The Steadfast Patriot

A)  The Liberal Flat Tax

Because the government doesn’t actually have the money to support the entire economy and pay for social entitlements and two occupations, liberal economists like Paul Krugman claim the answer to our problems is quantitative easing, or the government’s inflation of the dollar to jump-start the economy and pay for socialist programs like health-care.  This, he claims, would circumvent the problem of debt, as any reasonable person understands that debt ruins financial entities, and moral people realize that funding today’s poor with the future poor’s money–also known as putting it on the baby’s tab–is fundamentally unjust.  It places our needs above theirs.

But even in the event of safe inflation, inflation always eventually robs the little guy, regardless of whether new deficit-increasing socialist programs claim to be benefiting him.  If wages eventually rise with inflation, they usually follow a period of belt-tightening hardship, as everyone’s buying power is reduced.  This is aside from the fact that inflation imposes an invisible flat tax which liberals would claim to despise as being “regressive.” But even when the Federal Reserve pumped a trillion dollars into our economy in March (right around the time the stock market really started to rally, might I add), we’d already seen the money supply increase in the months before, and to this day it still hasn’t helped “the people.”

B)  It’s Really for the Benefit of Financial Corporations

To display this point, any person can take a quick peek at stock charts and find some interesting facts (kudos to Chris Laird for pointing the following out).  First, what we notice is that the stock market is doing quite well, and has been since the beginning of 2009.  Then, by looking at the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s website, what we find is that although stockholders–including working people with 401k’s–are happy, unemployment is getting worse, remaining at nearly ten percent and climbing. 

Despite claiming to benefit the little guy, what we find is that the liberal government’s spending policies have gone predominantly to financial corporations, as the BEA claims a benefit to financial corporations to the tune of 144.4 billion dollars in the first half of 2009, while productive non-financial corporations (also known as ones with “working man” jobs) saw a decrease of 40.2 billion in one quarter, and only increased 29.8 billion dollars in the other.  So far, that means the effects of the stock market’s rally have been far from populist, helping create extra income for bankers and little sustenance for the poor.  Of course, one could argue that the money would eventually lead to more jobs, but who knew the Left was interested in Reaganomics?

To be fair, many liberal economists would argue that 401k’s had a major resurgence because financial corporations rebounded, which benefits almost half of Americans.  But they always forget to mention one other thing: Americans are forced into risking their hard-earned money on the stock market because their dollars lose value if saved.  If the government hadn’t been devaluing the money supply by printing, far fewer people’s retirement savings would have been risked in the first place because they would have saved their money instead of investing it.  That means the government created the problem of forced investment, caused investments to go down the drain, then “fixed” the problem by placing us into more debt and inflating the money supply, and then claimed to be the hero.  All of this is bad enough without considering the most dangerous effects of populist policy, which will be shown below.

C) Robbing American Security

As background for this next topic, at this moment almost all oil is traded with dollars, and almost 60% of all the world’s central bank reserves keep dollar reserves.  This high demand is what keeps the dollar valuable, and the high demand was caused by the assumption that dollars wouldn’t drop in value too much over time.  In short, the dollar was a good store of value.  But if the oil-producing nations and central banks suddenly decided that the dollar–their monetary investment–was quickly losing value because we Americans were printing too much, and that oil-selling nations wanted to use another type of money, the dollar would become useless.  We would find ourselves inundated with rapidly depreciating dollars, causing goods and foods to skyrocket in price, similar to the recent Zimbabwean currency collapse.

Unfortunately these movements have already begun, with Arab nations scheduling their own particular “EU” style currency for use in the coming years, threatening to completely destroy our dollar because we have been cheating our business partners through inflation.  Popular economist Peter Schiff claims that when such a move is to take place, along with central banks losing their trust in the dollar’s stability, we will find shopping at Walmart comparably expensive to shopping at Nordstrom’s.  This is aside from the fact that world-wide competition over currency dominance and oil-trade could very likely start military conflicts.

In short, while our benevolent leaders–Democrat and Republican–may claim to be fighting for the little guy, are the effects of their policies truly populist? 

Is putting babies into debt? 

Is forcing savers into risky investments? 

Is stealing from savers? 

Is destabilizing world banking systems? 

Is giving money predominantly to corporations? 

Is cheating our business partners? 

Is threatening to dramatically increase commodity prices? 

Is imposing a flat invisible tax upon the populace? 

Is placing us in debt to communist China? 

If what you’re really interested in is policy that protects the little guy’s investments, keeps commodity prices low, and the chance of war to a minimum, I propose the following three programs.

1.  Balance the budget by any means necessary

2.  Establish a solid currency by setting a gold standard, and ridding government control of inflation

3.  End government bailouts of any industries

It’s called honesty, Americans.  If you don’t live by it, you die from abandoning it.

Posted 10/7/09

The funny thing about national unity is that both sides of the political spectrum implicitly agree on one thing: that keeping society unified is a good idea, and that the dissolution of political powers is a painful, cumbersome, and oftentimes violent process that’s worth avoiding (this is unless, of course, that radical is an anarchist or a separatist, but both of these groups are minorities of minorities).  The disagreement between Left and Right on social cohesion occurs because, just as with pleasure and peace and wealth, how you pursue unity defines whether or not you reside in the camp of good or evil.  But despite the fact that both sides have completely different approaches to unity, both sides claim the other violates civil liberties in the pursuit thereof, and reality will always attest that no two political stances offend liberty with perfect equality. As such, it is our duty to determine which pathway is more destructive to the cause of freedom.

While true liberalism demands that political unity must be attained through institutionally-based equality, those on the Right maintain that unity under a government should be pursued by a people with sense of cultural and theological belonging.  It is this, conservatives argue, which grants legitimacy to the democratic republic, with the people deciding who they are and why they belong together.  Anything else would be contrary to the very idea of liberty itself: just ask someone from a Soviet satellite republic.

Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton said in an historic speech before Belgium’s Vlaams Belang party, that “Every society depends on an experience of membership: a sense of who ‘we’ are, why we belong together, and what we share. This experience is pre-political: it precedes all political institutions, and provides our reason for accepting them. It unites left and right, blue-collar and white-collar, man and woman, parent and child. To threaten this ‘first-person plural’ is to open the way to atomisation, as people cease to recognize any general duty to their neighbours, and set out to pillage the accumulated resources while they can. Without membership we risk a new ‘tragedy of the commons,’ as our inherited social assets are seized for present use.”

This directly contrasts the Liberal view that no particular culture should have any sort of dominance in a political setting.  It is because of the Left’s refusal to educate people to be Christian Americans that the Left is forced to seek another method of unification, and they find it in wealth redistribution.

Benjamin Barber, a renowned best-selling Leftist author and professor at the University of Maryland, has frequently made statements such that “Privatization–whether of education, housing, or Social Security–makes us less of a public. It diminishes the republic–the res publica, or public things that define our commonwealth. It turns the common ‘we’ into a collection of private ‘me’s.’” and “[Privatization] is a kind of reverse social contract: It dissolves the bonds that tie us together.”  Worth noting is that Barber conveniently neglects defining the point at which “me” deserves to exist, and whether or not “me” is for the purpose of the state or an individual.   Should you be visiting his Stalag after the collapse of the republic, it might be wise to tell him you enjoyed his book “Jihad vs. McWorld.“

Robert Kuttner, editor of The American Prospect (which describes itself as a publication “of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics”), would say that “In a democratic polity that also happens to be a highly unequal market economy, there is immense civic value to treating middle-class and poor people alike. A common social security program, or medical care program, or public school program, helps to create the kind of cohesion that Europe’s social democrats like to call “social solidarity”–a sense that basic humanity and citizenship in the political community require equal treatment in at least some areas of economic life. And by doing so it also creates a reliable constituency for the Democratic Party.”  

So if blatant multicultural globalism must be a goal in a liberal society, then social unity must be maintained from the top down, with the government keeping its borders secure through the redistribution of wealth, all under threat of its comparative advantage in violence (it must be noted that because of this, all philosophically consistent multicultural globalists are effectively socialists or communists).  Of course, there are those on the Left who argue that expression of cultural ethics through the state is also totalitarianism, but only a liar would suggest that the people’s culture or theology should have no bearing whatsoever upon the laws within a democratic republic.  Liberal laws to combat “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia” are a testament to nothing less than the cultural chauvanism of liberal legislators, who–denying God’s importance and a universal moral standard–somehow believe their cultural standards should dominate the others.

Thus, the liberal statement that economic liberties are sacrificed to maintain “rich” cultural diversity is false: when the state removes your foundation for cultural unity, you lose your economic freedoms as well as your social liberty.  Once liberals gain control over both, your freedom really just depends which social liberties are in vogue at the moment, and which ones they deem dangerous, intolerant, or antiquated.  But in all honesty, why should a people imprudent enough to discard cultural and theological legitimacy be worthy of liberty anyway?  For those living logically, theological castration can lead only to a game of evolutionary domination. With religion in the picture, you have warring between sects; remove it, and the war begins in every aspect of existence… sans “pesky” religious stances on suffering and the sanctity on human life.

So if it must be that social cohesion requires some form of control, the only question is whether we want to empower the state to do our will, or have our will be subject to the state.  Unfortunately, it seems liberal America has chosen the immoral and dangerous latter.  May God protect us as they reap what they’ve sown.

Posted 9/21/09

John Stuart Mill, in his famous book On Liberty, laid the foundation for Western libertarian law when he introduced his harm principle.  In short, he believed that the state should only be able to restrict someone’s liberties when that person is harming someone else, and that paternalistic legislation for the perceived good of that person (based upon another’s moral stances) should be prohibited at all costs in order to defend individual liberty.  According to Mill and modern libertarians, the state should let others alone when dealing with seatbelts or usury or drug usage or consensual sex.  Liberals agree that the last three of these should be allowed under the same reasoning.

Because of this, as far as “modern” ethical allowances go, the individual can observe an interesting pattern in respect to practices forbidden by law.  In short, behaviors that directly and negatively impact an involved person 100% of the time are outlawed. In cases like these, the inflicted harm is commonly and unanimously understood to exist, and also cannot exist independently of the behavior that caused it. As such, rape, theft, murder, fraud, and assault are the types of behaviors that few people argue about legalizing, strictly because a case cannot be made for a lack of harm.  Someone directly suffers every time one of these acts is committed.

But what we find is that although no serious argument for legalizing the previously mentioned behaviors can be made, as soon as the chance of negative impact becomes lower than 100%, the laws in question become more debatable.  We can find that throughout history, attempts have been made to legalize or prohibit alcohol even though alcohol cannot be proven in all cases to negatively impact anyone other than the drinker himself (although this writer wholeheartedly agrees that consumption of alcohol has no truly positive benefits for anyone involved).  And even though the majority of drunk drivers–dare I say it?–arrive home safely, the mere chances of a profoundly negative impact were moving enough to ban drunk driving.  Even in the world of economics, people argue about what kind of lending standards to enforce so as to prevent a possible short-changing of investors, and thus the economy on the whole. All these things happen because there’s a chance–meaning under 100%–that someone will be hurt.

But curiously, Westerners find this debate existent in practically every aspect of life except within the realm of sexuality.  I believe this is due to two reasons: that Westerners are whorishly sexual and hate sexual restrictions, and that sexual interaction–unless in cases of rape or pedophilia–is an unspoken agreement between two consenting adult parties. These are both poor reasons to discard philosophical consistency.  Also worth noting, conservative philosopher Roger Scruton mentions that Mill’s harm principle vaguely defines “harm,” leaving room to classify the effects of sexuality as harmful, and at the very least more harmful than the sexual liberation movement of the 1960’s portrayed it to be. 

For instance, unless a person is willfully ignorant, they understand that the ramifications of virtually unrestricted sexual license cause more visibly chronic harm than pleasure, and can be shown to have a direct impact upon social stability and poverty.  For instance, there are a plethora of sexually transmitted diseases in existence (many with the outcome being no less tragic than a fatal car crash), but no laws to punish the transmitters even though the receiver does generally not agree to be infected.  Children may be abandoned to live in poverty-stricken single-parent neighborhoods with higher crime rates, but there are no laws to make a father stay with his child and keep his son from highly increased likelihood of jail-time.  Scruton would also add that our lack of concern for the obvious impacts upon children implies that adult license has preference over the harm unflicted upon the youth.  This is a new morality altogether, consistent with our abortion policies, which gives privilege to certain age groups while denying protection to the most vulnerable.

Furthermore, a person cannot commit fraud, but for some reason we are allowed to lie to everyone present at our weddings (as well as the state) when we commit adultery and divorce, even after receiving thousands of dollars in gifts for what is marketed as permanent marriage.  Even in the case of pornography, the consumer’s eventual wife is denied any sort of normal and healthy sexual relationship and left feeling unwanted, as her partner instead opts for unlimited sexual fantasies with everyone except the woman he promised to cherish.  Contrast this last sexual rule with the seat-belt law to see how logically inconsistent we are (who does car-related death personally harm, and how?).

The point here isn’t just to show that virtually unrestricted sexuality causes problems, but that it causes the same kinds of problems that other banned behaviors do, and yet we turn a blind eye to them and pretend that infringing upon sexual rights is a sign of theocratic dominionism. At this point, the question asked should not just be whether or not to further restrict sexuality by creating laws against transmission of disease and child abandonment and divorce, but rather whether we as Westerners actually create laws according to what John Stuart Mill wrote in the first place.  To not ask this would be to choose our law with moral and philosophical inconsistency as soon as it butts heads with our sexual whims, as though we are incapable of intelligence during moments of libidinal awakening.

So what will it be?  Are we dogs, or are we men?

Posted 9/12/09

Earlier this week, Obama addressed the nation’s children as they headed off to school.  While many parents were happy to see the president personally address their children from the television, others refused to allow their children participate in school events where the president was to be broadcasted.

The latter group was portrayed as being insanely protective, almost terrified that “Barama” would get into their youths’ minds and turn them into Godless commies.  But after analyzing Obama’s speech, what we find are not only a series of confusing contradictory statements, but also those supporting an incredibly liberal agenda.  After reading the speech, it is my conclusion that any parent interested in raising their child properly would at least take the time to explain why Barack Obama was flat wrong on several issues.

But first, we must begin by saying that statements aren’t really islands to themselves.  They almost always come in groups, with some statements being necessarily implied by other statements. If a persons says that someone is “good,” they are admitting to a moral standard in which both the speaker and the listener are assumed to believe.  If you say that all men are created equal, you must necessarily be implying that evolution is not the process by which we arrived at our present state, since evolution demands that some portions of the population are always biologically superior and better adapted than the other populations, and that only this evolutionary process would separate us from the animals.  In a logical world, this is the consistent way most statements work.  Acknowledging the truth of a statement thus silently acknowledges other supporting statements as true.

So let us look at several statements made by our President in his speech.

Statement 1: “What you make of our education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.”

After hearing this, the thoughtful reader is forced to ask themselves the following: is national success is built upon social structure or simply technological know-how?  This necessarily implies that there isn’t any sort of moral culture necessary for success, and that adherence to eternal principles has little to do with wealth-building or liberty or security.  But a good education doesn’t keep corporate overlords from fleecing their stockholders, illegitimate childbirth from creating poverty, or gang culture from spreading throughout the nation.  It doesn’t keep terrorists from attacking us, or keep Nazis from conquering Europe, or give us the purpose by which we choose our paths.  Good education and the benefits it brings are the products of good moral structure, not the source.

As such, a well educated populace isn’t worth a damn if you live in a place plagued by corruption.

Statement 2: “You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.”

This statement appears harmless upon first glance, but begs the following questions: what about America makes us unfair, and how should we change it? Of course, Obama is speaking of changing “systemic racism” and discrimination against gays, but our democratic process allows people to vote for whom they choose.  One vote counts for one person.  Affirmative action is still effective in the work force.  In corporations, the shareholders choose the board of directors.  In the world of lending, denying a minority a loan without excessive reason leaves banks open for prosecution.  In the world of real estate, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the renting and selling of dwelling units.  Since it’s fair to assume he isn’t suggesting that the liberal programs should go, what should? 

Unless he’s talking about either forcing people to pay for gay partner/transsexual benefits, race replacement, or total restructuring of wealth/power groups, his statement about fairness doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, especially since it also directly contradicts Obama’s statement within the speech that “Here in America, you write your own destiny.  You make your own future.”  But it’s been said that if you say two things to appeal to two different groups, you can have people subconsciously pick and choose which ideals they believe you espouse.  But only so long as you don’t make any clear statements about either one, and nobody’s really paying attention.  This is where Obama’s (and liberals in general) success lies: he is unusually adept with silent persuasion, making statements you’d almost feel wrong to disagree with, if you wouldn’t just first considering the logical ramifications of agreement.

And what of freedom?  How are we unfree?  To this writer, it seems that the only freedoms we’ve lost are due to the legislation Obama’s administration overtly supports (see, Affirmative Action), or at one time opposed and now–for some strange reason–cannot seem to give the boot (see, Patriot Act).  We don’t have a stable currency for wealth retention, we have to go to government agencies to tie our shoes, and we have to go into unpayable consumptive debt to pay for someone else’s entitlements.  So when the current administration means “more freedom,” what they really mean is “the right to force other people to accept and live next to your low social standards.”  As far as their track record is concerned, freedom is about sodomy and torture porn and easy divorce instead of things like, oh, having property rights, rights of association, and guns.

Statement 3: “You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS…”

It is this in which Obama’s speech is exceedingly liberal, because America’s children are taught that AIDS is one of the most offensive and important diseases on the planet. But why?  First, it is predominantly contracted through sexual intercourse, which liberals believe should be something to engage in without any physical repercussions (nevermind social/spritual ones).  Second, it is a disease contracted almost entirely by two highly publicized minorities: homosexuals and blacks.  The implications of AIDS’s prominence are that we should devote massive amounts of money so that people can have sex “freely,” and that specific minority groups are more important than the general population. There is simply no other reason that AIDS was mentioned here, other than these.

On that note, AIDS is a painful disease, and it’s simply inhuman to disregard the suffering of AIDS patients and their families (especially to children born with the disease, for whom I wholly support funding). But if you’re interested in ending drunk-driving deaths, would you pay the drunk-drivers for the damage they cause?  Should people be paid when they contract liver disease from drinking?  If the answer to those questions is no, then why do we devote so much money to something almost entirely contracted by adults engaging in risky behavior?  Isn’t this in itself unfair?

Any casual observer could tell that Obama isn’t interested in serving the general population anyway, as even the language of this article implies (basketball and rap music?  Jazmin Perez?  Shantell Steve?).  The truth is that liberals believe some groups should have laws dedicated to their benefit, and others should shoulder the weight.  This is unfortunate enough for half of America to believe, but allowing your child to jump on the bandwagon is not only unAmerican, but it’s plain wrong.  It’s time for parents to address their children and explain why.

In short, Obama’s speech engendered many positive qualities, such as how he claimed that you can’t just expect to get into a good job after dropping out of school, but it had subversive statements contained within the good advice.  And as wise men say, you don’t need a whole lot of poison to kill someone: it’s generally mixed with a lot of tasty food.  So don’t let your kids eat the poison.  Unless you’re willing to sit alongside them and watch our president speak, explaining all the while why he’s wrong, it’s probably best to keep Obama as far away as possible.

Posted 9/7/09

When I was a kid, my father told me about his service in the Vietnam War and stories about the Tet Offensive.  To give those without historical knowledge a background, in 1968 the Vietcong had amassed forces to invade free South Vietnam, and US troops suffered casualties larger than normal.  After the offensive was completed, our media had a circus about the massive losses of American soldiers, leading to a demoralization of US citizenry and eventually leading to the abandonment of our allies.  After we left, our friends were slaughtered by the sadistic and communist Vietcong in something no less horrifying than any other massively publicized genocidal tragedy.

The worst part about the Tet Offensive wasn’t that we lost a lot of troops, however, but rather that–in military terms–it was a grand success for our boys, and the American public had no real clue how much we had won.  After that massive success, the self-sacrificing upholders of the free world (I dare the reader to portray the Vietcong in a positive light) were portrayed as failures and spat upon for fighting communism not only successfully, but heroically.

Today we find ourselves in a similar situation, with the media reporting negatively about the number of US casualties in Afghanistan, driving morale into the gutter and making situations seem more hopeless than they really are.  But take hope.  Things aren’t what they seem.

For instance, if one takes a close look at the casualties suffered by our troops since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, that person would find that we’ve had 556 US soldiers killed in action since the beginning of the Afghani war (this number comes from both independent and government sites, and stands as of August 31st, 2009).  If one were to then take only insurgent casualties–meaning casualties for armed anti-US combatants, not collateral civilian casualties–then what we’d find is the following.  Please consider that this tally only comprises three years of the occupation, and that several years were left out for lack of credible totals (which means the total number of killed insurgents is actually much higher).

2008: about 5000 insurgents killed

2007: about 4500 insurgents killed

2001: about 6000 insurgents killed

Combining just these three years, disqualifying any combatants killed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2009, we end up with 15,500 dead enemy combatants, which is about 28 times the amount of US soldiers killed in action. With these numbers in hand, the picture becomes clear.  Our boys aren’t losing: they’re stomping all over the Taliban like we were fighting an army of little girls.

So is the fighting getting nastier over there?  Yes.  We’ve just had our deadliest month.  But the good news is that Afghanis are voting, and the Taliban is so worried about having a successful democracy in Afghanistan that they’ve begun resorting to violence at polling stations and voting booths.  This is an act of desperation, and it’s because they cannot resort to persuasion.  The Afghani people are voting against the Taliban’s wishes, which I must remind the reader is why we’re there: to establish a democracy, and hopefully get the heck out of there when we’re done.  If they’ve got a turnout rate between 40% and 50% during a time of imminent danger, that may still be higher than ours and a testament to our efforts (Editor’s note: embarrassed to look at national turnout rates, please check on your own).

God gave us a powerful military, ladies and gentlemen.  So while we must make sure to not be prideful of our gift, we must make sure to not insult our troops or take them for granted.  Remember that our military is in Afghanistan because we were attacked, and the reason we haven’t left is because we don’t want to destabilize a country and then leave, especially in such a sensitive portion of the world. We’re simply too kind and smart to do that.  The other options (blowing the country to smithereens and leaving or establishing a dictatorship) both are not and were not acceptable.

So pass these numbers along to your friends, and let them know that the US military is doing a darn fine job.  And for goodness’ sake, thank a veteran and pray for success in the coming months.

Posted 8/26/09

Although abortion is a hot-button topic due to the debate over whether a human death is involved or not, the ramifications of abortion or the right-to-life are far more reaching than ever discussed in the mainstream media.  As such, this article is not about why abortion is wrong.  If the reader is interested in a concise and easy read about the moral bankruptcy of child-murder, they can read an article I wrote on the subject a short while back. Rather, this article is about the more dangerous consequences of solely granting the right-to-life.

Of course, when approaching the topic of abortion, the intelligent and learned Left is generally (yet unmentionably) aware of one major problem: that repealing the ability of a woman to kill her children would have the effect of nearly exponentially increasing the number of Black–and mostly illegitimate– children in the West, the fear of which prompted the creation of abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood (who specifically targeted Black communities with access to “choice”).  Even popular liberal books such as Freakonomics have unabashedly stated that the decline in violence levels in the US were predominantly due to the abortions of the 1970’s and 1980’s, but didn’t care to mention that an overwhelming number of abortions involved Black children.  Actually, the Black abortion rate is ridiculously higher than the White abortion rate, and has always been. 

So is The Left morally correct?  On all reasonable accounts, the response is “no.”  The idea that inconveniently conceived humans should be destroyed to provide the way for a more luxurious and less troublesome society is reflected in only the worst and most highly publicized historical examples of genocide, but this doesn’t necessarily make the theoretical mechanics behind the eugenics movement false. The truth is that prohibiting abortion–combined with a sexually liberal ethos and the current welfare state–will have no effect other than causing unfathered children to multiply in cities across America, all on the bill of those who work hard and create children within the institution of marriage.

In this aspect, liberals and Darwin are correct.  After all, any layman could access abortion statistics, illegitimacy statistics, Black homicide rates, and the link between welfare, crime, and illegitimate child birth to see that solely repealing the right to murder one’s child would have violent effects on our society in a short number of years (and Fox News reports that if abortion had never been legalized, the largely illegitimately-born and poverty-stricken Black population would have been 50% larger).  But banning abortion alone isn’t what conservatives–true and intelligent conservatives, anyway–would suggest we do.

If those on the Right are at all serious about protecting the unborn and also interested in upholding the stability of their society, the protection of the unborn must be accompanied by a return to sexual responsibility and the dismantling of the welfare state.  This means that a policy of mandatory marriage upon childbirth would have to be instated, as well as stiff penalties for adultery and the banning of easy divorces (meaning, those not involving physical abuse and/or adultery).  And although these at first appear draconian, why would anyone consider the “right” of a man to abandon his children to be a moral necessity, important for the upholding of civil liberty?  And what of adultery? Who in their right mind would tell a woman she has to raise a child by herself, against her wishes, and that a man has a right to disregard his promise of fidelity to her? And remember: if paying child support were the answer, then children born out of wedlock wouldn’t be more likely to end up in jail.  As such, Black isn’t the problem.  Familial disintegration is the problem.

Of course, there are many who would decry these laws as oppressive and puritanical.  But although Western nations generally pride themselves on their social liberties, legally permitting most acts which “only” harm the one or two people willingly involved, Roger Scruton stated that the effects of virtually unrestricted sexual license not only involve more than just two people–which would make it regulatable according to most influencing Western moral philosophers such as John Stuart Mill–but ultimately undermine the fabric of our society by promoting poverty, destitution, welfare dependence, and crime.  A look at any cities where illegitimacy is predominant will affirm this fact (Chicago and Detroit).  And furthermore, a woman can choose who to have sex with and whether or not to do it without “protection.”  That is liberty and choice enough.

So as silly as this may sound to the Left, the truth is that Black people are perfectly capable of being productive and beneficial members of society, and that murdering them is unnecessary.  As an alternative to murder, this writer recommends giving all Americans sexual dignity and responsibility.  Doing the inverse–effectively telling people that their lives are expendable, and then paying them money to hold low sexual standards–is going to have exactly the effect one would expect of it: wrongly reinforcing the unfair mentality of being less-than-human as well as the substandard behavior that accompanies it.  

So if you’re going to oppose abortion, do so.  But only if you accompany your stance with a consistent and meaningful policy on sexual license and personal dignity.  Unless of course you want the country’s crime rate to mirror Detroit’s.

Posted 7/22/09 

Editor's note: this article contains information about a vote that already took place, but the arguments contained within are perfectly applicable today, and are too important to disregard.  Thanks.

It seems that every time liberals want to pass legislation about something, the newspapers fill up with stories about a kind-faced and law-abiding person who just wants to be able to live their life, and the only people stopping them are you: the American public, because you’re calloused and won’t extend “human rights” to them (also known as “extending the right to break legal/moral barriers and then get benefits”).  And what’s the reason for your callousness?  From the media’s perspective, generally because you’re selfish and racist and bigoted.  This treatment is especially applied in the argument over illegal immigration

Now, this writer has personally known and enjoyed the companionship of an illegal alien before. His name was Armando, and he was one of the nicest, most polite, charming young men I’ve known in my lifetime.  Couldn’t speak English, but clearly: the kid just wanted to work hard to support the family he’d left back home.  His friends would have me over for carne asada in the rural Californian town of Bonsall, we’d listen to music, and enjoy each other’s company.  He was my buddy.  I’m even willing to assume that–at that particular time and place–he was a better man than I was.

But let’s be serious, here: as King County’s city council decides to make our home a safe-haven for illegal immigrants (meaning, our police can’t check the immigration status of offenders), this isn’t about Armando.  This isn’t about the people who work hard, go home, spend time with their families, and go to church.  This is about the 5,992 other people who worked hard, went home, spent time with their families, and went to church, whose families won’t see them anymore because they were murdered in 2005 by illegal aliens (p.22).  This is about the 11,833 girls who were raped by illegals in 2005, whose emotional scars may never heal (p.22).  This is about the 50,958 people who are assaulted on city streets by illegals (p.22). This is about the American student who couldn’t make it into college because an illegal alien’s child got in-state tuition and was granted access to a college specifically because he wasn’t White.  This is about the billions of lost dollars our medical systems have to bear, passing the bill along to those who will pay, the same people who can’t afford health care of their own. This is about those people, not the people who chose to trespass our borders.

To give the reader an idea about how extensive our problems are with illegal immigrant crime, USA Today reported that 80% of all crime in the US is caused by gangs, and according to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 91% of all gangs are foreign nationals, with citizens of Mexico and El Salvador making up 76% of all gang-related arrests.  You do the math: a person would have to be stupid to grant safe-haven status to illegal foreign nationals.

But ultimately, women pay the worst for our lax stance on immigration.  As mentioned before, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed that in 2005, 11,833 women and little girls were sexually assaulted by illegal immigrants, which means that–if concentrated to a specific area–a city the size of Hastings, Nebraska would basically have every woman and little girl raped every year.  And what of murders?  Totaling almost 6,000 a year, illegal aliens killed more people in 2005 alone than Iraq did American soldiers since the beginning of the occupation.  That’s not all, though: according to the GAO reports, on a yearly basis

-Almost 40,000 people had their homes burglarized by illegal immigrants

-Almost 32,000 people had things stolen from them, including items large enough for the theft to have been considered larceny

-Almost 51,000 people were assaulted

-Over 3,000 people were kidnapped

And the worst part about all of this?  Those were only the illegal aliens we caught. You might as well double the numbers.

So if you’re going to listen to a sob-story, listen to one about Brittany Binger, one of the almost 12,000 girls who get raped every year by illegals, and one of the almost 6,000 people who gets murdered on a yearly basis.  And listen well, because these things happen more frequently because of illegals than they do because of our native population, and they don’t have to happen.  Not to you, not to me, not to anyone, and we have the power to prevent them.  All we have to do is call our local authorities and say that we’re not interested in making our neighborhoods the new stalking grounds for serial rapists and gang members.  After all, as a certain writer would say, there’s one difference between a legal citizen and an illegal alien: you have the right to deport the illegal alien.

So in short, Armando was–and most likely still is–a great human being, along with many other God-fearing, law-abiding, hard-working Hispanics.  But that doesn’t negate the fact that illegal immigration causes serious problems, and the people it causes problems for deserve a voice, not a slandering.  You have a duty to treat others as you would have yourself be treated, including those whose blood will be spilled because we choose to not enforce laws which specifically protect our people from these exact problems.

So what do you choose?  Do you think it’s a good idea to make King County a “safe-haven” for everyone except the law-abiding citizens?  Would you like illegal immigrants to gravitate toward our county like they have with San Francisco and Los Angeles?  Call your county officials by clicking here.

Posted 7/13/09 

This week I happened to come across a leftist’s link on Facebook, and this link was to an article which argued that the talking heads of the Right were responsible not only for Tiller’s death, but also for the murder of a guard at a Holocaust museum.  It went on to blatantly suggest that Christians and their intolerant worldviews are responsible for the hate we see today, and that these talking heads and other hatemongers should be held accountable for the actions of unrelated assassins. As such, I felt the need to comment.

This conversation is important because it highlights some very common beliefs and “logical” stances of the Left, as well as double-standards and the appropriate responses to them.  It’s highly recommended that the reader take the time to peruse the original article that spawned this conversation, and the reader should know that there was a final reply from the young, bigoted liberal I was talking to, but it was omitted because it basically involved backpeddling about his support for terrorists (!) and plenty of foul language.

As such, this is how you’re supposed to reply to liberals: turn the tables of tolerance around and call them the bigots (even though conservatives rarely use the word, because it implies that the user has a socially liberal set of values based on the eradication of religion and nationalism).  Stick around for the end, in which I bring attention to his totalitarian–and ubiquitously applied–liberal style of debate, which utilizes concepts such as “hate” and “love” unfairly.  I would also like to apologize in advance for his improper grammatical style and indiscernable logic.  I have no control over these things.

———————————————————

ME: It takes monumental hypocrisy to actually take the time to pound out an article like that. First of all, if Christians and right-wingers are intolerant for “blatant bigotry” against Muslims after the terrorist attacks, then how do Michael Rowe’s statements against the whole of Christian conservatism not place him in the same category? It seems to me that his concern for dogmatic externalities only apply when considering the stances of the Right, which is unfair and completely illogical. Terrorist cells bomb something, and they’re acting alone. An abortionist gets shot, and he’s the result of Christians complaining.

This is the essence of hate speech: categorizing a religious group or political ideology for demonization, and blaming them for the random occurrences which they have nothing to actually do with. Either this man is completely incapable of understanding his own stances, or he’s just writing to piss off his own constituency, whom the Right could then–according to his logic–suggest were motivated to murder by Matthew Steele’s hate speech, whenever something goes wrong.

Furthermore, the writer actually believes that having membership with ANY religion is completely devoid of ideological statements. As if saying “I’m a Christian” isn’t implying a certain set of value stances, as well as a denial of other faiths. Claiming to be a Jew is in essence claiming that Jesus is a fake messiah. Should we just get rid of all religious statements so we can live in “peace?” I’d like to meet one religious person who doesn’t want anyone else to convert to their particular religion. Pssh.

MATTHEW: No, Terrorists bomb something because of western economic imperialism and a justified hatred for the America that we feed everyday. That you are surely feeding right now.

He is being intolerant of the intolerant.

He was commenting on the lack of professionalism, in that any reporter, with respect to what ever he was reporting on, would know not to name a person so explicitly while framing him as a murder. First of all few admirable reporters would spout so much illogical and fear based hate as it is.

Your ironic use of the word illogical is more apt is explaining the thinking that an individual would arrive to any of those values. Your analysis is superficial in that you generalize rather than criticize past the dichotomies of left and right, christian and not. You see different values, rather than looking deeper to what motivates them, such as fear vs compassion.
Look deeper. Your analysis is superficial in that you see the world in convenient little boxes.

The author breaks down these dichotomies that you are even speaking in. He gave admirable commentary on McCain in comparison with the racist counterparts in his party. He talked about republicans having values that seem to be based in logical theory (of course I think is just less obviously motivated by fear of). He was commenting on was as the drastic difference.

Also with respect to religion he also doesn’t demonize religion or Christianity specifically. Even talking about the Jewish and Muslim religion in a defensible way shows that he doesn’t dismiss religious people. Your very rhetoric of pitting Christians against Muslims is disturbing. Do ever question how being of the dominate race and class, the dominant gender, the dominant sexual orientation, a part of the dominant culture in the dominant country has an effect on you?

I appreciate it if you actually engaged and read the article, but your commentary showed no understanding of its actual content.

ME: Even more hilarious than your statement about Islamic terrorists only JUSTLY bombing targets due to western imperialism (which ignores numerous attacks on Buddhist monks in Thailand and beheadings of park rangers in India) is your statement about my dichotomous worldview, which you made right before dichotomizing the world into camps of hate and love. Thank you so much, guy from Donnie Darko.

If by “looking deeper” into people’s actions, you mean “ignoring their actions while imagining which emotions they’re acting upon,” that’s a waste of time. After all, if you’re taking a stance against “intolerance,” isn’t that out of “fear” of what another’s ideology doesn’t tolerate (the same thing Christians do to Islam)?

And who is tolerant?  Only the people who allow the things that you prefer?  Or only the non-Christians who allow the things you prefer?  Because as far as I can tell, Christians are pretty tolerant toward your camp, permitting all kinds of things they consider to be abominations, even while you try to enforce total acceptance upon them.  Islam?  Not so much. Yet for some reason, you believe Islam to be some tolerant minority that doesn’t behead gays all around the world.

The double standard is maintained when you claim that talking heads speak on the basis of fear and hate for opposing someone who performs something they believe to be murder.  Pardon me, but if Christians oppose a guy who is murdering (hate?) how is that any different than the terrorists you support in the Middle East (love?)?  Is it because terrorists are fighting over territory that their murder for murder is acceptable in your eyes?

Sir, you must understand that you are engaging in hateful bigotry without even considering motivations due to anything other than from your own personal standpoint, a list of ethics you claim to not enforce, but can’t wait to label others according to.  Your support for terrorism is even more disturbing, and I’m asking you not to agree with me on the other issues, but to place yourself in the category you claim only White Christians belong: that of an intolerant and hateful bigot.  You blatantly deny the dignity of White Christians while claiming to be the sole proprietor of “love” and “logic.”  Shame, sir.  Immense shame upon you.

Last, but sincerely not least in importance, it must be brought to your attention that your style of argument is absolutely totalitarian and incapable of fostering logical sequence. Right off the bat–as many liberals tend to do–you define the terms of argument not by moral stance or behavioral tendency, but rather by indiscernable emotional qualities which you (and you alone) may arbitrarily assign. Your use of “hate” and “love” is just about the most obvious method used to apply this unfair and intellectually hindersome tactic.

It is impossible to argue with someone who determines your emotions for you, and then labels those assigned emotions “good” or “bad.” Surely you can see that arguing about subjective and postmodern emotional qualities–instead of standards–one cannot arrive at any other destination other than what the assigner of those emotions has determined, and this is unfair for both of us.

Unless the point of doing so is preventing an actual discussion.

* * *