trying to hold it all together with sealing wax and sticky tape. We're battling these two enemies who currently hold much of the "high" ground and who are armed with the power of the state, the media, the judiciary and box-cutters. And about half of my side is blinded in the battle by a handful of self-interest tossed in their faces. Right now, my side is losing badly. In war, there can always be an abrupt change of fortune (November 2?), but I'm very pessimistic over the long-haul. (Thomas Sowell talks about Dismantling America here)

I'm finished being bullied on “gay marriage.” I will not concede that we who fight to preserve traditional marriage are gay-haters and I won't cede “marriage” to the Left for it to manipulate out of all meaning and existence. If gay conservatives are threatening to quit the battle, to switch sides over this – then sayonara, Baby. Join the Left. See how that works out for us.

It would be easier on me, but I don't give-in to my children when they're being their narcissistic ungrateful little selves either, because I know it won't make them better people or better members of society. This battle IS NOT ABOUT gays! This is about the fascist Left and mind-control! If we conservatives don't get that the LIE that “gender distinctions are an artifact” and the LIE that “men and women play the same role in marriage” and the LIE that “Johnny is just as fortunate, all else being equal, to have two daddies or two mommies as he would be to have a daddy and a mommy” are the roots of our civilizational destruction - then the fight really is OVER! The greatest evil always begins with such LIES... or to quote Leviathan, "You will not die!" If gay conservatives don't understand that, they might as well vacate the battlefield.

And there's another whole ocean of hurt swirling up into this storm. This “gay marriage” movement is anti-religious and specifically anti-traditional orthodox religions – you know - the kinds conservatives tend to practice. The Bible, particularly the Five Books of Moses, has a sweeping theme of anti-paganism. God commands his people not to sacrifice their children to Moloch (abortion, anyone?), not to tattoo themselves, not to eat, dress or worship like the pagans and yes, not to practice homosexuality as it was practiced in an ancient world filled with pederasty and perversion. Well. There really is nothing new under the sun.

The Bible is also full of smiting by God of both the pagans and his own people who disobey. Huh, wonder what happens when a preacher, priest or rabbi even reads this history to his congregation, let alone refuses to marry a gay couple? Hate crime, anyone? Hello, McFly?! Are we prepared to see our religious leaders go to PRISON? Think it can't happen here? It is already happening in other western societies.

And yes, I'm so pissed off, I'm going to go there. This is another, less obvious form of the fascist Left's antisemitism. I'm not Jewish, but I have a deep regard for the ethical system of Judaism which lies at the foundation of Christianity and western civilization. And male/female marriage is arguably “the” social institution which makes western civilization possible. Any compelling state interest there???

What don't gay marriage advocates get about having standards and ideals, which maybe even 99.9% of the population are incapable of achieving? Would they not even wish to teach their own children to desire the complementarity of male/female unions? Will any of us be free to teach our children the male/female ideal?? If you aren't cut out for male/female marriage, then fine. Don't have one. I bear my own cross and won't think any less of you.

To gay conservatives who want to marry – GET OVER YOURSELVES! It isn't about you. Yes, it is “discriminatory” just the way we discriminate against a brother and sister who are "in love" and wish to marry or how we discriminate against Mormons and (gasp!) the Left's favored allies, Muslims, who wish to practice polygamy. Yes, it is somewhat tragic and unfair that you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to everything heterosexuals have. Wahahha! Quit your whining! Unlike elsewhere in the world, you live in a society so tolerant, so liberal, so generous, you not only don't have to worry about being executed or generally shunned by your fellow citizens, you can have almost all the legal protections of straight couples under civil unions. And I'll even fight with you to make sure you have them all. But you * can't * have * marriage *. As I tell my kids... take your Vitamin “N” (No!).

You can choose to be miserable under such a system or you can choose to be GRATEFUL and go on with your happy lives largely left alone by a vast majority of people who don't GIVE A RAT what you do in your bedroom.

Conservatives of every stripe should be about free conscience. Even if gays “win” by destroying the definition of marriage, a large majority of people will never be convinced that the relationship they have with each other is “marriage.” You can't control people's beliefs or thoughts, no matter how Orwellian the system. You can only destroy those whom you oppose. Welcome to 1984... or maybe even more apropos - welcome to Babylon.

Aug 24, 2010

Obama: Muslim or Christian?


There is no way Barack Obama is a Muslim and I can prove it. He isn't Christian either and I can prove that too. The evidence I'm about to present has nothing to do with where he was born, or the fact that his father was Muslim and therefore he's an apostate subject to execution if not Muslim, or the rumor that he wasn't baptized in Wright's church because, unlike every other denomination of normative Christianity, Wright's United Trinity Church of Christ doesn't require baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” for membership. And yet, I believe the evidence is obvious and irrefutable. I make the claim that in order for Obama to be either Muslim or Christian, he would have to believe in God - in a higher power to whom he will be held to account - and his position on abortion is incompatible with belief in God.

My assertion is that he's an atheist. Another first for The One... is there no end? He is our first atheist president. The Europeans see this as a major historical milestone for the U.S. because now we're finally as enlightened as they in this regard. My atheist British friends recently explained this to me.

My evidence for his atheism comes from an August 19, 2008 article by Rich Lowry on NRO (Barack Obama, Abortion Extremist):

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted “present” — effectively “no” — on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.
In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” specifying that it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn’t have the same “neutrality clause” as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

"Obama voted to kill it." Let's be clear on what we're talking about here. In a late-term abortion, the child's body is usually extracted feet-first through, in this case, the ironically-named “birth”-canal, but the head is intentionally left in said "birth"-canal to receive the abortionist's brain-sucking tool and, most importantly, to protect the abortionist from murder charges. If this procedure goes horribly "wrong" and the child escapes the "birth"-canal intact - that is, with its brains still in its head - what to do?

To the average person, and by this I mean the vast majority of even congress-critters, apart from fifteen of them, depending on how you look at it, the child has unintentionally and instantly become a "person" with all constitutional (and some of us would also add "human") rights attendant. But, to Barack Obama, that small person experiencing its first breaths under the bright lights of the abortionists operating room is a deadly threat to a woman's “right to choose.” What to do?

"Obama voted to kill it." Before ever having to answer questions about his “paygrade,” Obama did everything possible during his term in the Illinois legislature to make sure that little person receives no succor. It is Obama's position that the baby should be left unattended to die. Not held. Not comforted. Not fed. Not named. No mercy. No hope. All because the child had the audacity to be born alive.

My grandmother was one of the sweetest merriest gentlest women you'd ever have the good fortune to meet. She was a nurse and at one time played piano in the local silent movie theater. She once picked up a songbird which had struck the window and she deftly snapped its little neck. It was a shock to my sister who witnessed the moment and was only understood by her as mercy many many years later. Not even this kind of humanity - not as much as to a songbird - would Barack Obama offer to the little human survivor.

No, Barack Obama is not Muslim. Nor is he Christian. He's an atheist. I know it the way I know the sun will come up tomorrow.

"Obama voted to kill it." God forgive him... or not. Thy will be done.

Jun 21, 2010

Define Capricious

Characterized by or subject to whim; impulsive and unpredictable. See synonyms at arbitrary.

Adj. 1. capricious - changeable; "a capricious summer breeze"; "freakish weather"
unpredictable - not capable of being foretold
2. capricious - determined by chance or impulse or whim rather than by necessity or reason; "a capricious refusal"; "authoritarian rulers are frequently capricious"; "the victim of whimsical persecutions"
arbitrary- based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice; "an arbitrary decision"; "the arbitrary rule of a dictator"' "an arbitrary penalty"

Sound familiar? What the heck... let's review:

1. After the 2008 election, there were calls by many on the Left for President Bush and his administration to step aside and let the Obama administration take over during the financial crisis prior to the constitutionally mandated date of January 20th (20th Amendment). The constitutional date for presidential inaugurations has been so revered in American history that prior to the 1933 date change to the 20th Amendment from March 4 to January 20, only four exceptions were made. These four presidents delivered their inaugural addresses on March 5th because March 4th fell on a Sunday. Respect for the date was only superseded by respect for the Sabbath. Times have changed.

2. Three days after entering office President Obama overturns the Mexico City Policy which prohibited the use of American taxpayer funds for abortion services overseas. He does this against the will and consent of a majority of Americans.

3. On February 4th, Obama announces pay caps of $500,000 for executives of companies receiving TARP money. Interior Secretary Salazar cancels 77 leases to oil and gas companies made by the Bush administration, while letting 39 stand. The authority for the executive to determine private enterprise executive compensation limits and to arbitrarily cancel contracts is enumerated in which part of the constitution? Don't answer that.

4. On February 21st, Obama's DOJ affirms the Bush administration's position that enemy detainees in Afghanistan do not have the right to use U.S. courts to contest their detention. On November 13, Attorney General Holder announces that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will be tried in downtown Manhattan within several weeks. He does this against the will and consent of a majority of Americans. In a rare show of sensitivity to public opinion there has been no announcement as to when and where KSM will be tried, but apparently it won't be in Manhattan. May we suggest GITMO, which is yet to be closed as Obama repeatedly promised during the campaign?

5. March 30th, Obama announces restructuring ultimatums for Chrysler and
General Motors effectively taking government control of two of the Big Three auto
firms. Obama fires the chairman and CEO of GM. In the restructuring deal, the
UAW ends up with a majority share of Chrysler (55%), making the term "secured"
creditor meaningless and once again shattering the very idea of constitutional
protection of contracts. The transactions are effected using capital infusions from
TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) slush funds as leverage to coerce reluctant banks. He does this against the will and consent of a majority of Americans.

6. April 5th, Obama gives a speech in Prague touting unilateral nuclear
disarmament for America and her allies. This, while rogue states such as North
Korea and Iran have been shown to have nuclear ambitions and the intent to
threaten their neighbors and/or sell their deadly wares to terrorists. His
unilateral disarmament policy is naive and dangerous and against the will and
consent of a majority of Americans, not to mention it is in direct conflict with
his role as president.

Those are some of the major events for 2009. In 2010 thus far, we've seen...

7. The comprehensive health care bill passed by the Senate is "deemed" passed by the House
using a procedure previously reserved for budget items. After at least 54
speeches by the president, lots of back room deals and severe arm twisting, the
measure is more unpopular with Americans than ever. It becomes law against the will and consent of a majority of Americans.

8. After Arizona passes a law intended to allow state police to enforce
immigration laws the federal government won't, the Obama administration
announces that immigration officials won't process illegal immigrants picked up
under the new law. This raises three main issues: 1) The president doesn't
acknowledge the concept of equal standing before the law. 2) The president
doesn't to plan to faithfully preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as he
promised in the oath of office. 3) The president doesn't care that a large
majority of Americans support the Arizona law and want the borders secured
before any immigration laws pass. He punishes Arizona against the will and consent of a majority of Americans.

9. In an event little noted by the mainstream media, Congress fails to write a
budget for 2011. It isn't that they missed passing a budget by the April 15
deadline, which they did, but that they didn't even bother to write one. The
budget is non-binding, but has serious implications as to the political will of
Congress to tax and spend responsibly. We, the taxpayers, should insist the
holders-of-the-purse-strings not only face the awful truth of the budget mess by
writing a budget... we should insist Congress live or die by a balanced budget.

10. In response to the oil spill devastating the Gulf of Mexico, Obama has
extorted $20 billion out of BP for another of his many slush funds (TARP,
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and now this). At least these
funds won't come from the taxpayers' pockets, but we should all be alarmed that
our president is so capricious as to utterly ignore due process and the rule of law.
We should also note he has an open hostility for free enterprise which suggests,
if America weren't so bullied by political correctness, we could openly call our
president a socialist. And if "progressives" weren't so intellectually dishonest in
pursuit of their aims, they would openly admit it.

When the government stops governing with the consent of the people, it is
tyrannical. When the government is capricious in the extreme, disregarding the
rule of law, confiscating property, imposing punishments on those who would
adhere to the rule of law, using extra-legal if not unconstitutional procedures to
jam down its agenda and picking winners and losers in contractual disputes, it is
contemptible even if the ends are as glorious as it intends. Such a government
is abusive, dangerous and illegitimate and must be opposed by every person
wishing to remain free.

God bless America! And to borrow my brother's tag line... buy more ammo!

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil -- the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness. [...] The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption. - George F. Will, Tincture of Lawlessness: Obama's Overreaching Economic Policies, May 14, 2009, The Washington Post