Sandra Fluke and the Dishonesty of the Left

Okay, first off, let me be clear: there are plenty of blatantly–and not so blatantly–dishonest conservatives.  However, the sheer gall of Sandra Fluke and her hyperbolic claims about “inaccessible contraception” should sicken anyone desiring an honest debate over health care or contraception.  She dared to claim–incorrectly–that students were dramatically and adversely impacted by the cost of contraception.  Even if her dollar figures were even close to accurate, the fact is that if she bought one less Starbucks latte’ every day she’d be able to afford her habit.

She spent a significant amount of time citing anecdotal examples of women allegedly unable to afford the Pill, which was prescribed as the treatment for some kinds of female reproductive organ conditions. <hint: a baby doesn’t qualify as one of these “conditions”.  Wanting to be on the Pill so you can engage in free sex is NOT a medical or health care issue.  It’s a moral issue.  One over which every woman has a choice.

Now we find out that she, among others, is getting set for a grand trip to Europe, reportedly costing $8,000 or more.  So, she suggests women can’t—or shouldn’t—keep their legs together, shouldn’t have to come up with the cost of contraception (whatever form that might take) when they can’t keep their legs together, but can afford expensive trips to Europe?  Yes, folks, she’s engaging in intellectual dishonesty.  She is part of a fraud being perpetrated on you.

The Windows 8 Era

I spent a couple of months learning the Windows Developer Preview (WDP), getting used to the Metro UI on the desktop.  I really liked it, quite frankly, even with better than half the features weren’t there.  Now I’ve been working a week with the Windows Consumer Preview (WCP) and I really LOVE it.  The Metro UI, with its live tiles, is where I really want to live.  I have already gotten, after a week, to the point that I’d love to completely destroy the existence of the old desktop.  The desktop view seems old, tired, archaic.  It is truly the perfect extension of the Windows Phone ecosystem.  Interestingly, I think it will ultimately turn out that the Windows Phone will feel like the natural extension of the PC.

One of the greatest improvements from the Developer Preview is the fact that they made the mouse act more like finger would on a tablet.  Make no mistake, the new Windows begs you to touch it.  Don’t get me wrong, though…this will be a paradigm shift for a lot of users.  Because it will be a while before third party developers migrate their old desktop style apps to the Metro UI, we will still be playing around with the desktop—but I cannot stress enough that you really, really, really need to embrace the Metro UI.  Once you get your head around the concept and sheer power of live tiles you will find yourself relying on actually running full-blown applications less and less.

Now, one argument I’ve gotten into with folks in forums has been over what they call “multitasking”.  First off, let me tell you straight up: Multitasking is worse than a lie.  I’m serious. When you are sitting at your PC, and you have four, five, even six windows “open”, how many are actually active?  One.  Yup.  Only one is truly active.  The one you are actually doing anything in.  The others are just sitting there.  And, care to guess how many you are actually paying any degree of attention to–particularly if you have to monitors?  Two.  Yes, two.  So, in the Metro UI, guess how many apps you can have on the screen at one time….that’s right, two.  Of course, you can have any number of apps actually  running, all of which–including your desktop–will be selectable from the left side of your screen (this essentially replaces your task bar that used to be by default on the bottom of your screen, and which you could have moved to any wall of your screen).  I now find it as easy–even easier–to switch between apps in the new Windows compared to Windows 7.

Okay, so another thing that crusty old Windows users seem to dislike…no, hate…about Windows Consumer Preview is that loss of the Start button.  They are actually angry that the stupid round orb with the Windows logo is gone.  But let me explain something.  When you move your mouse to the lower left corner, you get the Start screen button.  If you right-click there you get a pop up menu.  In fact, the corners of the screen are your hot points for the OS.  Areas to be aware of are the left wall, which is where all your running apps “reside” and the right wall, where the Charms are.  The Charms are context-sensitive.  Meaning, depending on what app is active, the menu items you see will change to apply to that app—when you see “Settings” it will be the settings menu for the active app.

To be sure, there are still some bits not quite ready for prime time, and I’ve read that some of those things will be addressed in upcoming updates to the Consumer Preview, while others will be part of the Release Candidate (sites are hinting at that version being called the “Enterprise Preview”).  There’s way more here than I could possibly articulate, but if you’d like to see some hands on and earnest discussion (along with sharing the questions from their active chatroom) please checkout episode 250 of Windows Weekly from TWiT.TV (http://twit.tv/show/windows-weekly/250) .  It is well worth the time.  This is where Windows is going, folks.  And I’ll be happy to chat with anyone who wants to discuss their misgivings over the new Windows.  It’s worth getting over your paradigm!

The Girl, the Obamacare, the Contraception, the Gold Watch and Everything

Sandra Fluke has positioned herself nicely for her fifteen minutes of fame as the new poster child for Obamacare.  She is a self-proclaimed “reproductive justice activist”.  Wait, what? “Reproductive justice”?  Isn’t it sad that anything that someone feels isn’t to their liking, that someone else isn’t paying for, is considered an “injustice”?

Sandra was afforded the opportunity to sit in front of members of Congress to whine about how Georgetown would pay for her contraception.  Never mind the fact that she can get contraception free or nearly free any number of ways.  Well, let me rephrase that to the truth: WE pay for it somewhere, so she CAN get it at virtually no cost to her.  She just didn’t like it that Georgetown wouldn’t do it.  She claimed, repeatedly, that countless women suffer emotionally and financially because of the so-called burden of lack of contraception coverage.

Let me be bold enough to say this frankly: If you kept your legs together you would neither suffer emotionally NOR financially.  This fact is irrefutable.

And let’s face some other facts, too.  The Pill costs roughly $20 per month without health insurance, which would amount to roughly $960 over the course of college, contrary to the “over $3000″ Sandra Fluke claimed in her weak dissertation.  Again, if you didn’t drop your drawers at every other party you’d likely not need the pill.  In fact, you could save yourself  a lot of money, if you absolutely insist on being promiscuous, and just carry a condom with you.

More disgusting was the persistent choice of Sandra Fluke to refer to this as a “crushing” “health care crisis”.  Contraception is NOT a health care issue.  It is a lie to even refer to it as that.  What this is about is the liberal idea that whatever we feel we deserve is what should be “free”.  It is the entitlement mentality.  If I want to have sex whenever I choose, with whomever I choose, then it is an injustice if I have to pay for it.  That’s what Sandra Fluke is saying.  Oh, certainly, she kept referring to “unsubsidized health insurance that I pay for”, but the fact is that SHE isn’t paying the full cost of what’s actually covered.  Don’t believe me?  Check the math.  She claimed it was costing over $100 per month for “contraception”.  Okay, even if I believed that were true, let’s say her health insurance now covered part of it, so that it cost her $20 out of pocket.  Do you actually believe that $80 of the cost magically disappeared?  News flash, SOMEone is paying for that.  And I’m against paying for medical treatments that are TRULY, voluntarily, discretionary.  You know, things like Viagra when you don’t actually have medically diagnosed impotence.  And, quite frankly, even then, I’d be against it for someone who isn’t married.  I’m tired of seeing immorality subsidized.  But, you see, according to Fluke and others, this would be “reproductive injustice”.

Sandra Fluke is a perfect product of a liberal society that seeks to remove consequences to actions and alleviate the “burden” of morality.  The real injustice is that humans are increasingly thumbing their noses at God and how He intended for us to be and behave, and seeing absolutely nothing wrong it.

Supposedly, this noise has resulted in Obama getting a boost with women.  This is unbelievably sad.  It makes women look incredibly shallow and more concerned with solidifying the progressive sexual revolution than doing the right thing, the godly thing.  I have a hard time respecting them, I have to admit—and I firmly believe that women should be ladies and be treated and respected like ladies (something far too many men seem not have any concept of, by the way).  I’ll again be honest and make it clear I think of Sandra Fluke as anything but a lady.

My opinion is that Sandra Fluke engaged in lies and half-truths, anecdotal examples, all with the ultimate goal of telling those with a moral compass they should shut up and pay up so that she and her ilk can be handed that which they haven’t worked for nor deserve.  I have no sympathy for her.  She’s a fraud and a pawn, lacking everything that makes a woman a lady.  She’s Obama’s kind of girl.  Eeewww.

The Inevitability Of Mediocrity

I have a saying that goes, “Mediocre people are always at their best.”  And that’s what I see at the top of the GOP field right now.  Lukewarm, mediocre people.

I cannot begin to tell you how disgusted I am with the Republican Party and those who claim to be conservatives.  Let me put this as plainly as I can for those of you who may already be bristling with contempt at my point of view: You are NOT a conservative just because you have some so-called conservative views on fiscal matters.  You are NOT a conservative just because you may have some conservative views on social matters.  You are a conservative if you hold, deep in your heart-of-hearts, the conviction that our founding fathers got it right, that conservative philosophies in both fiscal and secular things are what they espoused and that we should continue them. 

I will call you a liar to your face if you claim to be conservative yet have little or not stance on social issues.  The same is true if you hold traditional views on social issues but almost nothing regarding fiscal ones.  And so I am sick and tired of moderates.  Do you understand what I’m saying?  I am sick and tired of you lukewarm people out there.  You stand for nothing.  You are, with few exceptions, intellectually and morally lazy, bordering on self-centeredness.

I say this because when I watch the news, see the polls, the overwhelming majority of voters seem to be concerned with the job situation.  This is a very real concern, deserving of considerable thought and a reasoned approach to solving the problem.  But most of you appear to me to be shallow when it comes to looking at all these issues.  That’s the only reason I can come up with as to why you would be running to support either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.  It’s amazing to me just how completely ignorant of your own blindness that most of you are.

No president can create jobs.  Neither can Congress.  Not really, anyway.  Sure, then can expand government (which they have) and employ people, but that’s not truly creating a job.  Every single slot created in government is a drain on our economy.  They rely completely on taxing REAL jobs in order to exist.  And, before you even suggest it, any money that these government employees happens to put back into the economy is mere pennies on the dollar.  Hardly a desireable return on the investment.  And I nearly wretched when I watched President Obama’s State of the Union address when he dared to say that we need to dramatically cut the size of government.  They lie here is that if he really beleved this he wouldn’t have signed Obamacare into law.  He wouldn’t have expanded the reach of government through the types of programs and initiatives that he has so far.  He is a fraud.

Now, let’s take this back to Mitt and Newt.  I’ll be the first one to say that we should be willing to forgive people of their mistakes and move on.  But both of these men have horrible track records when it comes to conviction and consistency.  You cannot convince me that they firmly believe anything they’ve said, any position they’ve held, past what is expedient, pragmatic, convenient.  You need no more evidence of this than to listen to how they answer direct questions.  God tells us in His Word to let our “yes” be “yes” and our “no” be “no”.  When do you ever hear these two men actually answer that way?  Almost never.  Why?  Because they truly lack the courage of their conviction.  Why?  Because you can’t have courage if you are convicted of what you believe.  If you need to expound on an answer, that’s one thing.  But the moment you find yourself unable to answer directly, that’s when you are clearly tap dancing, trying to find a “safe” way to respond.  Truth doesn’t need to beg forgiveness for itself.  It simply is. 

Make no mistake, ladies & gentlemen, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are elitists.  Just because Romney hasn’t been inside the beltway doesn’t change this fact.  It is the elitist position that thinks socialized medicine is right, because it is a viewpoint predicated on the belief that you need to have your health affairs managed by someone else.  It is the elitist position that thinks that government should be responsible for your retirement for the same reason.  It is the elitist position that tells you that you should be punished for what you are thinking if it doesn’t line up with their idea of fairness or correctness — this truly is the premise for all so-called “hate crimes”.  Elitists believe you are incapable of managing the affairs of state because you are not a professional politician, when the fact of the matter is none of our founding fathers were professional politicians.  They were businessmen, clergy, people who had political interests because politics affects our personal and professiona lives.  But, even worse, is the elitist position that only certain kinds of politicians fit their mold.  Witness the way Governor Perry was attacked his entire campaign.  Was he the most articulate?  Not particularly.  But then, I find President Obama to be one of the most inarticulate and bumbling examples of a president in recorded history.  Oh, sure, it’s wonderful to see people rattle off statistics and numbers–which I dare most of you to know whether they are accurate or not–but that means very little to me.  I want to see the character behind the person want to represent me, to lead me.  I can forgive a moderate amount of ignorance–for ignorance can be corrected through education and experience–but what I cannot accept is a person whose decision-making prowess if pragmatic or amoral.

Here is the bottom line with both Mitt and Newt.  They cannot be trusted.  It’s that simple.  No matter what you’ve heard them say, no matter how well-crafted their responses in debates sound, you cannot trust them.  They are the elite.  They are the 1%.  And if either one of them is the GOP nominee, you can bet that we’ll have four more years of Obama.  And it will be because there aren’t enough voters who are themselves not mediocre, not enough to insist the GOP candidate not be mediocre.  This is the year of the Moderate.  It’s been my observation that moderates almost alway bend to the left.  This is because they have no real moral compass and they are more readily swayed by affairs of the moment, and by the influences of the haughty Liberals–due in large part to their ability to make you feel ashamed that you don’t see things they way they do. So, based on what I’ve seen and who I talk to, the inevitability of mediocrity asserts itself in America.  Where is the remnant that will spit the lukewarm out of their mouths?

We’re Not Ready To Kick Obama Out

Looking at the frontrunners and where polls seem to be circling, I am convinced that this nation is not prepared to get rid of Obama and his socialist regime.  The American public is obviously not happy.  Unfortunately, they can’t agree on what they are unhappy about.  You have the TEA party folks, who are mostly about the ficscal issues.  Then you have the Occupy Wall Street (or whatever) folks who are angry about hating all-things-corporate and demanding the government gives them whatever they want.  And then you have the group like me.  Although we are typically referred to as the “evangelical” contingent, I don’t even think you can throw that name on us.  I say that because apparently so-called evangelicals are leaning toward either Romney or Paul.  And they are fools.  The people who are truly like me are true conservatives.  Why do I say that?  Because a true conservative has traditional views on both fiscal and social issues.  If you are liberal in either fiscal or social issues you cannot call yourself conservative.  Period, end of discussion.

Now, I contend that the very fact that a pretty solid 35% have stuck with Mitt Romney tells me that what we have are a bunch of centrists who could care less about social issues–which Romney fails at dismally–and only care about the fiscal ones.  Then you have a pretty consistent ebb and flow to the Ron Paul support, mostly a bunch of libertarians.  Libertarians, by the way, are liberals, make no mistake about it.  They only share a very few things similar to true conservatives.  Libertarians are potentially more dangerous than typical liberals in that they actually believe that world-view and the behaviors that said world-view breeds make no difference, have no import to political issues.  This is unequivocally wrong.

We didn’t get to where we are now without the strong efforts of true liberalism.  We’re not going to swing back without equally strong efforts from true conservatives.  The fact that Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum hasn’t grabbed and held a solid lead tells me that this nation isn’t sick enough of what’s happening.  They simply aren’t.  This nation is nothing but a bunch of alcoholics who realize there’s a problem, but they don’t necessarily think they are the problem, and it won’t be until this nation has hit rock bottom before it finally is ready to do the right thing.  It simply isn’t ready.

I cannot, will not pull the lever for Mitt Romney.  I cannot, will not pull the lever for Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich.  I will vote for Senators and Representatives to at least try to get true conservatives in place so that it doesn’t matter what fool is in the presidency.  But I believe at this point that this country needs to fall a lot further down the sewer in order for people to come face to face with their own depravity.

It amazes me that anyone can divorce the idea that a people who will continue to condone immoral behavior–even celebrate it (look at such people as Lady Gaga or Bill Mahr)–from what’s happening in our government and our economy.  It’s all tied together.  It absolutely is all tied together.  I can show you the spiritual root to any problem you can point to in our nation.  But even most so-called Christians can’t maintain any sort of consistency in adhering to the very principles upon which they stake their claim to being Christian.  By ignoring the spiritual aspect that begets the social ills, which ultimately create the economic and political ills, we will only be electing people to address the symptoms, not the root cause.  In fact, I will argue that if all you people are basing your voting on is A) whether the person can beat Obama and B) their perceived ability to fix the economy then you are in serious error and only out for the most selfish of goals.  This isn’t about you or me.  This is a battle for the very soul of our nation.  This nation is soul-sick.  The economy is only one of many symptoms. 

Romney cannot possibly hope to represent someone able to address that.  Paul most certainly cannot–he is a simpleton, with a simpleton’s perception of the world.  Gingrich cannot, either–he has the book-smart without the moral fibre or depth to approach the problem.  Perry seems to have the spiritual fortitude but he’s too much of a political animal and has a profound weakness in illegal immigration (focusing on getting votes rather than doing the right thing).  Huntsman is no different than Ron Paul.  What you have left are Santorum or Bachmann.  I could pull the lever for either, but would prefer Bachmann because she has been much more consistent.  Not knowing anything else, I’m convinced that she has the strength to stick with sound conservative values and seek scriptural basis for formulating decisions.

Romney relies on his own knowledge wisdom exclusively.  So do Paul, Gingrich and Huntsman.  There are REAL problems in America, they go much deeper than health care, joblessness and the like, and there are very tough decisions ahead.  They must not be made by people relying on secular successes, real or perceived.  They need to be made with someone who seeks the heart of God.

But, polls being any indication, we’re not ready to turn from the horrible, depraved path we’re on.  We’re not sick enough.  We haven’t hit rock-bottom.  And, so, four more years of Obama we shall have.

A Comment On Community Theater…

I know I usually post on religious or political matters, so this will be a bit of a departure from the norm.

As some of you may know, when I’m not working or teaching scuba or diving recreationally or leading praise & worship or working with the band Living Water Sound, I do some acting.  I’ve been involved with community theater since 1983, although I’ve been acting since 1976.  I’ve performed in countless shows over the years, but it wasn’t until 1997—aka the Year From Hell—that I debuted in a directorial role.  Unfortunately for me, the show was “Oklahoma!”, a show that I detest beyond my ability to express.  It’s hard enough to try out directorial chops for the first time, but it’s especially difficult on a show you hate and a musical as huge as that.  Nonetheless, I did it.  Since that time, I’ve directed a few more shows, all musicals, with varying degrees of enjoyment.  After directing and starring in “Jekyll & Hyde: The Musical” (2003) I had planned to semi-retire, not expecting any shows to come along that I’d be interested in giving up 150% of my life to.

So, in 2010 our church decided to try to mount the production “The Gospel According To Scrooge”, a wonderfully written, if somewhat fluffy, adaptation of Charles Dickens’ well-known “A Christmas Carol”.  This version of the show takes a few liberties with the original story (as do so many adaptations) but directly brings home the message of Jesus’ love and the redemption of the human spirit.  This makes this production all the more important because it is a ministry opportunity.  There’s an accountability to the performances that goes beyond what secular community theater commands.

Herein lies the issue.  As an actor, I have always pushed myself to create and portray the character and performance the director demands, as well as reaching as much a level of excellence as I could.  I listen to the director and I faithfully obey his or her instruction and I follow their rules.  As a director, I know what I need out of a show and out of my actors.  I do my best to explain that to them.  And since this is community theater–even church theater–I understand that most of the time I will have completely inexperienced people.  I do as much as I can, with what time I have, to teach them the art, from the technical terms to the nuances of characterization.  Some performers recognize this, understand it and appreciate it.  But, sadly, many others do not.  I get the impression they think they are doing me a favor by being there.  And, I suppose to some extent, they have a point.  Most of the time we practically have to beg people to be in shows.

But the fact is, if you say you will be in a production, if you volunteered for a show, then you are agreeing to follow the rules.  If a director expects certain behavior from the performers in order to make the show the best that it can be, then you volunteered to behave as directed, like it or not.  Most directors don’t make up rules just to anger actors.  Any rules or guidelines the director sets out are for the benefit of the actors and the audience (who are expecting to see at least an attempt at a professional show).  A director shouldn’t have to follow behind the actors and tell them to pick up their props or costumes or move set pieces they’ve been assigned to, and the director shouldn’t have to constantly tell actors to pay attention to what’s going on in the show, stop playing with electronic devices or talking to other people about something that has nothing to do with the rehearsal.  Volunteering doesn’t give actors the right to ignore the very things they volunteered to observe.

As someone who is currently gainfully employed and has other regular obligations, I understand the participants in a community production have similar competing events.  I rearrange what I can in order to meet the demands of creating a great show, and I expect everyone else to do the same.  The show is only a temporary thing, it has a beginning and a closing.  And let this be fair warning to those of you who may be considering getting involved in acting: rehearsals will typically start of relatively sparsely, but as you get closer to the show opening those rehearsals will eventually become nightly and run later…much later.  This depends as much on how diligent the actors have been in paying attention and learning their parts as it does technical issues, etc.

If you aren’t prepared to do whatever the director asks of you and commit to the rehearsal schedule (with negotiated exceptions, of course) then acting is not for you, I’m afraid.  There are very few actors who are so fantastic that a show will bend to your will.  As a director, I’d rather save ALL the actors the grief and the waste of their time because a few actors decide that “volunteering” gives them special permission to not be professional.  I’d rather tell the producer of the show, “I’m sorry, but I can’t cast the show” than put myself and everyone else through that.

For those who still think “I volunteered, so I don’t have to follow all the rules”, let me put it to you another way.  What if you got married to someone and then found out they were going out, partying and seeing someone else?  What if you found out and confronted them?  And what if they said, “Hey, I volunteered for this relationship, I don’t have to follow your rules”?  They certainly aren’t getting paid to be in the marraige.  Both of you volunteered to enter into the relationship.  But the reality is that volunteering carries with it no less of a requirement to follow the rules than getting hired does.

What I’ve said to this point mostly involves regular community theater.  But when it involves a ministry as does a production for church, every single person is held to a much higher standard.  The mantle that is upon a show that is also a ministry is placed their by God.  Every single person, from the director to the actors to the technical crew should realize they are doing this for God.  When a production is carrying the Word to people, we are each held specifically accountable for the reverence we observed in doing so.  What you do—or don’t do—could mean eternal life or death for someone in the audience.  So, whether you think you should listen to the director or not, remember to whom you are ultimately responsible if you volunteer.

For two years running I’ve directed “The Gospel According To Scrooge”.  And I, along with a VERY few people, have shouldered most of the burden of purchasing materials, props and costumes, building sets and doing other supporting work.  Most performers simply come in on a rehearsal and magically see more things done.  I’m more grateful than I can possibly express to those who’ve shared the same dedication my wife and I have to the show.  I can only hope that others learn to recognize that and will step up in future endeavors, whether that’s on the stage or elsewhere.

Finally, I don’t want you to think this all about me venting.  I’d like to say that, while I’d much rather be acting than directing, I get a lot of enjoyment taking inexperienced people and helping them discover the performer in themselves, seeing them reach that moment when it suddenly all clicks for them and they step onto the stage and become the character.  For the ones who take this acting thing seriously the transformation is truly amazing and wonderful to watch.  And, for me, when they get their first applause from an appreciative audience, there is no better reward for the work I put into teaching them.  That’s what makes directing worth it.

Occupy Wall Street: TEA Party Wanna-bes

I’ve been watching the Occupy Wall Street protests and, at first, I thought this was cute. Useless, but cute. However, lately things have turned uncute. What you are seeing now is growing violent or abusive behavior, anti-Semitic and, generally, anti-capitalist. In other words, socialist and communist in tone. When you interview the protestors individually, you get just about as muddy a reasoning for the protests as it gets. “It’s about democracy; it’s about everyone here has a chance to speak and be heard”. You’ll hear complaints about gas prices, global warming, corporate greed, immigration—oh, and of course we have the unions. But here’s what is listed on Occupywallst.org website as “demands”, along with my comments on each:

“Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.” This is definitely socialist/communist. First off, I’ve always been against the minimum wage. But it’s a part of our life, so I accept it to a certain extent. It, however, ties the hands of any employer. When you then try to tell me that this minimum wage is supposed to be a “living wage”, that’s when I get angry. Exactly who decides what a living wage is? It was never meant to be a wage you could raise a family on. It was meant to curb abuses by businesses against the youth and unskilled just entering into the job market. Liberals have twisted it into something it isn’t supposed to be. Also, one has only to look at history to see that tariffs never work. And, in today’s global economy, it’s even more ridiculous.

“Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.” Ah, yes, here’s what Obama and the rest have wanted all along. Communism at its finest. Health care is not a right, people. Health care is a business. It requires people with skills, people who have spent huge amounts of money to become skilled. The moment you establish this single payer system you will then find that the shortage of physicians will become worse. That’s when you will, as the Soviet Union did, force people into particular careers “for the good of the people”. The only real solution to this is to get to true root cause analysis and find out why health care COSTS are so high. If you get costs down (not price controls) then there would be no need for insurance, except maybe in the form of catastrophic insurance.

“Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.” Here we go again—these communists sure are repetitive, aren’t they? What happened to finding out the actual WORTH of a particular job? There’s this concept called Value-Added that completely escapes these people.

“Demand four: Free college education.” As soon as someone says “free…..” it immediately discredits anything else they have to say on the subject. There is no such thing as “free”. Nobody works for free and, if they have their way, so-called living wages will be the catalyst for increasing the costs of everything else. Someone has to pay for education. Not even public education is free. Have you seen your property tax bill?

“Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.” The simplistic mind of people with, in many cases, higher education but no actual clue about how anything works in this world. Our government has spent billions trying to develop and seed various “alternative” energies, as has the rest of the developed world. What has it gotten us? Nothing. If the truth is told about every single alternative energy source you would find that they either use more energy than they produce or the other hazards tied to their use make them more prohibitive than the fossil fuel processes we have now. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be trying to find replacements. I’m saying it’s preposterous for these mental midgets to insist some sort of “fast track”. Our most impressive and life-changing inventions and discoveries have NEVER come from government. They’ve come from individuals. I refer you to the late Steve Jobs. That all started in a garage. Maybe you foolish people need to get off Wall Street and tinker in your garages for awhile.

“Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.” Oh, yes, and where’s the is money coming from? Most of these issues are not government issues, so again you people are pushing socialism/communism. No thank you.

“Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.” More money, eh? These are people believe human beings are a parasite on this planet and, really, they’d love to see us all die off and leave it to “nature”. While we should be good stewards, I refer them to the Bible which gives us dominion over all the earth. All of this was given to us FOR us. We can be responsible….but never subservient to the planet. The US actually has a very robust reforestation program and such industries as lumber are quite good at replenishing their own resource. Oh, by the way, nuclear power plants are the only type of plant that has a hope in the foreseeable future of replacing fossil fuel plants. So, please make some sense.

“Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.” We already HAVE a plethora of laws that protest race and gender. This demand makes no sense whatsoever.

“Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.” And now we hear from the anarchists. We are a nation, folks. We are a sovereign nation. You establish the limits of jurisdiction and protection by having borders and enforcing them. There was a time, at the beginning of America’s growth, where we needed the injection of immigrants in order to reach a critical mass, if you will. Well, for decades we’ve not required that. We established a quota, a rhythm, of LEGAL immigrants. Unfortunately, there are those, mostly from Mexico, who believe they should be able to cut in line ahead of those who are following the rules. Anyone who just uses the term “immigration” in this argument and does not make the distinction of “illegal immigration” is being deceptive and a liar. I will not go into here all the problems associated with just allowing completely free-flowing borders. Suffice to say that our already strained entitlement system—which these shallow protestors would like to dramatically expand—will collapse.

“Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.” Yes, lets create more waste. Let’s slow processes down. Let’s adhere to international behaviors because America sucks so badly and every other nation in the world is so great. This demand is beyond stupid.

“Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.” I nearly threw up when I read this one. So, we discount the responsibility of everyone, everywhere to pay their debts? Can you say collapse of the financial system? We already have extremely lenient bankruptcy laws. How about this, folks: STOP LIVING OUTSIDE YOUR MEANS. I watch this even in my own town. Way too many people buying very expensive houses that they don’t need, but because their friends have a big house with pool and privacy fence they feel they MUST have this, too. Husband and wife both have to work because one income can’t cover the payments, insurance, three kids, two car payments….it’s financial irresponsibility. The credit issue has always been about people wanting more than they have, certainly more than they need, driven by advertising and Hollywood liberals who portray behaviors that the gullible are led to believe is what they should emulate.

“Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.” Why? So banks can be forced to loan indiscriminately and people can borrow without responsibility? Great idea.

“Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.” I can’t tell you how much I’m against unions in this day and age. We have laws—ridiculous number of them—to protect workers. There was a time in America when unions were necessary. Not anymore.

“These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.” No, my foolish, ignorant friends, it won’t. It will dissuade business. It will punish success.

Ron Paul & John Stossel: Ignorance Is Dangerous

Had I not already been sitting down, my knees probably would have buckled in disbelief.  I was watching part of The O’Reilly Factor on 4 Oct when he was interviewing John Stossel, noted libertarian, over the issue of the air strike that killed senior Al Queda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki.  The discussion then dovetailed into Stossel agreeing with Ron Paul that it shouldn’t matter if Iran developed nuclear weapons because Israel has them.  First, it amazed me that he truly could not see that there is no similarity whatsoever between Israel having nuclear weapons and Iran having them.  O’Reilly didn’t give him any slack and, finally, Stossel tried to claim that you can either invade them or trade with them.  Ultimately, his lame-brained summary came down to the statement “When goods cross borders, armies don’t”.  Is he kidding?

Okay, I get the concern over exacting judgement on an American citizen without due process.  However, there are a number of aspects that should make it clear to all but the most myopic that it was acceptable to take the action we did.  First, his own words were tantamount to self-declared expatriation.  Second, he left America specifically for the purpose of engaging in plots against this nation.  Third, he has been directly linked to several attempted or successful terrorist acts since 9/11.  With all those things taken into consideration, the man posed a clear and present danger to this nation.  If you want to boil it down to it’s most basic concepts, this air strike amounted to self-defense.  So, Ron Paul and John Stossel, it was absolutely correct.

But let me switch to that ridiculous statement that somehow if you engage in trade with a nation run by tyranical, egomaniacal, religous extremists they will magically acquiesce and play nice with the world.  Mr. Stossel—and the rest of you libertarians & liberals—have you actually studied world history?  Have you actually read about the Barbary Pirates?  Have you read about what a lot, if not most, of the Muslims over there have said about Israel and America in the context of what their religion dictates?  No?  Well, you probably should.  This is beyond politics, though politics is quite a tool for religious zealots to use.  It is sheer stupidity to “Americanize” the thinking of people from the Middle East.  When anyone is so buried in legalistic doctrine you can rest assured that they will use any method at their disposal to impose their will upon their enemies.  Count on it.  And if you try to dissuade their actions by trading with them, they will simply take your trade and use it against you via their armies, via their bombs, via their terror.  They are not impressed by American capitalistic  approaches to deal with world affairs, because it has almost nothing to do with their god, regardless of the fact that theirs is a false god. 

But, you see, it’s all too common to find that the libertarian mindset has no room for religion.  God is not real to them, or at least not really involved in any meaningful sense in the affairs of humans.  So, it’s nearly inconceivable to them that “common sense” (from their mostly secular perspective) might actually be lacking in the midst of the Middle East struggles and the groups that routinely threaten “The West” and “The Zionists”.  So, people like Stossel of Paul are ignorant.  And, in this case, ignorance isn’t bliss….it’s downright dangerous.

Fair Share? Is He Serious?

Okay, let me say right up front, that almost everyone pays some sort of taxes.  This is unavoidable because our elected officials–of any party and all levels–are clever at finding ways to tax you, literally, coming and going.  Even when you think you aren’t being taxed, I can promise you the company you are purchasing a product or service from is charged ridiculous taxes and they surely are passing it on to you.

But let’s look at some facts.  Of roughly $834 Billion paid in income taxes the richest half of the nation paid $804 Billion.  The poorest half paid $28 Billion.  Now, the liberals and, sadly, even many conservatives seem to think we need to increase the taxes on the wealthy–categorized by our president as anyone making $200,000 or more.  As Obama put it, “ask the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share, just like everyone else.” 

This is part of what angers me when such ignorance is uttered.  First of all, Mr. President and all you liberals, with the exception of actual lotter winners, success is not the result of good fortunate—it’s the result of work, skill and knowledge.  So, for any meaningful discussion if you insist on referring to the wealthy as the “fortunate” you immediately disqualify yourself as having anything serious to say on the subject.  Second, the double-whammy of actually saying the wealthy–who, by any valid measure pay more than those who make less–are NOT paying their “fair share” and simultaneously claiming everyone else is has got to be the biggest lie Obama has spoken yet. 

Now, I’ve seen liberal bloggers pull out all sorts of interesting little stats that, on the surface, would make you think that the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes.  The problem is that they are comparing apples and oranges.  It’s completely disingenuous to mix up the scope of the debate with the intention of deception.  As I said in the beginning, everyone pays taxes of some sort.  However, those who are poorer get a lot of that back in refunds, earned income credits and a number of other so-called entitlements.

There’s one area where I can agree with opponents on, and that’s in closing various tax loopholes.  Not for the purpose of getting more tax revenue, but rather in the interest of making any rule or regulation consistant, standard.  It’s from THAT point that we can properly reform.  But one of the dirty little secrets liberals don’t want to you know is that even if you taxed 100% of the workers making $200,000 or more, it wouldn’t come close to closing the gap in our deficit!  But, you see, it makes people feel better to punish the wealthy.  You may not hear most of them actually say that, but you can bet that’s exactly how they feel. 

This is class warfare.  And I am sick and tired of the president and others thinly hiding the agenda of wealth redistribution.  I’m tired of him and his followers pretending that our graduated tax code still somehow avoids the wealthy paying their so-called fair share.  Do you want to know what a fair share is?  Equal percentages paid by all, without deductions, without regard to salary.  I know, I know, this shocks the pants off of most of you.  I don’t recall any scripture where God created a graduated tithing scheme.  No…it’s called a tithe.  One tenth.  Everyone, regardless of status.  No deductions, no loopholes.  Just the tithe.  If 10% is all the God of creation requires, why on earth does our government insist on more?  Worse yet, why do so many of YOU insist on it?  Because this has almost nothing to do with the deficit, folks.  It’s about Obama and the liberals using this crisis as an opportunity to move their agenda forward.  This has been the MO of this administration all the socialists from day one.  Exacerbate issues so that they can convince the ignorant masses of their benevolence, then said masses will rally to the call for “fairness”.  Well, kids, they are liars–but the worst kind of liars.  They have just enough truth in their web of lies to convince those without the desire to dig just a little deeper and discover the real truth.

So, yes, President Obama is serious.  Deadly serious.  He and his kind have a very twisted concept of fairness.  They think they are better than you and that you are too blind, simple, religious, whatever, to see that this is necessary.  And it really doesn’t matter if our government continues to crush itself under the weight of this insanity, and it doesn’t really matter if some people are hurt along the way.  In his mind this is the nasty-tasting medicine that’s necessary to make things better. 

Well, it’s not fair.  And will be among those exposing the truth behind the lies.  That which is done in darkness will be brought out into the light.  Election 2012 is coming.

Science vs God

A recent article in the Huffington Post—which is a liberal cesspool—asked the question of whether people who don’t believe in science should be allowed to hold office. The author essentially went on a rant about global warming skeptics and, of course, relied upon her own bias about alleged overwhelming scientific support for the claims. I posted a lengthy comment explaining that, as a believer in God, I actually find that science and God are not mutually exclusive and that while I found the scientific method a reasonable tool—though not infallible—there are conclusions in science that I accept and ones I am skeptical about, usually for good reason. I also pointed out that, as a person with a Biblical world view, there are certain observations in science that recognize as being described in the Bible, and that regardless of whether or not we could agree on the cause, we can do nothing about. The end of the earth happens to be one of those things. Thinking we could actually change the intended course of the earth would be as futile as the construct of the Tower of Babel. I also made the point that for non-believers, for those who hold to a decidedly secular humanist view, that all of this was pointless. I contended that if we are nothing more than the results of accidents in evolution then any concept that we are important is false. I further argued that since it appears by all observable science we are, in fact, a monumental accident being the only planet with life, that we really shouldn’t exist at all. We are pointless and any claim to continuing life has no real merit in the context of the universe. My comments elicited, as you can imagine, a few very snide, childishly weak remarks.

But one response, while still childish, challenged my contention that, based on a secular humanist view, we shouldn’t exist. “….according to who? You? Some deity? There is a point to survival! There is a point to happiness.” This is the centuries-long debate, really. “I think, therefore I am”. Well, think about this for a few minutes. If there is no God, and evolution as it is more commonly understood is the only explanation for the development of ANY life on earth, then all of this is mere accident. Happenstance, a random combination or mutation of development that resulted in differentiation that either favored survival of the fittest or succumbed to it. What this poor person was using was circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a fallacious statement where the conclusion relies on one or more of its own premises, assumptions. What this person was really saying is “Happiness is important to me. Thus , there is a point to happiness.” This is circular reasoning. It has no external, objective case—it’s purely subjective to the person making the assumption. I, of course, replied that “happiness” is purely an abstract construct unique to humans. This abstraction is rooted in simple pleasure. Pleasure is something that all animal life, to varying—and measurable—degrees experiences. Pleasure influences behaviors but is not the be-all or end-all. We have created the abstraction of “happiness”. Just because we choose to place a value in this abstract concept doesn’t mean it has a point. In fact, there are people all over the globe who are perpetually unhappy, yet they continue to survive. In a purely secular world you are not important. This planet doesn’t not continue or cease to exist because you are alive or dead. Again, it is circular reasoning to insist that any of us should exist, should survive, when it’s all an accident. “I exist therefore I should exist”? Seriously? The concept of murder is unique to humans. In a secular world it is based on the believe of self-importance. In nature, everything is survival of the fittest. If we were to put ourselves back into that system, then there would be nothing at all wrong with me killing someone else that I felt was competing with me for resources, mates, whatever. I’m simply ensuring my survival and yours doesn’t matter. Happiness doesn’t even have to be involved. Animals fight to survive but there is no drive outside of the individual—no societal imperative. We have created the idea of self-importance and society, and so we have manufactured a “point to survival” that doesn’t exist in nature. Circular reasoning. This poor person who responded to me simply can’t grasp these concepts….this is true of most secular people. Do you see how cold this world view is?

Without God there simply is no point to existence. But God IS our reason for existing, in both the natural and the spiritual sense. Our unique abstractions are born from a spiritual source. Concepts of society spawned from the communal relationship we originally had with God Himself—the first “community” was Adam, Eve, God. Science is a distinctly human construct, a machination we invented to understand all that we observe. As a human invention, it is fallible. But it often does accurately explain the magnificence of God’s creation and doesn’t necessarily contend with God. It’s often been argued that the more science discovers, the more it points toward God. But there are those who strive with a fervor that rivals any religion to use science to disprove God and to validate their beliefs and science itself. “A fool says in his heart there is no God”. I would contend that those who argue most loudly there is no God actually are scared to death He exists.

Finally, more to the global warming debate, the problem is that science IS fallible, that far too many of the pro-warming scientific community has been shown to have biases and agendas and that their models are suspect. It is also true that this planet has measureably been through periods of cooling and heating, that it is cyclical in nature. In addition, we have seen gradually increasing tectonic and volcanic activity, changes in our electromagnetic field and changes in the sun itself. There are so many variables that it is only by faith that anyone can really insist that human beings are the cause of any climate change we might be experiencing. It is also rather pompous to think we can affect it. I maintain that the earth—by design—is self regulating and that all of nature seeks equilibrium. I also maintain that if the Biblical account is understood and to be believed, the earth will indeed end with “fire” and that there is nothing we can do to change this. It would be far better to maintain good stewardship for the time we have left and be more concerned with the eternal lives rather than the temporal ones. In God there IS a point and a purpose, divine and anointed. Without God, it is all pointless.