h1

Racist Republican Convention Speeches

September 2, 2012

Many people have not seen these speeches at the 2012 Republican Convention by people of color. Some were pre-empted by the networks. Indeed MSNBC blacked out all of them! Each one is short. Be encouraged. It is worth listening to and thinking about every single one! If you have been looking for something to share with your liberal friends, this is a good start.

Mia Love (mayor and candidate for US House from Utah):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Cbvewaa7g

Artur Davis (former US Congressman from Alabama):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WKJ_SUV_ek&feature=plcp

Jane Edmonds (served in Romney’s Mass. cabinet):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL7wZuHVx9A

Luis Fortuno (Governor of Puerto Rico):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQyCQbJ1yjY

Luce Vela Fortuno (First Lady of Puerto Rico):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P49U6-0IG9k&feature=plcp

Condoleezza Rice (former Secretary of State):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH5gJP96sJQ

Ted Cruz (candidate for US Senate from Texas):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpkY7iJLjmQ

Nikki Haley (governor of South Carolina):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtyUK6mTzQM

Brian Sandoval (governor of Nevada):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bVMI-KJ-1Q

Sher Valenzuela (candidate for Lt. Gov. of Delaware):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkNTK2GTA_E&feature=plcp

Marco Rubio (US Senator from Florida):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16VbryCejyA&feature=plcp

Susana Martinez (Governor of New Mexico):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjbtxupVo6I&feature=plcp

h1

The Downward Spiral of ObamaCare

July 1, 2012

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” – Benjamin Franklin

The goal of government healthcare to expand coverage for uninsured people is a noble goal. But like all liberal utopian schemes it ultimately hurts more than it helps. Remember these facts about government involvement in healthcare:

  1. It doesn’t reduce the cost. (The only way it could do so is to set prices arbitrarily lower than market prices. Such action always has severe negative consequences by reducing incentives for businesses to provide services. Just like in real estate, if you impose rent controls, developers won’t build apartments.) RomneyCare in Massachusetts proves that interference into healthcare by government greatly increases cost!
  2. It doesn’t create more supply. One study showed that 45% of doctors would consider leaving their practice under ObamaCare. We need  more doctors, more hospitals, more new drugs, more nurses—not fewer.
  3. It doesn’t improve the quality of healthcare. (Unless 16,000 new IRS agents will produce healthcare services!) 
  4. It doesn’t offer the consumer more choice. Less freedom is never the answer; it is the problem.

Government involvement in an industry is a downward spiral to destruction. What would improve the quality, lower the cost, restore patient dignity, give us more freedom and choice, and expand coverage? Answer: 4 C’s of Quality Healthcare–

  1. Competition. We could encourage competition by allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines.
  2. Cash. If you take the middle man (insurance companies) out of the equation as much as possible, you obviously lower the cost. Health Savings Accounts are a way to do that.
  3. Catastrophic Insurance. Encouraging high deductible insurance will lower the cost of insurance.
  4. Charity. Instead of discouraging faith based and professional groups to organize to provide money and services for care, we should encourage it.

Check out these links:

http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/aaps_restoring_freedom_town_hall_-_videos

http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/site/article/aaps_news_july_2012_-_opposition_to_cash_catastrophic_insurance_charity/

And, Oh, by the way, here is a list of tax increases from ObamaCare:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-new-taxes-destroying-jobs-and-the-economy

And here is why the poor will not benefit from ObamaCare:

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2012/07/01/another_reason_to_declare_independence_from_obamacare_scotus_disaster

There’s more. Here’s how ObamaCare crushes the middle class:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/25/top-five-ways-obamacare-crushes-the-middle-class/

Still more. Why the WSJ chief economist says that 75% of ObamaCare costs fall on those earning less than $120,000:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obamacare-costs-will-fall-on-backs-of-those-making-less-than-120k-a-year/

h1

Top 10 Reasons to Love Obama

May 27, 2012

Here are my Top 10 Reasons to Love Barack Obama:

  1.  He has brought Americans together.
  2.  He has put people back to work.
  3.  He has solved the debt crisis with his frugal spending on only legitimate functions of the federal government.
  4.  He has delivered on his promises of an open, transparent, and efficient bureaucracy.
  5.  He has enhanced the relationships with America’s friends abroad.
  6.  He has terrified our enemies.
  7.  He has elevated Muslims and put those pesky Christians that cling to their guns and religion in their place.
  8.  He has strengthened the foundation of marriage.
  9.  He has honored our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
  10.  He always tells the truth.

Uh, well, on second thought, see my other list below.

h1

The Holy Trinity of Liberalism

March 2, 2012

There is a Holy Trinity of Liberalism: Utopian Control, Moral Subjectivism, and Holy Mother Earth.

We believe that this trinitarian proposition summarizes the dogma of liberalism. But let’s dig deeper to see the tenacles of the beast. Liberals have been successful in deceiving people into thinking that they are moral, compassionate, tolerant, just, and logical. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider these points:

  • Desire for control. This desire is ultimate; Nietzsche taught that there is no truth—that power is everything.
  • Desire for freedom from moral authority. Beneath their rhetoric you ultimately find a demand for free sex and drugs without consequences. How else can one explain their insistence on abortion even in the face of modern sonogram technology that proves the fetus is a living human being? (What do you think is ultimately behind Georgetown law school student Sandra Fluke’s demand in March 2012 for “free” birth control? See Who Hasn’t Slept with Sandra Fluke?)
  • Blind faith that government can cure all ills.  Their utopian view of the world is shared by communists and Muslims, which have always produced failed states and misery for their people. Statism is inherently inefficient, produces little, takes resources from the productive economy, and is therefore detrimental to growth and the welfare of its people.
  • Worship of Mother Earth. This, of course, is a pagan idea. Rick Santorum  recently created a flap when he accused President Obama of holding to a religion other than the Bible, with a clear reference to Obama’s environmentalism. Liberals’ continued insistence on man-made global warming despite a lack of evidence for it, is nothing but blind faith.
  • Belief that man is basically good, or at least perfectible by law. This is in stark contrast to the Christian idea that man is sinful. All of history proves them wrong, and Christianity right.
  • Institutionalized theft in the name of fairness. During the 2008 campaign, ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked candidate Back Obama if he would raise capital gains taxes even if, as in the past, it brought in less revenue to the federal government. Yes, said Obama. “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
  •  A distorted view of “rights.” Consider this: Why does the proclaimed right of Sandra Fluke for free birth control trump the right of  Georgetown Law Center (a Jesuit institution) to not pay for birth control?

This list could go on, but let’s summarize.

Liberal thought is often opposed to objective moral values, is opposed to a moral authority above itself, and is thus opposed to unalienable rights from God. It is demonstrably true that little is sacred with liberalism outside of one’s personal subjective feelings or political power—not the Bible, not the Constitution, not the Rule of Law, not natural law, nor even life itself. Thus liberalism is the least likely system to honor the inherent worth of the individual—and the most likely to harm the most vulnerable in society such as the expendable elderly and the innocent unborn.

While liberals may be moral and well-intentioned in their own lives, their views are logically inconsistent and not consistent with what is good. Liberalism institutionalizes poverty and sloth. In actuality liberals are working to tear down or distort everything that is good and elevate what is evil—including in art, music, culture, business, politics, science, sexuality, education, truth, beauty, justice, morality, and logic. So ironically liberalism is neither moral, compassionate, tolerant, nor effective. Christian capitalism is the most moral, offers true compassion, leads to the most freedom, is the best steward of the environment, and produces the most economic benefits for society.

*http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.T1D1QvEgfTo

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40857

http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/whos_more_charitable_liberals_or_conservatives

http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/

http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15

h1

Ron Paul’s Crazy Libertarianism

December 30, 2011

We did a series back in February on libertarianism. Ron Paul’s ascendency in Iowa begs that we revisit this issue.

I recently told a friend that I might hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul because he is the only one talking about drastically cutting the federal bureaucracy. I take it all back! The more we learn about this guy, the more troubling are his views.

We argued in our series that libertarianism is based on a moral foundation of sand. And that is exactly what Paul’s views reflect. On the surface, conservatives ought to like him. He says he is for the Constitution and for smaller government. But let’s see where this leads us.

He says he is against the federal government making laws on morality. But this is a sham. Every law reflects somebody’s ideas of right and wrong, and thus all laws are in some sense moral statements. For example, Paul says that the abortion question should be left to the states because there is no authority for a pro-life law in the Constitution. Would he vote for a law in his own state of Texas that outlaws abortion? We doubt it, if his libertarian views are consistent. He claims to be pro-life, but on what moral basis does he say that and to what extent should it be fixed into law? Should murder not be a federal offense?

Ron Paul also has stated that there should be no “age of consent law” in the federal statutes. In other words, Paul says that it should be OK by federal law for a 24 year old man to convince a 10 year old girl to have sex. When pressed on this issue and other similar issues, Paul says that the states should have no such laws either!

We presume that Paul thinks that the federal government should not have outlawed polygamy. This would be consistent with his libertarian views. Would he vote for a state law against polygamy? (Any such laws for a libertarian would be completely arbitrary.)

What about slavery? Should that be a state-only issue too?

Here are some other things about Ron Paul:

  • He left the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian in the 1980’s because he did not like Ronald Reagan.
  • He was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against a 2005 resolution condemning Ahmadinejad’s call to “wipe Israel off the map” and a 2009 resolution “expressing support” for Iranian pro-democracy demonstrators.
  • He has intimated, on more than one occasion, that the United States is to blame for the 9/11 massacre.
  • In the 1990’s he wrote a newsletter that had multiple vividly racist statements, a fact for which he acknowledges he holds “some” responsibility. (Some responsibility? These letters came out under his signature.) Apparently the American Nazi party supported Ron Paul.
  • He has said that the United States had no business being in World War II.
  • He is an active pork obtainer and sees this as consistent with his other views.
  • He is for legalizing all drugs.
  • He is weak on traditional marriage, and even though a professing Christian he is unwilling to acknowledge homosexuality as a sin.

Folks, this guy is NUTTY, and a very dangerous man. It is pretty hard to tell many of his ideas from liberals like Michael Moore! I have been listening to various talk shows lately. The Paulites are calling in droves to support this nut. It is amazing how blinded they are to the facts when presented to them.

Here’s a link to an inside look at Ron Paul: https://www.facebook.com/notes/republican-security-council/the-inside-story-why-a-ron-paul-disciple-left-his-ranks/239017422864103

Here is a link to our article on libertarianism (or just scroll down): http://offgridblogger.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/a-critical-review-of-libertarianism/.

h1

A Critical Review of Libertarianism

February 7, 2011

Libertarianism, in short, is the political philosophy that strives for the smallest intrusion on the individual from any authority—including government or religion. The limiting factor for libertarian thought is a moral code that one “should do no harm.” (If you want a more thorough definition, take time to do an internet search.)

Libertarianism is essentially a non-religious political philosophy. But Christians and libertarians are often allies in the public square. American political conservatism has always been a marriage between the very religious and the less religious. For example, among the Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and Sam Adams were what we would call today evangelical Christians. On the other hand, Thomas Paine was a deist.

Deism is a marginalized philosophy today for good reason. I have never even spoken with a person either personally or through our Faith Facts website who called himself a deist. But libertarianism, which has some similarities, is on the rise. We will explore what this movement is all about. We will see how this philosophy differs from both biblical Christianity, from liberalism, and from our Founding Fathers’ ideas on government.

The primary problem with libertarianism is that it attempts to define morality without God. But as Dostoevsky said, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” While libertarians will resist this conclusion, in the end, a moral system or political system without God is arbitrary, and ultimately whoever has the most political power defines what is moral. This is evident when we notice that some libertarians are pro-life and some are pro-abortion.

Libertarianism would probably not be the force that it is today without Ayn Rand. She is the queen of the movement. While many libertarians are merely agnostics, she was an atheist. She attempted to define a moral system without God by a philosophy that she called Objectivism. If you have time, look over this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Does this make sense to you? You be the judge. But as I read this I remembered reading L. Ron Hubbard’s book Scientology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology) and thinking, “This is pure nonsense.” While there are definitely differences between Scientology and Objectivism, the question that both must face is:

Says who?

Aren’t Rand’s arguments arbitrary? Feel free to disagree.

One thing—among several things—that Rand completely failed to comprehend is that Christianity is not arbitrary. Our religion website  explains how Christianity is grounded in reason and evidence: http://www.faithfacts.org/.

According to the Wikipedia article on Objectivism, Rand wanted to call her philosophy Existentialism, but the term had already been coined. But there are clear similarities to Existentialism and Objectivism. If you ever took a philosophy class you may remember that Existentialism is a philosophy that was a reaction to Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism).

Existentialism has largely been discredited, I think, because of its important association with nihilism—the absence of meaning and ultimately despair. Without God, it is argued, there can be no objective meaning in life.

So the problem with Objectivism, Existentialism, and Libertarianism (and any non-theistic worldview) is that they bump into the philosophical problem that—“We come from nowhere, we go to nowhere, but somehow life is filled with meaning in between.”

We cannot miss the similarities between libertarianism and liberalism.  It is not accidental that they have the same root word. Both often have certain political goals in common, such as anti-war sentiments and pro gay rights. Something else in common is that both systems are at war with God—as are communism, humanism, and other non-theistic worldviews.

Even some Christians claim to be libertarians without understanding its non-theistic roots. Yes, there are different versions of libertarianism and not all are purely non-theistic. But we argue that any moral attributes that are found in libertarianism are borrowed from Christianity. Remember: history teaches that tyranny begins with eliminating God.

A reader sent me a video explaining libertarianism. You might want to watch at least part of this:

www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Notice that this philosophy is centered on the self. That is to say, it is a selfish philosophy. The only difference between this and liberalism is that libertarians openly admit this selfishness. Liberals do not; they pretend to be compassionate.

This philosophy of self above all else is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. Christianity subjugates the self to God and other people (Matthew 22:34-39). In contrast, libertarians and liberals alike are opposed to a moral authority above themselves.

Just pay attention to what libertarians say. For example, a famous libertarian on Fox News is Judge Andrew Napolitano. When he explains our rights he does so by saying that our rights are “part of our humanity.” With this explanation, he ignores the most important part of what the Declaration of Independence actually says—that our rights are a gift from God.

Not unlike Napolitano, liberal President Obama often leaves God out of his talks. See:

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2010/11/30/obamas_7_creator_omissions_part_1

and

http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2010/12/07/obamas_7_creator_omissions_part_2/page/full/.  

As Pilate and Herod were allies (Luke 23:12), we should be wary of this coziness, or at least the similarities between libertarianism and liberalism.

But as Matt Lewis points out, there are differences between libertarianism and liberalism (see links below). For liberals, equality is the highest good. For liberatarians, liberty is the highest good. But both equality and liberty can have disastrous results.

As Lewis further points out, the moral order that results from Christianity-based classical conservatism is crucial to society. Or as John Adams insisted, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.” Certainly Adams had in mind Christianity. (See the Bible and Government article at our religion website link at the bottom of this article.)

A charge that libertarians and liberals alike make against Christians is that applying the Bible to government leads to theocracy. But we can see that radical libertarianism can lead to its own theocracy, as Gary DeMar points out:

http://americanvision.org/1467/theocracy-inescapable-concept/.   

And we note that anarchism is a branch of libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism). It can be argued that anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion. So on the one hand, libertarianism can lead to theocracy, or it can lead to anarchism. It can lead to liberal tyranny—or it can lead to lawlessness.

Our message to libertarians is this—if what you desire is freedom, consider biblical Christianity. With history as our witness, the more Christianity, the more freedom.

For more study on libertarianism, please see these excellent articles by Selwyn Duke:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/libertarianisms_folly_when_liv.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/what_libertarians_misunderstan.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/yes_folks_we_all_would_legisla.html

These by Matt Lewis:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/16/the-case-for-conservatism-versus-libertarianism/

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/20/on-conservative-movement-libertarians-and-neo-objectivists/

This article by Marvin Olasky:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/18283

This article by Thomas E. Woods about the history of natural rights:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zVDR2ZePzvUC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=secular+residue+of+religious+attitudes+and+assumptions+which+historically+found+expression+first+in+the+liturgy+and+rituals+and+doctrine+of+the+church+and+therafter+in+the+institutions+and+concepts+and+values+of+the+law.+When+these+historical+roots+are+not+understood,+many+parts+of+the+law+appear+to+lack+any+underlying+source+of+validity.&source=bl&ots=JeLekKpUfO&sig=m_ZxvgKsc5pTuemBlfK9ttuLqzg&hl=en&ei=KsZbTcfYHsGUtweZkeC_Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

And this summary from our religion site about the Bible and government:

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

h1

How Conservatives and Liberals Argue Their Case

November 6, 2010

Let’s examine how conservatives and liberals argue their respective cases. In this study, I’ve got some great videos for your consideration. 

First, the conservative approach. Below is a 3-part video series about the intellectual basis of conservatism. While more can be said, it is a super introduction. It shows how conservatives use reason and evidence to defend their ideas. Each video is about 10 minutes long. Yes, it’s a long time to invest! But if you are serious about studying this stuff, the series is outstanding:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0MESB6VZM4&feature=related

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkXI-MNSb8Q&feature=related

Next, the liberal approach. Here are are 2 videos. The first one is about 4 minutes long. It shows how the left is using law to try to shut up conservatives (hate crimes, net neutrality, fairness doctrine, etc.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s

And here is the second,  in animation. It shows how leftists use ad hominem attacks (name calling), and how they ignore the evidence, and they avoid the issues. It is about 7 minutes long:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGwtG8nVpUU

These approaches by liberals should be terrifying to any thinking person. This is exactly how every totalitarian despot gets control of people.

Of course, conservatives are also occasionally guilty of name-calling. But with the left, it is a way of life. The latest such attack by the left is to call tea-partiers racist. In reality, it is the liberals who are inherently racist. This is because liberals divide people into groups: rich-poor, black-white, women-men, etc. Conservatives see people as individuals. Christian conservatives (the ones who take the Bible seriously) especially see every person as being made in the image of God, which is a biblical concept. So every life has true and unique value. As the Declaration of Independence states, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. This is a conservative statement, taken from a Christian worldview.

So, there you have a 41 minute course on politics and worldviews. You spend a lot of wasted time watching TV. Why not take a little of that TV time and learn something important? Watch the videos. Then pay attention to these concepts when you hear each side in public debate.

And why not send a link to this series to your liberal friends. You might say something like, “Hey, Joe. We have had some discussions about political philosophy in the past. Here is a link to some thoughts about how each side argues its case. I would be interested in your thoughts on this video series.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.