The Founders vs. The Progressives Overview lecture summary

Progressivism was a radical departure from the Founding and the Founders' ideas of liberty and equality had nothing to do with the progressive liberal transformation of America.

Here are the differences between the two:

1. What is freedom?
   • Founders view: People are created equal with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, religious liberty and property. The source of these rights are laws of nature and nature's God. These laws are discovered by human reason although their truth is confirmed by the Bible. We are obliged to respect those rights in others. These rights and duties constitute a natural moral order. Everyone is born free and no-one has the right to make a slave of another.
   • Progressives view: People are not born free. Freedom is a product of human making. Historical relativity: Human values change over time. History is changing in the right direction--more freedom. Negative freedom- freedom from the control & will of others. Negative freedom is good. True freedom is not just negative but positive or effective freedom. Positive freedom- positive control of resources and mental equipment including trained powers of initiative and reflection. Positive freedom requires transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor and education--shaping the mind for growth and development. Self development for the sake of others is the aim of social ethics.
2. Purpose of gov't
   • Founders: Main task of gov’t is to secure the natural rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents. Law should protect life, liberty and property from predators. Otherwise leave people alone. Founders knew in a free society there would be inequality of wealth but since people own their own body, minds, and talents, gov’t should protect these unequal talents. The attempt to make everyone equal would destroy liberty; it would deprive the people of the possibility of failure—their best incentive to master their destructive impulses and cultivate their talents. Founders did believe in a safety net for those who couldn’t find any help otherwise. 
   • Progressives: The only way positive freedom can be realizes is to take away someone else’s negative freedom—someone else’s property. Human beings by nature are unfree and unequal. It becomes the main task of gov’t to make them equal. The State has the responsibility to create institutions to help individuals realize their potentiality that is theirs. Laws and institutions are there to create individuals by redistribution of resources and transforming the character of the inferior citizens by a process called Uplift.  Social conditions, not God, is in which man moves, lives and has his being. Gov’t has to create individuals because on their own they are nothing. 
3. Domestic policy
   • Founders: State gov’ts took care of almost all domestic policy. A tough criminal law is essential. Civil law must define contract, property and minor injuries so people can effectively their right to acquire and possess property and sue people for less than criminal injuries.  State laws must protect the integrity of the family by defining marriage and specifying duties and rights of family members. Local gov’t provides a safety net. Gov’t supports the minimum moral conditions of a free society through schools, the encouragement of religion, public monuments to the nation’s heroes, and other means. Beyond these tasks gov’t leaves citizens alone to take care of their affairs. Besides a national defense a gov’t can maintain nationwide free trade by preventing states from interfering with trade between states and by defining money as gold or silver coin to prevent gov’t from using inflation as a tool of public policy. The Founders promoted the virtues of justice; moderation and frugality for self-restraint; and sturdy self-reliance. They promoted courage and vigilance for the defense of freedom. And they promoted enlightenment of rights and duties. Unfair trade practices mean violence and/or fraud.
   • Progressives: Income and wealth redistribution. Private property will always harm the poor or be mismanaged in some way. Businesses must then be pervasively regulated. Unfair trade practices mean anything that impacts people in a way that bureaucrats disapprove of. Any successful company is likely to be viewed of as unfair. To promote Uplift gov’t support of schools and universities was greatly expanded. Schools were reorganized to promote progressive doctrines. Modern university is the church of progressivism. Prior to WWII, the Uplift agenda segregated the races by gov’t mandate. The progs argued that it is better that blacks be excluded from white society and be forced to provide for themselves.
4. Foreign policy
   • Founders: Defend the rights of Americans from outsiders. The gov’t  maintains a strong national defense against foreign attack. It secures the borders of the nation against the intrusions of non-citizens. They made alliances with foreign nations only if it served the cause of national defense. It is not the gov’t’s job to secure the rights for the rest of the world.
   • Progressives: The progs advocated a policy of benevolent imperialism. They argued that the U. S. has a mission, perhaps a divine mission, to engage in imperialism and nation building. The progs believed that the citizens of the Philippines were like children who were incapable of self-rule so America made the Philippines and other islands colonies. The progs applied the same rule for foreign and domestic affairs: Consent of the governed only matters for civilized people.
5. Consent of the governed
   • Founders: Gov’t can only be fully legitimate if it is based on consent. If we are ruled without consent then we are slaves.
   • Progressives: Gov’t is democratic when feeds, sustains, and directs individuals. To accomplish this gov’t must extend to all the ways of living of the people. Many reforms appear to be expansions of consent like direct elections of senators and primary elections. But these reforms lessen the power of local communities so the elites can get elected who then can put the prog agenda into action.  The result is the people are far removed from those they elect and the politicians get more power.
6. Gov't limited or unlimited?
   • Founders: The Founders wanted gov’t to be limited but strong in the areas where it is supposed to be strong: national defense, protecting individual rights by tough law enforcement and free markets. Individuals were to have a high degree of personal liberty. Private individuals should decide how land should be used.
   • Progressives: The progs favored unlimited power. There is no limit to the right of the state for the gov’t save its ability to do good. A typical prog policy was for the gov’t to own as much land as possible. Prior to 1900 most public land was sold or given to private owners. After 1900 that policy stopped. Now, private owners are viewed as threats to the environment or exploiters of the poor. Progs are impatient with democratic institutions. They are impatient with the view that men are not angels and should not be trusted with unlimited power. Progs therefore give people who believe like they do unlimited power to do good. The Ruling Class gets to extract vast amount of money from the productive people of America to fund themselves and the programs they run.

Source: Hillsdale College’s Constitution 201 lecture series, “The Founders versus The Progressives” (2012) by Dr. Thomas G. West

An Internal Memo That Warns Terrorists May Be Doing ‘Dry-Runs’ to Prepare for Next 9/11-Style Attack

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 10):

A horrifying internal memo obtained by WTSP-TV reportedly details an incident which some pilots believe may have been a “dry-run” for terrorists plotting another 9/11-style attack.

Delta Airlines pilot Wolf Koch told the news station that it is “very foolish” to believe that an attack similar to the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, could never happen again. In that attack, the deadliest on American soil, more than 3,000 people were killed.

In fact, Koch and other flight crews are worried that terrorists are already planning future attacks.

The memo obtained by WTSP-TV, which originated at the union that represents pilots for US Airways, reportedly states that “there have been several cases recently throughout the (airline) industry of what appear to be probes, or dry-runs, to test our procedures and reaction to an in flight threat.”

“What most security experts will tell you that if a dry-run is occurring, the attack will shortly follow,” Koch said. [read more]

God help us all if another attack happens. If another attack comes it will be Obama’s fault. When your enemies don’t fear or respect you don’t be surprised if they try to attack you. Weakness never does a country any good no matter how persuasive or likeable a leader think he is. You can’t persuade anyone if they think you are a joke.

Obamacare website security called 'outrageous'

From CSMonitor.com (Oct. 14):

Cybersecurity professionals are voicing questions about potential red flags in the new federal health care website system that could open the door to theft of personal information.

In the two weeks since the Affordable Healthcare Act site, www.healthcare.gov, went live, most complaints have centered on long wait times with sites initially overloaded by interested visitors. In response, government officials are scrambling to get more capacity for the main site and its satellites.

But potentially far more serious questions are emerging about cybersecurity. Experts have said that hackers could “spoof” the website with a look-alike website to collect personal information, or criminals could use an automated program to try repeatedly to enter the site even if it didn’t get a login correct.

Experts have stopped short of calling these concerns “vulnerabilities” – a term that means a proven weak spot to hackers. But they say these red flags need attention.

“I’ll ask you your Social Security, your date of birth, [so] an hour later I can empty your bank account,” John McAfee, who founded the cybersecurity company of the same name but is no longer associated with it, complained on Fox News. The Obamacare websites, he said, have “no safeguards,” and the main site's architecture is "outrageous."

'Clickjacking.' The government site lacks defenses to prevent an attacker from putting an invisible layer over the legitimate website, Ms. Shah added. As a result, a user clicking on a link or button might end up at a renegade site that looked just the same – and end up divulging personal information to that site. [read more]

So, now only do people have to contend with website delays now they have to worry about conartists stealing their info possibly their identity. Well, that’s what you get when the federal gov’t builds a website.

Along the same lines:

Oct. 14: Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are (Not surprising. This is like saying turtles move slow.)

Oct. 17: Obamacare Website Violates Licensing Agreement for Copyrighted Software

                 ObamaCare's Black Box (From the article: The failures [of the website] that have all but disabled ObamaCare are the result of deliberate political choices, which HHS and the White House are compounding with secrecy and stonewalling.)

The Rules of Society

In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature, while knowing it through and through; its happiness would have to be independent of us, and yet ready to occupy itself with ours; and lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory, and, working in one century, to be able to enjoy in the next. It would take gods to give men laws.

Source: The Social Contract and Discourses (1761) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

In other words the “superior intelligence” is an omniscience being like God. This why gov’t cannot be God or even act like God because being composed of mankind it is related to our nature and its happiness is dependent on the governed.  Progressive gov’t leaders wish to be omniscience (even omnipresent and omnipotent like God) but they can’t and shouldn’t be.

Healthcare Law to Fine Hospitals That Provide Free Services to Poor

From The New American.com (Oct. 9):

President Obama’s healthcare law is full of increased costs to taxpayers, in the form of taxes, higher premiums, and of course, fines. In fact, the healthcare law may punish charitable hospitals for treating uninsured Americans by issuing large fines to those institutions that continue to provide treatment to uninsured Americans.

The Daily Caller reported, “A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people.”

With approximately 60 percent of American hospitals classified as nonprofit, this can prove to be a substantial amount of money in penalties. Hospitals that fail to meet the new standards could face fines upwards of $50,000.

John Kartch of the Americans for Tax Reform added that the law requires tax-exempt hospitals to regularly prove that they are necessary by filing paperwork with the IRS.

“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said Kartch.

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”

[read more]

So, much for caring for the poor. Then again The Left believes that’s the gov’ts responsibility anyway. Can’t have non-profits and charities doing that.

Insurers Getting Faulty Data From U.S. Health Exchanges

From Bloomberg.com (Oct. 7):

Insurers are getting faulty and incomplete data from the new U.S.-run health exchange, which may mean some Americans won’t be covered even after they sign up for an insurance plan.

While it’s not clear how widespread the problem is, the reports from industry consultants are the first hint that the technical troubles faced by consumers trying to enroll in health plans under the Affordable Care Act may also be hitting the insurers. The companies are receiving electronic files that can’t open or have so much missing information on new enrollees they’re unusable, the consultants said.

Some insurers have been forced to fix entries by hand, said Bob Laszewski, an insurance-industry consultant based in Arlington, Virginia.

“If we don’t see substantial improvement by the end of this week, then I would throw up the yellow flag,” said Dan Schuyler, a consultant advising states and insurers on the exchanges. “If we don’t see it in the next two to three weeks, it’s time for red flags. The concern is some people could get to Jan. 1, and not have coverage.” [read more]

The Unaffordable No-Care Act should have been a red flag. Period. Total control of your life anyone? This is what Obama meant by “transforming” America.

The Obama administration doesn’t really care if insurers get the right info or not. Why? Because the end-game is single-payer universal health care where the insurers quietly fade away. They were conned just like the people who voted for Obama.

Maybe, Obama is trying to make people mad at the insurers enough that they will demand a single-payer system. Or he could even try to get the insurers ticked off enough so they will drop out of the exchanges. Who knows.

Happy Columbus Day!

In his Book of Prophesies, Christopher Columbus said he could not have reached the shores of America without prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit. His exact words were:

“It was the Lord who put it into my mind....I could feel His hand upon me... the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies....All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me...There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures. . .I did make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps….No one should fear to undertake a task in the name of our Savior if it is just and the intention is purely for His service.”

Here are some biographical info about Christopher Columbus:

Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa in 1451. At the time Genoa comprised its own city state. Historians believe that Christoforo Colombo (as he was called then) was well educated. He knew several languages including Latin, Portuguese, and Spanish, as well as the native language of Genoa, Ligurian. He is known to have read many classical works including Ptolemy, St. Augustine, the stoic Seneca, and most particularly a book by or about Marco Polo.

Columbus came from a family of wool merchants and weavers. The young Columbus himself became a member of the weaver's guild, but decided on a more adventurous calling and went to sea. On a voyage in 1476, when he was about 25, his ship was wrecked, and he was cast ashore in Portugal. Fortunately, he had a brother (Bartolomeo) who was already there working as a map maker. Christopher Columbus established himself in Portugal. From there he went on many merchant voyages. He was probably master of the ships he sailed on, and may even have been part owner.

Columbus was a planner and an adventurer. He looked for opportunity wherever he could find it. Ever since Constantinople had fallen in 1453 the trade routes to the east had largely been shut down. The Portuguese, looking to take advantage of their position, jutting out into the Atlantic and just north of Africa, decided to look for a route around the huge continent. Although they had not reached China by the 1490s their voyages seemed promising and had already proved profitable. Columbus proposed that there was a faster way to reach the far East. Paradoxically, he suggested that explorers might find the rich cities of China and India by going west!

When he was still a teenager, he got a job on a merchant ship. He remained at sea until 1470, when French privateers attacked his ship as it sailed north along the Portuguese coast. The boat sank, but the young Columbus floated to shore on a scrap of wood and made his way to Lisbon, where he studied mathematics, astronomy, cartography and navigation.

Immigration Reform Rally on ‘Closed’ National Mall OK’d by Park Service

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 7):

The Park Service will reportedly allow a pro-immigration reform rally to occur on the National Mall even though the site is technically closed due to the partial government shutdown.

Organizers for the event, titled “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform,” set up a stage and equipment for the Tuesday rally as the public was kept out. A spokesperson for the event told the Washington Examiner that the Park Service has granted them permission to utilize the site.

“The President and his administration have a history of picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and this is no different,” Dane told The Blaze. “Americans who fought for freedom are denied access to the WW II memorial while those who violate our laws are rewarded.” [read more]

Gee, I wonder if the TEA Party can demonstrate in the Mall? Hmmm.  Meanwhile, WWII vets can see their memorial before they die. Or the American people can’t view Mount Rushmore (its out in the open for Christ sakes! Okay, I can see not letting visitors go inside) or the Lincoln Memorial. Is this the top down part of top down-bottom up-inside out? Causing inconvenience for no good reason? (Or maybe there is a sinister reason and not by the Park Service…)

Examining World Religions summary

Scientific skeptic Hugh Ross wanted to prove through scientific means that the world religions are humanly crafted frauds. So, he decided to be honest and would look at the holy books of the religions.

First, he looked at the Hindu Vedas and found several scientific absurdities like time being eternal and about the moon and the planets. The general rule of thumb the author was using is that when we look at the cosmos—in fact when we look out in any field of scientific endeavor—we discover consistency, beauty and harmony. There’s freedom from contraction. So, his assumption was that if the God that created the universe decided to communicate with us humans in a direct fashion, that communication would have those same characteristics. But for things of human origin, we can expect human feelings and ideas to creep in, and that’s what he looked for. He looked for those human perspectives.

Second, Mr. Ross looked at the Buddhist texts and found they borrow a lot from the Hindu texts. So, he wasn’t satisfied with those texts.

Then, he looked at the Qur'an of the Islamic faith. He found it too esoteric. If you were one of the “enlightened ones” you could then understand the holy book. More frequently Mr. Ross found that the Qur'an places historical events in the wrong geographical location. Hope the author doesn’t travel anywhere in the Mideast if they read his essay.

Fourth, he looked at the Book of Mormon and found the founder Joseph Smith got some prophecies wrong. And the ones he did get right, newspaper reporters predicted too.

Finally, Mr. Ross looked at the Bible. He found no esoteric poetry, No hint of “hidden” meanings. Almost every statement in the Bible was scientifically testable. For example, in Genesis he found eleven creation events and three initial conditions. All put in the correct chronological sequence and all correctly described from a scientific perspective.  The author said the Genesis creation account reflected the scientific method. Mr. Ross read the entire Bible and couldn’t find any contradiction or provable error. 

Source: Hugh Ross, "A Scientist Who Looked and was Found,” A Place for Truth, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Boehner and Reid

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 2):

A series of leaked emails authored by House Speaker John Boehner’s chief of staff Mike Sommers show that the Speaker may have coordinated with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt Congress from Obamacare.

The emails were leaked Tuesday by Reid chief of staff David Krone, who actually has a history of this sort of thing. [read more]

This is despicable. Then again it is not surprising. The Ruling Class always looks out for themselves. It’s almost like a reflex. If Obamacare is not good then exempt everyone from it or at least make it optional without penalty. Can’t the republican house find a better leader? Someone who is looking out for the American public?

In other news, the senate leader Harry Reid was asked this question by a reporter:

"If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?"

His answer?

"Why would we [the Senate] want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own."

Wow! So, kids with cancer are non-essential people now? And since when is cancer a “problem?” I thought it was a deadly disease. Maybe, the reporter should have phrased the question like this:

If you can help one potential Democrat voter who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

or

If you can help one potential Democrat donor who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

Another example of the collective or group is more important than the individual.

Ten states where Obamacare wipes out existing health care plans

From Daily Caller.com (Sept. 28):

President Barack Obama famously promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” He later got even more specific.

“If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” Obama said.

But as Obamacare’s rollout approaches, we have learned this is not true. Here are the ten states where consumers may like their health care plans, but they won’t be able to keep them.

1) California: 58,000 will lose their plans under Obamacare. The first bomb dropped in California with a mass exodus from the most populated state’s Obamacare exchange. Aetna, the country’s third largest insurer, left first in July and was closely followed by UnitedHealth. Anthem Blue Cross pulled out of California’s Obamacare exchange for small businesses as well.

Fifty-four percent of Californians expect to lose their coverage, according to an August poll.

2) Missouri: Patients of the state’s largest hospital system — which spans 13 hospitals including the St. Louis Children’s Hospital — will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield. Anthem covers 79,000 patients in Missouri who may seek subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, but won’t be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

3) Connecticut: Aetna, the third largest insurer in the nation, won’t offer insurance on the Obamacare exchange in its own home state, where it was founded in 1850. The reason? “We believe the modification to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers,” said Aetna spokesman Susan Millerick.

4) Maryland: 13,000 individuals covered by Aetna and its recently-purchased Coventry Health Care won’t be able to keep their insurance plans if they want Obamacare subsidies on the exchanges. Aetna and Coventry canceled plans to offer insurance in the exchange when state officials wouldn’t allow them to charge premiums high enough to cover costs.

[read more]

Wow, that’s quite a few states. The rest of states are: Iowa, Georgia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina. Half of the states are states that generally vote liberal. I wonder what they think about losing their coverage? If they are Obama zombies probably put the blame somewhere else.

But isn’t this the ultimate plan anyway? Single-payer healthcare system like in Canada. Put the evil insurance companies out of business so the nice-compassionate-wise monopolized gov’t insurance company can take of your health care needs? Of course, who knows what the tax premium will be when the competition goes out of business. Anything, the gov’t wants it to be. 

Obamacare Website Quietly Deletes Reference to 'Free Health Care'

From The Weekly Standard.com (Sept. 30):

Even as President Obama and his administration are making a last minute push to encourage enrollment in Obamacare, a quiet change was made on the Healthcare.gov website regarding those who will still not be able to afford coverage after the program kicks in. From at least June 26, 2013 to as recently as September 15, under the topic, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?" the following statement appeared: "If you can't afford any health plan, you can get free or low-cost health and dental care at a nearby community health center."

However, sometime between September 16 and September 23, the reference to "free" care was dropped. The title of the topic was changed as well, and now reads: "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?" Here is how the page currently appears:

The page in question is not a new one, as the webpage's Internet address remains the same, still containing the word "free": www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-get-free-or-low-cost-care/.  However, there is no notation anywhere on the page that it was revised; the change just appeared unannounced. [read more]

So, Obamacare is not free anymore? What?! The American people have been lied too! This is an outrage!

Actually, the message should read to be honest:

Where can I get high-cost very-little-to-no-care in my community? If you can’t afford any health care plan, well it sucks to be you. Welcome to the New Normal.

More Guns, Less Crime summary

In his book More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott,  Jr. talks about a robber named Darnel “Bubba” Lowery and his accomplice robbed and murdered a musician. He said basically they picked the musician because he was “vulnerable.” After taking the money from the musician Mr. Raglin asked if the man’s car was a stick or an automatic. Then he shot the guy. The musician cooperated and just handed over the money.

What’s interesting is this: Lowery and his accomplice decided against robbing cab drivers or drug dealers because they both sometimes carried guns.

Serial killers, rapists, muggers, etc. are just predators. Their prey is the victim. They size-up the situation when they look at a victim and think to themselves: Is my reward greater than my cost when I attack the victim? The cost being arrested, seen by a bystander or policeman or even being harmed by the victim? If the answer is yes, then they will pounce. Just like a lion attacking the weakest in the herd a criminal will go after the most vulnerable. Probably someone alone, someone not very strong or physically fit, someone not aware of their surrounding, and even someone as a study suggested who is not showing confidence in their behavior. And if the criminal believes his potential victim is not armed, like with a gun, then so much the better for the criminal. I wonder if the victims of Jack the Ripper had guns would they had a chance to survive? Keep in mind England back then banned firearms. It still has the ban. So, those victims never had the opportunity to use a gun to defend themselves. Maybe one would have survived. Ripper himself used a knife to commit the crimes.

In the book the author provides strong evidence that concealed-handguns laws reduce violent crime and that higher arrest rates deter all types of crime.

Massive killings drop dramatically when states adopt nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws*.

Nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws have equal deterrent effects on murders committed both with and without guns.

Mr. Lott says a gun-control advocate from the Violence Policy Center did not even want to look at his original study. Why? Because the advocate didn’t want to give publicity to the paper. That’s the stated reason. The real reason I believe is because the Left is arrogance and small minded. They never want to learn because they know all the answers or at least they believe they do. That and they are afraid they might be proved wrong. It was only after his paper got publicized did the advocate want to read it. Even then it was only to criticize it. Even Congressman Schumer attacked not only the paper but the author too (which is not surprising. That’s what the Left does. When you attack their narrative you are attacking a basic tenet of their religion. The quicker conservatives or anyone else learns this the better off they will be.)

Source: More Guns, Less Crime. Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998) by John R. Lott, Jr.

*Nondiscretionary concealed-handgun law- the term nondiscretionary means that once a person meets certain well-specified criteria for obtaining a concealed-handgun permit, no discretion is involved in granting the permit—it must be issued.

Explaining God Away

An evolutionary scientist says, “Ah, the answer is that it’s hard-wired into us by the process of natural selection.” That is, belief in God is something that helped our ancestors survive. Therefore, in a sense, evolution selected that trait, so that's why we all have it. But there's a problem with this.

The problem with saying that belief in God or morality is hard-wired into us—that our belief-forming faculties or moral impulses are the product of evolution and therefore can’t tell us the truth about things but only help us survive—is that you’ve proved too much. If we can't trust what our belief—forming faculties tell us about God and morality, because it’s just to help us survive, why should we trust our belief—forming faculties when they tell us evolution is true? How dare you use the scalpel on every other thing, everybody else’s belief, but not your own?

Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame has argued this at a very high level in a number of his books. He’s a philosopher, and he says: If we believe that everything in us is only the product of evolution, and that all our belief-forming faculties are there only because they help us survive, not because they tell us the truth, then we cannot trust our cognitive faculties to tell us what’s really out there. In fact, if anything, a mildly paranoid take on reality will certainly help us survive more than an accurate take on reality. And therefore, if we can’t trust what our faculties tell us about God or morality, how dare you say, “But you can trust what your faculties tell you about the theory of evolution?” Therefore, if we have a theory like evolutionary theory, we can’t trust our mind.

At the end of the Abolition of Man, regarding people who explain away religion and morality as “Well, it’s just evolutionary” or "It's just this, just that,” C. S. Lewis writes:

You cannot go on "explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on "seeing through" things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To "see through” all things is the same as not to see.

So if as Nietzsche says, “All truth claims are really just power grabs,” then so is his, so why listen to him at all? And if, as Freud says, “All views of God are really just psychological projections to deal with our guilt and insecurity,” then so is what he says about God. So why listen to him? And if, as the evolutionary scientist says, what our brain tells us about morality and God is not real, it’s just a chemical reaction designed to pass on our genetic code, then so is what their brains tell them about the world and evolution itself, so why listen to them? In the end, to see through everything is the same as not to see anything. And if we try to explain away belief in God like that, by appealing to evolution, then we’ve explained away everything. So we can’t explain it away.

Source: Timothy J. Keller, “Reason for God: The Exclusivity of Truth,” A Place for Truth, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Parent ‘Manhandled’, Arrested While Speaking Out Against Common Core at Public Forum

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 20):

A parent in Towson, Md., was arrested Thursday night at a public forum after vocally expressing his concerns about the Baltimore County School District’s plan to use Common Core standards in its curriculum.

Robert Small, a concerned father, was forcefully removed from the meeting by a police officer after he interrupted Baltimore County Schools Superintendent Dallas Dance during the question-and-answer portion of the forum.

The meeting apparently didn’t allow parents to stand up and ask questions or comment. Parents and other attendants were instead asked to write their questions on a piece of paper and officials would read them.

However, Small began speaking out against the district’s use of Common Core, prompting a security guard, who was also a police officer, to approach him and order him to leave. “Let’s go!” he said sternly.

When Small didn’t immediately comply, the officer began pulling his arm and pushing him towards the exit. Some audience members gasped at the cop’s use of force.

“Don’t stand for this,” the father said as he was dragged out. “You are sitting here like cattle! Is this America?”

Small also urged other parents to demand answers on Common Core and the curriculum being used to educate their children.

Small was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer and faces a $2,500 fine and up to 10 years in prison. He was also charged with disturbing a school operation, which carries an additional $2,500 and up to six months in jail.

[read more]

The good news is (if you can call it that) the charges were dropped by the state attorney. He said “in the interest of justice, further prosecution will not accomplish anything more.” Not that what Small did was constitutional or legal (the attorney said Small “disrupted the meeting”), but having him arrested was good enough. Also, he said the security guard did nothing wrong. Okay, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the security guard who thought he was just doing his duty.

Clearly arresting Small is bordering on 1st amendment right violations.

I wonder why the parents could not ask questions out in the open anyway. Could it be the superintendent wanted to filter out any questions or comments he didn’t want the other parents to hear because maybe he believes the Common Core curriculum has issues or even dare I say a fraud? Or maybe he thinks the parents are like raucous cattle (like Small suggested) who need to be controlled. Or both? Yes, to either answer should any sane person nervous.

I hope this isn’t a trend where parents are treated like children in public school forums and  seen but not heard. After all parents have to trust the gov’t public schools and not question them like good sheep followers.

The 7 Characteristics of a Conscious Culture

1.        Trust: Conscious business have high levels of internal and external trust.  Internally, there is a high level of trust between the leadership and employees, within the leadership team itself and across teams at all levels. Externally,  there is a high degree of trust between the company and its customers, suppliers, other business partners, the communities within which it operates, investors and governments.

2.        Accountability: Conscious cultures combine high levels of trust with and caring with a strong emphasis on accountability. People stick to their commitments and hold esch other responsible for performance, efficiency and deliverables. Suppliers are accountable to the company and vice versa.  Accountability goes hand-in-hand with high levels of decentralization and empowerment, both of which are the norm in conscious businesses.

3.        Caring: The human need to care and be cared for is an extremely powerful motivation – often equal to and sometimes even exceeding the need to pursue one’s self-interest. Conscious cultures are marked by genuine, heartfelt love and care for all stakeholders. People in conscious cultures behave in ways that are thoughtful, authentic, considerate and compassionate.

4.        Transparency: There are few secrets in a conscious culture because there is little to hide! Financial books are usually open, salary information is more readily available, and strategic plans are widely discussed and disseminated. Conscious firms embrace the fact that most information of genuine significance soon becomes known in this age of instant digital connectivity.

5.        Integrity: A Conscious culture is marked by strict adherence to truth telling and fair dealing. Conscious firms readily forgive lapses in judgment, but do not tolerate lapses in integrity. The commitment to integrity goes far beyond mere adherence to laws. Conscious firms typically set global standards that exceed the requirements placed on them by law; they are guided by what they believe is ethically right, not merely by what is legally required or socially acceptable.

6.        Loyalty: Conscious businesses exist in a system of high loyalty. All the stakeholders are loyal to each other and the company. This is a natural consequence of the relationship mind-set that permeates the business. Stakeholders are more patient and understanding with each other when short-term blips or other unusual situations occur. High accountability ensures that those who consistently fail to live up to expectations experience consequences for their non-performance.

7.        Egalitarianism: Conscious companies do not have a class system that separates leaders from front team members at large. The salary differential between the top and front lines is smaller than typically found in traditional companies. Senior executives do not enjoy special privileges and perks that are not available to others. To a large extent, all employees have input in to how the company is managed and led. There is usually an open-door policy so that employees can communicate with the leadership team in an informal way.

Source: Conscious Capitalism. Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (2013) by John Mackey and Raj Sisodia.

Those characteristics above could also be applied to gov’ts (especially the federal gov’t).  Wouldn’t that be nice? As for the transparency (which Obama promised when he ran for POTUS), the State cannot be completely transparent about military secrets. I understand that especially during war time, but that doesn’t mean it can’t try to be transparent in other areas. Isn’t that what a democratic republic supposed to be?

I like to see the feds have more integrity and accountability too. That’s a good starting place. Yea, I know I’m dreaming.

In the book, the authors say every conscious business should have these tenets or building blocks:

1. Conscious leadership. Types of intelligence: Emotional, Spiritual (morals, deepest meanings, values), Systems. Servant leadership.
2. Higher purpose and core values. Higher purposes: The Good (service to others), The True (furthering human knowledge), The Beautiful, The Heroic (courage to do what is right)
3. Conscious culture and management.
4. Stakeholder integration.

One last thing. In the book the authors mentioned Nordstrom Rule #1: Use good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.

Not a bad suggestion for everyday life.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 30

• If killing Jihadists with drones ticks the Jihadists off and make them want to cause even more terrorism then why the heck did Obama have Bin Laden killed? After all Bin Laden was their leader. Wouldn’t that action really tick them off?
• To the Left group identity is the only identity that is important and relevant.  The Left really need to think outside the group.
• I wonder if Native Americans of the past had people who blamed bows-and-arrows for crime.
• If all of humanity is downloaded to a supercomputer who is going to maintain the supercomputer’s physical structure? I mean someone or some group has to be still in their skin so to speak to make any repairs. You can’t do that bodiless inside a computer.
• If I was a defendant in court, I would be nervous being judged by low-information jurors.
• Creativity requires risk-taking, questioning the status quo, and individuality. A collective therefore cannot be creative.
• A penny saved is a penny taxed.
• I believe there hasn’t been a law in a country where owning a firearm is mandatory. Think about it.
• Truth and reason are optional to the Left especially the far-Left.
• It’s too bad in those Star Trek shows that someone didn’t leave behind the Constitution in an underdeveloped planet. Then again it probably wouldn’t have made a good plot.

An Argument for Truth

Without truth there is only manipulation. In other words, many of our postmodern people suggest there’s a brave new world. Dismantle all these fancy claims to truth and we get down to the fundamental agendas of power. So just strip it all away and we’re in a great state. If our power game is stronger than everyone else’s, we’re in great shape. But what happens if we’re weaker than others? If there’s no truth and truth is dead, and knowledge is only power, then might makes right. The victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall. That of course was what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel were standing against. They did not have the powers but they had truth. Because of truth, they could not and would not be manipulated.

But that’s true not only in the grand cosmic sense, like bringing down the Soviet Union, it is also true in all sorts of other ways, for example, when people have a family member who is a tyrant emotionally. or a boss is extremely controlling, or a professor is thoroughly unfair in his manipulations. Whatever the situation is in human life, the only way to stand is on the basis of truth. Without truth, there is only manipulation.

Without truth there is no freedom. When I was at Oxford, one of the grand old men of the university was Isaiah Berlin, the great Jewish philosopher. And repeatedly I saw him teasing American graduate students. He would say, “You know, in America you come across to England with only half of your freedom,” and they would look at him. He would expound freedom with two dimensions, and said that most Americans only had one dimension (but he said the same to the British too).

In other words, most people, for example, the archetypal teenager, would say that freedom is “freedom from.” The teenager is free from parents, from professors, from the police, from any parental supervision, and thinks that’s free: freedom from. And of course that is a very vital part of freedom, whenever there are tyrants and repressive authorities, becoming free from is a big deal.

Freedom is not just freedom from, it’s freedom for. As Lord Acton, the great Catholic historian, put it, “It’s not just the permission to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.” Real freedom depends on knowing who we are, because we’re most free when we are ourselves. G. K. Chesterton says we can free a tiger from its cage, but we can never tree it from its stripes. Stripes are part and parcel of the tiger. We can free the camel from the zoo, but for heaven’s sake don't free it from its hump. The hump is part and parcel of being a camel.

In other words, we have to discover the truth, the character, the nature of what something is in order for it to be itself and be free. We need to know the truth of what it is, And without truth, there is literally no freedom.

I suggest that many of our fellow citizens do, sort of half-consciously, believe in truth. But in a day when it’s unpopular, and now it’s associated with religious totalitarianism and Osama bin Laden and so on,  people are ashamed to say that they believe in truth, and we need to build back in some of these fundamental arguments for the importance of truth.

Source: Os Guinness, “Time for Truth,” A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Usually when someone is not being himself he is hiding an agenda that involves power. Like a sociopath. Or the gov’t punishes the person for being himself. Or he is an undercover policeman.

Are terrorists setting U.S. wildfires?

From WND.com (Sept. 11):

As the 2013 season of devastating wildfires continues to rage across the American West, the question of arson as a form of major terrorism is again being raised.

Already this year, 35,440 reported fires have burned a total of 3.9 million acres, with a quarter-million acres scorched the iconic Yosemite National Park.

Large blazes continue to burn in several states, with six alive in Idaho, five each in California and Montana, and one each in Alaska, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas and Washington.

The National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, says at this time last year, 45,278 fires had burned 7.9 million acres, and in 2011, there were 55,619 fires devastating 7.2 million acres.

In July 2012, William Scott, a former National Security Agency official and Aviation Week editor, told the American Center for Democracy that terrorists are using fire as a tactical weapon of war.

“Perhaps the most simple form of economic warfare is wild land arson,” Scott said in his “Fire Wars” presentation. “That’s just setting fires in U.S. forests [and] grasslands.”

“For any terrorists that are determined to inflict significant damage with very little investment or risk, fire is an extremely high-leverage weapon of mass effect.”

Scott explained that after U.S. Navy SEALs killed al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, they “captured a treasure trove of material that provided some unprecedented insight into the al-Qaida plans. And one of those was a detailed campaign for starting fires throughout the [American] West.” [read more]

Magic Words and False Gods

Any productive action requires clear thinking on the part of the acting person. This is particularly true of communication. In The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science (1962), Ludwig von Mises remarked that the “worst enemy of clear thinking is the propensity to hypostatize, i.e. to ascribe substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts." 
In other words, there’s no such thing as “society.” 
Mises continues:
Hypostatization is not merely an epistemological fallacy and not only misleads the search for knowledge. In the so-called social sciences it more often than not serves definite political aspirations in claiming for the collective as such a higher dignity than for the individual or even ascribing real existence only to the collective and denying the existence of the individual, calling it a mere abstraction.
The fallacy of hypostatization, however, is not confined to people holding collectivist views. It is also practiced by people who stress the importance of individual liberty.
If the so-called collectivist falls into hypostatization fallacy in using the magic word society (“it's society’s fault”; “society will intervene”) the so-called individualist employs the same fallacy when he uses the magic word market.

When people use the terms “society” and “market” it would seem there is an overarching almighty entity that has a life of its own. This entity is supposed to do everything, to redress any tort, to administer justice, to increase well-being on earth, and lead us to the Promised Land.

Hypostatization should therefore be carefully avoided, because the fallacy is unreal, ambiguous, and divisive. It’s unreal because it is devoid of a proper empirical foundation that could clarify, with a certain exactitude, the features and sphere of reference of the hypostatization. It’s ambiguous because it signifies different things to different people; conflicting meanings could be attributed to the same hypostatization. So clearly it is also divisive. It can be taken up by politicians and demagogues in order to invent fake agents and fake enemies that become the convenient scapegoats of those in power.

One should: Replace sloppy uses of “the market” with the concrete expression people engaged in free exchanges; and then operationalize the expression by measuring the effective level of freedom (accessibility, universality, etc.) on the one hand, or impediments to those concrete exchanges (tariffs, quotas, etc.) on the other—noting any corresponding growth or diminishment in wealth.

Source: Gian Piero De Bellis, “Magic Words and False Gods,” The Freeman, Aug. 29, 2013.

Glenn Beck: Why I Am Against War in Syria

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 9):

I want to address everyone making the opposite argument today than they did 10 years ago:

Why have you switched?

Are you doing it merely because of politics or because of loyalty to Obama? Have you had an honest pivot point?

Too much is at stake to not know or admit the honest answer to this question. You may disagree with me on almost everything I say – that’s fine — but I defy you to look at the facts of Syria and come away concluding this is something America should be engaging in.

War with Syria is suicidal and here are just a few reasons why.

China’s Foreign Minister said American should ‘think thrice’ before acting and exercise ‘extreme caution’ in what is a clear declaration of support for Assad’s regime. Russia has unabashedly come to the aid of Assad by sending a steady stream of weapons and recently they bolstered their naval presence near the Syrian coast with a missile cruiser and a destroyer among other ships. Iran, of course, has vowed to support Syria ‘to the end’ in the face of possibly military strikes from the United States.

Since the Arab Spring the Middle East has come unraveled – something that didn’t seem possible given its already volatile nature. Egypt is on the verge of civil war, Libya is suffering in lawless ruin, and Syria is mired in a deadly civil war that’s killed hundreds of thousands of people. The Assad regime, the radical terrorists fighting against Assad, and the Obama administration itself all admit a limited and measured strike from the United States will neither end the civil war nor change regimes.

So why bother doing it? What is this really all about?  Here are a few of the keys:

-Assad saw what happened in Egypt and Libya and he’s making sure he does not suffer the same fate. He’s a dictator desperately trying to hold onto his power through any means possible.

-Iran doesn’t have many allies around the world, but Syria is one of them. Iran depends on Syria to funnel weapons to terrorist organization Hezbollah, whose main base of operation is in Lebanon. Hezbollah views any threat to the Assad regime as a threat to Palestinians and Lebanon.

-Syria hosts a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean and Russia needs the access to warm water ports or else they are either land locked or ice locked.

-Another major factor is oil & natural gas. Syria is one of the most strategic places for pipelines to flow into Europe. Qatar proposed a massive pipeline that would weave through Syria, but Assad turned that down in 2009 and instead partnered up with Russia and Iran to get the pipeline, which is due to open in 2016.

When questioned about the high cost of the war, Secretary of State John Kerry assured Americans by saying Arab nations have agreed to fund the entire cost of the war. Certainly this isn’t out of the kindness of their hearts or because they enjoy the United States getting militarily involved in Middle Eastern affairs – it’s because there’s a boat load of money at stake. If you want to figure out which side of the Syria conflict a particular nation is on, just figure out if they benefit or are harmed by the ‘Islamic pipeline’ and you’ll likely have your answer. [read more]

In the news:

Sept. 9: Assad’s Dire Warning to American Journalist: ‘Expect’ Retaliation.

Sept. 9: GOP Rep. Reveals Why He Believes the Benghazi Attack and U.S. Policy on Syria Are Likely ‘Intimately Related Issues’.

What is the difference between killing 1,000 people by conventional means like a machine gun and killing them by using chemical gas? I mean the result is the same: They’re dead. I guess being gassed to death could be more painful and slow than being shot to death. A bad death versus a good death you could say. But still you are dead.

If those four embassy people in Benghazi got gassed to death instead of being tortured then killed would Obama have got involved over there? Oh, by the way. If America does attack Syria we better boost security in our embassies. Should do that anyway around Sept. 11.

Elementary Students Taught Gov’t = Your ‘Family’

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 30):

Fourth-grade students in Illinois are learning that “government is like a nation’s family” because it sets rules and takes care of needs such as health care and education.

So says a worksheet for social studies homework that was distributed to students at East Prairie School in Skokie, Ill, complete with a drawing of Uncle Same cradling a baby that represents the citizens.

Students are then prompted to answer 10 questions comparing government and families, including how their family provides for their health care needs and how the government does the same, and what rules families set and what rules government sets.

The worksheet it titled, “What is Government?” and then goes on to answer that question.

“Government is all of the agencies, departments, organizations, groups, individuals in a nation who make, carry out, enforce, and manage conflicts about rules and laws,” the worksheet says. [read more]

So, we went from “It takes a village.” to “It takes the government.” To the Left a natural progression. This is pure indoctrination.

Let’s see now. Can a family tax its members? No. Can a family create money? No. Can a family make war and/or invade another family? It can but it is illegal to do that. But a government can do all the above.

So, what are the functions of a family if gov’t is equivalent to the family?

1. Regulation of sexual & reproduction. Well, I don’t think the Left wants this function since it is against abstinence. It thinks teenagers have no self-control (they are just wild beasts you know) and therefore should use condoms. Not to mention the Left is pro-abortion.
2. Teaching new generations values, norms, attitudes, and beliefs.  When the Left talk about gov’t is equivalent to the family this is what they really mean. But it is their values, norms, attitudes, and beliefs  they want to teach. That way the Left can stay in power by turning out progressive voters.
3. Protection of the young. Except for the fetus gov’t tries to do this but the real family can do it better.
4. Affection. To be affectionate to someone you have to personally know someone. A gov’t can’t have affection for its citizens because it is bureaucratic by nature and there are too many citizens to personally know. If it has any “affection” toward its  citizens it’s only because they “tow the party line” so to speak. Otherwise they are punished.

If a gov’t is a family then why is America not enforcing its border? A family doesn’t let strangers on its land or in its home without permission. Or all the governments of the world one big “happy” family? Hmmm.

Actually, a gov’t can be more like a cult than a family. Then again a cult pretends to be a family to its members.

So, what’s the lesson the kids are learning? Gov’t is more important than your own family. You don’t need your family to take care of you. That’s the gov’t job.

Inside North Korea

North Korean schoolchildren learn grammatical conjugations of past, present, and future by reciting “We killed Americans,” “We are killing American,” “We will kill Americans.” The learn elementary school math with word problems that subtract or divide the number of dead American soldiers to get the solution. Yet, at the same time, since 1964 the school curriculum has made English, not Russian, the mandatory foreign language of study.

Children are taught that Kim Jong-il gave them their clothes, toys, and books, and to love Kim more than they love their parents. They are taught they they can live without their parents but they cannot live without love for and undying loyalty to Kim il-sung.

US Geological Survey assesses N. Korea to have some of the world’s largest untapped reserves of coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, and other minerals akin to rare earth reserves (tungsten, molybdenum, and niobium-tantalum.) A Goldman Sachs report estimated the value of N. Korea’s mineral deposits at 140 times the country’s GDP.

Per capita gross national income has contracted from $1,160 in 1990 to $960 in 2009.

N. Korea is one of the world’s biggest counterfeiters of  U. S. currency. N. Korea’s fake $100 bill is so authentic-looking that US law enforcement agencies refer to it as the “supernote,” because it is based on printing technology and a specialized ink that is better than the original bills produced by the US gov’t. N. Korea is also one of the world’s biggest producers of counterfeit cigarettes and medications, including Viagra.

Source: The Impossible State. North Korea, Past and Future (2012) by Victor Cha.

North Korean news headlines:

Aug. 30: Kim Jong-un's Ex-Girlfriend 'Shot by Firing Squad'

Aug. 21:  Prison Camps in North Korea Routinely Torture, UN Inquiry Told

Feb 28, 2012: Expert: North Korea Can Flood World With Fake U.S. Cash

Honesty Pays

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 28):

Four football players from William Paterson University entered a local general store in Wayne, N.J., on Sunday afternoon in search of sunglasses and batteries. The door was open, so they let themselves in and got the items they needed, but there were no store employees to be found.

The four men were then captured on surveillance video…leaving money at the register and waving to the cameras. One of the players even dug through his pockets for change to make sure he paid the right amount in tax.

Marci Lederman, Buddy’s Small Lots store manager, said she was happy to see the football players pass on the opportunity to “ransack” or steal items from her store.

“They picked up a few items, and they left cash on the counter and waved to the cameras. Who does that?” Lederman told Yahoo! News. [read more]

Who does that? Honest people that’s who. In a world where hoodlums break into stores and steal items especially during riots it’s nice to see the youth of America doing the right thing by respecting other people’s private property. 

If you are wondering why there was nobody in the store when the boys entered, it was because the store was closed. The football players thought it was open because the store was half-lit and the front door’s lock wasn’t working.

Syrian rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons

From The Examiner.com (Aug. 30):

In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week.

Gavlak is a Middle Eastern journalist who filed the report about the rebels claiming responsibility on the Mint Press News website, which is affiliated with AP.

In that report allegedly the rebels told him the chemical attack was a result of mishandling chemical weapons. [read more]

Yea, Obama better think twice (or even thrice) before attacking Syria.

The Roosevelt Legend

In Bulton W. Folsom Jr.’s 2008 book New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America he lists the four points of FDR’s legend:

1. The 1920’s were an economic disaster;
2. The New Deal programs were a corrective to the 1920s, and a step in the right direction;
3. Roosevelt (and the New Deal) were very popular;
4. Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader.

All (except maybe the third point) are bogus.

First, the 1920’s weren’t an economic disaster. Ever heard of the Roaring 20s? The automobile, movie, radio, and chemical industries skyrocketed during the 1920s. Okay, in the beginning of 20’s, the national economy was in the depths of a depression with an unemployment rate of 20% and runaway inflation. President Harding signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 and the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922. He proposed to reduce the national debt, reduce taxes, protect farming interests, and cut back on immigration. Harding did not live to see it, but most of his agenda was passed by the Congress. These policies led to the "boom" of the Coolidge years. And who was Harding’s predecessor in those early 20s you might ask? Progressive Woodrow Wilson that’s who. So, why do progressive historians believe the first point? Because they say workers back then didn’t have purchasing power. That they saved too much. In other words, it’s those mean-evil businesses oppressing its workers. The same old same old.

Second, The New Deal weren’t corrective and a step in the right direction. According to the New Deal book, the National Recovery Act damaged American businesses by allowing industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them. In other words, no free-market. So, much for the Left being for the little guy.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act paid farmers not to produce on part of their land. Then, farm prices would be pegged to the purchasing power of farm prices in 1910; finally, millers and processors would pay for much of the cost of the program. What’s more, power would be centralized through the secretary of agriculture, who would set the processing taxes, target the price of many commodities, and tell farmers how much land to remove. A step in the wrong direction it sounds like to me. Another example of gov’t thinks it knows best.

Was FDR popular with the people? Sort of. He was charismatic and charming. People liked his fireside chats. The press put a positive spin on him and his New Deal programs. And oh, yea. The public could drink liquor legally again.

Finally, Roosevelt was a good administrator and moral leader. Let’s look at that opinion more closely. Putting aside the administrator part (which what is really important to the Left) let’s talk about his “moral” leadership. He bragged (actually lied) to a group of farmers that he wrote the constitution of Haiti and actually ran the country. He not only said this once but multiple times in speeches. FDR used patronage to command the loyalty of Democrat congressmen for his more controversial New Deal programs. He lied about cutting expenses and balancing the budget when he ran for president. 

As for being a good administrator—you make the call. Roosevelt used a "competitive administration" strategy to maximize presidential power at the cost of confusion, delay and inefficiency. He made sure in each policy area that several top officials had overlapping jurisdictions. They would feud and have to bring the problem to FDR, who wanted to make every final decision. For example, in the case of the PWA relief program, the competition over the size of expenditure, the selection of the administrator, and the appointment of staff at the state level, led to delays and to the ultimate weakness of PWA as a recovery instrument. Well, I guess if your definition of a good administrator is “ maximizing power no matter what the costs are” then by that definition FDR was a good administrator.

The Fractal Beauty of Feudalism

"Feudal" is today a pejorative term, but feudalism was in some ways well suited to a time of instability. Like the classic chiefdom, it kept food on the table without relying on a sound currency or on trade with distant peoples. It also kept warriors at the ready. This was especially impressive because, with the ascendancy of armored cavalry (due largely to the coming of the stirrup), equipping warriors got expensive. It was almost as if, today, no soldier could safely set foot on the battlefield without his own personal tank. The solution to this financial challenge—giving knights lordship over chunks of property they could subdivide for the use of peasants—worked well enough. And making each lord a governor of his immediate subordinates (not just peasants, but any other vassals) made for a decentralized government—a handy thing in a time of poor roads, low literacy rates, and other barriers to distant administration.

Perhaps most important, feudalism’s nested structure, its long chain of mutual obligation, gave the system a kind of resilience. Each link in the chain was a simple and direct nonzero-sum relationship; a lord and his vassal both benefited from the deal, and had consecrated this interdependence with ornate oaths of devotion. So if for any reason the bonds at the highest level broke, the lower levels of the hierarchy tended to stay intact out of mutual self-interest. When kingdoms collapsed, they broke up into regional or local polities, not into anarchy. Moreover, because larger units were structurally identical to the smaller units constituting them—mathematicians call this a "fractal," or "self-similar," structure—subsequent reassembly could proceed readily.

Source: NonZero. The Logic of Human Destiny. (2000) by Robert Wright.

Stand Your Ground 101 – Part 3

From US Concealed Carry.com (Aug. 15):

Now, those of us in the carry community learn early on in our training the importance of avoiding conflict, and most of us would likely try to find a way to escape a dangerous situation before using deadly force. So why do we need Stand Your Ground? There are a number of good reasons.

First, without Stand Your Ground (whether in statute or in precedent law within your state), prosecutors routinely, and often egregiously, abuse the concept of retreat, arguing that unless the defendant used every outrageous (and sometimes virtually impossible) option to run, crawl, hide, go through a door, or otherwise escape a situation, they cannot claim self-defense.

Contrary to claims by opponents, Stand Your Ground does not “wipe away” the long-standing principles of self-defense.  A defendant always has to conform to all of the common law rules of self-defense. Obviously, if you provoked the confrontation, or if at some point you came to be seen as the aggressor, or in some other way were found to have violated the standards of deadly force, then Stand Your Ground may not even be applicable, let alone help you. [read more]

In Part 1 of this trilogy the author John Caile talks about what states have Stand Your Ground:

“The following is a list of states that have enacted laws specifically affirming one’s right to stand your ground when defending yourself against a serious imminent threat, with no duty to retreat, so long as you are in a place you have a right to be in. States that have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws are not included in this list:

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.

Then Mr. Caile talks about states with the “castle doctrine.”

As noted above, some states have self-defense laws, either through statute or case law, that are similar to stand your ground laws, but with at least one key difference. These laws generally apply only to the home or other real property (such as an office) and are often referred to as “castle doctrine” or “defense of habitation” laws. These states include:

Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia.

Finally, states that the “duty to retreat” law. I believe you should only retreat if you have to reload. Ha!

The following states impose some form of duty to retreat before deadly self-defense is authorized:

Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

The author, of course, has a part 2 you can read too. In that article he goes into detail about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

Glenn Beck Breaks Down ‘The Anatomy of a Racist’

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 1):

Glenn Beck tackled “the anatomy of a racist” on his television program Thursday, arguing that there are three traits racists usually have in common, regardless of their backgrounds or against whom they discriminate.

He began by putting the issue in the context of today’s issues, saying that before, during, and after the Zimmerman trial “the media sensationalized the story and turned it into a clash of races — but were they trying to report the truth, or were they trying to stir up old animosities?”

“The people who stood by the Constitution and said let’s rationally look at this and let this play out in the courts were called racists,” he said.  “…Tonight I ask the question, Who are the real racists here? And how do we identify them? Is there a pattern to a racist? What is the true anatomy of a racist?” [read more]

These are the characteristics of a racist. Glenn Beck added the fourth:

1) They don’t see people as individuals. They see people as groups only.

2) They are unable to judge a situation fairly or objectively.

3) They seek power by creating conflict and dividing people for personal gain.

4) Racists usually hate the Jews, whether they’re black or white, they’ll unite on their hatred for the Jews.

Now, Glenn didn’t say this but in my opinion the Left definitely has the first and third characteristic. They sometimes have the second.

Now, anyone can be a racist, sexist, classist, lookist, etc. especially if you have the first characteristic. Once you stop seeing people as individuals but as part of a group you have dehumanized them—ie you treat them as an object. After that you can mistreat them, harm them, manipulate them, and control them without feeling guilty. You have become a border-line sociopath. Bureaucracies have a tendency to be sociopathic over time.

GOP can't let loyalty and power trump innovation

From Fox News.com (Aug. 7):

Mitt Romney’s loss last November precipitated acknowledgement within the GOP of the vast “digital divide” between the Democratic and Republican parties, and the role it plays in driving election outcomes.

The GOP’s technological shortfalls have been well documented and widely discussed by pundits and political operatives, including the party’s own leadership. In fact, the RNC’s 2012 post-mortem, the “Growth & Opportunity Project,” identified a lack of “relevant data and analytics” as a primary reason for Republican losses in 2012.

The term “digital divide” is commonly used to describe the technological disparity between the parties, and I, too, use it for consistency’s sake. But what we saw in 2012 was not a divide -- it was a gaping void. Calling it a “divide” wrongly implies equal knowledge and capability.

Republicans have neither, and thus stick with what they know: outdated, expensive, time-intensive polling, accompanied by “spray and pray” television ad campaigns that have lost their effectiveness in recent years due the rise of DVRs and online television. [read more]

I agree with the opinion article. The GOP has to understand that to the DNC winning elections is war to them. They will do anything to win. Now, I am not saying the GOP has to hit below-the-belt but they have to go on the offense. They have to differentiate themselves from the DNC. The voter wants a choice not an echo as someone once said. The GOP has to preach the conservative message and live by it when they are voted in and show why the progressive message is wrong for the country. But to do both the GOP needs knowledge of itself and its opponent.

Yes, the GOP needs to use the technology effectively but it’s still the message that is important. The GOP needs to reach the hearts and mind of the voter.

The reason why China became communistic nation instead of a Judeo-Christian nation is because the missionaries back then did not spread the word out about Jesus. The communists did a better job telling the population about Stalin than the missionaries about Jesus. This is what the communist officer said to the missionary:

“Your missionaries have been in China for over a hundred years, but you have not won China to your cause. You lament the fact that there are uncounted millions who have never heard the name of your God. Nor do they know anything of your Christianity. But we communists have been in China less than 10 years, and there is not a Chinese who does not know….has not heard the name of Stalin…or something of communism….We have filled China with our doctrine.”

Let what the officer said be a lesson to the GOP---spread the word of conservatism.

Giving Till it Hurts: An Interview with Barbara Oakley

From FEE.org  (JULY 29):

The Freeman: When I first saw the term “pathological altruism” it was, for me, as if the two words were like peanut butter and jelly—rather like “enlightened” and “self-interest.” But can you give our readers the basic idea?

Oakley: It’s really the simplest idea around—pathological altruism is merely altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm. Altruism, in other words, isn’t an unmitigated good. In fact, it can have horrific consequences. The old adage “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is all too true. What the concept of pathological altruism does is to put the aphorism’s essence onto scientific footing, so we can examine it more carefully and truly understand its effects.

Altruism arises in large part from our pre-wired sense of empathy for others. We often don’t realize that our empathy can trick us—it can be like an emotional, rather than optical, illusion. You feel a knee-jerk flash of wanting to make someone feel better, and you can end up doing that person a disservice. Whether you give an alcoholic the drink he craves, or a student a high grade she hasn’t earned, or you encourage truly unaffordable home ownership or taking out of student loans that will result in a lifetime of indentured service—all of these actions can feel like they’re helping, but they truly aren’t.

The concept of pathological altruism doesn’t imply that altruism itself is problematic. Instead, this concept illustrates that both empathic emotion and rationality are important in truly attempting to perform an altruistic act. Sometimes the best thing to do to help someone else is not what your knee-jerk empathetic feelings are telling you to do. In a culture where we’ve been increasingly taught—virtually indoctrinated—to “follow our passion” and to believe that empathy is a “universal solvent” that will disentangle all difficulties, pathologies of altruism can flourish. The unwitting result of this kind of altruism is detrimental for everyone.

The Freeman: Do you believe pathological altruism can explain many of the horrors of the twentieth century? If so, why?

Oakley: Philosopher Eric Hoffer wondered, in his book The True Believer, how people could be so caught up in mass movements that lead to so much horror. We need wonder no more. People often become entranced and entrenched in these horrific movements because, at the time, they believe they are helping others. Hitler himself noted that it was when he appealed to people’s best traits—their sense of caring and hope for others—that he had them.

Altruism is truly the best of human characteristics—and simultaneously the source of our worst.

[read more]

When a gov’t forces or puts societal pressure on people to be altruistic  that is wrong. I believe the philosopher Ayn Rand said this.  Helping people out because you want to and because the people need it is fine. But you have to be careful. If you go beyond their need you can screw up their life. Like when countries help other countries that had disasters with food and clothing. If the country doesn’t need the initial help anymore you can screw up their economy. Economist call this “unintended consequences.”

Then there are rulers who do altruistic actions to make themselves look good in the public eye and not necessarily to help out those in need.

Democrat manual: How to lie about gun control

From WND.com (Aug. 9):

Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” [read more]

The reason the Left uses an emotional appeal is because it is easy and dramatic. Also, you cannot argue with an emotion appeal. No facts will persuade a person using an emotional appeal.

The example of emotional appeals this manual uses are:

It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wake
up worried and frightened about getting shot.

Just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young
child is gunned down.

These reckless laws have gun-toting vigilantes roaming the streets making all
of us less safe in our own neighborhoods.

Basically, the manual is using  a fear appeal. The first two examples are showing how the Left are using children as a prop for their argument. But then again this is nothing new. They always say “let’s do it for the kids” when it comes to most social issues except for abortion. It’s almost a mantra of the Left.

The manual is basically an attack on the NRA. They are the enemy. Here are some examples of what the author’s of the manual thinks of the NRA:

There is a reason why the NRA falls silent at times of high-profile gun violence incidents.  The last thing they want is an American conversation centered on the terrible toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

When talking to base audiences, put responsibility for the stunning lack of common sense in America’s gun laws where it belongs – at the feet of the NRA. For decades, NRA officials, the firearms industry, and their allies on Capitol Hill have waged a relentless effort to gut common sense gun laws and to pass reckless measures that put more people at risk.  This has been matched by an equally vigorous effort to hamper the enforcement of gun laws at every turn.  For example, the NRA has advocated for guns in sensitive places, such as in national parks,  bars, and college campuses,  and for loaded gun carrying without a permit.

And here’s what the manual instructs the user to say about the NRA:

You don’t hear much from the NRA and their allies when violence strikes.  That's because they can't possibly defend their reckless agenda in the face of such terrible human pain and suffering.

The NRA wants powerful, dangerous weapons in every neighborhood. That's not freedom, it's fear.

The NRA officials like to talk about freedom.  Well, how about our right to be free from the gun violence killing our children and ravaging our neighborhoods.

I'll tell you what's really fast and furious here.  The way the NRA and its allies play fast and loose with the facts - and how furious the American people should be that the NRA’s constant attacks on the ATF help gun-runners get away with murder.

Did you notice the third example of powerful language as the manual labels it.  It uses children again as a prop.

White House creates 'nudge squad' to shape behavior

From Fox News.com (July30):

The federal government is hiring what it calls a "Behavioral Insights Team" that will look for ways to subtly influence people's behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

"Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals," reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team. [read more]

Could make society “more efficient?” Can you say social engineering. I wonder if “more efficient” means making society put people in power who are for social justice,  collective salvation and a “living” constitution? Just wondering.

Hopefully, the team isn’t thinking of putting pleasant orders in the air in neighborhoods while Obama, Hillary, or any other democrat is talking on the TV especially when you are sleeping. Or do the reverse for any republican or conservative.

This insights team is reminiscent of  The Psychohistorians in Isaac Asimov’s 1951 novel Foundation. The Psychohistorians were able to subtly influence people’s behavior psychically. They could also predict human history. A progressive’s wet dream.

This team being created is a power trip for The Left. No doubt about it.

The Martin-Zimmerman Tragedy

I wonder if Trayvon Martin “profiled” Zimmerman? I mean the 911 operator told Martin she thought Zimmerman was a gay guy out to rape Martin. She really should be reprimanded for making such an accusation without proof. Also, maybe Martin saw Zimmerman as a meek and mild person to attack. He wouldn’t fight back. That could be why the race hustlers are going after him like they are. They are basically bullies.

Martin is just a symbol to them. They don’t really care about him. I feel sorry for the Martin and Zimmerman family. I don’t feel sorry for Martin himself. He attacked Zimmerman for no reason. He could have chose not to attack him. Self-control anyone? If he would’ve he would still be alive today. Every action has a consequence. Then again maybe he was on something that affected his thinking.

Some are saying that Zimmerman didn’t have to kill Martin. That Zimmerman’s life wasn’t really in jeopardy. That’s pure speculation. It’s pretty simple in my mind. This is a case of self-defense. Period. Put yourself in Zimmerman’s place. You are walking back to your car. All of a sudden you get attacked from behind. Your head gets smashed against the ground real hard by a younger and stronger person who is saying he is going to kill you. Then the attacker tries to grab your gun. What would you do?

One other thing. If Martin had survived the gun shot would he have been prosecuted for assault and battery? Or even attempted murder? I guess we’ll never know.

Finally, that trial should have never happened. If the situation was the same and it would have been two people of the same race were involved—it probably wouldn’t have gone to trial. The race hustlers wouldn’t have cared. The jury made the right verdict.

Guess Who’s Going to Pay for Congressional Staffers’ Increasing Insurance Premiums?

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 2):

For months we’ve been hearing from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. terrified that the implementation of Obamacare would decimate their staffs. Some senators and congressmen talked about a serious “brain drain” in Washington when their staff members leave. Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.), who voted for the health care law, said making the law apply to elected officials and their staffers was “simply not fair.” [read more]

So, the Ruling Class doesn’t want their healthcare to be part of Obamacare. What else is knew. For a long time Congress didn’t pay any social security tax.

The Elites never want to be part of anything to do with the Commoners. After all in their eyes they are “special” and too good for those programs. They just make the laws they want everyone else to obey.

In other news, Big Labor doesn’t want to be part of Obamacare either. Figures. If Obamacare is such a mess (which it is) why don’t everybody get exempted from it. Or make it an option for everyone to get exempted from it. Well, that means most everyone (except of course for the far-loopy-Left) would want an exemption.

‘Unprecedented’ Effort Underway to Keep Secrets From Leaking

From The Blaze.com (Aug. 1):

The CIA is polygraphing its operatives on a regular basis in an “unprecedented” effort to prevent Benghazi secrets from leaking out, CNN’s Drew Griffin is reporting, citing unnamed inside sources.

“Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings,” the bombshell report reveals. “The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.”

More from CNN:

• It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
• In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”
• Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”

The CIA responded to CNN’s report in a statement, claiming it “enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress,” according to Jake Tapper.

It has also been revealed that as many 35 Americans were in Benghazi on the night of the deadly terror attack, CNN reports, citing anonymous inside sources. As many as seven were wounded and 21 Americans were reportedly working in the building known as the CIA annex. [read more]

Also from the The Blaze.com (Aug. 2):

The Obama administration is “changing names” of the Benghazi survivors and “creating aliases” to keep them hidden from congressional investigators and the American people, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told Greta Van Susteren on Thursday night. He also said the administration is “dispersing them around the country” to keep them out of sight. [read more]

The Benghazi cover-up gets more and more interesting. Like reading a Brad Thor novel.

Software experts attack cars

From Reuters.com (July 28):

Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek say they will publish detailed blueprints of techniques for attacking critical systems in the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape in a 100-page white paper, following several months of research they conducted with a grant from the U.S. government.

The two "white hats" - hackers who try to uncover software vulnerabilities before criminals can exploit them - will also release the software they built for hacking the cars at the Def Con hacking convention in Las Vegas this week.

They said they devised ways to force a Toyota Prius to brake suddenly at 80 miles an hour, jerk its steering wheel, or accelerate the engine. They also say they can disable the brakes of a Ford Escape traveling at very slow speeds, so that the car keeps moving no matter how hard the driver presses the pedal. [read more]

That’s nice to know. At least ships and planes are safe to use. Then again maybe not: GPS flaw could let terrorists hijack ships, planes.

Well, you can still walk and ride a bike without anxiety, I guess.