web analytics

Jan 17

It is Important that You Die Where You Stand (Or Else You are Selfish!)

I read an article today that pointed out (what seems a bit obvious) that in case of a nuclear blast, you might be better off dispensing with the ‘official’ advice, which is:

The official U.S. government advice is to “take shelter in the nearest and most protective building.”

The nearest and most protective building might not really be suitable for shielding yourself from radiation.  The researcher suggests that many thousands could be saved if you risked a 5-30 minute trip to find something better.  But then there is this at the end of the article:

“I disagree with the conclusions,” Lawrence Wein, an operations research scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, told Science. “He fails to account for several important issues that are vitally important for policy recommendations.”

I would like to take a stab at what these other issues are, inspired by my research into the public health community past and present.  Everything comes down to ‘policy recommendations’ for them, because the lot of them think there isn’t anything we commoners do that we can manage ourselves.  The article doesn’t elaborate on what Wein had in mind, but my guess is that one of those issues would be all those people running around town, clogging the roads, looting the local grocery store, etc.  You might get in the way of first responders.  So, my guess at what he wants you to do is to just shelter in place and…  DIE … for the common good.

I am weary of those who think they know just what the ‘common good’ is.  I always have the strange feeling that their policy measures, which allow for, say, 5, 10, or 25% losses/bad reactions/etc, while an ‘acceptable’ cost to them, won’t in the end apply to them.

Using this instance to illustrate, while you are sheltering in place, they have every intention of getting to a location much more likely to increase their own survival.

Maybe I’m just getting cynical in my old age.  Or maybe I’m just finally getting hip to what’s going on.

Share

Nov 19

Protected: This post is private and you can’t see it — How does that make you feel! LOL

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Share

Nov 15

Rush Limbaugh, Jonathan Gruber, Eugenics, and Obamacare

I happened to be listening to Rush Limbaugh today and heard him discoursing on the eugenics-laced elements behind putative ‘Obamacare architect’ Jonathan Gruber’s recent remarks, viewable here.

Limbaugh did a better than adequate job analyzing these remarks, but there were a few points that I thought could be better made.  My credentials–I am on the verge of completing my PhD, my dissertation being on the subject of evolution and eugenics.  I founded a policy organization dedicated to detailing how the ‘culture of death’ (ie, eugenics-style thinking) has entrenched itself in unexpected ways in our government.  My organization is the publisher of a new translation of the work that was a catalyst to the holocaust, Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life.  I have produced a work of my own summarizing and linking the eugenics movements of the early 20th century with contemporary government–and health care–policies.  So, busy as I am, I believe I can add to this.

Gruber’s offending comment was:

Exactly. It’s 12 million people, about a third of which will end up paying more under this law. And that as you said in the introductions sort of the idea. We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.

The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we’ll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance.

Limbaugh and others are correct in detecting the eugenics thinking behind this comment but do not go far enough in their explanation.  The problem is that a moment’s thought, especially amongst those with only a passing knowledge of the phrase ‘eugenics’, would recall that early 20th century eugenics had essentially embraced Darwin’s formula, “Survival of the fittest.”  (Darwin borrowed the phrase from Herbert Spencer.)  Given that evolution, as expressed in this maxim, was a raw scientific fact, early eugenicists saw the genetically inferior as a burden on society that needed to be eliminated.

But according to Gruber’s thinking, the genetically superior (“the genetic winners”) have to be made to pay for their “luck” by paying higher premiums so that the genetically inferior can have access to health care.  Such thinking would have garnered cat calls by Margaret Sanger and other early eugenicists.  The idea of facilitating the health and well-being of the ‘unfit’ at the expense of the fit would have made their blood curdle.  Certainly, the government shouldn’t be involved in such measures;  if anything, the government should be involved in doing the opposite.

So, on the face of it, Gruber can’t possibly be drawing from a eugenics ideology.  However, eugenics is a deep well to draw from.  One of the problems I’ve had in making these connections for people (besides the fact that they find it so outrageous as to be unbelievable–despite being absolutely true and relatively easy to document, thanks to the Internet) is that early eugenicists often proposed and entertained a wide variety of policies, often mutually contradictory ones.  Moreover, there was a distinction at the time between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenics, and some debate over which approach to take.  ‘Positive eugenics’ entailed encouraging the fit to produce more and ‘negative eugenics’ entailed trying to curtail the reproduction of the unfit.

Neither of these would apply to Gruber, so we must go further.

Yet all their proposals, even the contradictory ones, had several things in common.  First of all, they firmly believed in evolutionary theory.  Second of all, they embraced the notion that it was proper and appropriate for the ‘species’ to take evolution into its own hands… and government was an obvious and ideal mechanism for doing such a thing.  Always, always, it was a question of having enough data to determine just what the right policy really was.  There was no question in their minds that they had the right, and even the duty, to try to implement those policies.

And that is one of the missing elements required to understanding the eugenics-style nature of Gruber’s remarks.  Very evidently, Gruber believes two things:  1., it is appropriate to view social issues through the lens of biological realities and 2., it is appropriate to act on those realities… through the government.

For all their multitude of contradictions, and Gruber’s own contradiction of past eugenicists, they all had these two beliefs in common.  They are fundamental pre-requisites for all the terrors that eugenics would soon inflict upon human history.   You could not have had compulsory sterilizations without these beliefs.  You could not have had anti-miscegenation laws.  You could not have had the Nazi T-4 project without them.  You could not have had the Office of Population Affairs without them.  You could not have had the Holocaust itself without them.

And, as ‘Obamacare Architect’ Gruber alludes to, you could not have had Obamacare without those beliefs, either.

Both, incidentally, are core features of contemporary liberalism and Progressives in particular.

A third commonality is almost certainly at work, but I haven’t verified this through research into Mr. Gruber.  Namely, the ‘universal acid’ (as Dan Dennett puts it) of Darwnism eats through everything, and this includes ethics and morality itself.  This idea that it is ethical to inflict suffering on one population (in this case, the genetic lottery winners) in order to help another population (in this case, the genetic lottery losers) must come from somewhere.  But based on any ideology that has evolution at its bottom, ethics consists of essentially whatever any particular evolutionist happens to think is ‘good’ for the species.  *Ahem* I mean, is in accord with the ‘common good.’

By virtue of being in charge (might makes right), people like Gruber believe that it is proper and appropriate for them to transmit and act on their particular ethical views through the government.

I’d have to do some research to know how close to the surface Gruber entertains such thinking.  Some are more self-aware than others.

My sense from this comment is that Gruber probably hasn’t really thought much about it.  Unfortunately, Dennett is quite right in referring to Darwinism as a ‘universal acid,’ and unfortunately, that includes rationality itself.  Reacting to the abuses of liberals and Progressives in the early 20th century, which horrified them, they drew all the wrong lessons.  They didn’t re-examine their core beliefs.  They still manly accepted the raw scientific truth that Darwinism was absolutely true and still believed it was appropriate to use the government to act on that truth.  They obfuscated the real foundation of the horrors of the 20th century, and came away thinking that ‘discrimination’ was the real enemy.

Thus, 60-70 years later, a person reflecting what is essentially a eugenics viewpoint is able to promote, implement, and defend policies that early eugenicists would have found revolting and totally inconsistent with the implications of Darwinism.

Nonetheless, Gruber’s comment reveals that some of the core axioms of the eugenicists still serve as guiding principles in Obamacare itself.  It’s just that at this particular moment (in Gruber’s mind) the pendulum has swung away from improving the race by cleansing it from the ‘unfit’ to improving the race by enforcing ‘fairness.’  In any case, viewing issues in biological, genetic, terms and embracing the notion that the government is an appropriate tool for addressing those issues, and the conclusion that humans ought to use that tool in that way, are all planks in the eugenics ideological platform.

And, as happened in the past, we will see in the future that, for all their good intentions, it will be the weak and defenseless that is harmed by eugenics programs such as Obamacare.

But that is another post.

 

 

Share

Jul 08

California Eugenics and the Devil’s Schemes

Originally Posted at the ChristianPost.com:  Eugenics and the Devil’s Schemes in California (and Elsewhere)

In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians he makes a comment that I have always found intriguing: “… in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.” (2 Cor. 2:11)

I find this interesting, because as it seems to me, Christians continue to be outwitted by their chief Enemy and merrily remain unaware of his schemes. Of course, this applies to non-Christians, but that goes without saying, since they don’t even believe he exists. Christians, the bulk of whom presumably believe Satan is real and active, seeking those to devour, have no such excuse.

The example I want to provide today of the devil’s schemes, to be clear, is not something I am putting at the feet of Christians, as if to blame them. Instead, I submit it as an example of how devious and deceptive our enemy is; alert to his schemes, we perhaps won’t allow ourselves to be outwitted.

The example is the news out of California yesterday that over a period of about five years, imprisoned women were sterilized without state approval. In some of those cases, it appears also that the women had not given consent. In others, it may be the case that they did not even know the procedure was going to be performed. It is hard to tell from the article. What is clear, is that some of the women who did ‘give consent’ were pressured into doing so.

This treatment of women, some would think, is the sort of thing that could never happen after Roe vs. Wade. Didn’t it enshrine a women’s right to do with her body as she pleased? This is one of the enemy’s first deception, and one that I am afraid he has found many humans happily willing to knowingly go along with the deception. The ‘right’ to an abortion has little to nothing to do, in the eyes of the elites, with a woman’s reproductive choice. They were concerned, and remained concerned, with only two things: population control and making a bunch of money for themselves, preferably on the tax payer’s dime. “Choice” is a mere myth that popular society has imbibed and accepted, the elites, such as those who run Planned Parenthood, don’t give a lick.

I realize that is an assertion that many should like to see extensively corroborated. Space won’t allow it, but if there is a single document that exposes just how quickly organizations such as Planned Parenthood are willing to dispense with “women’s rights” in considering solutions, take a look at what is known as the Jaffe Memo. This memo, submitted to the Population Council in 1969 by Planned Parenthood’s vice-president in charge of ‘population’ issues, Frank Jaffe, proposes a number of measures to reduce fertility in the United States. Examples include:

  • Adding fertility control agents in the water supply
  • Requiring women to work and then providing few child care facilities
  • Abortion and sterilization on demand
  • Compelling women to be sterilized–or get abortions
  • Oh, and encouraging increased homosexuality.

I’m sure that the rapid public acceptance of homosexuality in our society has everything to do with rights, and nothing to do with elite propagandists forty years ago who saw in it a convenient way to reduce the population in the United States. (To draw the connection for people in our society today who for some reason may not be able to understand Jaffe’s logic… gay couples cannot, by themselves, reproduce. Did you know that? You may think this perfectly plain self-evident fact is a bigoted statement rather than the perfectly plain self-evident fact that it is. You can thank the propagandists for your inability to grasp this logic, and the speed in which you pull out the “you are a bigot!” card.)

That is a slight digression, but I make the point because it is another case in point of secular humanist liberal atheist materialists in a previous generation lying about their objectives, and winning acceptance of their proposals on a basis entirely different than the one that drives their agenda.

It may seem hard for some of us to learn that Planned Parenthood submitted abortion on demand as a population control measure, and was even willing to consider compelling women to get abortions, but that is precisely what they did. Whether or not this remains their agenda, of course we’ll never know, because, like the Enemy, they lie.

Finish Reading at the ChristianPost.com:  Eugenics and the Devil’s Schemes in California (and Elsewhere)

Share

Jun 30

Trucker Hours of Service Changes A Nightmare Come True

And now for something completely different.

Those who frequent this blog know that I offer arguments for Christianity against any and all and that I often ‘digress’ into political matters;  this justified because I think the current trends in America are leading up to piles of dead on top of the piles we are already generating, and this seems like the kind of thing that (if you believe it) ought to speak out about.  But they may not know that a few years back, I was an over the road truck driver.  This was an interesting experience and gives me some perspective to speak about the latest hours of service (HOS) changes coming down the pike for (against) truck drivers.  LINK

I feel compelled to highlight a couple of the quotes in that linked article, just because they really burn me up.

“The updated hours of service rule makes three common sense, data-driven changes to increase safety on our roadways and reduce driver fatigue, a leading factor in large truck crashes,” Anne Ferro, administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which issued the rules, said in a statement.

Few things chafe me like bureaucrats (and Obama) uttering phrases like “common sense” and “data driven.”  This is supposed to answer everything, you know.  What they are saying is scientific.  If you reject their ideas, you’ve lost your marbles, see.  The arrogant hubris of these people is precisely what is actually going to get us all killed on a grand scale.

Or later,

But the federal safety administration counters that nearly 4,000 truck crashes a year is still too many. The new rules, it maintains, will prevent about 1,400 crashes and 560 injuries, and save 19 lives each year, according to its analysis.

combined with:

The Department of Transportation contends the new rules would also save money. The department’s analysis found that in 2009, large truck and bus accidents cost about $20 billion in medical and insurance costs, infrastructure damage, lost wages and productivity. The analysis also estimated $470 million in benefits from reduced driver mortality.

I don’t want to disparage the idea of saving lives or saving money, but its this kind of meddling intrusion that makes me ill.  We do, after all, have someone in the White House that says saving just one life justifies any number of gun control measures.  What that Dude never factors into his ‘analysis’ is that in saving ‘one life’ he may actually end any number of lives–the people who are victims of violent crime who were prevented from protecting themselves because of the ‘one life’ they saved… and probably just one life, mind you… through their infantile gun control proposals.

Similarly, what this analysis leaves out is that there are other costs on the other side of the scale.  The accidents may cost $20 billion in medical and insurance costs, etc, but what are the costs involved from all the truck drivers who are probably about to leave their jobs?  After all, what we are basically doing is cutting their hours via Federal regulation… not even legislation!  A sizable number of them are going to decide that it isn’t worth it.

On top of that, as the article notes, the truck companies are going to have to raise their prices in a bid to higher more drivers and keep the ones that they have.  You know what I didn’t see?  Anne Ferro and Richard Hanowski (who said, no pun intended, “science really drove this policy”) tell us what the extra costs are going to be from paying unemployment benefits, the social costs for drivers who cannot afford to take care of their families, the extra burden on every American’s pocket book because the costs of the products they buy will have to go up since the shipping to get it to them have gone up, and the social costs involved in that.  Is that more or less than 21 billion dollars?

We’ll never know, because the ‘smart’ people didn’t think of it.  Or, if they did, we didn’t hear that.  Maybe as a society we would have decided that $100 billion in unemployment benefits and increased cost of living wasn’t enough implementing measures that may save $21 billion, and theoretically save 19 lives, while possibly destroying 10,000 others–19 of whom perhaps will commit suicide out of desperation.  We may suppose.

Of course, these things are hard to measure.  It would be difficult to monitor the change in a system like this and see exactly what kinds of effects there are.  Not to worry.  Our well-meaning bureaucrats love trying to sort this stuff out.  It’s what makes them tick.

Having had to abide by the old HOS, let me assure you that they definitely put a dent in my pocketbook.   Not that the HOS was the sole reason why I had to leave the industry, mind you.  And let me say this:  driver fatigue is absolutely and definitely an issue.  When people are guiding 40 ton missiles down the road, you want them to be awake and alert.

But here is the problem:  the HOS were an unwieldy instrument that didn’t actually facilitate me being ready and rested in time for a long drive, and often prevented me from driving when I was actually alert and ready to go.   Let’s take an example using the new hours of service that correlates to some real world instances (under the old rules).

You are only allowed to drive eleven hours total, but not beyond the fourteenth hour once you began driving.  Let’s say you wake up in the morning and you drive five hours to drop your load at a warehouse.  Your next load is just five hours away, so if you can just get unloaded quickly enough, you’ll be able to get a solid ten hours of driving in and not violate either the eleven or fourteen hour rule.  But there is a problem.

One thing leads to another, and the warehouse is not able to get you through smoothly enough.  It takes them five hours to get to you.  So, now you are already ten hours in on your fourteen hour limit, with five hours to go–plus a mandatory 30 minute break, and of course the need to have time to drop the load and find a place to sleep.  No biggie, you say.  You drive three hours that night, take your ten hour required rest, and pick up the last two hours the next day.  But there is another problem.

The customer requiring the second load needed it that night.  When your dispatcher found out that you would not be able to make the delivery that night, he had to give it to someone else.  So just get another load, right?

Sure.  Except the next ones available aren’t ready for you until the following morning.  You’ve got hours to burn but you can’t do anything with them.  They’re basically wasted.  You got in 250 miles instead of 500 miles.  And that five hours of down time?  Why, you probably figured out pretty quick that things were delayed and spent a lot of that SLEEPING.  When they were finally ready to send you on your way, you were wide awake.  Which meant that when you tried to sleep that night, you couldn’t, so you ended up only getting another five hours of sleep in after that, and when you started your morning drive–after a solid fifteen hour down time, five hours MORE than the 10 required–you were fatigued!

That kind of crap happened to me all the time.

Because in the real world, there are some things as a driver you can control, but a lot more that you can’t.  You can’t control what loads are available, what the time constraints on those loads are, what kind of set-up your customers have, whether or not they can process you efficiently or not, and so on and so forth.

And this is the kind of thing that I find it hard to believe ‘researchers’ would be able to take into account.  More to the point, I was as interested as anyone else in not driving fatigued, but as a grown adult, that is the sort of thing that I actually do know how to manage.  Can you believe that?  An adult.

I am well aware that there are adults that push it and make dangerous choices that risk putting innocents at risk.  You’re going to get this pretty much no matter what.  Did you know that some truckers kept two log books?  People violated the HOS before, they will now.  Trucking companies will enable and even smile on that behavior.  The question is whether or not you can resolve this issue with these kinds of regulations.  I doubt very much that you can.

I think a more effective measure would be this:

Make it a law (ie, via legislation, none of this Cass Sunstein-style ‘nudge’ crap, cloaked in ‘science’) that if you drive a truck and kill someone because you were fatigued, you get the death penalty.  Heck, give the dispatcher and the CEO the death penalty, too.  Watch how quickly the trucking industry shapes up their act.

Ok, so that’s obviously an unjust and disproportionate approach, but it would actually be effective, which is my point.  Linking consequences to outcomes, rather than micromanaging processes, is what will actually work.  In other words, rather than trying to tinker with things that one cannot possibly know anything about with sufficient knowledge and understanding to manage–the complexities of the real world trucking industry–you focus on what you want, which is people not dead.

So, you heavily penalize drivers and their companies that make people dead, and you heavily incentivize drivers and companies that don’t make people dead.

This does not seem to me to be that hard to understand, or even to implement.  But it is so much more fun to regulate people’s behavior, don’t you agree?  Let’s assume they are totally sincere and completely competent:  the job still cannot be done.  The system is too complex to micromanage.  Almost any system is.  But the people ‘running the show’ love systems, and love the idea of managing them.  What is necessary is the opposite of what they want:  less managing, less running of the show.  More trusting adults to be adults, and treating them like adults if they engage in behavior that leads to someone’s death.

And one more thing.  One way or the other, the price we pay for our goods has got to go up.  Drivers are woefully underpaid.  If they made $1/mile instead of 35 cents a mile, they may be more willing to stop after driving 400 miles in a day.  There would be less reason for them to risk their lives driving fatigued.  And, people would stay in the industry longer, which means more experienced drivers, and consequently, fewer accidents.  But of course, we are not so keen on paying more for the things we purchase.  Completely understandable.

But if we’re going to put in place measures that are going to drive up the cost of living significantly anyway, why not put in place ones that will actually work?

This does not seem to me to be too much to ask.

 

Share

Jun 26

How Californian Conservatives can Save America.

Here is how 2012 looked:
2012-electoral-map

California is a big state, population-wise.  It adds 55 electors to the electoral college, which under the Constitution (if anyone cares about that) determines the next President.   This is most amount of any state, with the next runner-up Texas, with 38.

California has been voting Democrat/liberal for many years and there is no sign of this changing any time soon.  Thus, California is going to be sticking its fat liberal thumb on the scales of American politics long into the future.  I would like to propose, however, that conservatives in California have the ability to Save America.  “How?” you ask.  Answer:  MOVE.

Just using the 2012 election results as a guide, we see that Obama got more votes, but Romney received 4,202,127.*  A decisive loss for the Republican cause in California, no doubt.  But what if those four million votes had been cast in other states?  Let’s take a look only at states that went for Obama:

  • In the state of Washington, with 12 electoral votes, Obama won, 1,620,432 to 1,201,369.   Deduct 419,064 from our California ‘bank’ to swing it to Romney, and we still have 3,783,064 to go.
  • In Oregon (7 votes), the swing was 203,579.  Left in our bank:  3,579,485.
  • In Nevada, 6 electoral votes, the swing was 66,380.  Now we have 3,513,105 left and we have delivered the entire west coast, minus California, to ‘our’ side.
  • In Colorado, 9 votes, the swing was  113, 100, leaving us with 3,400,005 still to spend.
  • In New Mexico, 5 votes, the swing was 76,398, leaving 3,323,607 still to play with.
  • In Florida, with a whopping 29 electoral votes (and about as many voting as in California… explain THAT!) Obama had 4.2 million votes, while Romney had 4.1, for a swing of just 73,190!  And we still have in our pocket 3,250,417!
  • In Virginia, with 13 votes, the votes needed to topple Obama was only 115,911, which still leaves us with more than 3 million to spread around, at 3,134,506.
  • In Minnesota, with 10 electoral votes, the votes needed was 226,094.  In our bank:  2,908,412.
  • In Iowa, with 6 votes, a scant 88,502 was necessary.  Left:  2,819,910.
  • In Wisconsin, 10 votes, needful was 205,205.  Leaving:  2,614,705.
  • In Ohio, 18 votes, the difference, plus 1, was 103,482, leaving 2,511,223.

To this point, we have moved away from Obama 125 electoral votes and given them to Romney.  New Total:  Romney 331 to Obama 207.  And we still have 2.5 million votes left in our bank.  There is still enough to take Michigan, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and EVEN ILLINOIS with more left over!  But I wouldn’t wish Illinois on my worst enemy, and I count those considering my proposal here as friends.

Basically, if we can get every conservative and Republican to leave California to go, well, just about anywhere else, they have the potential in doing this to save the entire country.

Now, the above states went ‘blue’ and as a conservative you may not want to leave one ‘blue’ state for another, but if we put 500,000 of your votes in each of these states:  Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and Michigan, that would be a shift of 3.5 million that would make all but Michigan a solidly conservative state long into the future, and constitute a swing of 102 votes–still enough to have changed the last election, and certainly enough to change future ones.

I understand that there are reasons people like to live in California, and you would find it hard to leave your home.  But look at your home:  it is perpetually on the verge of collapse, and like the dog that returns to its vomit, constantly pursuing agendas and policies that have effectively sealed its fate.  It’s only a matter of time before California falls into the fiscal and social ocean, and if you had bought property at least in Nevada, you’d have new ‘beach front’ property.  When?  No one knows.  But I think you understand that the writing is on the wall.  Do you also understand that, as far as California goes, your presence there, at best, only delays the inevitable?

And yet, you have the ability, by moving OUT of California to change the whole tide of the country.  California, like Illinois (and maybe New York) are lost causes.  Their corruption and policies leave them so hopeless, that only their complete collapse can ever restore them.  Better to leave them be to reap their own fruit.  Move anywhere but those places, and you will weaken California’s influence and strengthen conservative influences elsewhere.   If you stay, you will continue to be powerless to stop what is coming in California, but you will deprive yourself of having meaningful power somewhere else.

So, I say, if you live in California and you are at all inclined to be opposed to liberalism and progressivism, GET OUT ASAP.

I think the GOP should start a fund to help facilitate this sort of thing.  All of our campaign dollars would be better spent paying for the moving expenses of all these California conservatives, helping them find new homes and jobs, and so on.  I’m serious.  Forget the campaigning.  Get ‘our’ people where they need to be to make a difference, and the rest will take care of itself.

 Doesn’t this look better?*

 2012electionifCaliforniaSavedIt

* I am aware that many of us weren’t all that thrilled with Romney.  Or McCain.  But at least for sheer thrill-up-the-leg value, doesn’t this map just look better?  Almost any name in red, with a higher number than Obama’s, is heartwarming.

Share

Jun 18

They Think We Are Stupid

Was reading this tonight and couldn’t help but chuckle over this remark:

The balance in the VICP fund as of May 2013 was about $3.4 billion. The fund has paid out only $2.7 billion since it was established in 1988

Funny.  I don’t think nearly half of the amount the fund has collected being disbursed is eligible for the word, ‘only.’  I know its relative, but I would think something like, say, $1 million, would be a fraction suitable for the word ‘only.’  I think a pay out of $2.7 billion represents a really sizable payout, and if this were a sane world, would be a cause for alarm.  I felt the tug at my funny bone when I read the quote from Julia Lawless, GOP press secretary of U.S. Senate Finance Committee:

First off, the Joint Committee on Taxation is clear this bill is not a tax increase.  Secondly, the legislation is about ensuring vaccine manufacturers produce vaccines for the next flu season – not past flu seasons.  Thirdly, the threat of litigation has been so severe against these manufacturers that this compensation fund had to be created or they would not have produced these vaccines.  That threat of litigation still exists and so does the need for vaccines.  We need to be careful how that fund is financed, because having it run a deficit could be dangerous when our goal is to ensure the production of safe vaccines.

Let’s see if we can work this out in our heads.  The fund was created because of the high threat of litigation, which evidently still exists.  Presumably, then, if the system was fair, and run like other tort systems, the vaccine producers would have had their pants sued off of them repeatedly by now, the $2.7 billion a tiny fraction of what they probably deserved to pay.

I checked out the link they provided just for giggles, and the payout for fiscal year 2013 was a total of $172,313,339 paid out to 253 people.  This is an average payout of $681,080 per person.  These must have been some reactions, no??!?!  And if the government hadn’t intervened, I bet this $681,080 each would have been significantly higher sums the pharma companies would have had to pay out.

But here is the kicker… the goal of this fund is to “ensure the production of safe vaccines.”  Now, I ask you, why would there be a “threat of litigation” if the vaccines were safe?

This doesn’t pass the ‘smell’ test.  Plain reason suggests that if the vaccines were safe, there wouldn’t be a ‘severe’ risk of litigation.

Methinks that if the vaccine companies, and the government itself, had to defend themselves in an actual court of law, we’d find out that the effectiveness of vaccines has been blown well out of proportion.  I doubt very much that only 253 people would have been vindicated in a fair court of law where the government hasn’t rigged the system under the guise of it being a “extremely important public health matter.”

To what degree the system is rigged, we’ll never know, but every now and then we have people who accidentally let the cat out of the bag, as Julia Lawless did.  They must think we’re too stupid to notice when they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

There is a reason why so many people are fleeing the public school systems, holding the declarations of public health officials and elected nannies in contempt, and turning to ‘organic’ food, and this little story is just one little hint of it.

Share

Jun 10

Support Sntjohnny/Athanatos Ministries with your NON-tax-exempt Donation

Every June, we run a donor drive.  In getting this year’s ready, I noted that my typical proviso that ACM is not tax-exempt had more significance than in previous years.

Over the last few weeks we have been regaled with case after case of conservative, Christian, anti-Obama, anti-Obama agenda organizations that have been targeted by the IRS.  Quite coincidentally, this began before the 2012 election.  This suppression has been public knowledge for several years, but the mainstream media, quite coincidentally, didn’t think it worth reporting on.  Nonetheless, despite the fact that it was all completely unintentional, there probably was an impact on the 2012 presidential election.

Some would say, “Good!”  I say, “Perhaps it is not wise for Christians to accept tax advantages in exchange for being silent on extremely important issues.”  At least, that has been my approach since I founded Athanatos Christian Ministries in 2008.  I have since had a fair bit to say about the impact of taxes on personal and religious freedom, and if you will forgive me for saying so, I’m feeling a bit vindicated right about now.

Here is a 2009 article I wrote urging Christians to consider abandoning their tax exempt status, and in this article, I challenge Christians to work out a ‘theology of taxation.’  For more on the topic, use the blog’s search feature, or here are all my posts tagged with ‘taxation.’  And don’t get me started on how right I was in regards to the US government’s obscene overreach into our electronic lives.

So, ACM is poised for some big changes.   There is a good possibility that it will be moving to a physical location, as opposed to primarily a virtual location.  (We previously had an office;  this is more than that.) We’ll have some chances to expand our media and arts ministry to movies and film.  We will continued to speak unshackled, unfettered, unmuzzled, on so-called ‘political’ issues such as abortion on demand.

If you want ACM to continue to grow and thrive, I would encourage you to support ACM with your financial resources.  Don’t wait, thinking that someone else is supporting it.  In order for ACM to go to the next stage, it needs some of its many supporters to translate their support into cash.  As ACM more and more becomes something that actually supports the executive director’s family (ie, me), financial support takes on a more urgent role, and if the base of support is not wide enough to support this important task, then hard but necessary economic decisions would need to be made.

But know this:  whatever ACM does, you can be sure that it will do it with abandon, on principle, with clear-headed thinking, and unmuzzled.

Here is the link to ACM’s June donor drive page with a summary of our upcoming endeavors, if you just want to skip to the donation part, you can click here.

Share

Jun 03

A Theology of Taxation? Horvath column published at Worldnetdaily.com

This is a column of mine that Worldnetdaily.com published several years back.  In light of recent events concerning the IRS targeting of tea party and conservative groups (and anyone else opposed to Obama’s policies), it seemed appropriate to highlight it again.


I am not a theologian or an economist and have never received formal instruction on the morality of taxation. That, though, is a bit of the point: Little effort is made to educate young Christians about matters of importance or otherwise equip them for the actual challenges they face when they come of age. It might seem odd to propose the development of a theology of taxation. Isn’t a theology on civil government enough?

No, it isn’t, especially when we the people (theoretically) constitute the government. Unfortunately, “taxation” is relegated off as mere “politics,” and in many minds most political issues are considered “spiritually neutral.” The feeling is that a Christian can in good conscience embrace any number of views and be within the revealed Word of God.

 Certainly, in ultimate terms Christians understand that the highest concern is the eternal fate of every human soul on the planet. Thus, temporal issues are of limited importance. True, but not of no importance. We must remind ourselves that God created the material world and our physical bodies and called it “good.” Though we will be resurrected with a “spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), it is still a body. Even Jesus in his resurrected body retained the physical marks of his crucifixion.

Taxation is a subset of a larger issue. As Christians, we know that we cannot be indifferent to the welfare of our fellow man. We know that we should attempt to end or curtail atrocities such as abortion on demand and the Holocaust. We know that we should not look the other way when we see whole nations terrorized by tyrants and tyrannical ideologies. We know that, insofar as it is within our power, we should increase freedom and oppose slavery whenever we can. Slavery has many forms but is marked essentially by the forceful repression of individual human will. Taxation, all taxation, is in some respect and to some degree just such a repression.

Every increase in taxation represents a proportional decrease in human freedom.

How can that be? The easiest way to see it is to look at one of the most extreme examples ever to be manifested in human history: communism. Indisputably, wherever communism went, tyranny and enslavement – and worse – went with it. The grand experiment in mass redistribution of wealth had horrific consequences. However, it may be surprising and unexpected that religious persecution, torment and torture accompanied communism on its long march.

Why is that the case? Simply put, those who tax feel that they have the right, justification and authority to do so. When people believe that there is no higher authority than man himself, then they do not believe they answer to anyone, except of course their fellow man, and these they might be able to control – for the “common good” of course. This describes the communists to a T.

Religion, and Christianity in particular, stands in the way of that attitude, and the communists understood that acutely. The only ones who don’t seem to understand it are Christians.

Can it really be said, though, that all taxation represents a reduction in freedom? The answer to this must be yes, even if we recognize that the effect on freedom might be slight in some cases. To illustrate, imagine a small income tax of a dollar. It might be an easy matter to get by without that dollar, but it is still one more dollar that you cannot spend according to your own priorities. Consider what the impact is if instead the tax is 25 percent of your income!

We also have to ask about those who are doing the taxing. They obviously believe they have the right to take your resources from you. They must believe that they can obtain some good that people would not have subsidized if left to their own devices. They must believe that they know how much they can fairly extract from you. They must believe that they have the right, if you protest, to incarcerate you and take your possessions by force if need be. In sum, they are almost indistinguishable from tyrants.

Christians should not support tyrants or adopt their methods and so become tyrants ourselves. If there is a cause we wish to support, we ought to do so from our own resources out of the free expression of our own hearts (2 Corinthians 8).

Where does theology come into the picture? After all, Jesus is on the record saying, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Clearly, we must pay our taxes. Note, however, that in this passage Jesus was speaking to the people being taxed. What would He have said if he were speaking to the ones doing the taxing? What would He have said to Caesar? In a country such as ours, which is theoretically ruled at the consent of the governed, are we not in some way Caesar?

In light of the foregoing, Christians should carefully test their attitudes about taxation (and governing) against the Scriptures, not merely as those who are taxed and governed but as those who tax and govern.

Remember what Samuel told the Israelites when they demanded a king: “This is what [he] will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses … he will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendances. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage. … He will take a tenth of your flocks and you yourselves will become his slaves” (1 Samuel 8).

Note: Samuel does not think any of these things are good things. In America there is no king – so why do we still see all the things that Samuel warned the Israelites about?

True Christian theologians and economists should sit down and work out a “theology of taxation” and present it before the church. Then we should teach our children that what happens in the world matters and has eternal reverberations (e.g., 1 Timothy 5:24-25). If we don’t teach our children, their secularist humanistic professors will.

Share

May 31

When the Children are in Charge All Hell Breaks Loose

While this has been going on for years, the recent spate of over-the-top reactions to ‘guns’ in the schools is beginning to illustrate the consequences of ‘political correctness’ that people have also been warning about for years.  In a word, we are seeing the emergence of a soft tyranny, a stripping away of liberties, a perverted loss of any sense of proportion and common sense, and a humorous and absurd–but dangerous–disappearance of courage among grown adults.

In short, many areas of our country are presently run by children:  or people with infantile minds, at least.

Check out these stories:

Cowboy-style cap gun gets 5-year-old suspended from school in Calvert County

A kindergartner who brought a cowboy-style cap gun onto his Calvert County school bus was suspended for 10 days after showing a friend the orange-tipped toy, which he had tucked inside his backpack on his way to school, according to his family and a lawyer.

The child was questioned for more than two hours before his mother was called, she said, adding that he uncharacteristically wet his pants during the episode.

The mother says that she “had no problem that he had a consequence to his behavior” but questioned the severity.  His ‘behavior’?  It is a five year old boy.  He did nothing wrong.  And where is the father in this?  If my child was driven to ‘uncharacteristically wet his pants’ there would have been hell to pay, I kid you not.

toy-gun-of-doomA 6-year-old boy in Massachusetts was accused of traumatizing his classmates after bringing a Lego-sized gun onto his school bus. The plastic toy was just slightly larger than a quarter.

 The boy was given after-school detention and told to write an apology letter to the bus driver after a fellow student supposedly shouted to the driver about the gun, causing the other students to panic.

You see there the size of the ‘gun’ that caused the other students to panic.

So, we have become a society where the mere presence of a tiny piece of plastic the size of a quarter can drive children into a panic;  I suppose some of them wet their pants, too.  In this case, after originally disciplining the boy, they decided that maybe it was not warranted (because the kids did not panic, because kids are not idiots).  The instinct was to punish.

Maryland boy suspended for gun-shaped pastry is now lifetime NRA member

An 8-year-old Maryland boy who was suspended from school for nibbling a pastry snack into the shape of a gun has been given a junior membership in the National Rifle Association. […]

“I was embarrassed that my county would do that to him,” said Nicholaus Kipke, leader of the Republican minority in the lower house of the Maryland legislature. He presented the gift to the second-grader Wednesday night.

The ‘pastry’ was a pop-tart.  I believe it less likely that a pop-tart would be seen as a threat than a tiny piece of plastic.  But then, in these cases, as in nearly all such cases, no one thinks there is actually a threat.  And this is the important part.  This is the part you have to pay attention to.

These teachers, administrators, bus drivers, etc, etc, etc, do not typically perceive a threat.  Thus the ‘zero tolerance’ concept cannot be truthfully understood as having anything to do with making anyone safer.  Obviously, if a child did want to hurt someone, he is not going to be dissuaded, just as law-breakers don’t tend to be dissuaded by laws:  by definition.  The bringing of an actual weapon by a child with typical childlike innocence is obviously a very serious matter and ought to be dealt with urgently, but even that is not encompassed by the ‘zero tolerance’ philosophy, as the three stories above illustrate.

So what does the ‘zero tolerance’ philosophy really speak to?  Quite clearly, the message being delivered to children is that violence is absolutely and always wrong, immoral, and unjust.   “Don’t you know that guns are bad?”  Says the people who want other men with guns to come save them when bad men are upon them.

On first appearances, condemning violence makes a world of sense.  And then we look at the world.  It becomes evident in short order that sometimes violence is an absolute necessity, required in order to keep our freedoms and liberties and evil men at bay.  The infantile mind stops at ‘violence is baaaaaaaaad.’  The mature mind, having seen the real world and attempted to think through life’s many complications, understands that a much more nuanced approach is needed.  The adult mind knows that the important life lesson is not ‘violence is bad!’ but rather ‘Here are the times when violence is justified;  here are the times it is not justified.’

We should be teaching young people the principles appropriate to solving complex real world difficulties, including when the proper response is to use violence.  But of course, for this, you actually need to believe there are principles, and that there is a right and a wrong.  Our ‘adults’ are too afraid to even say that there are principles and ‘right and wrong’ lest they get sued.  The reason why they throw themselves so heavily towards the ‘violence is always bad’ notion is because they perceive it is the only non-disputable area of morality left in society.  They figure that everyone thinks that school shootings are so bad that no one could possibly object to policies ostensibly oriented towards stopping them, so they throw themselves into the project with gusto.

In the minds of these infants, handing out suspensions and detentions is a positive contribution towards the problem of school violence;  they are grappling with the issue head on, you see.

What happens when a society is so castrated that it has no concept on when it is appropriate to use violence?  We see it every day.  We see it in the gun control debate, where people actually believe that criminals are going to go along with gun restrictions.  We see it in our inability to stand up to the wave of illegal immigrants–many of whom inflict violence on our citizens–because we think that if they like us (as they surely must, if they are coming to our country) all problems will go away.  We see it in our inability to recognize in Islam an existential threat;  Islamic doctrine calls for the subjugation of the world and the death of infidels… but they can’t really believe that, right? If only we could get them to like us!  If only we’d stop ‘creating terrorists’!

An inability to process when it is appropriate to use violence is only one more illustration of a society being tossed about on the waves, anchored to nothing, no moorings in sight.  Other examples include our inability to tell teenagers “It is wrong for you to have sex.  Don’t do it.”  Unwilling to take the moral position that this behavior is wrong and unacceptable, we come along with ‘solutions’ to compensate for the harm they inflict on themselves because the adults refused to be adults, like NYC telling girls where to find abortion clinics or LA giving students ‘tools’ for communicating their STD status.  Oh yea, that’s real mature.  Real benevolent of ya.

But condemning the behavior that leads to the consideration of the abortion (‘punished by a baby‘) and having to deal with incurable sexually transmitted diseases?  Can’t do that.  Nope, that would be intolerant.  But we do stand ready to try to fix your life, now that its all busted up because of our own insipid cowardice!

And on and on it goes.

I addressed this infantile hypocrisy three years ago in this post, “Violence is never the answer… except when it is.”  It has a link to another over-reaction by school administrators which speaks to my point that diminishing actual threats is not the real target of the ‘zero policy’ philosophy, so in parting, I’ll leave you with that to chew on.  In the meantime, is it too much to ask… could you please grow up?  And quick, please.  You’re going to get us all killed.

Rhode Island elementary school draws fire after banning patriotic hat

Elementary school officials at Tiogue Elementary School in Coventry, Rhode Island have drawn criticism after confiscating a patriotic baseball cap created by David Morales, an 8-year old boy.

The second-grader’s cap, made for a school project honoring the military, featured a small American flag and several plastic GI Joe’s. Morales’ teachers, though, claimed that the hat promoted the use of weapons in school zones.

And does anyone else notice that these are all boys?  Methinks there is something to that angle, too.  But that is another post.

Share

May 30

The real reason there is an ammunition shortage in America?

Anyone paying attention at all knows that there has been a huge run on guns and ammo in America thanks to the efforts of the number one gun salesman in America–Barack Obama.   You would be mistaken if you thought that this ‘run’ was inspired only out of concern for stricter gun laws.  Many people have also been very concerned about the Obama administration’s inexplicable purchase of billions of rounds of ammunition… 1.5 billion last year, and evidently another 1.5 billion in the next year or so… and this is what we know about.

To give you some perspective on how odd and unnerving this is, consider that this amount could get our military through a 24 year long Iraq war!  Others think it a very reasonable amount and that it is necessary for all the new Homeland Security agents now roaming the country.   Some are not exactly comforted to know that we are presently witnessing the establishment of a national, Federal, police agency.  Still others remember what Obama said about needing to create a ‘civilian national security force’ and are not persuaded by the poo-pooing of a pseudo-non-partisan organization that there is no cause for alarm.

There are many ‘conspiracy theories’ out there, but of course this is only natural, since few people feel like they can actually believe government explanations any more, which means that nobody has any definitive answer beyond “The government said so, and they wouldn’t lie to us.”

Conspiracies theories regarding the ammunition are especially abundant, as I discovered when I recently tried to purchase some 22 rounds for plinking.  Did you know that the country is virtually out of this normally affordable and plentiful small caliber bullet?  Seems darn near the case;  the same box I bought for $15 two years ago I found online for $50.  The reason why the absence of this round is confusing is because the round is so small that it is not used by law enforcement.  Some speculate that the government is buying it up just to destroy it, preventing everyone else from having it.   Some think it is just market pressures (ie, all the brass is going to fulfill the aforementioned massive ammo purchases, instead of making 22 rounds).

We’ll never know, of course, because they lie.

Now, there are still others who believe that the government is getting ready to put down a massive revolution by Tea Party patriots.  I don’t think this is the case, because I think everyone knows that the unlike the radical left, the Tea Party is law-abiding and long-suffering.   By ‘everyone’ I include Obama.  And I think Obama and his ilk also know that there is a point he better not go past in pursuit of his agenda, for the same reasons why Japan chose not to consider invading the United States during World War 2:  the American people are heavily armed and not to be trifled with.

I therefore would like to throw my own conspiracy into the mix:

Obama is doing whatever he can to jack up the prices of guns and ammo so as to inflict a targeted tax on a group of people he disregards as ‘bitter clingers.’  And it has nothing to do with raising revenue, and everything to do with hurting the targeted group.  Let me explain.

Did you know that Obama has put a tax on people using tanning salons?  Ostensibly, this is to help finance the 1 trillion dollar Obamacare boondoggle.  However, it is only expected to generate a little over 2 billion over the next ten years.  “Why are they targeting me?” cries out a tanning bed patron.  Why, indeed.  Considering that the annual budget deficit is 2,000,000,000,000– or, 20,000,000,000,000 if allowed to persist 10 years, why bother with a measly 2,000,000,000?  Well, who uses tanning beds?  Who doesn’t use tanning beds?

Black people don’t.  White people do.

A tax on tanning bed use thus specifically targets a group of people 90-97% white.

Yes, actually I can imagine Barack Obama sitting across from unnamed staffers from undisclosed agencies saying, “Find me a way to target just the white people.  That’s what I want.”

I can imagine this not because I am a racist, but because Barack Obama is a racist.  And worse.  Obama takes the philosophy of his intellectual mentor,  Saul Alinksy, that the ends really do justify the means.  Thus, whatever he says, whatever he does, it cannot be taken at face value.  Think of it this way:  the Muslims have these two doctrines, one, in which infidels should be turned into slaves or slaughtered, and another, Taqiyya, which gives them latitude to lie to infidels however they please.  Whoever does not take precautions, having learned this, deserves exactly what they get.  Obama also believes you can lie (or do anything, really) so long as the cause is great enough.  And we know he believes that whites have enjoyed entirely too much privilege over the centuries.  No, he hasn’t said that explicitly.  He’s not an idiot.

I don’t believe gun ownership is a ‘race’ issue, per se.  But I do know he hates gun owners and believes that the only people who should have guns are those who work for him.  However, you can only mess with gun owners so much–by definition.  So, if you can’t confiscate their guns, you can at least inflict harm on gun owners.   (But if you could take their guns, that would be icing on the cake.)  By driving up the costs of ammunition, you drain gun owners of some of their surplus cash.  At the same time, more of their money goes into the government coffers.

For example, today I paid $20 for a box of 22 shells that two years ago I would have paid $10 for.  That’s $10 more out of my pocket, and a doubling in the amount of sales tax that goes to the state. More money is funneled to the state and Federal government via the ammunition manufacturers who, while making money hand over fist, also have to turn over 40-60% of their profit to the government in the form of taxes.  While some people may be making out like bandits by the shortage, more money than before is getting sucked out of the wallets of individual Americans and the greater amounts represents a larger tax windfall for the government, further down the chain.

People who don’t buy guns and ammunition won’t, by definition, be impacted by this shortage.  In other words, people that Obama likes won’t generally be targeted by the shortage.  Talk about a win-win!

Are you so sure they don’t think this way?  This is the administration of Cass Sunstein, where by ‘nudging’ and manipulation you get people to do what they normally would not do, often by small increments.  Combined with the hubris and Alinskyite elitism of those who populate the Obama administration, anything is possible.   And if what we do know is troubling, imagine the breadth of things we don’t know.

I do not assert this is true, but it would cover a goodly number of otherwise disparate facts and observations.  Such is the dismal fare of a conspiracy theorist, deprived of reliable information by this government, allegedly of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Share

May 20

How to steal an election, Alinsky-Style

It is hard to believe that I trust the government any less than I already did, but the latest ‘big three’ are really doing a trick, and my perception is that I’m not the only one fuming.  Last week I made a case for making your default position on government statements and explanations “This is a lie.”  The reasoning was that they would only try to do such cover-ups if they already had good reason to think they worked.  In other words, as bad as Benghazi, the AP intrusion, and the IRS oppression scandals are, it’s the things we don’t know about, the things that did not trigger warning bells, that ought to really concern us.

My post was an appeal to liberals and Democrats, who ostensibly care about freedom and liberty, to have them observe that it is the erection of the many layers of agencies, committees, and bureaucracies–all there for our common good, we are told–that allows such things to happen.  No new oversight committee will do the trick.  A new supervising agency can be bought off just as the other ones were.  (This, incidentally, is a premise behind this short story I wrote).  The only solution that will work, given the reality of human nature, is a sweeping reduction of the government’s size and scope.

As this recent article illustrates, evidence is mounting that the IRS targeting of conservative groups was done in coordination and cooperation with Democrat politicians, and perhaps Obama himself.   Maybe it was only his blessing, but it is hard to believe assurances that none of this is true.  What do we expect them to say?

I was left scratching my head after the last election.  It seemed unfathomable to me that just two years earlier, ‘Tea Party’ principles overwhelmed the nation, spurred on by Obamacare and other government intrusions, and then retained the gains made, but did not topple Obama.   Obama received 4 million less votes, but Romney only picked up 1 million more than McCain had.*  Even taking into consideration the millions of anti-Obama voters that could not get past the bile in their throat in order to vote for Romney, this is difficult to believe.  Remember, Republicans held most of their other gains, and even in a ‘toss up’ state like Wisconsin, Scott Walker won a recall election and the GOP would retake the Senate, giving them back full control of all the branches of government in the state.  In Wisconsin.

If this is the case in Wisconsin, it is just hard to imagine how it could be otherwise, elsewhere.

I wasn’t the only one to wonder if the election had been stolen, but hard information was not easy to come by.  You can’t very well act without hard information, so the matter died.  But the IRS scandal illustrates that there are other ways to steal an election, and it doesn’t have to mean voting on behalf of dead guys or discovering previously unknown boxes of ballots.

You can flip a switch in the great bureaucratic machine and point it in a particular direction, and, under the cover of memos and through a blanket of soul-sucking required forms and questionnaires and delayed approvals, hamper your opposition from being able to act.

All this, with plausible deniability.

To what degree was this hampering effective?  We’ll never know, now, will we?  And you can bet this wasn’t the only strategy they employed.

Obama is a follower of the Saul Alinsky school, and if you have read Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals”, you will understand the problem.  Alinsky advocated for using any and all means to achieve your goals.  He explicitly said that the ends do justify the means.  He warned against setting policy until you get power, and urged that you should get power, by hook or by crook:  everything else takes care of itself after that.  Lie, cheat, steal… its all on the table ‘for the cause.’

When I discovered this in 2008, I realized that Obama and his ilk were not playing by the rules that most Americans embrace.  America believes in playing by the rules without special advantages.  America has long rejected the notion that the ‘ends justify the means.’

The people who now run the government do not share these values.  However bad Romney was as a candidate–and he was bad–it does not seem likely that he belongs in the ‘by hook or by crook’ camp.  I swallowed my bile, and voted for him.

But how many people were not allowed to hear the best case for why Obama and his administration is packed with lying, manipulative weasels, because the Obama administration stymied efforts to make that case?

The 2012 election was stolen, Alinsky-style.  Who knows what other tactics they used that we haven’t even discovered yet.  We may even ask:  what is it they did that is so much worse than the IRS thing that they don’t want us to know about?  After all, they were the ones who spilled the beans on the IRS scandal.  We’ll never know, and that is the problem:  we can never know if the truth is the truth, when it comes from the government’s lips.

The only solution is to strip the government down to its bare essentials.  Unless we do that, it will continue to be fertile territory for people to promote their agenda via bureaucratic machinations.  Our only recourse is to remove the habitat the weasels live, thrive, and reproduce in.  It cannot be redeemed.  If you put it into Republican hands, it will be vulnerable to the same kinds of things (eg, see:  Nixon).  If you don’t want this kind of thing from happening, you can’t trust them not to abuse their power, you have to see to it that they don’t have the power to abuse in the first place.

I appeal to my Republican/conservative friends:  once we do have the power, let us not fall into the trap of thinking we can ‘make it better.’  We’ve got to get rid of it.  Axe the Department of Education, the IRS, the EPA, and so on.  Starve the beast, and give him no where to lay his head; lest he turn and devour the one who sought to tame him.

Share

May 12

Top 10 Reasons Not to Trust the Government

If you have been watching the main stream news, you will have recently noticed an uptick in reports about a situation that many of us have known about for months and months.  I am speaking, of course, of Benghazi.

Watching liberal, Obama sympathizers come out with what looks like disgust with the Obama administration suggests we’ve finally arrived, after much excavating and stripping away of layers of ideological commitments, to something passing as common ground.  (See here for an example.)

Listening to reports over the last couple of weeks, I was struck with the thought that it is really quite astonishing that people would be so arrogant as to think they could really pull off this kind of a cover-up.   I quickly corrected myself;  it isn’t astonishing at all.  Ample evidence exists to suggest that this kind of thing goes on all the time.  Obviously, they thought they could pull it off because they’ve already pulled off similar cover-ups on multiple occasions.

With Benghazi, their hands got caught in the cookie jar, but there is no telling how many times they’ve already absconded with cookies.

People are right to look at this incident as one more reason to put less faith in the government–as in no faith.  There is no way for the average man on the street to know when the government is telling the truth or not, and thus the wisest course of action is to assume that it is lying, all of the time.

The admission that the IRS has been targeting conservative organizations supports this inference, as even that rascal liberal Joe Klein alludes to:

Yet again, we have an example of Democrats simply not managing the government properly and with discipline. This is just poisonous at a time of skepticism about the efficacy of government. And the President should know this: the absence of scandal is not the presence of competence. His unwillingness to concentrate — and I mean concentrate obsessively — on making sure that government is managed efficiently will be part of his legacy.

Managing the government ‘properly and with discipline’?  ‘Efficiently”?  Is this a question of competence?  Really?  I am practically counting on the government to not act competently and efficiently, when faced with developments such as:

I mean, what can possibly go wrong?

Our best bet is that all these people screw it up;  if they get it right, we’re not talking about the ‘efficacy of government’, we’re talking about tyranny and totalitarianism.

All of the above links come from just ONE DAY’s reporting on the Drudge Report!

(Also today:  the story about the woman teacher busted for having sex with a dog and the man doing something to his peacock.  I assume both cases were consensual, so I don’t know what the big deal is to our society chock full of secular humanists that make arguments left and right that ought to make such things perfectly acceptable.  But that is a different post.)

Now, I suppose that readers of this post will suspect a strong conservative/libertarian bent to it, and will be quick to point out that just as many examples can be produced from Republican presidents, such as that evil, evil, evil, man, George W. Bush.

Let us simply concede it;   but do you really mean to say, with a straight face, that more government is the solution?

There is a sentiment out there that says that we shouldn’t say such bad things about the government, because ‘we are the government.’  Trust me, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and yes, even George Bush, do not agree with that sentiment.  They are the rulers, and we are the ones ruled.  A very small fraction of American society can pay the price of admission required to be an actual person of influence in the ‘government.’

I am speaking to the liberal progressive secular humanist that has not lost his mind, that has not lost his common decency and common humanity, that sees in Benghazi something that leaves a bad taste in his mouth and looks with concern at the tiny sampling of extremely concerning intrusions in the links above… whatever your good intentions might be, don’t you see that the only hope for America is not to give our government more power, but to strip away as much of it as possible as quickly as we can?  I’m practically begging you, here.

Chances are, you’re the kinda guy that says, “Well, there’s always bugs to work out” or “There will be bumps in the road.”  And if you are, I say you deserve exactly what you get.  You will not get sympathy from me.  You continue to give power to people who are not ‘we the people.’ What do you expect is going to happen?

Whatever it happens to be, you can be sure that what you actually hear about will just be the tip of the iceberg.  It’s time to wise up, while it still matters;  if, that is, it does in fact still matter.

—–

kudos to anyone who can detect all 10 of the reasons not to trust the government, embedded in this post.

 

Share

May 03

Domain Map

Associated pages, if only by 2 or 3 degrees of separation.

Sntjohnny.com — Christian Apologetics Ministry Blog

nssm200.com — Kissinger Report

jaffememo.com — the Infamous memo detailing Planned Parenthood’s population control mentality

eugenics.us — primary sources related to the ideological roots of the Eugenics movement

wechoselife.com — pro-life book by Anthony Horvath

christianwritingcontest.com — Athanatos Ministry’s Novel and Non-Fiction Contests

christianartsfestival.us — Athanatos Ministry’s summer Christian arts festival

christianwritingworkshops.com — Christian Writing Workshops

academyofapologetics.com — Apologetics Academy focusing on modules and literary apologetics

antonyflew.us — Information about Antony Flew’s conversion and the Flew-Horvath correspondence

apologeticslibrary.com — library of classic, essential readings in the defense of Christianity (apologetics)

apologeticsvideos.net — apologetics video sharing

assaultbook.com — Assault on Saint Agnes by Award Winning Author Joseph Courtemanche

athanatosministries.org — Publishing, apologetics through the arts, apologetics ministry of Anthony Horvath, PhD

bardandbook.com — innovative publishing, author, and reader community

bereanstudycenter.com

beyondthesteelwall.com

birthpangs.com — AR Horvath’s telling of ideological and armed conflict across a post-American landscape

butchgregory.com — Author Jamie Greening

christianartsfestival.us – athanatos arts and apologetics wisconsin festival

christianbookreviews.us

christianfantasyfiction.com
christianpoetrycontest.net
christianwritingconference.com
churchbulletininserts.com
deathofchristianity.com
devilschoir.com
diamondsinthedust.net
divinehaunting.com
fallofsparrows.com
georgemacdonald.us
greenwoodacademy.us
hitlerandchristianity.com
laiglesforum.com
lifeunworthy.com
lifeunworthyoflife.com
literaryapologetics.com
lutheranapologetics.com
midwestmonitor.com
mindovermatterbook.us
naturaltheology.us
newfictionbooks.net
onlineapologeticsconference.com
pilgrimsprogress.us
policyintersections.org
questhistoricaljesus.com
sampakan.com
seedofdoubt.us
sntjohnny.com
spiritfem.com
suzeteo.com
swordoftruth.us
thebloodking.com
thelittlegirlwaits.com
womanual.us
writingcontest.us

The post Domain Map appeared first on Athanatos Christian Ministries.

Share