The Race Card

Louise Lucas is a black 68-year-old Democratic state senator from Virginia who recently made the following statement to an interviewer.

“What I'm saying to you is Mitt Romney, he's speaking to...a segment of the population who does not like to see people other than a white man in the White House or in any other elected position. Let's be real clear about it, let's be real clear about it, Mitt Romney is speaking to a group of people out there who don't like folks like President Barack Obama in any elective or leadership position...He's speaking to that fringe out there who do not want to see anybody other than a white person in a leadership position...I absolutely believe it's all about race, and for the first time in my life I've been able to convince my children, finally, that racism is alive and well...all across this nation, and especially in Virginia."

You can hear these comments directly at the following link.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=03876wG1pmY


Democrats frequently make such charges of racism against Republicans as a group. Sure, they'll grant that not all Republicans are racist, but insist that the majority of conservatives, especially Tea Party types, are motivated largely by racism in their opposition to President Obama. I believe that such charges are not only baseless, but are as repugnant as racism itself. I have 3 simple questions I would like to ask that I believe show the absurdity of Lucas's statement.

1. If a liberal white Democrat was running for President, or some other elective office, against a conservative black Republican, who do you think the vast majority of conservative Republicans would vote for?

The answer to this question is so obviously that Republicans would vote for the black conservative, I don't really need to go any further on this point. But I would like to ask any Democrat, using a lie detector, this same question. I believe the needle would break off into Pinocchio Land if they answered that they think most, or even a small segment, of Republicans would vote for anyone other than the black conservative. To give just one prominent example, black Republican Congessman Allen West was elected in Florida's 22nd Congressional District, which is 82.3% white. And this in the supposedly racist Deep South. Someone forgot to tell those racists that West is black, I guess!

2. In what past presidential election did Republicans come out and vote in large numbers for the Democrat?

Senator Lucas would have us believe that Republican opposition to President Obama is based largely on racism, not differences with his policies. Is she implying that if the President were white, Republicans wouldn't oppose him with equal fervor? Please! Did Republicans turn out en masse in 1980 to reelect President Jimmy Carter? No, they did not. Did they have something against rural Georgians? Or did they think he did a lousy job as president? Did Republicans campaign hard for the reelection of President Bill Clinton? Again, no. Were they anti-Arkansas? Or did they believe that Senator Dole could lead the country in a better direction? Does Senator Lucas honestly believe that conservative Republicans would support President Obama, or oppose him any less zealously, if his skin were white?

3. If America is really so racist, why did Senator Lucas have to convince her children of this?

Senator Lucas averred that the United States is racist, all across the nation, and especially in Virginia. And she said that she had to “finally" convince her children of this reality. I don't know how many children Senator Lucas has or their ages, but I'm assuming they are adults, and that it has taken many years for Senator Lucas to finally bring them around to the reality of America's racism. If America is really so racist, why did she have to convince her children of this? Couldn't they see it for themselves? Senator Lucas is old enough to remember the later stages of Jim Crow in the South. I'm sure no one had to convince her that the South in the 1950's and 1960's was deeply racist. No one had to explain to blacks in previous generations to Senator Lucas's, who saw and experienced the lynchings, disrespect, segregation, and lack of justice under the law toward blacks that pervaded the South, that there was racism. Perhaps the reason Senator Lucas's children had to be persuaded, contrary to all of their experiences and observations, that the U.S. is still racist, is that the U.S. is categorically NOT racist any longer. And thank God it isn't!

The idea that today's Republicans support Governor Romney over President Obama because of racism is manifestly absurd. Accusing people of wrongdoing, when such accusations are untrue, is a vile miscarriage of justice, and needs to be called out when it happens. I can't say for certain that Senator Lucas is lying - it is possible that she actually believes the slanders emanating from her heart and her mouth. But we, as Americans, must not fall for this lie. To do so makes a mockery of the real racism that pervaded our nation for far too long.

Abortion - It's My Body, Part 1

A frequently heard mantra among pro choicers is that women have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, including having an abortion. I have a few questions for people who share this view.

1. At the moment of conception, a new and genetically unique human organism has been formed. What part of the woman's body is this?

2. At about 4 weeks, there is a heart beating inside the womb, and this can be heard through doppler at about 6 weeks. Has the woman developed a second heart?

3. At 5 weeks, the embryo has discernible arms and legs, with feet and hand areas visible and individual digits starting to form. Would we say this woman now has 4 arms, 4 legs, 4 hands, 4 feet, and 40 combined fingers and toes?

4. By weeks 7-9, the fetus has a well-formed face. So do we now have a 2-faced woman?

5. By week 13, ultrasound can predict the sex of the baby at nearly 100% certainty. If it's a girl, is the woman now 2 females? If it's a boy, is the woman a kind of boywoman?

6. By week 16, the fetal heartbeat can be heard through a stethoscope. When the doctor hears the heartbeat, does he ask the woman, “Would you like to hear your newly developed 2nd heart beating?"

7. At 28 weeks, the fetus shows brain wave activity that indicates differing sleep cycles, including REM dreaming. Whose brain are these brain waves found in? If the fetus has a thought or an awareness of something, is the woman using a second brain to think?

8. Throughout the pregnancy, the fetus is absorbing nutrients ingested by the mother through the umbilical cord, allowing the fetus to grow and develop. Are these nutrients feeding and growing a new part of the woman's body? If the woman is ingesting drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes, is there damage being done to this new part of her body?

9. If the fetus develops a birth defect or has a genetic disorder, is it really the woman who has the medical issue? Is it the woman who has the defective heart valve? Has the woman suddenly developed Down's Syndrome?

10. During birth, is the woman ejecting part of her body from herself? As the baby comes out, does it stop being part of the woman's body one part at a time, as the various parts emerge? Is the woman a mother of the parts that have been born, but the parts still inside her are still part of her body? Is it still part of her body when completely out but while the umbilical cord is still attached?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Obamacare Needs To Be Repealed

Obamacare passed with ZERO Republican votes in both houses of Congress, with less than 50% of the nation supporting it, and with Democrats using procedural trickery to avoid a Republican filibuster after losing their 60 vote filibuster-proof majority with the election of a Republican senator in MASSACHUSETTS, among the most liberal states in the nation...and Democrats paid for this with a huge rebuke at the polls in 2010, with Democrats going from a 79 seat majority to Republicans gaining a 49 seat majority, a gain of 64 seats for the Republicans...no sweeping, nation-changing legislation has been passed with such partisan tactics...Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and other major pieces of federal legislation passed with broad support from both Democrats and Republicans...President Obama must be defeated in 2012 so this ill-conceived bill, passed with trickery, political conniving and back room dealing, can be repealed before its bankrupting and invasive effects can be put into action.

In Favor Of The Death Penalty

The mass killing in Norway in July of 2011 has, once again, raised in my mind an obvious question: what is an appropriate punishment for such a heinously evil act? Anders Behring Breivik ended the lives of 77 people, most of them youths at a political youth camp. Norway's maximum punishment for this seems to be 21 years in prison. It is possible that, through some legal maneuverung, Breivek will serve more time, perhaps even a life sentence, but Norway, like many Western European nations, lacks the only fitting punishment for such a crime, namely the death penalty. I hope to explain why putting cold-blooded, intentional murderers to death is the only just and sensible punishment for such a crime. In so doing, I will try to address the major objections that have been used to oppose capital punishment, and show the flaws in these arguments.

1. The death penalty is state-sponsored murder.

According to this line of reasoning, the ending of a life by the government for the crime of murder is no different morally than the murder of an innocent person by a killer. This is absurd on 2 levels: first, not all killing is the same, and second, legalized state punishments are inherently different from the same actions carried out by individuals.

Murder is specifically killing which is against the law. Killing in self defense, the defense of another, or in war are not considered murder under the law. So killing a murderer, when carried out by the state as a legal punishment, is clearly distinguishable from murder.

When a man holds another person against his will, depriving him of liberty, it is called kidnapping. When the state holds a person against his will and deprives him of liberty, it is called incarceration. No one argues that it is state-sponsored kidnapping to hold a criminal in prison. By the same token, a fine for speeding is not state-sponsored robbery. So the idea that the death penalty for murderers is state-sponsored murder is nonsense.

2. Only God has the right to decide when a person dies.

This argument appeals to those who believe in a good God who justly judges good and evil and determines the span of a man's life. But the very God revealed in the Bible calls for the death penalty to be used in cases of murder. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." (Genesis 9:6) In fact, death for the murderer is the one law found in all 5 books of the Torah (the first 5 books of the Old Testament). Now I am not arguing that the laws contained in the Bible should be used to determine laws in the United States; however, those who want to point to the God of the Bible as a basis for not implementing capital punishment do not have a biblical leg to stand on. Also, while it may be true that God alone judges people after they die to determine eternal consequences, the work of justice on earth has clearly been given to mankind to administer.

It should be added that in Christian doctrine, the murderer can still find forgiveness with God. The rebels crucified on either side of Jesus likely committed murder as part of their rebellion against the Romans (although this is not explicitly stated in the Scriptures); yet Jesus offered forgiveness and eternal life to the criminal who repented and turned his heart toward Jesus on the cross. But Jesus did not say anything against the penalty of death imposed on His new disciple; Jesus simply told him that they would see each other in a few minutes in Paradise.

3. The death penalty is not a deterrent to murder.

Some people point out that murder still occurs where the death penalty is in place. But just because the death penalty hasn't ended murder in places where it is instituted doesn't mean that it doesn't act as a deterrent; it simply indicates that there are some people for whom any punishment, including death, does not act as a deterrent.

The great Dennis Prager has pointed out that if the death penalty was administered for murders committed Monday - Thursday, but life in prison was the sentence for Friday - Sunday murders, there would almost certainly be a lot more weekend murders than weekday murders. It follows that a state that has the death penalty will also see a diminished murder rate compared to the same state without it, especially if potential murderers know that it will reliably and promptly be carried out.

Lastly, the knowledge that I may have to pay a $125 fine acts as a deterrent against speeding in my car. The knowledge that not feeding the parking meter will get me a $25 ticket gets me to drop my coins in the parking meter. The desire to stay out of prison keeps most people honest on their taxes. How can anyone seriously argue that financial penalties and loss of liberty are good deterrents to crime, but death is not a deterrent to murder?

4. Life imprisonment is an even harsher punishment than the death penalty.

This is an easy argument to dispense with when one observes the behavior of nearly all people on trial for a capital crime, or on death row. Nearly all defendants who are guilty and know that the evidence against them is overwhelming will accept a sentence of life imprisonment in exchange for a guilty plea in order to avoid being put to death. This hardly seems like the behavior one would expect if the prospect of life imprisonment was harsher than capital punishment. Also, few death row inmates go to their deaths without first exhausting every possible appeal the legal system affords them. The very people experiencing prison prefer to continue living in prison rather than being executed.

5. Innocent people may be put to death.

Truth demands that we admit this is possible, and if it happens, unspeakably horrible. So the argument goes that the death penalty should be eliminated because just 1 innocent person executed is far worse than allowing thousands of guilty murderers to live. I disagree. No system of justice is perfect, and we can't expect ours to work perfectly every time. But when murderers are allowed to live, they can, and often do, murder again. Sometimes they kill fellow inmates, sometimes prison guards. Sometimes they escape or are released from prison and murder again. While it is true that people who argue for the death penalty have to acknowledge that an innocent person could be put to death, people opposed to the death penalty must account for the far greater number of people who die because murderers are kept alive.

6. The death penalty is unnecessary since we can keep the public safe from murderers with life imprisonment.

People escape from prison. It's rare, but it happens, often with deadly consequences. People inside prison are murdered and maimed by people with life sentences. And civilians living in society are at greater risk without the deterrent of the death penalty to dissuade would-be murderers.

7. The death penalty isn't justice - it's revenge.

The state institutes penalties for crimes. People in society then have emotional reactions to those penalties. If the family members of a murder victim feel a sense of revenge against an executed murderer, that is their business. If others choose to forgive the murderer, that may be a beautiful thing, but it is still their business. The state must do what is just and right for its citizens, not what feels good to a certain group of people.

One final note: I am aware that in the case of Anders Behring Breivik, there have been some findings of legal insanity, and that these findings may, appropriately, negate the use of the death penalty in a society that uses it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Federal Subsidies For College Is A Scam

I decided that rather than just coming up with a list of federal government programs that could be cut or eliminated, which is a valuable exercise in itself, I would instead pinpoint a few areas where the U.S. government overspends and illustrate the negative aspects of these spending policies. The first one I'll tackle is the arena of federal expenditures on student financial aid beyond high school. In 2011, the federal government will spend $42 billion (that's 42,000,000,000 dollars!) on Student Financial Assistance. The lion's share of this money goes to Pell Grants, which subsidizes student loans at low interest rates. Some of this money goes to direct assistance to defray tuition costs for low-income students. And, of course, a decent chunk of this mound of cash goes to the bureaucracy needed to run the program.

Let me start with the most obvious critique of this program, which is the same with most federal programs: THIS IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Unless someone has rendered a valuable service to our nation, such as serving in the armed services, the national treasury should not act as a piggy bank to help people afford college loans. By doing so, the federal government is acting in its typically redistributive mode, taking money from taxpayers who decide not to go to college, and giving it to those who do. Why should a hard-working plumber, electrician, construction worker, or landscaper be forced to fund other people's higher education when they have chosen to forego college themselves? Also, college graduates, on average, earn a great deal more money over a lifetime than those who do not attend college. By taking money paid by non-college-goers to fund the education of those who choose to pursue higher education, we are engaging in a redistributive measure of the most illogical kind, from those who have less to those who will most likely have more.

More importantly, however, federal subsidies of student loans act to skew the market price of higher education in a steeply more expensive direction. Whenever additional money is made available to purchase a product of limited supply, such as medical care, or, in our example, higher education, the price of that product, as a rule of economics, will rise. In fact, the college inflation rate has ranged from 1.47 to 2.01 times the rate of general inflation from 1958 through 2008.








Source of Table: http://montana.collegesavings.com/montana/pdf/inflation_table.pdf















Source of both graphs: http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml



These increases in college tuition are made possible (and inevitable) by the flow of federal money into the coffers of our nation's institutions of higher learning. Some may argue that the high cost of a college education necessitates government subsidies. The truth of the matter, however, is that these very subsidies have created the college tuition monster, and at taxpayer expense.

If colleges had to compete in a fair and free market for the dollars of prospective students, with no government money to skew the market, the price of a college education would drop and stabilize. And it would save $42 billion this year, or 2.6% of our current federal deficit!




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Panera McHenry

National Debt Crisis, Part 1

As a nation, the United States is quickly spinning toward debt Armageddon. Our national debt is currently somewhere north of $14 trillion - that's 14,000,000,000,000 dollars. Even more portending of fiscal doom is the percentage of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) this represents. As of 2010, our debt stands at about 92% of GDP, if all foreign and domestic debt is included. To put this in terms that are easier to grasp, imagine a household with an annual income of $100,000 that has accumulated a credit card bill of $92,000. Such a situation would require immediate and significant change to avoid financial collapse.

How do we, as a nation, address this crisis? Somehow, we need to get federal spending to match, and eventually fall below, revenues coming in to the federal treasury. But projected budgets for the next 5 years show annual deficits that will increase our debt to over $20 trillion, which will most likely increase debt to GDP to over 105%. In other words, far from beginning to balance our budget and pay off our debt, we are significantly increasing it. And this at a time when spending on Social Security and Medicare will be skyrocketing as the disproportionately large Baby Boomer generation begins to retire.

Clearly, we are heading into a financial abyss that is currently swallowing some Western European nations, such as Greece and Portugal. One only needs to turn on the news to see the recent violent repercussions of such a debt-induced crisis in Greece. So how do we avoid the inevitable coming crisis that our current fiscal policies have wrought? I will be addressing this from 2 perspectives in upcoming entries: from the revenue side, and from the spending side.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Panera Bread, McHenry, Illinois

Anti-Semitism Alive and Well

I have to give Adolf Hitler credit for one thing: no one can claim he wasn't clear about his feelings toward Jews. Hitler made it clear that he wanted Jews wiped off the planet, and was willing to do his part in accomplishing this. Unfortunately, anti-semitism did not begin or end with Hitler. There is still a good chunk of humanity that blames Jews, and often the nation of Israel, for many of the evils in today's world. Some, like the murderers of Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda, and the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are, like Hitler, quite clear about their rabid hatred for Jews and Israel. But, sadly, there is a pervasive prejudice against Jews and Israel found among many nations, organizations, and individuals who purport to be fair and who claim to want peace and justice in the world.

Take the United Nations. This body is supposed to be an impartial arbiter between the different nations and people groups of the world. Yet in the 62 year history of the modern nation of Israel, the UN has passed over 65 resolutions against the nation of Israel and NONE against the Palestinians and Arabs who oppose Israel's existence. Israel is a democracy which grants basic human and civil rights to its citizens, whether Jewish or not. Israel respects the rights of women, minorities, gays, religious people, secular people, blacks, Arabs, and others who live within its borders. By contrast, all of Israel's neighbors, along with the Hamas-led Palestinians in Gaza, do not recognize similar rights for women, gays, non-Muslims, and people who recognize Israel's right to exist. Over and over again, representatives of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the PLO, and other terrorist groups, have killed and maimed innocent Israeli civilians. None of these groups recognize Israel's right to exist, and clearly express their desire to see the Jewish nation destroyed. Yet it is Israel who has consistently borne the brunt of UN condemnation for actions taken to defend its people, not the groups who seek Israel's destruction.

In fact, of the world's 195 countries, there is only 1 whose right to exist is questioned at all, and that nation is Israel. Is it a coincidence that the only nation on earth whose very existence is daily questioned and threatened is a nation established for the Jewish people? Shortly after taking power in Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be "wiped out from the map." He added, "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." Compare these statements with the one made by Hitler in a speech delivered to the Reichstag shortly before World War 2 began. In Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, theconsequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

Sadly, the world stood by and watched Hitler and his Nazi thugs murder 6 millions Jews before they were stopped. As a result, Jews and those who support them should take seriously threats made by the likes of Hitler to try to wipe Jews out. Where is the UN's and the world's condemnation for Ahmadinejad for his threats to wipe out Israel? Where is the outrage at his desire to see the United States, the best friend of the Jewish nation and people, and the greatest force for good on earth, destroyed? Why is the United Nations idly watching Iran equip itself with the capability to build and deliver nuclear weapons that can bring massive death and destruction to Israel? It is time for good people, Jewish and Gentile, to stand up to the evil of anti-semitism. Failure to do so is cowardice and is itself evil. Israel, unlike the Jews in Europe under Hitler, thankfully has the power to do a lot of damage to her enemies. The good nations and people around the world, especially free democracies like the U.S., need to stand with Israel and the Jewish people against the evil that would love to repeat the Nazi genocide of the Holocaust.

Location:Illinois 60,Volo,United States