Riding on in the Friscalating Dusklight

2010 Senate Races

2010-03-08T17:45:00.004-06:00

I am not an expert, but from analyzing the most recent polls I’ve come up with a quick break down of the 2010 US Senate races. 36 seats are up for grabs in November, 18 currently held by Democrats and 18 held by Republicans. If the election were held today, I think the Republicans would pick up at least 5 seats and as many as 11. The current Senate has 57 Democrats, 2 Independents (in name only) that caucus with the Democrats, and 41 Republicans. While many are predicting that the Republicans will take back the House, they are unlikely to take back the Senate in November. However, by picking up 5-8 seats they will strengthen their ability to protect America from Obama’s left wing agenda and set the stage for taking back the Senate in 2012. A lot can change between now and November, but things look good for the GOP.

The breakdown:

10 seats are in the bank for the Republicans: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona (although I’m not holding out much hope for McCain’s conservative challenger J.D. Hayworth), Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah.

5 seats are in the bank for the Democrats: Hawaii, Maryland, New York (Schumer), Oregon, Vermont.

2 seats strongly Democrat (but then again, so was Massachusetts): Washington and Connecticut

8 seats strongly Republican: Iowa, Florida (Marco Rubio, a conservative rising star in the Republican party, is trouncing moderate Charlie Crist for the nomination), Louisiana, North Carolina, Delaware (Mike Castle is crushing Coons by 18 points for Biden’s former seat, no wonder Biden’s son pulled out), Nevada (Harry Reid trails Sue Lowden by 13 points), Kentucky (both Republican candidates for Jim Bunning’s vacated seat are outpolling both Democratic candidates by double digits – Ron Paul’s son Rand is the likely Republican nomineee) and North Dakota.

Ok, so far that’s 18 seats for the Republicans and 7 for the Democrats. Of the remaining 12 seats, any seat the Republicans win is a gain. Here’s where it gets interesting.

5 seats lean Republican:

Colorado: both Republican candidates are polling ahead of current Sen. Bennet (D) by 6-9 points.

Missouri: Kit Bond is retiring, but Roy Blunt (R) up 7 points on Robin Carnahan (D).

New Hampshire: Judd Gregg is retiring, but likely GOP nominee Kelly Ayotte leads Rep. Paul Hodes (D) by 7 points.

Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln (D) is in a primary fight, but should hang on. However, she trails likely Republican nominee Congressman John Boozman by 9 points.

Indiana: Evan Bayh’s retirement may have handed the seat to former Indiana Senator Dan Coats (R).

6 seats are tossups:

New York (Gillebrand): Former Governor Pataki is neck and neck with Gillebrand (D) in the polls, but hasn’t decided yet if he will run.

Illinois: Roland Burris is retiring (as if he had a choice) and centrist Republican Congressman Mark Kirk has a modest lead on 33 year old Alexi Giannoulias who just bankrupted his wealthy family’s bank under his leadership (he has cited this as a reason to vote for him – he feels your economic pain). This is Obama’s senate seat – would be a huge victory for the GOP.

California: Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of HP and tea-partier Chuck DeVore are both polling within about 5 points of Barbara Boxer, believe it or not.

Wisconsin: Former Governor Tommy Thompson is polling slightly ahead of liberal Russ Feingold. Hopefully he chooses to run.

Ohio: Rob Portman (R) is up 5 or 6 points on likely Democratic nominee.

Pennsylvania: The polls have been see-sawing a bit in this race between the likely Republican nominee, former Club for Growth president and US Representative Pat Toomey and current Democrat Arlen Spector.

As we’ve learned during the Bush years, it’s not good enough to have Republicans in Congress, we need conservative Republicans. Many of these candidates are quite conservative. I am excited about Marco Rubio, I think he is presidential material down the road.

The news should get even better for the Republicans in the 2012 Senate elections. 33 seats will be up for grabs, 23 Democrats (I've included the two Independents) and only 10 Republicans. This math creates greater opportunities for the GOP to establish a strong majority in the Senate.

Jodie Evans and Obama

2009-10-24T09:32:00.002-05:00

Why does Obama continue to give so much face time to Jodie Evans? The founder of Code Pink and major fundraiser for Obama recently spoke for a while with Obama at a fundraiser.

Jodie Evans is one of the worst people in this country. Let's count the ways:

On the terrorists in Iraq fighting and killing US soldiers:

”We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and defending their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. The Iraqi people are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we are fighting for lies.” (AlterNet, June 26, 2005)

“There is widespread opposition to the occupation. Political, social, and civil resistance through peaceful means is subjected to repression by the occupying forces. It is the occupation and its brutality that has provoked a strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom.”

Evans travels the globe, meeting with every terrorist and tyrant she can find, offering her support. The President should denounce her publicly and refuse her contributions, not grant her face time.

Burning One Down

2009-08-19T22:28:00.004-05:00

Marijuana growers from a Mexican drug cartel just caused an 88,000 acre wildfire in California. Do you think liberals will be more interested in protecting the border now? Hmmm, probably not.

The Drum-quarium

2009-08-16T13:01:00.002-05:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: The Drum-quarium.

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

2009-08-15T10:22:00.001-05:00

Focusing on the Family

2009-08-09T19:52:00.001-05:00

Stuff White Christians Like #38: Focusing on the Family

Liberals: Not Wasting Crises Since 1933

2009-08-04T16:33:00.004-05:00

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, let slip just after the election. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before," he continued. Obama has seized the opportunity, following the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who took full advantage of the fear created by the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

Let's review: in October 1929, two months after the crash, unemployment peaked at 9% and then declined to 6.3% by June 1930. Congress and President Hoover then passed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs with the intention of reducing imports and protecting American jobs. By November unemployment was 11.6% and the Great Depression was beginning. FDR was elected in 1933, promising in his acceptance speech:

"Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms."

FDR believed that through greater central planning of the economy, more powerful unions and massive social programs he could improve the economy and dramatically shift the power balance towards statism and the Democratic party. He succeeded only in the latter. The first of FDR's New Deal interventions in the economy after taking office in 1933 was the National Industrial Recovery Act, which set prices and wages. Then came the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which allowed FDR to control prices and output of all the nation's farmers. These interventions and others, combined with anti-business rhetoric from the White House created much unpredictability in the marketplace and business investment fell off the cliff. For the first 21 months of FDR's presidency, unemployment was above 20%. In 1940, after 7 years of FDR's New Deal, unemployment was 14.3%. When WWII started, unemployment declined dramatically as millions of unemployed men went to war and FDR changed his focus from radically changing the free market to winning the war.

Not only did FDR's policies extend the Great Depression, causing much suffering, but he left us with a much, much, much larger and oppressive federal government that continues to rob us of our liberty and tax dollars to this day. He took full advantage of the crisis at hand to move the country a long way toward statism.

Obama is seeking to do the same, having learned from FDR's example. Massive deficit spending didn't help the economy when FDR tried it, but it did help the federal government usurp more power from the people, so Obama rolled out a $1 trillion "stimulus" bill. His health care "reform" is a thinly disguised attempt to force us all into socialized medicine.

Most of Obama's efforts to revive the economy focus on creating government jobs. Unfortunately, creating more government jobs does not mean more net jobs, since the money used to create them is taken out of the market, which would have been more efficient at creating jobs with that money. However, as Obama learned well while in Chicago, government jobs create a group of people that rely on the government for their paycheck and will tend to vote for people that favor their continued employment.

FDR used the Great Depression to move this country away from individual liberty and limited government and toward statism. Let's hope Obama is not as "successful."

The Obama Birth Certificate

2009-07-30T19:05:00.003-05:00

Attention conspiracy theorists: President Obama was born in Hawaii, please give that one up. As Andrew McCarthy points out in National Review, the controversy surrounding Obama's birth certificate should be about his honesty (or lack thereof) about his past.

During the campaign, Obama lacked experience, so he ran on a compelling story, as detailed in two auto-biographies. Much of this life story is a complete fabrication, as McCarthy details. McCarthy hypothesizes that Obama doesn't want the birth certificate released because it will reveal additional details about the Muslim heritage he alternately embraces and shuns whenever it suits him. The media has been very interested in Sarah Palin rumors, but hasn't bothered to examine the details of Obama's past:

Astonishingly, reporters see their job not as reporting Obama news but as debunking Obama news, or flat-out suppressing it. How many Americans know, for example, that as a sitting U.S. senator in 2006, Obama interfered in a Kenyan election, publicly ripping the incumbent government (a U.S. ally) for corruption while he was its guest and barnstorming with his preferred candidate: a Marxist now known to have made a secret agreement with Islamists to convert Kenya to sharia law, and whose supporters, upon losing the election, committed murder and mayhem, displacing thousands of Kenyans and plunging their country into utter chaos?

Obama has not been honest about his past and it's worth finding out the truth.

Stuff White Christians Like #36 Unofficial Church Roll Calls

2009-07-30T19:02:00.002-05:00

#36 Unofficial Church Roll Calls

Stuff White Christians Like #34 Non-Traditional Biblical Names

2009-07-12T14:41:00.001-05:00

Learn how white Christians satisfy the urge to use weird baby names just like the celebrities, yet remain grounded in the Bible: #34 Non-Traditional Biblical Names.

Stuff White Christians Like #33: PowerPoint

2009-07-05T20:56:00.001-05:00

White Christians love PowerPoint... but not the inept tech guy running it.

#33 PowerPoint

Cap and Tax

2009-06-29T18:09:00.003-05:00

The House passed a “Cap and Trade” bill on Friday. The Wall Street Journal calls it the largest tax ever. Obama claims it will only cost the average tax payer the price of a postage stamp a day, yet it will fight global warming and create millions of new “green” jobs. Obama is lying through his teeth. The point of cap and trade (besides granting Democrats even more control of your lives) is to artificially make energy derived from coal or gasoline so expensive that using alternative energy sources becomes more economical. Increasing the taxes by pennies a day isn’t enough to force the average consumer to change. In the beginning, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the bill (should it pass the Senate) would cost the average family of four $1,870 a year. In 2035 it will cost the average middle class family nearly $7,000 a year.

Obama may give you some of the money back through tax credits for living your life in leftist approved ways – for example, by driving an Obama approved car and living in an Obama approved house. One provision of the bill stipulates that in order to sell your house, it must first be inspected by a government bureaucrat. If your house doesn’t have energy efficient windows and appliances you can’t sell your house. I’ll guess that means we’ll all be living in Obama approved housing before too long.

Obama claims this will create (or save?) lots of “green” jobs. Of course it will. It’s not hard to create a job. You could take a billion in tax dollars and pay 20,000 people $50k a year to dig ditches and then fill them in again. You just created 20,000 jobs, but you destroyed many more than that because of the billion dollars you took out of the private sector.

Cap and trade will dramatically increase your heating bill, your electric bill, and your transportation costs. Every product you buy will become more expensive because the energy used to create it and ship it to you will be more expensive. The green industry will make out like bandits, but your quality of life will decline dramatically. Forget that vacation or college savings account – your extra money is going to cap and trade.

House Republicans tried to submit amendments that would suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon, or if electricity prices rose 15% or if unemployment hit 15%. The Democrats defeated them all. Here's John Boehner on this disastrous legislation:

“Americans need real solutions to create jobs, lower energy prices, and clean up the environment, but Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax is a recipe for driving up prices for middle-class families and small businesses and shipping more American jobs overseas. The President repeated his claim that this bill will create jobs, but independent analysts suggest it’s a job killer, while one of his prominent supporters, Warren Buffett, calls it a huge, regressive tax.

“Republicans believe there is a better route to more jobs, reliable energy, and a cleaner, healthier environment. Our all-of-the-above plan will increase American energy production in an environmentally-safe way, encourage the use of alternatives such as nuclear and clean-coal energy, and promote new technologies and efficiencies. Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress and the Administration have chosen to go it alone with their costly, jobs-killing national energy tax scheme. Middle-class families and small businesses struggling during this recession won’t support it. It’s time for Democrats to work with Republicans on real solutions to create jobs and pave the way for a cleaner, more reliable energy future.”

Obama, Chavez and Castro Vs. the People of Honduras

2009-06-29T17:49:00.002-05:00

Why is Obama siding with Chavez and Castro against the Honduran people? Read more from the WSJ on how Honduras is attempting to defend its democracy over the objections of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Youth Pastors

2009-06-28T15:08:00.003-05:00

Stuff White Christians Like #32: Youth Pastors

This guy is a real youth pastor - thanks Google images!

The Failed Stimulus Package

2009-06-14T10:32:00.005-05:00

Joe Biden told Meet the Press this morning that "everyone guessed wrong" about the impact the $787 billion stimulus package would have on job numbers. He stated that economists used standard formulas project the job growth the stimulus package would create - the reason they were wrong is that the economy was much worse than everyone feared.

I beg to disagree. Every Republican in the House and almost all the Republicans in the Senate voted against the bill - arguing that the historic spending would not efficiently cause job growth (and that much of the spending was just plain wasteful pork headed for favored Democrat constituents). Hundreds of noted economists came out against the bill and the overall concept that massive government spending could bring us out of recession. Apparently, Biden means that "the Democrats guessed wrong."

There are several reasons why the stimulus package hasn't worked and won't work. Every dollar the government spends must come from somewhere. Specifically, from one of three places: taxes, borrowing, or by printing money and causing inflation. If the government had not passed the trillion dollar stimulus ($787 plus interest), that trillion dollars would have gone somewhere else. It would have been invested in businesses or it would have been spent. Both spending and investment create jobs, but much more efficiently than the projects thought up by the economic wizards leading the Democratic Party: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

A second problem is that the market (free people making decisions about what to do with their time and money) knows that Obama's massive spending will mean much higher taxes in the future. Higher taxes slow down economic growth because government spending is less efficient than allowing free people to spend their own money, but also because it decreases the incentive to be productive in the first place. If the government takes 75% of the money you earn and provides free housing, food, education, health care, a GM car, and your retirement, it matters a whole lot less how hard you work or how high paying your job is.

The failure of the stimulus package is a surprise only to Democrats.

Combined Summer Services

2009-06-14T10:30:00.001-05:00

Stuff White Christians Like #30: Combined Summer Services.

Avalene Claire

2009-06-10T16:38:00.002-05:00

I'm proud to announce the arrival of Avalene Claire! She was born yesterday at 8:03 am - 6 lbs. 3 oz. and 19.5 inches long. Baby and mom are doing great. Grandma and Grandpa VanderPlas were here yesterday and Grandma and Grandpa Bos are coming tomorrow.

Bon Iver

2009-06-07T15:06:00.003-05:00

Bon Iver's album, For Emma, Forever Ago is one of my favorite albums of the last year. Here's a live performance on Letterman. The MP3 album is on sale for only $5 on Amazon this month.

Stuff White Christians Like #29 Puppet Ministry

2009-06-07T13:54:00.009-05:00

It has been said that there are two things that separate us from the animals: souls and opposable thumbs. Well, both of these items are on prominent display with the 29th white Christian like: Puppet Ministry.

Stuff White Christians Like

Sowell on Sotamayor

2009-06-03T21:36:00.003-05:00

Excellent column from Thomas Sowell on judge Sotamayor. Sowell notes that "the very idea that a judge's 'life experiences' should influence judicial decisions is as absurd as it is dangerous. It is dangerous because citizens are supposed to obey the law, which means they must know what the law is in advance - and nobody can know in advance what the 'life experiences' of whatever judge they might appear before will happen to be."

The media is outraged that notable figures on the right like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh would say she is racist. However, they have not disputed the charge, they have complained about the "tone." There is no doubt that if a white male had said that being white made him a better judge than a Latino he would have zero shot at being on any court, let alone the highest court in the land. The left claims that minorities can't be racist, since they are not in power, so they should not be held to the same standard. This is preposterous at any time, but especially now, considering we have a black president and the fact that Sotamayor is being considered for one of the most powerful positions in this country.

Republicans don't have the votes to stop her confirmation, but they need to let the American people what kind of judge Obama has nominated. Sotamyor is up for a life time appointment to the Supreme Court where she will have the power to impose her views on every American.

Government Motors

2009-06-02T23:05:00.003-05:00

"Government Motors" has become a popular moniker for the restructured General Motors. Obama denies this charge, saying "What I am not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM.... They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around."

Ha! Firing the CEO, forcing bond holders to take 10 cents on the dollar, big give-aways to the union and passing legislation making some of their most competitive vehicles illegal, is not exactly a hands-off approach. Obama won't run the company, he'll hand it over to the UAW and hand picked executives, while the taxpayers foot the bill to the tune of $50 billion. What exactly is the difference?

Surprise, surprise, Obama's selection for CEO supports the new legislation making many of the cars you and I would like to buy illegal. By 2016, the average car must get 39 miles per gallon, up from the current 27.5. This will make cars more expensive, make domestic auto companies less competitive, and limit your freedom to buy a car that is right for you and your family. Worst of all, carmakers will have to sacrifice safety, making cars smaller and lighter in order to improve fuel efficiency. Thousands more people will die in traffic accidents because of this legislation. Driving a more fuel efficient car sounds great, but the free market (AKA the independent decisions of free people) will strike a better balance between fuel costs, maintenance, retail price, safety, and utility of a car or SUV than having President Obama decide what car is right for you.

The best thing for GM would have been to go bankrupt without a huge government "investment" and renegotiate its union contracts. This would allow them to get their costs in line and become competitive again. Obama refused to allow this to happen to his union supporters. Instead, we will dump billion after billion in tax payer money supporting the unions and a company that may never make a profit again.

SWCL #28 Getting Married Right Out of College

2009-05-31T15:23:00.003-05:00

Stuff White Christians Like #28 Getting Married Right Out of College.

Racist, Leftist, Activist and Not a Surprise

2009-05-26T21:56:00.008-05:00

I had major misgivings about Senator McCain, but I voted for him in no small part because of the kind of justice he would appoint to the Supreme Court. President Obama didn't have to wait long for a vacancy and today he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman to be nominated. Growing up in the projects in the Bronx, she has an amazing rags to riches story that speaks to the greatness of this country.

Obama had stipulated that his choice would be based largely on the "depth and breadth of one's empathy" and whether he/she had "the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges." This is insanity. Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Isn't the role of the court to interpret the law and judge it against the Constitution? What does knowing what it's like to be black, old, gay or disabled have to do with the role of the court? Is it also important to know what it's like to be rich, white, or heterosexual?

Obama has apparently found his judge with empathy (read: liberal activist), but now claims that “a judge’s job is to interpret, not make law." This is in stark contrast with Sotomayor's actual record of judicial activism and President Obama's opposition to Justice Roberts and Alito who actually believe that statement. Obama cleverly adopts conservative catch phrases - he speaks about being "fiscally responsible" while giving us a deficit four times the record, he talks about "reducing the number of abortions" while promoting legislation that would remove every restriction on abortion and force Christian and Catholic hospitals to perform them. Now he gives lip service to judicial restraint while nominating someone who will seek to advance a liberal agenda no matter what the law says.

In one decision (now before the Supreme Court) Sotomayor ruled against a white firefighter who was denied a promotion because no blacks qualified for the same promotion. He bought $1,000 worth of books and studied for the required exam, getting a friend to read the books onto audiotapes because he is dyslexic. However, the city decided that not enough minorities had passed the test and refused to promote him. Apparently, Sotomayor lacked the "empathy" to understand what it's like to be dyslexic, not to mention was lacking in understanding of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

This statement might help to understand Sotomayor:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

and this:

"[W]e who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience or heritage but attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate."

You could say that the argument that her "opinions, sympathies and prejudices" were at least sometimes appropriate to factor into her decisions precludes her from the job, considering the oath she'll have to take:

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Green Day and Walmart

2009-05-23T17:37:00.002-05:00

A lot of people, including the music blogger for Yahoo, seem very upset that Walmart is refusing to carry Green Day's new album in their stores. Walmart asked the band to offer them a cleaner version, bleep out some swear words, etc. and they refused.

Frontman Billie Joe Armstrong: "Wal-Mart's become the biggest retail outlet in the country, but they won't carry our record because they wanted us to censor it. They want artists to censor their records in order to be carried in there. We just said no. We've never done it before. You feel like you're in 1953 or something."

Bassist Mike Dirnt: "As the biggest record store in the America, [Wal-Mart] should probably have an obligation to sell people the correct art."

Censorship! Waaaaa! Where oh where will people buy the Green Day album now? A private organization decided that selling a certain cd was not in their best interest. How do they have an obligation to sell someone's album? I realize this country is becoming less free by the day, but I think private businesses have more than enough obligations placed on them without having to be told what the "correct art" is that they must stock on their shelves.

Arlen Spector

2009-05-01T05:20:00.002-05:00

Here's the Onion's take on Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats.

This highlights a fact that few considered during the presidential election. We weren't voting on John McCain's policies vs. Barack Obama's. We were voting on whether or not we wanted a check on a left wing Congress. With Democrats in firm control of both houses, John McCain wasn't going to get much of his agenda passed, but he could have stood in the way of the radical transformation of our country that is currently under way.

TARP Forever

2009-04-23T19:32:00.003-05:00

Many Americans were outraged when the federal government created the TARP program to bail out banks to the tune of $700 billion. What's more outrageous is that several of the banks now want to pay that money back and the Obama administration will not let them.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether the Bush administration acted appropriately in bailing out the banks. However, what they were doing was without doubt, based on economics. Treasury Secretary Paulson was trying desperately to stablize the banking system. What Obama is doing is based on politics. He doesn't want the money back - he wants control. He wants control over who the banks loan to and what they pay their executives.

Stuart Varney, Wall Street Journal:

If [GM CEO] Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Live Tea or Die

2009-04-22T16:39:00.003-05:00

To follow-up on the infamous CNN video of last week's tea parties, here's a great article by National Review's Mark Steyn.

CNN's Susan Roesgen : Did you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion dollars out of this stimulus? That’s $50 billion dollars for this state, sir.

Steyn: Really? Who knew it was that easy? $50 billion dollars! Did those Navy SEALs find it just off the Somali coast in the wreckage of a pirate skiff in a half-submerged treasure chest, all in convertible pieces of eight or Zanzibari doubloons?

Or is it perhaps the case that that $50 billion dollars has to be raised from the same limited pool of 300 million Americans and their as-yet-unborn descendants?

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

2009-04-16T19:35:00.004-05:00

There's been a lot of noise about Homeland Security's warning about right-wing extremists (and no, they are not just plotting to put Bill Clinton's DNA on Monica's dress this time). While the report is a little offensive to veterans and raises some civil rights issues, what's more interesting is how this fits with the Obama administration's view of the threats facing this country.

This administration has gone through a lot of trouble to convince us that Islamist terrorism is not nearly the danger George W. Bush made it out to be. We no longer use the verbiage "war on terror" or "enemy combatants." Actually "terror" is out altogether. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitan prefers "man-caused disaster." National Review wonders if someone perpetuating one of these acts will be called a "man-caused-disaster-causing man." As for "war on terror", it is being replaced around the White House and the Pentagon by "Overseas Contingency Operation."

Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo. The new director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, was asked what we will do with all the man-caused-disaster-causing-men imprisoned there. He replied, "If we are to release them in the United States, you can't just... put them on the street... We need some sort of assistance to them to start a new life and not return to some of the conditions that may have inspired them in the first place." Wait, so not only are at least some of the terrorists going to be released inside the U.S., but we will give them welfare too?

With this approach to the real threats facing civilization (other than socialism), is it any wonder people are concerned about the latest intelligence assessment?

Tea Party

2009-04-16T19:27:00.002-05:00

This woman has no idea why people would be upset about out of control, unprecedented in modern times government spending. "Don't you know Illinois is getting stimulus money?" She views these people with absolute disgust - a bunch of nuts, mind-numbed robots doing the bidding of Fox News - people too stupid to understand the greatness of Obama.

The Onion

2009-04-15T22:48:00.001-05:00

"Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle on Obama Double-Homicide"

Great article from the Onion - I hate that Jon Meacham.

Foreign Law in Our Courts

2009-04-12T10:23:00.004-05:00

NYT reports on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg's view that foreign law should be taken into account in rulings from the Court: “I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law."

Ginsburg also doesn't understand (or refuses to accept) her role as a Supreme Court justice. Her job is to be a check on the power of the other branches of government, using the United States Constitution to determine whether legislation passed by the other branches fits within the constraints the Constitution places on those branches. Foreign law is not the US Constitution, therefore it has no relevance. What does a German judge's ruling (or an Iranian judge, for that matter) have to do with the US Constitution?

Citing foreign law is just an excuse to do things that aren't constitutional. Simply search the world for a judge somewhere who agrees with you and cite his/her ruling as precedent. Or are only judges from certain countries worthy? Should we put more weight on the French high court than the Pakistani high court? What happens if Justice Roberts wants to cite the Czech Republic court and Ginsburg cites the Dominican Republic high court?

President Obama has stated that he will seek to add more Supreme Court justices like Ginsburg.

Wozofoto

2009-03-22T00:01:00.002-05:00

Sorry I've been slacking on the posts lately - I've been working on a new project. I noticed that your walls were a little bare, so I decided to launch a a new website:

Wozofoto.com brings you fine art photography at prices you can't resist. It's a deal-a-day site, so everyday you'll see a different photo by a different photographer and everyday the price will be $10. Only $10 for a 5x7 or 8x10 that would cost you multiples more elsewhere. Larger sizes are also available for an additional fee. Photos are printed at professional photo labs with archival quality inks and paper. Your photos will be printed and shipped to you so fast they'll be on your wall in about a week.

What's the catch? The photo of the day is here today and gone tomorrow. One day, one photo. Thanks for checking it out the site - let me know what you think.

Share on Facebook

The Message

2009-03-15T09:50:00.002-05:00

Enjoy being relevant and contemporary with Stuff White Christians Like #17: The Message.

Faith-Themed Tattoos

2009-03-09T19:15:00.002-05:00

Revel in the extreme, flesh-revealing ministry of faith-themed tattoos with Stuff White Christians Like: #16 Faith-Themed Tattoos.

Freedom of Choice Act

2009-03-07T09:21:00.008-06:00

On the campaign trail Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." This act would override and eliminate any state restrictions on abortion (such as partial birth abortion and parental consent) and would also remove protections for physicians that don't want to perform abortions and force all hospitals to perform abortions.

The Catholic church says it may close all of its 624 U.S. hospitals if this legislation passes. Bishop Thomas Paprocki said that if FOCA becomes law, "It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."

The Catholic church operates 13% of the country's 5,000 hospitals and employs 600,000 people. There's also the possibility the church would engage in civil disobedience. Better yet, let's pray that Congress stands up the president. Is there any doubt that Obama is the most virulently pro-abortion president we've ever seen?

Pranksters

2009-03-06T18:41:00.002-06:00

One of the better pranks I've seen. From Collegehumor.com

Watch Prank War 7: The Half Million Dollar Shot on CollegeHumor

The Stench of Pork and Pigs

2009-03-05T18:21:00.004-06:00

AP Headline: "Iowans say pig-odor study passes the smell test"

A $1.7 million earmark in Obama's new budget for studying pig odor in Iowa has become the most lambasted of the 8,500 earmarks in the new bill. However, the AP insists that it is important research, just as they stood up for Harry Reid's $8.5 billion high speed rail from LA to Vegas included in the "stimulus" bill (construction will begin in 5 years, so much for stimulus). The pig odor research may be important. That is not the point. If it is so important, let the people of Iowa pay for it out of their state tax bill (or better yet, let the private sector pay for it) instead of passing on the bill to the millions of Americans who don't care why pigs smell.

It's a perfect illustration of the failure of big government. Local government is much more efficient because people will only pay more in taxes if they feel they get a good return on those tax dollars. Politicians love spending other people's money and the only way to stop them is through shame. AP - you are not helping.

Don't Worry, the Financial Wizards are in Charge

2009-03-03T19:13:00.005-06:00

This quote today from President Obama made me wistful for a Mitt Romney presidency: "On the other hand, what you're now seeing is profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it."

Profit and earning ratios? Oh my. How many points did the Dow drop on that one? Perhaps Obama was thinking of P/E ratios - which stands for price/earnings.

Here's how the AP reported the gaffe: "Trying to pump up the nation's confidence, President Barack Obama said Tuesday that Wall Street has been hammered so hard that 'buying stocks is a potentially good deal'..." Nothing to see here folks. He's a genius, trust us.

Payday for Hamas

2009-03-03T18:54:00.005-06:00

Hillary Clinton on the Israel - Palestinian conflict: "We happen to believe that moving toward a two-state solution is in Israel's best interests." Ah, putting it only as a liberal can. "We know what is best for Israel - so they'd better fall in line and follow our lead." Shouldn't we consider what Israel thinks is in its best interest? Perhaps the people who are actually subject to the rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and threats of complete annihilation from its neighbors should decide instead.

Meanwhile, Obama has our printing press working overtime in order to send $900 million in aid to Hamas, who last I checked, is a terrorist organization. The administration is trying to reassure people that this huge sum is not going to the terrorists, but to nongovernmental organizations... who will then spend the money as directed by Hamas.

White Jesus

2009-03-01T17:21:00.002-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: White Jesus.

Obama's War on Capitalism and Non-Profits

2009-03-01T16:50:00.006-06:00

Those of you who hoped for a moderate Obama presidency didn't have to wait long to be proven very, very wrong. In a few short months Obama has declared war on the freedoms that make this country great. His plans to start paying for his unprecedented spending binge are truly frightening. He is declaring war on achievement, on private-enterprise, on housing, on non-profit organizations - on capitalism (just a word that describes freedom in the economic sense) in general.

For those of you who make $250k+, you're going to get hammered. Good thing we live in a world where what happens to these people makes no difference to us. Oh wait. If big investors have their capital gains taxes raised from 15 to 20% - that encourages people not to invest, costing us jobs and keeping our 401ks down. Obama wants to eliminate the deduction for home mortgage interest - pretty much the worst thing you could do to the housing industry.

Most alarming of all, Obama wants to limit the tax deduction the rich get for giving to charity. This will harm the fund raising efforts of every non-profit organization in this country (most of whom are already struggling in this economy). The proposed changes are estimated to cost non-profits about $4 billion a year. Obama is saying, "Don't give non-profits your money, give it to me instead - I can spend it better."

"If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” - President Obama

Apparently Obama is not aware that families earning less than that have utility bills. Obama's plans for a cap and trade system will impose massive new taxes on energy companies. His plan states that he will use this cap and trade system to provide tax credits for working families. These working families will pay the increased tax on their energy, and then get it back from their most merciful president.

Obama's policies are all anti-growth. They will slow the economic recovery and change this country for the worse. His presidency will end (hopefully in four years) with an enormous debt and a much bigger and more oppressive government.

Standing Up for Federalism

2009-02-25T17:33:00.000-06:00

Harry: I can't believe we drove around all day, and there's not a single job in this town. There is nothing, nada, zip!

Lloyd: Yeah! Unless you want to work 40 hours a week!

Several Republican governors (and at least one Democrat) are being ripped for saying they plan to refuse to accept hundreds of millions from Obama's "stimulus" bill to pay more unemployment benefits. Why on earth would they turn down all that money when they could use it to help the unemployed? Aren't they just being partisan (with the exception of Phil Bredersen - Democrat from Tennessee)?

They are rejecting the money because in exchange for the temporary funding, they will be required to permanently change their unemployment laws which will increase state taxes on businesses. For example, most states pay unemployment while they try to help you find a job, but you have to be willing to accept a full time job to stay on unemployment. The "stimulus" bill forces state governments to pay unemployment to many more people than they currently do, including to people unwilling to work full time. The bill also requires the state to pay people who quit their jobs because they moved and no longer want to make the commute.

It's not hard to see that this will mean much higher payroll taxes, which discourages firms from hiring. This expansion of unemployment benefits also encourages people not to work. This is a classic example of how Washington usurps power from local government. They offer money (acquired by taxing the state's citizens) to the states with strings attached. "You can have ~~your~~ this money if you do what we say." Kudos to Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour, Phil Brederson and others who are standing up for federalism and common sense.

#14 Potlucks

2009-02-23T06:06:00.005-06:00

Stuff White Christians Like #14: Potlucks! Yumm.... well not really.

Major Tax Hike on the Way

2009-02-22T08:55:00.004-06:00

Here's the headline: "Obama's First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit". How nice. We wouldn't want to put the words "higher taxes" in a headline about Obama, now would we?

Obama is planning to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and businesses. Apparently Obama has forgotten that we are in a recession. The administration has announced a White House summit on "fiscal responsibility." I wonder if Obama has to stop himself from laughing out loud when he says that phrase, considering he just signed the most fiscally irresponsible bill in our nation's history.

Serious investors (i.e. those making over $250,000) will see their capital gains tax raised from 15-20% - that should really help the stock market, which has already dropped 10% in the month since Obama took office. Capital gains taxes reduce the incentive to invest. Investing is already a scary prospect - now investors have another huge reason to sit on their money, instead of using it to create jobs. Obama plans to raise total taxation by 19%. Considering the times we are in, this is economic malpractice.

As I've noted many times on this blog - taxes on corporations and small businesses hurt everyone - they don't just punish big bad business and people dressed like the Monopoly Man. Those taxes are passed down to you and I in the form of higher prices. Higher prices mean decreased demand for those goods and services, which means the companies have to lay more people off - maybe even you.

If Obama really cared about the deficit, he wouldn't have signed a bill loaded with hundreds of billions in pork projects for Democrats in the House and Senate. This is all part of a plan to advance his health care agenda which will further erode our economy, reduce economic freedom, and introduce us to government-rationed health care.

More on Stimulus

2009-02-17T19:06:00.003-06:00

Click here to read the Heritage Foundation's open letter to Congress, urging them (unsuccessfully) not to pass the stimulus bill. They note that this is by far the most expensive bill ever passed, yet it has been rammed through without vetting and without debate.

This bill is the height of irresponsibility and is exactly what we should expect, unfortunately, when Democrats are in charge of the House, Senate, and the White House. The politicians who voted for (or signed) this bill owe an apology to today's young people and our children and grandchildren.

Obama and the Democrats are being dishonest when they call this a stimulus bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will weaken long-term economic growth! So if the federal government says it will hurt our economy, it must not be a stimulus bill. Instead it a massive give away - hundreds of billions of dollars going to the Democrats' various pet projects and causes.

Most people don't care. They're just happy Obama is doing something about the economy and don't bother finding out just what that is. And when the economy recovers (as it will at some point), Obama can take credit, even though his bill will do far more harm than good.

#13 Diversity

2009-02-16T00:54:00.002-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: #13 Diversity.

Generational Theft

2009-02-14T13:17:00.001-06:00

President Obama, addressing Congress:

All of you are committed to building a more responsible, more accountable government, and part of what that means is making sure that we're spending precious tax dollars wisely and cutting costs wherever possible. During this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts. So should Washington... Those of us who manage the public's knowledge will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can they restore the vital trust between the people and their government.

The $787 billion ($3 trillion plus by the time we finance it) "stimulus" bill just passed by the House at Obama's request is the exact opposite of everything Obama said - it is not responsible, accountable, wise, or doing "business in the light of day." The Democrats promised to release the bill at least 48 hours in advance of voting on it. They broke that promise and not a single representative had read the 8 inch thick, 1071 page bill before they voted on it. Zero Republicans voted for it and 7 Democrats voted against it. They are trying to rush this through so opponents can't share what's actually in the bill with the public before it's too late. Unfortunately, the Senate will pass it later this week and Obama will sign it.

Obama and the Democrats seem to be arguing that if only we flush enough taxpayer money down the toilet, our economy will come back. Just a few items:

$300 million for "streamlined" golf carts
$8 billion for high speed rail connecting LA and Las Vegas (construction will begin in about 5 years, after the environmental impact study)
$180 million for "diplomatic and consular services"
$30 million to protect the habitat of an endangered mouse in San Francisco
$2.2 billion to ACORN - the leftist "community organizers" who systematically engage in voter fraud.

Very little of the money will do anything to stimulate the economy when we need it - now. Most infrastructure projects won't get going for a few years. Mostly the bill is a once in a lifetime Christmas list for Democrats and a way to make government much, much bigger (and the individual much smaller). This bill will add to our already crippling national debt and could cause crushing inflation. Many critics have called it "generational theft" - this money will be repaid by our children and grandchildren.

Obama claims this bill will "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. This comes to somewhere between $225k and $275k in tax payer money per job created, even if he's right. In addition, the bill lays the framework for socialized medicine and increases federal government interference in the doctor-patient relationship. It does away with President Clinton's welfare reform that led to dramatic reductions in dependency on welfare and child poverty.

But haven't huge stimulus packages worked before? No. They failed during the Great Depression, they failed in Japan in the 90's, and Bush's mini (in comparison) package also failed. Consider Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury Secretary, and his analysis of the New Deal: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

The economy will turn around. It's just a question of how long it will take. Most of the spending will start kicking in after the economy is picking up again, and will then cause massive inflation. Inflation has to be fought by tightening the money supply, which will slow the economy back down. Oh, and did I mention that our projected deficit for a two-term Obama presidency is $8.4 trillion?

A better plan would cut the payroll tax or the corporate tax rate (among the highest in the world). This bill will only hurt our economy, erode individual liberty, and increase the tyranny of big government.

Craigslisting

2009-02-09T22:09:00.002-06:00

I've posted before about Craigslisting - a very funny blog detailing various adventures the author has on the classified ad site Craigslist. It's a little like prank phone calls, except he is messing with people that have posted an item on Craiglist. Here's one adventure that I found particularly funny: someone offering old wall art for sale discovers he may be the owner of a very important artifact and is pursued by prominent, competing "archaeologists" who will stop at nothing to obtain the piece.

Waxing Nostalgic About Hymnals and Organs

2009-02-08T09:45:00.002-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: "Waxing Nostalgic About Hymnals and Organs."

Abortion Extremists

2009-02-05T20:57:00.002-06:00

On Drudge: Florida woman goes to abortion clinic to abort her 23 week old baby. Baby is born alive. Baby is put in trash by workers at clinic and dies.

President Obama thinks this should be legal.

National Signing Day

2009-02-04T17:29:00.003-06:00

After deciding to skip the 2008 season (I have no memories of it, didn't happen, you can't make me remember it, la la la), Rich Rodriguez and Michigan has put together a great recruiting class. According to Rivals, it's the 7th best in the nation, Scout says 13th. The high school seniors heading to Ann Arbor in the fall include the monster DE William Campbell (5 star, pictured), one of the very top recruits in the country. The Wolverines snagged more four-star recruits than you can shake a stick at, most notably Je'Ron Stokes (WR) and Tate Forcier (QB). They also picked up three four-star offensive linemen - a key weakness last season (I mean, what season?).

My very early and premature prediction for '09 is 7-5 - a return to respectability at least, but not good.

Obama's Cabinet

2009-02-03T20:15:00.008-06:00

The big news of the day: Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to be health secretary because of his failure to pay over $100,000 in income taxes. Nancy Killefer, who was to oversee the performance of government programs for Obama also withdrew because of tax issues (the woman supposed to be identifying waste failed to pay unemployment taxes on her two nannies - which she required to look after her two teenagers).

There's a third tax cheat who should also go: Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner. Is it too much to ask that the person in charge of the IRS actually pays his own taxes?

As Larry Kudlow notes, Daschle said he wouldn't have been able to reform the nation’s health-care system “with the full faith of Congress and the American people.” Does Geithner have the full faith of the American people to reform our financial system? He was approved by the Senate despite opposition from 31 senators.

All this is just the latest embarrassment for the Obama administration. We still don't know all the details of Rahm Emanuel's dealings with Blagojevich. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had to withdraw his nomination to head the commerce department because of an FBI investigation into his dealings with a California financial services firm that was awarded a lucrative contract from the New Mexico Finance Authority after donating to political committees linked to the governor.

Hillary Clinton's nomination to Secretary of State looks completely non-controversial compared to all these upstanding citizens, despite alarming conflicts of interest. Out of the hundreds of millions donated to President Clinton's foundation, foreign governments have donated $46 million. People don't donate that kind of money without expectations of influence (granted they thought they were currying favor with a future President Hillary Clinton, not Secretary of State Clinton). Not that the Clintons have a history of helping unsavory characters when money or elections are on the line (cough! Mark Rich! cough! FALN terrorists!)

Church Super Bowl Parties

2009-02-01T01:09:00.002-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: #11 Church Super Bowl Parties.

Sarah and Jesus

2009-01-30T23:57:00.003-06:00

I just had to share this photo. This incredibly creepy mural is the first thing you see when you step out of the elevator on the maternity ward at the hospital in Hinsdale (where we were visiting Rudi and Stephanie's new baby).

Stimulus?

2009-01-29T20:05:00.007-06:00

The "stimulus" bill that passed the House is quite possibly the worst bill ever. To their credit, not a single Republican voted for the $953 billion spending spree. All this spending will do very little to stimulate the economy but will come back to bite us in the form of higher taxes (paid by us, our children, and probably their children) or inflation.

Every employed person will get a $500 tax break. About 15% of this (based on statistics from the last round of stimulus checks) will probably be spent, the rest will be saved or used to pay down debt. The business tax cuts do not encourage employment of productivity, instead of, say cutting the payroll tax, which would actually encourage companies to hire people, they go to companies that have lost a lot of money in the past few years. They reward failure instead of encouraging success.

Those are the tax cuts. Then the spending: mostly pork projects (new sod for the Jefferson Memorial, $400 million for STD prevention, $150 million for honey bee insurance, etc.) that are unlikely to produce jobs in a cost-effective manner. Most of the infrastructure projects (even the ones worth doing) won't begin for a while and will do nothing for the economy until the recession is over. Only $170 billion of the total package will be spent this year, $356 billion in 2010, and the other 40% or so after that, when the recession will almost certainly be over. The plan calls for another 250,000 government employees. Don't we have enough bureaucrats sucking up our tax dollars?

Bottom line, huge waste of money - money we don't have. The only good news is that its failure will be another nail in the Keynesian coffin. We will likely run deficits of about 10% of GDP during the Obama administration - 10%!

Obama claims all this spending will create (or save) 3 million jobs. Great! That comes to $275,000 per job.

Visitors

2009-01-25T08:45:00.002-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: #10 Visitors.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2009-01-22T20:06:00.005-06:00

Sarah and I watched the Ben Stein documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" last night. It was a really interesting look at intelligent design and those promoting it within the world of academia.

Stein chooses his fight carefully. Instead of taking on evolution directly, he points out that evolution does not explain how life began and argues that the idea of a designer is at least the equal of other theories on how life emerged from non-living things. No one knows how life came from non-life, but the scientific community has decreed that only non-intelligent design theories are worthy of discussion. Stein details the persecution of those in the scientific community that raise these points and argues that intelligent design deserves to be part of the debate.

The most fascinating part of the documentary is when Stein interviews Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and author of The God Delusion. According to Dawkins, there is little to no chance of God or a creator, but he believes that a plausible explanation for the beginning of life on earth was a visit from aliens billions of years ago.

Obama's Inaugural

2009-01-20T19:33:00.002-06:00

A historic day, no doubt. I think we're in no danger of overlooking this. The media is behaving a little different than during Bush's, huh? There are 240 million people in this country who did not vote for Obama, including the 58 million who voted for John McCain. While it's great that we've reached a point as a country where we can elect an African-American, that doesn't mean it's good for the country to have Barack Obama as president, just as it would have been bad for the country to have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in the Oval Office.

Obama's inaugural address was supposed to be soaring, words that would go down in history, words that would inspire a generation. I thought his speech was unmemorable and unfocused. I thought he was unfair to President Bush ("we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our boundaries" as if Bush's $15 billion in spending to fight HIV/AIDS was nothing). The most memorable part of the ceremony was the prayer at the end by Rev. Joseph Lowery:

We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Apparently a black president means nothing in the civil rights movement. The entire prayer was nothing but a political speech to God, punctuated with demeaning comments about whites and Asians.

Breaking Scripture Down

2009-01-18T00:55:00.002-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: Breaking Scripture Down Into the Original Hebrew or Greek.

Stop Digging

2009-01-13T21:37:00.003-06:00

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long criticized the billions in earmarks and pork that get sneaked in to legislation. For many politicians, bringing home the bacon to their district or state is their primary objective in Washington. The same type of projects usually regarded as waste are now being promoted as the way to save our economy. The only difference is that instead of spending millions or billions, we'll spend almost a trillion and instead of calling it pork we'll call it "stimulus."

We're in a hole, and Obama is grabbing a shovel. More spending requires one of three things: higher taxes, more borrowing, or printing money. All three are bad - no one with a brain is calling for higher taxes right now, there is a limit on how much we can borrow from China and that money will have to be paid back by my generation and the generations after. Printing money steals from us all by causing inflation.

The ingenuity and work ethic of the American people (some, anyway) will bring us out of this recession, not government.

Coffee-Themed Ministry

2009-01-11T10:18:00.003-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: "Coffee Themed Ministry."

Obama Clears Obama

2009-01-09T06:00:00.000-06:00

I was just made aware of this illustrative headline from the Politico: "Obama report clears Emanuel, other aides." What a relief! Also, what a time saver for the busy journalist: just accept reports from the Obama administration about the Obama administration as fact.

Prop 8

2009-01-08T21:52:00.003-06:00

I guess my discussion of Prop 8 a few weeks ago missed a key detail: a typo in the amendment to California's state constitution now defines marriage as between "one man and one wolfman."

My New Senator

2009-01-08T20:49:00.004-06:00

Senate Democrats have now decided that they will seat Blago's choice to replace Obama, and apparent high bidder, Roland Burris. Here's a question: does Burris add to or detract from the character of the Democrats already in the Senate?

Consider a few other fine individuals in the Senate:

Robert Byrd (D-WV) - current President pro tempore of the Senate, former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - committed manslaughter (never charged) by driving (drunk) into a channel with a young woman he was having an affair with - she drowned.

Al Franken (D-MN) - tax cheat and all around disgusting human being.

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - forced to give up his vice-chairmanship of Senate Intelligence Committee after leaking classified information to a reporter about an operation against Egyptian sponsored terrorism - at least one operative died because of the reporter's story, earning the senator the nickname "Leaky Leahy." He later leaked classified information about a Reagan operation to topple Libyan dictator and terrorist Moamarr Gadhafi, causing the operation to be aborted. Not too much later, he allowed a reporter to view classified reports on Iran-Contra. But don't worry, he's a hero because he opposed the Iraq war.

At least a huge abortion extremist who argued that you have the right to kill your new born baby if it survives an abortion is no longer in the Senate, but I guess having Barack Obama as president isn't an improvement.

The good news is, Burris will probably be beaten by moderate Republican Congressman Mark Kirk during the next election. I also encourage NY Gov. Patterson to, you know, appoint Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's seat, because, you know, she'll also be easy to beat, you know.

Fleet Foxes

2009-01-06T19:36:00.002-06:00

I love this video from Fleet Foxes. I highly recommend their new (self-titled) album.

Finish Hamas

2009-01-05T18:35:00.005-06:00

Israel continues its military operations into Gaza as western elites wring their hands over the "disproportionate" response. It is amazing to me how people just refuse to take Hamas at their word. They can't be terrorists who will stop at nothing to destroy the nation of Israel and kill all the Israelis, surely they are just upset over variance grievances and can be placated if only Israel were nicer to them.

Take Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hamas, for example: “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.” Perhaps we should believe him and his ilk and stop pretending that we can come to some sort of compromise with these monsters. Israel gave them Gaza. Were they happy? Did they build resorts on the ocean? No, they used Gaza to fire rockets at innocent Israelis and continued to send their children into crowded restaurants with bombs strapped to their chests. Hamas uses homes, hospitals and schools to fire these rockets and store ammunition. If Israel bombs these places, Hamas bears all responsibility for civilian deaths.

The only difference between Hamas and al Qaeda is that Hamas was actually elected by the Palestinians (oh, and that they are a pawn of Iran). But they are a minority, says the left, and they are oppressed. Liberals also tend to believe that people are basically good, they only turn to violence in response to injustice. Israel, therefore, is causing the violence and needs to be more accommodating.

Iran, Hamas, and al-Qaeda share a similar goal: worldwide Islamic rule. They aim to destroy the west as we know it and replace our culture with Islamic culture, our law with Sharia law. We must defeat them. There will be peace in the middle east only when Israel has achieved victory over Hamas. The only alternative is a Hamas/Iranian victory over Israel.

I appreciate that Obama is not interfering and is waiting until he is president to comment on the conflict, but I am not confident that he has an appropriate appreciation for the Islamist threat.

Non-Denominational Churches

2009-01-04T14:05:00.003-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: Non-Denominational Churches.

Favorites from 2008

2009-01-02T12:25:00.005-06:00

Books

Liberal Fascism - Jonah Goldberg
Capitalism and Freedom - Milton Freidman
America Alone - Mark Steyn
John Adams - David McCullough
The Post-American World - Fareed Zakaria
God and Man at Yale - William F. Buckley
Who Really Cares - Arthur C. Brooks
The Velvet Elvis - Rob Bell
No Country For Old Men - Cormac McCarthy
Vintage Jesus - Mark Driscoll

Movies

The Dark Knight
Once
There Will Be Blood
Juno
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Iron Man
Gone Baby Gone
3:10 to Yuma
Atonement

Music

Kings of Leon - Only By the Night
Death Cab for Cutie - Narrow Stairs
Once Soundtrack
Band of Horses - Cease to Begin
The Ranconteurs - Consolers of the Lonely
Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes

Four NFL'ers Who Might Survive a Shark Attack

2009-01-01T10:32:00.002-06:00

I saw this on Shutdown Corner, one of Yahoo's sports blogs. My favorite is Brett Favre: "He's like a little kid out here!"

Pretending There's a Santa Claus

2008-12-28T15:43:00.003-06:00

Don't deny it, Stuff White Christians Like knows what you like. New post: Pretending There's a Santa Claus.

Not Just Good Deeds

2008-12-28T15:12:00.006-06:00

Check out Wayne Drehs' story on Arizona Cardinals QB Kurt Warner on ESPN. It was on the front page a few days ago. It is so rare to see a profile on a prominent Christian athlete, let alone one so favorable. Despite the title "Good deeds are Warner's focus", it isn't just a story about all of Warner's charitable efforts, but is also a very real discussion of Warner's faith. I wonder if the editors at ESPN picked the title or if Drehs missed the point of his own article, but Drehs documents the struggle a lot of Christians have in the "real world" of fighting the perception of being a goody-goody Ned Flanderses while living out your faith in an authentic way.

Liberal Fascism

2008-12-26T19:43:00.007-06:00

I just finished reading the best book I have read all year: Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
Many on the left don't even know what the word "fascist" means, yet they will hurl the label at anyone with different political opinions (see Stuff White People Like: Comparing People to Hitler). Goldberg argues that American conservatism is incorrectly viewed by the left as somehow related or growing out of fascism. Instead, liberalism comes directly from an intellectual tradition that has much in common with fascism. He does not argue that liberals are Nazis or anything of the sort. Fascism is expressed differently in different cultures, Nazism was one expression, progressivism is another. Racism and violence are not essential components of fascism. Here is the author's definition of fascism:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore is defined as the enemy.

I always wondered why history books described Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy as "right-wing". The truth is that fascism is right-wing leftism. It was the international socialist movement that labeled fascism as right-wing, as national socialism was heresy to the internationalists. The internationalists saw fascism as the last gasp of capitalism - fascists would not completely take over the means of production but would instead regulate industry to the point where industry's goals were perfectly in line with "the People's" goals.

Conservatism (or classical liberalism) as an intellectual tradition has nothing in common with fascism. It opposes all forms of political religion and instead views the state as a necessary evil intended to protect our God-given rights. Goldberg writes that "a conservative is one who protects and defends... private property, free markets, individual liberty, freedom of conscience, and the rights of communities to determine for themselves how they will live within these guidelines." However, conservatives are not immune from the temptation to engage in totalitarianism. They are sometimes tempted to fight fire with fire: e.g. opposing a multi-cultural/post-modern society by trying to impose a Christian/traditional values society instead of promoting a free, open society that allows the best ideas to win.

Liberalism, on the other hand, traces its roots to progressivism. Progressive views of the role of government are much closer to the fascists. They tend to believe that the government should do about anything, as long as it is "good" for people. It can't be tyranny, they are doing nice things for people. Goldberg documents how many American progressives openly admired Hitler and Mussolini and were in fact jealous of what they were accomplishing, until their militarism overshadowed their domestic agenda (which was not much different from what you hear from the left today). Goldberg argues that American liberalism "is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying."

I'll write more on this subject later, but I'll close with a quote from Richard Weaver that Goldberg uses in the book to summarize why this subject is important.

The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all.

Merry Christmas

2008-12-25T10:59:00.001-06:00

Hack a Shaq

2008-12-24T16:02:00.003-06:00

ESPN's John Hollinger has a great piece on a new milestone for Shaquille O'Neal: 5,000 missed free throws (regular season only). Shaq, probably the most dominant big man the NBA has ever seen, has averaged 52.5% for his career and has missed 4,995. He's still about 800 short of Wilt Chamberlain (51.1%).

As Hollinger notes, missing this many free throws requires two rare skills: an incredible ability to get to the free throw line and being absolutely horrible at the line. You'd have to miss 300 free throws a season every year of a long NBA career. Even if you shoot 50% and stay healthy, you'd have to attempt 8 a game. Dwight Howard is the only current player who might one day join the ranks of Wilt and Shaq in historic free throw ineptitude. He's only 23, has already missed 1,142 FTs and is averaging 5 misses a game this season.

Despite all of these misses, Hollinger theorizes that even if Shaq shot 70% from the line, it is doubtful that he would have won more than one additional championship. However, his career "player efficiency rating" (a stat Hollinger created), would go from 27.1, second only to Michael Jordan's 27.9, to 36.1 - far and away the best ever.

A couple more factoids:

The top 12 FT shooters of all time combined to miss only 4,995 for their careers.
If Larry Bird came out of retirement and missed 3,000 straight FTs, he'd still have a higher FT percentage than Shaq.
Based on his career stats, Steve Nash would have to play 200 more seasons to match Shaq's 5,000 missed FTs.

Best Quotes of 2008

2008-12-23T14:12:00.003-06:00

The Media Research Center (a conservative media watchdog) has handed out its awards for best quotes of 2008. The winner is MSNBC's Chris Matthews for his comments after an Obama speech in February: "I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often... And that is an objective assessment." The runner-up was this Reuters post-election headline: "Media bias largely unseen in U.S. presidential race."

A couple other good ones:

"Not doing it [fighting global warming] will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals." — CNN founder Ted Turner on PBS’s Charlie Rose, April 1.

“When NBC News first assigned me to the Barack Obama campaign, I must confess my knees quaked a bit....I wondered if I was up to the job. I wondered if I could do the campaign justice.”
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an article for NBC’s “The Peacock” advertising supplement, March 23-29.

Romney's Stimulus Plan

2008-12-21T21:59:00.005-06:00

I detailed some shortcomings of Obama's economic plan last week. Now let's talk about what should be done instead. Mitt Romney wrote a column last week, detailing his prescription for our economy, and most of it is pretty agreeable. The basic difference between Obama and Romney on the economy boils down to government spending vs. tax cuts (Keynesian vs. supply side economics).

Romney cites empirical research that indicates that a $1 increase in government spending (i.e. a stimulus check) will increase GDP by between $1 and $1.40. $1 in tax cuts, on the other hand, increases GDP by $3. This is a major blow to the Keynesian model.

Why do tax multipliers exceed spending multipliers? Here's the basic idea: tax cuts give people more money to spend, which stimulates demand (the essence of Keynesian prescriptions) but unlike increased government spending (which increases demand in the same way), lower taxes encourage investment, which generates jobs and more production. For example, let's say Obama lowered payroll taxes, effectively lowering the cost of employing people. Using our basic supply/demand curve, we know that lower labor costs will increase demand for labor. Workers will take home more of their pay, which they will spend, driving up demand for goods and services, and companies will hire more people.

Romney agrees that infrastructure projects should be a high priority, but notes that the economic benefits of these projects are no where near immediate because these projects take a while to complete. Romney warns against excessive regulation and the Employee Free Choice Act that would "virtually impose unions on small business by eliminating the right of workers to vote by secret ballot in the workplace. This 'card check' payback for the AFL-CIO’s support of the Democrats would devastate business formation and employment".

Romney does support government spending on "basic research" for technologies that will make us more energy dependent. I maintain my basic argument on this subject: while the impact on global warming is debatable and energy independence would be great, this government spending is not likely to help the economy in the long term and definitely won't help in the short term.

All choices in government require trade-offs:

There is a danger that new spending and deficits will lead to runaway inflation, flight from the dollar, and another economic crisis. It is essential, therefore, that Congress and the president commit to reform entitlement spending as soon as the economy recovers. With the footing of our long term economy at risk, with entitlements already reaching 60 percent of federal spending and with baby boomers nearing retirement, this can be delayed no longer.

Unfortunately, elections have consequences and Obama is likely to choose ideology over sound economics.

One-Hour Church Services

2008-12-21T13:14:00.002-06:00

New post on Stuff White Christians Like: One-Hour Church Services.

The Palins and the Kennedys

2008-12-20T15:26:00.008-06:00

Apparently it's big news that Sarah Palin's daughter's boyfriend's mom was arrested for abusing Oxycontin. Why this is making headlines is beyond me.

The highly qualified Caroline Kennedy ("I care about a lot of things") is also in the news, as she is likely to be appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. I haven't heard anyone mention recently that she has an uncle who, on a summer evening in 1969, left a party (completely sober, I'm sure) with a young female staffer in his car, "parked" for a while in a secluded area, and then drove off a bridge into a channel at Chappaquiddick Island, MA. He swam to safety and then did what any of us would have done: he waited until the next day (after the body was discovered) to tell the police. There were several houses with people home close by and it was later determined that she probably survived for about 25 minutes after the car was submerged. He probably reasoned that avoiding the damage that drunk-driving and adultery would do to his political career was more important than the life of Mary Jo Kopechne (he overestimated the Democratic voters of Massachusetts). Authorities declined to press charges for manslaughter. I'm sure that had nothing to do with the fact that Caroline's uncle was a United States Senator. A few years prior, his brother vacated the Massachusetts Senate seat to become President and arranged for Caroline's uncle to be appointed to the seat, where Ted Kennedy remains to this day.

More Expensive Energy

2008-12-17T21:26:00.003-06:00

President elect Obama's plan for the economy seems to center on two tactics: a huge ($1 trillion) stimulus package and "investment" in new energy sources and more fuel efficient technology. Neither encourages production and both are extremely inefficient uses of our tax dollars.

A big stimulus check, which will only go to low and middle-income Americans, is intended to stimulate demand for goods and services - "priming the pump", if you will. Classic Keynesian economics. Unfortunately, there are easily foreseeable problems with this plan. Economists favoring this approach are counting on a huge multiplier effect: you spend your check to buy x, the guy who sold you x uses the profits to buy y, and so on. The increased demand for goods and services caused by the stimulus is supposed to encourage more production of goods and services to meet this demand. However, in these economics times, low and middle-income people will likely save the money or use it to pay down debt instead of running to Best Buy. Saving and paying down debt eliminates the multiplier effect, does nothing to stimulate the economy and increases the national debt.

The trillion dollars has to come from somewhere and it is likely to come from higher taxes on people making too much to get a stimulus check in the first place and from higher corporate taxes. Aside from the injustice of this income redistribution, higher taxes on the most productive workers and corporations discourages production and job growth. Tax cuts also get more spending money in people's pockets, but have the added benefit of encouraging production and job growth.

Obama plans for huge spending increases on alternative fuels and green technology. He claims that these green jobs will boost the economy. Absolutely wrong headed. We can argue about the wisdom of spending billions on policies that will have zero effect on the climate another time. If Obama's green policies are about global warming, then he should sell them as such, but don't tell me they are good for the economy. Markets are very good at finding the best price for energy. For our cars, you can't beat gasoline. However, our government pays huge subsidies to add ethanol to the mix. Subsidies for alternative energy increase the amount we as a country pay for energy. Every extra dollar we spend on energy is a dollar we can't spend on education, health care, or a hat, a big ol' hat with a bill that goes buuuup (sorry, but this blog has been movie reference deficient of late).

Investing in green jobs is simply taking the tax payers' money and spending it on things they wouldn't choose to spend their own money on. Green jobs do nothing to add to the production or standard of living of the American people. Paying a researcher $100k a year to find new ways to increase our energy costs does not help the economy. It's little different (from an economic perspective) from paying someone to dig ditches and then fill them in again. Sure, you created a job, but you had to take money from other people to do it and you gave them nothing back in return.

Candlelight Ceremonies

2008-12-14T15:17:00.001-06:00

New post today on Stuff White Christians Like: Candlelight Ceremonies.

Chicago Change

2008-12-14T13:59:00.006-06:00

Ah, the change we can believe in. Obama didn't talk to Gov. Blagojevich about the Senate seat? Obama is unaware of anyone on his staff talking with Blago about the seat? Bull and more bull. Why wouldn't he talk with Blago about the seat? If Obama and his staff were completely uninvolved in this crime, they need to start talking, because it appears that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been recorded discussing the issue with Blago. Based on the reaction so far, as I see it there are three possible scenarios:

Rahm talked with Blago about the seat, and the governor proposed a three way deal in which Obama favorite Valerie Jarrett would get the Senate seat, Blago would get a high paying job with a union, and Obama would do favors for the union once president. The Obama camp refused and contacted the department of justice but is holding off on telling everyone this for unknown reasons.
Rahm and/or Obama talked with Blago and Rahm talked the deal over with Obama, who refused but didn't contact Patrick Fitzgerald.
Rahm and Obama were continuing to negotiate with Blago, but he found a better deal with Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., who held a fundraiser for Blago a week ago, raising him $1 million.

One thing seems certain, Obama is lying. Good start Obama. Welcome to Chicago-style politics, America.

Newsweek and Gay Marriage

2008-12-11T22:05:00.005-06:00

Newsweek makes "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" with its cover story this week. In it, Lisa Miller argues that the Bible is ambiguous on the subject and that the Bible was intended for a different time, so it doesn't really apply today anyway. It hypothesizes that David and Jonathan were lovers, yet conveniently overlooks Ephesians 5 and Romans 1:26-27.

It's not a big surprise that Newsweek would advance a liberal position on its cover without including any space for the other point of view. However, Newsweek's editor, Jon Meacham's response is noteworthy. Meacham argues in his "the Editor's Desk" column that resorting to "biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism" and "to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt - it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." He writes that people used to use the Bible to defend slavery, yet fails to note that abolitionists also used the Bible to rid the western world of slavery.

Meacham says the religious case for gay marriage "begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice - a matter of behavior - but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color." Sexual orientation may not be something you choose, but it is certainly not a behavior. Sexual activity is a behavior and a choice. People who are attracted to their own gender can choose celibacy over a lifestyle prohibited by scripture.

Meacham's comments are more offensive than the story. He makes it clear that Newsweek has a political and theological agenda on the issue of gay marriage and that alternate opinions are invalid and unworthy of discussion in the magazine. Meacham openly admits to promoting gay marriage without apology or seeing the need to include the other side of the story.

In related news, Newsweek is laying off a bunch of people and reducing the number of copies it guarantees to advertisers by over half. I am contemplating canceling my subscription.

Obama and Blagojevich

2008-12-09T17:32:00.000-06:00

My prediction about Blagojevich yesterday may come to pass even sooner than I expected. Everyone knew he was a crook, even before he was reelected governor in 2006 - he was already under investigation for his hiring practices (high paying jobs in exchange for big campaign contributions) and rumors of pay to play politics in state contracts were everywhere. At the time, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was already investigating what he called "very serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud" with a "number of credible witnesses." Everyone who voted for him, endorsed him, or supported him should be ashamed of the disservice they did to the state of Illinois, and that includes President-elect Obama.

Obama endorsed Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006 and served as a top adviser to him in 2002. Many Democrats found this crook so unpalatable that they refused to work with him on his campaign for governor, including former Blagojevich adviser and now top Obama adviser David Axelrod, but not Obama. In August of 2006, Obama stumped for Blagojevich: "We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois."

As a State Senator and as a US Senator, Obama never shied away from aligning himself with some of the dirtiest politicians in all the land. He never once crossed anyone in the Chicago Machine. Even when he had the opportunity to support a liberal Democrat, Forrest Claypool, for Cook County Board President, a candidate that pledged to end the cronyism, corruption and extortion, he instead backed Todd Stroger, the son of the previous president. With Obama's support, Stroger won the primary by 7% of the vote. Stroger has wasted no time, he's increased the sales tax to 10.25%, laid off hundreds of nurses, and cut 43 prosecutors, all so he can hire more friends and family to high paying, do-nothing jobs.

One of the most serious charges facing Blagojevich is that he attempted to auction off Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder. There is evidence that Blagojevich attempted negotiations with Obama and a labor union, offering the seat to an Obama adviser in exchange for a high paying job at the labor union, whom would receive political favors from Obama once he's president. To his credit, Obama turned him down, but not to his credit, it doesn't appear that he or his camp reported this to authorities.

Today, when asked if he had any contact with Blagojevich about the Senate seat, Obama said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening." However, a few weeks ago, Axelrod discussed the candidates to replace Obama in the Senate on Fox News Chicago saying, "I know [Obama has] talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." Hmmm.

Government Knows Best

2008-12-08T18:46:00.004-06:00

Laid off workers at a Chicago window manufacturer have made national news for their protest, demanding severance and vacation pay. Politicians and would be castrators have come out of the woodwork to show their support for the workers, who have come to symbolize the unemployed. The company shut its doors after losing its line of credit with the Bank of America.

Governor Blagojevich has decreed that the state of Illinois will not do business with the Bank of America until they loan the company enough money to pay for severance and vacation pay, arguing that the $25 million that BOA receieved in the bailout is meant to be doled out to companies that are no longer solvent.

If the company is contractually obligated to pay severance, then it should do so. However, this is in no way the bank's problem. Why on earth would they loan their depositors' money to companies that can't pay it back? If the company has to declare bankruptcy, so be it. Then the courts figure out how to reorganize the company or distribute its assets to its creditors, including, in this case, its employees.

This is what happens when liberals meddle in business. Soon-to-be-convicted-felon Blogojevich should not be telling Bank of America how to run its business. If the state can save money by doing business with BOA, he has no right to forfeit those savings to score political points. This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the financial crisis - liberal politicians determining who should get loans. Unfortunately this idea that the government knows best how to run businesses will soon be coming to Detroit in a big way.

Mormons and Prop 8

2008-12-03T18:06:00.002-06:00

Gay rights activists are furious in California over the passing of Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution that overrules a state supreme court decision that legalized gay marriage. Gay civil unions are still legal in California, giving gay couples every legal right afforded heterosexual couples. Prop 8 passed largely because 70% of blacks voted for in favor. Predictably, the left is instead focusing their rage on a different group: Mormons.

The Catholic church and scores of other Christian churches also opposed Prop 8, but perhaps Mormons are an easier target. Gay rights activists are angry that Mormon individuals (not any churches, mind you, but individual people) gave $20 million to promote Prop 8, as if no liberals spent any money opposing it. They even ran this campaign ad, showing two Mormons storm into a lesbian couple's home to steal their wedding rings. As Jonah Goldberg points out, you can imagine the outrage had any other group been similarly targeted. The reaction from the LA Times? Too little, too late.

Barack Obama weighed in decisively: he is against gay marriage, but also against Prop 8. Huh? Gay marriage isn't a real hot button issue for me, but it does alarm me that in New Mexico a wedding photographer was fined $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay marriage ceremony and the state of New Jersey is forcing eHarmony to create a new website for gays.

As Thomas Sowell argues, this is not a civil rights issue. Marriage laws don't discriminate against people, they discriminate against behavior, as laws should do. Gay marriage advocates are really seeking to force everyone else to approve of their behavior. If the marriage laws should be rewritten for them, why not for polygamists (speaking of Mormons)?

The success of Prop 8 in California, and similar measures that passed with overwhelming support in Arizona and Florida should send the message to the GOP that this country has not taken a hard left turn. Social conservatism is still a winner at the ballot box.

Stuff White Christians Like

2008-11-29T23:59:00.003-06:00

One of my favorite blogs is stuffwhitepeoplelike.com. If you're not familiar, it is the definitive guide to stuff white (liberal) people like. Stuff white people like includes: awareness, gifted children, knowing what's best for poor people, hating corporations, comparing people to Hitler... you get the idea.

I am pleased to present a shameless ripoff blog: Stuff White Christians Like at stuffwhitechristianslike.com. Any suggestion that I am posting stuff white Christians like under the pen name Abraham Calvin is preposterous! And the other poster, Luther Zwingli is certainly not a pen name for a good friend and frequent commenter on this blog - equally preposterous.

Stuff White Christians Like officially launched Saturday night at 11:59 pm CST. Because the posters wouldn't dream of blogging on the Sabbath, there will be a new post every Saturday night at 11:59.

I hope you like it. Feel free to pass on the link to friends and email stuff white Christians like to abrahamcalvin at gmail.com.

Happy Thanksgiving

2008-11-26T18:33:00.001-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving! Last year I posted the real story of Thanksgiving (as told by Rush Limbaugh) and I'll do so again.

On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford... But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness... And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure.

When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were collectivists! Now, Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action.

Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace... Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. Here's what he wrote: 'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.' That was thought injustice. Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been'... In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.

The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration'.

47 Million Uninsured

2008-11-24T19:49:00.004-06:00

Obama's health care plan is a well disguised march toward socialized medicine, as I wrote earlier. When this debate begins to heat up sometime next year, the media will be sure to beat us over the head with the "47 million uninsured" line. Let's break down these 47 million people.

10 million are not U.S. citizens.
8.3 million make between $50,000 and $74,999.
8.7 million make over $75,000.
45% (21 million) will be insured within 4 months. There are always people between jobs who are counted as uninsured.
15 million already qualify for existing government health care.

17 million who can afford health insurance but choose not to purchase it + 15 million who only need to sign up for government health care they already qualify for + 10 million non-citizens = 42 million. Out of the additional 5 million, 2 million or more will have insurance in the next four months.

Really we're talking about 3 million people or 1% of the population. This is not a crisis requiring a massive government takeover of 1/7 of our economy. Allowing people to buy health coverage across state lines would allow many more people to afford health care without higher taxes and government intrusion. For example, the average premium for family coverage in America is about $5,800. In New York the average is $12,250 because of over regulation. It is currently illegal for a New Yorker to buy cheaper health insurance from out of state and the President-elect is opposed to any legislation that would change this situation.

Playtime With OSU

2008-11-22T10:19:00.001-06:00

Go Blue. Hat tip M Go Blog.

Media Bias

2008-11-18T23:02:00.001-06:00

This video is incredible. Obama voters could tell you about Palin's daughter and her clothes but have no idea who Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Bill Ayers is. They attribute Tina Fey's lines on SNL to Sarah Palin yet are unaware of any Obama/Biden gaffes. They're sure they want change, yet they think the Republicans control Congress.

The point is not that Obama voters are less intelligent, it is that the media abandoned any pretense of objectivity during this campaign.

See more at Howobamagotelected.com

Don't Bail Out the Big Three

2008-11-16T16:37:00.003-06:00

GM, Ford and Chrysler are in big trouble. The Feds recently authorized a $25 billion loan, now they are debating another $25 billion infusion for the cash strapped automakers. The Big Three have caved to union demands for decades, driving up their cost for each automobile. They pay workers over $70/hour on average plus enormous health and pension costs. Similar, non-union workers making Honda and Toyota cars (in the U.S.) make $40-50 an hour. Honda and Toyota are making better cars and they are making them cheaper. Another $25 billion isn't going to change that. The Big Three will continue to hemorrhage money (GM lost $7 billion in the third quarter of this year) and before long their lobbyists will be back on the Capitol steps asking for more.

Democrats favoring this new bailout paint doomsday scenarios resulting from a collapse of the Big Three. However, these companies wouldn't close their doors and layoff all their employees. They would file bankruptcy and restructure their organization. This would allow them to get out of the ridiculous union contracts that are weighing them down. They still have valuable brands and could emerge from bankruptcy with a much better chance for long term success. The airline industry went through this a few years ago and is much stronger for it.

An essential element of capitalism is "creative destruction". Once successful firms are often outmaneuvered by newer, smarter, more innovative firms. The 8-Track was replaced by the cassette, then the compact disc, and now by the MP3 player. The Big Three's way of doing business was once very profitable, but now is causing billions in losses every quarter. Creative destruction is usually a painful process, as people may lose jobs. However, the process leads to more opportunity and productivity in the long run. Propping up the automakers with taxpayer money is unfair to its competitors and the larger population that benefits from economic growth and lower taxes. And if we prop up the failing domestic automakers, who else should we bail out? Should any failing business of a certain size get a multi-billion dollar bailout? We can't afford to manage the economy in this way.

The Democrats are in a tight spot. Do they do what's best for the country and allow the Big Three to go bankrupt or do they side with the powerful unions that are an important part of their base? Pelosi and House Democrats are crafting a bill that would provide the cash, but force the automakers to accept fuel efficiency standards that would make them even more unprofitable. If making smaller cars is good for business, they will do so without a mandate. However, their best competitive advantage over Honda and Toyota are their trucks and SUVs. It appears that Pelosi is using this bill to placate two special interest groups: the unions and the environmentalists.

Conservatives and Charity

2008-11-11T18:19:00.005-06:00

Democrats are making an effort to peel off evangelical Christians from the Republican base by stressing their commitment to "social justice." Conservatives are not very good at talking about the poor and are often assumed to be greedy and uncaring.

To start, social justice, as promoted by the left, is based on the false premise that inequality is evidence of injustice. Inequality is portrayed as a societal problem to be remedied by government. However, I think most people would agree that people choose different paths in life and some acquire skills that are more useful to society than others. The fact that a brain surgeon, who after years of training makes more money than a fast food worker should surprise and upset no one. The chance to make more money than the fast food worker probably played a part in the surgeon's desire to complete the necessary training. People have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law. People do not have a right to economic equality.

Although the poor are not, as a rule, being denied justice, that does not mean we are free of responsibility to help them. Liberals have labeled conservatives as greedy and uncaring because we oppose income redistribution, however, Arthur C. Brooks' research in his book Who Really Cares shows that label to be the furthest thing from the truth. Brooks found that in the U.S., conservatives actually give more of their money to charity than liberals.

Brooks defined "liberals" as the 30% of the population calling themselves "liberal" or "very liberal" and conservatives as the 40% of the population calling themselves "conservative" or "very conservative." He was surprised to find that in 2000, conservative households gave 30% more than liberal households, even though liberal households earned 6% more on average. 24 out of 25 of the most giving states (charitable gifts/adjusted gross income) went for Bush in the 2000 election.

Brooks saw an even bigger difference when people were asked whether "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." This is the crux of the argument between fiscal conservatism and liberalism. The 43% who disagreed with the statement gave 12 times as much as those who agreed strongly. The difference also carried over into volunteer hours and blood donation.

Many (certainly not all) liberals substitute political opinions for private giving while conservatives are more likely to actually give and volunteer. Favoring tax policies that "donate" other people's money is not charity and opposing them is not greed.

So conservatives do care about the poor. Why do we oppose income redistribution? It takes away economic freedom and stifles opportunity. Punitive tax policies reduce incentives to be productive. Less production means less opportunity. As Ronald Reagan once said: "I believe the best social program is a job." Private charities are much more efficient than government. Thoughtful givers can focus their gifts on efforts that help lift people out of poverty while government programs tend to keep poor people dependent and, well, poor. What's more, Brooks' research shows that these programs depress charitable giving.

I fear that President-elect Obama's policies will not help the poor. Instead his policies are likely to make them more dependent on government and reduce their opportunities to help themselves. I believe conservative policies are better for everyone, we just need to get better at explaining them.

Obamanomics is Coming

2008-11-08T12:01:00.004-06:00

Faced with challenging economic times, Obama's remedies all discourage work, investment, and job growth when we need more of all three. Another stimulus check? This is nothing more than redistribution of wealth and the recipients are likely to just stick the money in their bank account. Longer unemployment benefits may or may not be necessary, but any benefit should be weighed against the cost: the unemployed will wait longer before finding a new job. Taking away workers' right to a secret ballot on the decision to form a union will hurt job growth and is fundamentally unjust. Raising capital gains taxes and corporate taxes dissuades investors from creating jobs in this country and will send capital overseas. I'm sure China and India won't mind.

Obama named Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm to his economic advisory team. Maybe she can share her policy secrets for Michigan's booming economy with the rest of the nation. As Phil Gramm and Mike Solon note in the Wall Street Journal, states still have some freedom in their own economic policies. The effectiveness of state policies will be evident in movement of people into the state, increased per-capita income and employment growth.

A study that ranked states according to these three factors found that from 1996-2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. The three worst were Illinois, Ohio and Michigan. A third of all new jobs created during this ten year period came from Texas (1.7 million), Florida (1.4 millions) and Arizona (.6 million). Illinois gained only 122k, Ohio lost 63k and Michigan lost 318k jobs and the citizens of these states saw their real income increase by just 58% of the national average.

Economic policies matter. The successful states have lower taxes, lower government spending and they are right-to-work states (employees are not forced to join or contribute to unions). The least successful states promote all powerful unions and have a higher minimum wage, yet their workers make far less.

Obama promises to bring the economic policies of Illinois, Ohio and Michigan to the nation.

Post-Racial America?

2008-11-06T18:06:00.006-06:00

Here's a column from the LA Times by Shelby Steele that I think gets to the heart of the argument that erupted on this blog yesterday. While some celebrate Obama's presidency as a great cultural victory that represents some kind of new, post-racial America, race was clearly an important factor in the election.

Obama's ideas are nothing new, yet he is being hailed as a great visionary who will not just change government, but America. As Steele notes:

On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of 'change' -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

Race indeed explains much of Obama's attractiveness to the electorate. For whites, supporting Obama presented a way to escape the stigma of racism. For blacks, the stigma of feeling somehow inferior:

When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

A truly post-racial voter would support a candidate based solely on his or her character and positions on the issues. A post-racial America did not go to the polls on Tuesday.

Center-Right? Yeah Right

2008-11-05T23:32:00.005-06:00

One thing is certain, President-elect Obama will be less popular a year from now. How crazy is it that someone could earn the support of everyone from Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and Jesse Jackson to Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell? Obama has to disappoint someone. Many expect him to lead as a center-right President (Newsweek cover a week ago). Others expect and hope for massive wealth redistribution, immediate removal of troops from Iraq, cradle to grave entitlements, socialized medicine and a college football playoff.

Those promoting the center-right theory are deluding themselves. Nothing in Obama's past suggests this is even a remote possibility, especially with the Democrats dominating Congress. Bill Clinton could be considered a moderate Democrat only because the Republican controlled Congress kept him in check. The country will be taken way left. Obama has promised to raise income taxes on the moderately wealthy, he will raise capital gains taxes and corporate taxes. He said his first priority is to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which legalizes partial birth abortion and requires the tax payers to pay for abortion. He is unfriendly toward free trade. Obama promised to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which is the exact opposite of how it sounds. It does away with secret ballots for employees considering unionizing and allows union thugs to intimidate people into voting to unionize. Small business owners are terrified by the prospect of this legislation. His health plan will likely result in socialized medicine. He favors driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

These are not "center-right" ideas. They are leftist ideas. I am inclined to believe that the MoveOn.org/San Francisco nut job wing of the Democrat Party are going to happy and moderates are going to have big regrets. I hope I'm wrong.

Historic Night

2008-11-04T21:45:00.003-06:00

A sad day for individual liberty.
A sad day for the unborn.
A sad day for limited government.
A sad day for free speech.
A sad day for taxpayers.

A victory for style over substance.
A victory for eloquence over character.
A victory for socialism over capitalism.

A historic night: the first socialist elected President of the United States.

Obama and Abortion

2008-11-02T08:57:00.004-06:00

We all know that Obama is an abortion extremist - he has argued that infanticide should be legal for babies that survive abortions and pledged to pass federal legislation allowing partial birth abortion in all circumstances and requiring the tax payers to pay for abortions. He will probably get to appoint two Supreme Court Justices and they will be just as radical as he is. This will guarantee that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned in our lifetimes, leading to the deaths of millions of unborn babies (3,000 a day currently).

My questions for Obama voters: what are the Obama policies that will outweigh this great evil? What good can he possibly accomplish that will make up for millions of dead babies? While some of you would be excited by an Obama victory - would it at least be bittersweet, knowing that the pro-life fight (from a legal standpoint) will be lost?

Adventures on Craigslist

2008-10-30T23:26:00.002-05:00

This may expose my immaturity, but this blog describing various adventures on Craigslist made me laugh.

L.A. Times Obama VIdeo

2008-10-30T21:39:00.003-05:00

The L.A. Times is still refusing to release a 2003 video of Obama at a dinner honoring his long time friend Rashid Khalidi (William Ayers was also in attendance). Khalidi is the former mouthpiece for one of the centuries' most prominent terrorists, Yassar Arafat. The L.A. Times reported that guests said many racist, offensive things about Israel. The L.A. Times refuses even to release a transcript from the video.

This highlights two important aspects of this campaign. One, the despicable bias the media has for Obama. If the L.A. Times had a video of McCain at a Klan rally is there any doubt it would be broadcast non-stop between now and Tuesday? And please don't tell me that hating and promoting violence against Jews is different than doing the same to African-Americans. Two, Khalidi is just the next in a long line of close Obama associates with whom you wouldn't shake hands. Obama can't seem to find anyone on the far left who is too radical to embrace. Instead he gravitates toward those with the most radical and dangerous views. Everything we know about Obama indicates that he is a radical. He may not share all the views of Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Khalidi, but he is far left of even mainstream Democrats. How can anyone feel comfortable voting for this man?

Another interesting story: did William Ayers ghost write Obama's book Dreams Of My Father?

Basketball!

2008-10-29T17:22:00.004-05:00

Yes, my beloved NBA is back. If only I could watch the Pistons every night. If you like the NBA as much as I do (I know it's much trendier to be into college basketball, so you don't have to tell anybody) check out Bill Simmons' preview on ESPN.com, it's pretty funny.

As for predictions, I think the Lakers make it back to the Finals, but the Celtics are really going to miss James Posey. The Cavs new scoring point guard, Mo Williams, puts them over the edge. Lakers beat the Cavs 4-2 in the Finals.

I'll differ from Simmons a little bit on my playoff teams. The East: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, Orlando, Miami, Washington. The West: Los Angeles, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Utah, Dallas, Portland.