Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Lawless liberals and their drive for tyranny

When a judge rules that a law defining marriage as being between a man and woman is "unConstitutional" we see gays getting married immediately but when a 3 judge panel rules that Obamacare subsidies can't be paid to exchanges not run by the state Obama says he'll keep making the payments.

Liberals really don't think the laws apply to them.  And when the man in the White House thinks he's above the law--that he shouldn't have to deal with Congress to get things done-- you have tyranny.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Liberal "science" for non-scientists; why Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong

I was recently asked by some atheists to watch a video of Neil deGrasse Tyson where he supposedly explained why there is no God because the universe isn't well designed.

The first thing to note is that while Neil has a great science education he apparently knows little or nothing about theology, specifically Christian theology.  

From the Christian perspective God did create a perfect universe but then when Adam and Eve sinned they shattered the perfection of the universe. In Eden the lion didn't eat the lamb, no one got sick, etc but when man sinned that changed.  Hence even if one could find "bad design" in the universe it wouldn't say anything about God.  

But even ignoring that Neil said a lot of things that are logically wrong.

The first point he made, as I recall, was that the universe was too big. Why make such a huge place just for people on Earth?

The first, and most obvious, objection is that Neil is an astrophysicist. He so loves studying this vast universe that, when not attacking Christianity, he dedicates his life to researching it.  Given that creating the universe is trivial for God it would seem obvious that God may have created this huge universe simply to provide amusement for people like Neil; sort of like the mobiles parents put over their babies cribs.

The next objection is that Neil has no idea how many worlds full of people with souls there are in the universe so he really can't say that the "huge" universe is wasted.

Neil also mentioned that supernova's were a sign of bad design because when they blow up they kill life over a huge region of space.  That sounds bad except that if the only place in the universe that matters is Earth--critical for Neil's argument that the universe is too big--unless a supernova wipes out life on Earth supernova's explosive tendencies are only good not bad.

Why good? Well it turns out that all of the heavy elements, pretty much everything beyond oxygen, in the universe are created in supernova's.  Without supernova's there'd be nothing to make a world like Earth out of; no iron, no lead etc.

According to Neil then the fact that there are supernova's that make life possible is a sign of bad design.  Right.

Neil made a bunch of other equally illogical and baseless points which I don't happen to recall, and I'm not wasting another 5 minutes of my life on his "reasoning", all of which are based on a singularly large case of conceit on Neil's part; that if something doesn't make sense to Neil then it can't be right.

Essentially what Neil is saying is that he is smarter and better informed that an all knowing all powerful God. If Neil didn't claim that then he couldn't say that what he considers poor design is evidence against God.  After all if we could prove that God exists and we still see those examples of "poor" design it would simply mean we don't understand things as well as God does.

Similarly if we see something Neil considers "poor" design it could mean there is no designer, no God, or that we just don't appreciate how wonderful that "poor" design really is.

Neil is a great example of how scientists who don't understand philosophy, religion, or the basic tenants of science--if you can't experiment on it theories are mostly guesses-- are more than glad to politicize "science" to serve modern liberalism.
Sea otters relaxing

From Mission Carmel Catholic church

From Mission Carmel Catholic church

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Immigration; love vs responsibility

I think most conservatives would love to give the illegals swarming our borders a chance to succeed in America. After all most conservatives are Christians who view those poor children as their brothers and sisters in Christ.

The problem is that immigration is not what it used to be.

Back 100 or more years when most Americans ancestors came over a new immigrant imposed no burden on his neighbors. If he couldn't cut it he depended on the voluntary contributions of others.  No one held a gun to peoples heads and said "Either help this immigrant live a good life or go to jail".

Today however with the massive welfare state illegals who are supported in a wide variety of ways without paying the full tax burden that Americans are saddled with do damage honest people.

Further America can't support every single poor person, or even every single poor child, in the world. Why are those who live within walking distance of the US specially blessed when it comes to being supported by the US taxpayers? Sounds racist to me.

I realize that some illegal supporters argue that the US South West really belongs to Mexico which is kinda odd. It was Spaniards who conquered that territory, the same Spaniards that those illegal supports condemn as foreign oppressors.  So why are "native" Mexicans entitled to land conquered by the "evil" Spaniards?

The problem then is balancing the needs of the illegals with the rights of Americans.

Clearly if illegals are fleeing genocide--say Jews in WWII-- or mass starvation America has more of an obligation to them than if they are simply trying to get a better lifestyle.  In the former case we really can't turn them away without serious cause while in the latter case they are really no different than thieves.  After all honest people from Central America spend years waiting to get into America legally. If those folks can wait why can't the illegals?

Keep in mind that Blacks stuck in the liberal run hell holes of our inner cities are probably at as much if not more risk than the children fleeing "violence" in central America so it's unclear we should divert money from trying to make Detroit safe in order to let kids from Guatemala be safer. Or maybe we should work with the Guatemalan government to make Guatemala safer for all Guatemalans rather than just trying to rescue a few who can sneak up to the US?

One obvious solution is to provide a way for immigrants to come in without leeching off the government. However even then with Black unemployment running at >11% is it being truly charitable to let in lots of low skill illegals so they can compete with Blacks for jobs?

It would seem that the liberal position is a racist one; Blacks won't take the jobs illegals will, Blacks would rather live off their neighbors than work. Conservatives don't buy that. We know that Blacks are just as hard working and dedicated as Whites when given the chance just as we know that if we cleaned up the liberal teacher union run inner city schools Blacks would do as well in school as Whites.

Given that the Obama economy is a total disaster with unemployment only going down as more people give up hope and either retire early or go on welfare is it truly charitable to let in millions of unskilled workers when we know that will reduce wages and job opportunities for folks who are in America legally?

We need to deal realistically with immigration using both compassion and a sense of responsibility for the Americans who will be impacted by allowing millions of people to become citizens.

The answers may not be obvious but we won't achieve success by demonizing anyone who says that not everyone in the Southern Hemisphere is an American.

Friday, July 11, 2014

The truth about gay's as parents

If you've heard about a study that supposedly shows gay couples are better parents than the evolutionarily normal husband and wife read my article on American Thinker for the "rest of the story".


Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Forget religion; Hobby Lobby is about freedom

The Hobby Lobby decision is about more than religion; it’s about the rights of Americans to not be forced by their government to do what they think is gravely immoral.

If the government can force people who believe, for whatever reason, that abortion is the murder of a human being to directly cooperate, through funding and providing links to the abortion services on their company health insurance web site, in that murder there is really no limit to what the government can do.

While in the Hobby Lobby case the issue is health insurance the real core of the liberal judges conclusions on governmental power is more far reaching. 

There is no guarantee of health insurance in the Constitution.  The Hobby Lobby case is therefore not based on competing Constitutional rights. Instead it’s really simply a measure of how limited, or unlimited, the Governments power to force people to give up their First Amendment rights is.

No one has died from being chaste. We know this because millions of ugly nerdy people go without sex even though they don’t want to and millions more people stay chaste because they believe that sex outside of marriage is morally wrong.

Hence birth control is like sunscreen. Both are health related—though unlike sunscreen the Pill is a carcinogen-- but neither is “necessary” in the sense that an antibiotic is necessary.

As such the liberal judges ruling that free birth control is sufficient reason to compel people to go against their deeply held moral beliefs is an amazingly chilling statement.

If the Government can compel people to violate their deeply held moral principles in order to provide someone else free of charge with a luxury then what rights do Americans have?

We see the same “logic” at work when bakers and photographers are compelled to provide services to gay “weddings”. The “right” of gays to have the photographer or baker they want—for there is no shortage of bakers and photographers who will work at gay “weddings”—has been ruled by the courts to override the deeply held moral beliefs of those photographers and bakers.

What this tells us is that in the mind of liberals if liberals should decide that the Nazi’s are nice folk then it would be ok for the Government to force a Jewish baker to cater a Nazi celebration.

But if the Government has the power to force us to do whatever the Government thinks is good how is that different from a tyranny?

Interestingly enough this tension between the Governments power and people rights has been addressed before in America.  Even when faced with an existential crisis America decided that those whose deeply held moral beliefs prevented them from killing, even in defense of their country, would not be required to fight.

To this day liberals will defend, and even extoll, conscientious objectors.

Yet those same liberals believe that while someone can’t be compelled to kill Nazi’s to save the country she can be compelled to help kill the unborn.

The only logic seems to be that liberals believe that Americans cannot be compelled to do what liberals don’t like but Americans can be compelled to do what liberals do like.

And in a society where the Government can use all of its terrible force to make people do what the Government thinks is good there is no real freedom.

The liberal judges dissent on Hobby Lobby and the cries of anguish from liberals combined with their eager crushing of the rights of those who don’t wish to support so called gay “weddings” reveals the hard fist of dictatorial oppression at the heart of modern liberalism.

Conservatives are not at war with people of good intent—though most people who vote for liberals are ignorant of what they are really voting for—but with the intellectual children of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

The way to win that war is to educate America.  Liberals win because they lie about what they want. They don’t discuss what the Hobby Lobby case is really about for example but instead imply that somehow the Supreme Court has outlawed birth control.

The MSM can be counted on to lie in order to cover the liberal agenda.

That leaves us to bring the truth to our well meaning and good-hearted neighbors.

feel free to follow tom on Twitter