Archive for Politics

The Gay “Marriage” Revolution, and the Future of American Christianity

May 11, 2013 Christian Life, Fascism, Feminism, Politics, Pro-Life, Theology

Almost 30 years ago, in 11th grade health class, we all had a very substantial discussion of homosexuality. (The health class included a sex-ed component, and it was in this context that the discussion took place.)

The teacher–RR, who was also my tennis coach–was quite liberal, but, to his credit, was fair in his presentation to the class. He was a secular Jew who, while not Christian, grudgingly appreciated the benefits that Christians brought to the table. Neither myself, nor any other Christians in the class, ever had a problem with him.

In fact, get this, folks: RR referred to anal sex as “sodomy” and, while conceding to conventional wisdom–which, at the time, dictated that one in ten people were gay–he seemed to think of that lifestyle as an aberration. (In fact, most of the teachers–even the most liberal, tolerant folks who were high up in the local teacher union–were of that mindset. While they harbored no hatred of gays, they did not look at the lifestyle as one to be embraced or promoted, either.)

The year was 1983, and the United States was a different country. Reagan was President; the Cold War was hot; the Moral Majority had its high water mark of relevance; and, while Americans were not on board with Jerry Falwell, the American people had no desire to ditch the Judeo-Christian consensus that made America–and Western Civilization–exceptional. Americans weren’t all Bible-believing Christians; they did, however–sometimes grudgingly–accept that the Christian consensus that informed our understanding of law and justice, even with its faults in execution, was a good thing.

Back then, gay “marriage” was on no one’s radar.

Sadly, the year was 1983, and the decline–while under the radar–was already in progress.

The same decline that has destroyed Europe had not quite come full-circle in the United States. But the wheels were turning.

Abortion had been legal for ten years; the process that led to its legalization had been in play for longer than that. The Kinsey reports of the 1940s were a culmination of the synthesis of Darwinian thought presented as science, Nihilist rejection of objective truth, academic hatred of all things Christian, and outright fraud.

But, over time, Kinsey’s key mantras were absorbed into the mainstream: the academy, the justice system, the news media, the entertainment sector, and–before long–most sectors of government.

Making matters worse, key sectors of the Church were already in the process of succumbing to European skepticism. This process began in Europe with the Enlightenment, then accelerated with the advent of Biblical liberalism, whose adherents promoted “Higher Criticism”. By the mid-1940s, the same Germany and France that gave us Luther and Calvin, and the same England that had given us Wilberforce, Spurgeon, Tyndale, and Edwards, was all but dead.

While the Europeanization of America had been going on since the late 1800s, this process accelerated after World War II. American seminaries welcomed European scholars, and sent their best students to study in European seminaries. Those great students would go on to become pastors, scholars, authors, and professors who would pass on that liberalism to their students.

This is why mainline Protestants in the 1960s, sadly, were making “care packages” for Communist soldiers in North Vietnam, all while our men were fighting valiantly–and dying–to liberate people from a brutality that was rooted in the godlessness of Communism.

This is why the Church was caught flat-footed by the onslaught of feminism and the ensuing Sexual Revolution.

This is why the response of the Church has been largely reactionary: opposition to agendas rather than a promotion of a better agenda rooted in Creation and Redemption. If the Church teaches a sexuality that consists of, “Don’t have sex until you get married; it’s better when you wait…” or “If you wait until marriage, you will be a better flower in the garden…” or “The men will appreciate you better if you wait until marriage…”, then that is proof-positive that they are being reactionary.

Otherwise well-intentioned efforts–such as the True Love Waits initiatives–reflect a Church that is in reactionary mode. As a result, the Church is failing in its role of salt and light. They first are caught flat-footed, and their response is proving to be years late and many dollars short.

Hugh Hefner started Playboy in 1953; he called himself Kinsey’s pamphleteer. This marked the advent of modern pornography, which added rocket fuel to the fire of the Sexual Revolution. A pornography industry that was once relegated to the seedy sectors of American society is now part of our mainstream. While I have never seen their movies, I know who Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy are. But they wouldn’t be mainstream without Linda Lovelace and Harry Reems. (That Bob Woodward would use the title of their signature movie as a code name for a Watergate informant speaks volumes to the impact that pornography was already having on our mainstream.)

During this time, the sexual revolution was in full swing, and homosexuals were gaining an unprecedented level of acceptance. The Church’s response: the liberals began the process of blessing homosexuality; the conservative response was mostly reactionary, providing Biblical exposition as to why homosexuality is a sin.

On abortion, the Church was sleeping at the wheel. While the Catholics were fighting it–even as they were decimated by the Griswold v. Connecticut decision–the Protestant world was all over the map, and didn’t have a clue what they were up against. When Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton came down in 1973, even the Southern Baptist Convention was ambivalent if not supportive of it. In fact, it would not be until after 1993 that The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary would bring in an ethics professor who opposed abortion.

During that time, conservatives embarked on campaigns against gay rights. In spite of these efforts, court decisions and corporate-political-academic tides have not only ramrodded homosexuality down our throats, they have managed to capture public opinion by pointing to social and economic inequities–that our liberal establishment has spent decades creating–in order to promote the cause of gay “marriage”.

On pornography, the reaction was similar: the Church mounted spirited campaigns against pornography. The Supreme Court punted on the issue of obscenity and established a “community standard”. That led to a plethora of anti-porn efforts in local circles. All of that was rendered moot with the advent of the World Wide Web.

When public schools began promoting promiscuity-based sex education, the reaction of conservatives was to bring in abstinence-based sex education. (Again, reactionary.)

While I have no qualms with the conservative viewpoints regarding pornography, homosexuality, and abortion–I oppose abortion, sodomy, and pornography–the problem is not the viewpoints, but rather the reactionary presentation of sexuality as a whole. (On sex education, I oppose all government involvement in this. That is the responsibility of parents.)

What Christians have failed to grasp is that the Sexual Revolution is not simply about sex. If it were just that, the “revolution” would have been over as soon as AIDS came to fruition in the 1980s. Roe v. Wade would have fallen during the Reagan years.

No, the Sexual Revolution was–and still is–merely one front in the larger attack against God’s created order. It is rooted in a denial of a God who Created everything; it is rooted in the denial of the primacy of Man over other created things; it is rooted in the denial of Man’s fallenness; it is rooted in the denial of Man’s need for a Messiah.

While Jerry Falwell was absolutely correct about the sinfulness of homosexuality, I think he missed it when he categorized it as one of our great “National Sins”. Ditto for pornography.

While we must rightly call homosexuality for what it is–just as we must call adultery for what it is, just as we must call lustful intent for what it is, just as we must rightly call covetousness for what it is–the societal recognition of these things is not the problem; it is a symptom.

Rejection of God’s Natural Law–and the implications of that–has led us to where we are today.

From here, it will get worse before it gets better. The Christian consensus that made America exceptional is eroding, and that erosion has accelerated from a slow, arduous process to a very rapid process.

Will we go the way of Europe, or will we experience a reclamation? Will we face the hard truths about our failings and act diligently on that truth, or will we continue to live in denial, providing–at best–reactionary answers to problems that require addressing the ugly roots?

I am not hopeful for the short-term. I believe we will probably see at least one post-Christian generation, during which we will witness an era of barbarism that would make the worst of our atrocities against the Indians pale in comparison. Legalized abortion is the tip of the iceberg, and that is fomenting a culture of death that has yet to come to full fruition. But it will, and the results will be ugly.

In the long-term, I am hopeful. Jesus said that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church. Not even all the blunders of the Vatican of old could extinguish the Gospel; God raised up reformers like Luther, Calvin, and their contemporaries. Fallen men they were, but they were instruments of deliverance nonetheless.

Every dog has its day, and that is true of the godless. They will revel in their short-term victories, just as their predecessors–from Nero to Stalin–did.

And yet the Church–bloodied as She may be–is still in the fight. And while Her enemy will make that path ugly and nasty and dark, Her light will overcome that darkness.

But just as Jesus–when confronted by the Pharisees on various matters–responded by pointing to the roots (in some cases Natural Law), the Church must be forceful in doing this.

Whether you are a young earth Creationist or someone who accepts that the earth and universe could be much older, Creation is a big deal. Connecting sexuality with marriage, rooted in Creation–as Scripture does–is a big deal.

That’s because it never was “all about sex,” but rather about a God who makes and keeps His promises.

16 comments

On the Brink with North Korea

March 19, 2013 Military, News/Opinion, Politics

The Korean War never really ended. Only a truce prevents the resumption of hostilities. Should those resume, it will be ugly all the way around, with high death tolls among our troops, the South Koreans, and the North Koreans. We could lose more troops in the first month of a resumed Korean War than we lost in the last ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And no one will win.

We will suffer because we lacked the determination to finish the job 60 years ago. Gen. Douglas MacArthur had the right strategy. We could have beaten China and Russia. It would have been ugly, but had we done the job then, there would have been no Vietnam, no Cultural Revolution in China, no slaughter in Cambodia, no Fidel Castro in Cuba, no Che Guevara, and the North Koreans would be part of a free Korea.

It would not have been the end of evil–countries have an uncanny habit of finding excuses to fight each other–but we would have slain the diabolical monster known as Marxist-Leninism, which has killed more people in peacetime than anything else in world history. But Truman lacked the stones.

And China will pay a huge price as well: without their active–and passive–aid of North Korea, MacArthur would have steamrolled North Korea. While we initially had a bad start in that war, we recovered well and were on the way to victory. That is, until China started sending troops across the Yalu River.

Now, China has to deal with a nuclear threat next door, which has a starving population and very unstable leadership in both military and executive levels.

So here we are today.

No comments

Mohler Laments Proposed Decriminalization of Adultery

March 4, 2013 Christian Life, Politics, Theology

As long as (a) we insist on a secular government in which religious consideration has no place at the table, (b) we have no-fault divorce, and (c) as long as we do not force aduterers (or adulteresses) who wreck marriages to recognize the cost of such wreckage, I see no compelling reason why adultery must be a criminal act.

SBTS President Al Mohler disagrees.

I would present an alternative vision for government: get the State out of the marriage regulation business altogether, while ditching the income tax in favor of the FairTax. This puts everyone–single and married–on the same economic playing field.

If people wish to have a “union” that is recognized by the State that is no respecter of sex, then they can always form a CORPORATION. Seriously, it’s pretty easy to do, and there is a mountain of flexibility in that.

This proposal should be no big deal if you are secular. After all, if you really believe in the premise that the State should not legislate morality, then morality has no place here. If you want the State to bless your relationship–and demand that the Church has no say so–then you are attempting to have it both ways, because your insistence of the State’s recognition is itself a religious one. Ergo, if you want a secular resolution, the State has no place in the marriage debate. That is something to be resolved in the religious sectors. There are plenty of gay “churches” that will accept you; go to them if you want approval so badly.

If you are a conservative Christian, my proposal carries the maximum benefit: it frees the Church to define marriage on their terms, and incorporate it according to Scripture without any interference from the State. The local body can decide what they will recognize, and how to administrate that. They can decide the extent to which they will honor arrangements from other bodies.

Yes, there would be roadblocks. The fractured nature of the Body would cause some churches to deny recognition to marriages that are recognized in other bodies. Over time, churches would reach a larger degree of consensus about what they will recognize and not recognize.

Businesses and corporations will have their lives greatly simplified, as they will not have to distinguish between “single” and “married”. Insurers will no longer worry about marriages, but rather corporate parties. This will make their jobs easier, not harder.

Meanwhile, the State would have less–not more–power, and would be more liberated without forcing those of sufficient religious conviction to compromise.

4 comments

Debt Ceiling

January 18, 2013 Economics, Politics

If Boehner had balls, this is what he would do.

My fellow Americans,

For most of the last 40 years, you have been conned and screwed.

You have been sold tax cuts on the premise that they result in more revenues. While that has proven to be true, we in Congress have used that extra revenue to feed a spending orgy.

You have been told that the spending is not a big deal because the deficits are small compared to our Gross Domestic Product. In fact, a Vice President–in my party–is on record as saying that deficits don’t matter.

Sadly, deficits do matter. Making matters worse, when you subtract government spending, GDP has been negative for most of the last 30 years.

What does this mean?

For an entire generation, we in government have spent money faster than you have been able to make it. As a result, your share of the debt has grown, all while our political class insists on more and more government.

Sadly, this level of spending is not something we can sustain forever. If we keep this up, our economy will implode in a way that will make the crisis of 2008 look like a bonanza.

Ladies and gentleman, the President is demanding that we give him permission to continue the spending spree in return for miniscule cuts in spending that will never happen. I will not give him that permission.

As Speaker of the House–which Constitutionally is responsible for budgets–it is my insistence that THIS CONGRESS do the right thing for the American people, and create a situation that will sow the seeds for prosperity for future generations, ensuring that they will not be saddled with debt.

As Speaker, I propose that THIS CONGRESS BALANCE THE BUDGET.

That means

(1) We cut $800 billion in spending THIS YEAR;

(2) We cut the remainder of the deficit NEXT YEAR.

In return for that, we extend the debt ceiling for two years, in order to allow for the short-term liquidity for structural transitions–to be made starting this year and continuing into the end of the Congress–that will be difficult.

Those structural transitions will include the following:

(1) elimination of the Department of Education;

(2) elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(3) elimination of the Department of Labor;

(4) elimination of the Department of Homeland Security;

(5) elimination of most of the Department of the Interior;

(6) elimination of the Department of Agriculture;

(7) elimination of most of the Department of Health and Human Services;

(8) elimination of the Drug Enforcement Agency;

(9) elimination of the Bureau for Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives;

(10) returning unemployment benefits to 26 weeks;

(11) ending the food stamp programs;

(12) ending all aid to foreign nations;

(13) cutting the defense budget in half;

(14) breaking medical monopolies that have busted the budgets for Medicare and Medicaid;

(15) indexing the Social Security and Medicare retirement ages to account for expanded life expectancies of cohorts, while keeping those who are already retired properly covered;

(16) ending all federal guarantees of student loans, and permitting all debtors–in financial distress–to seek relief through the bankruptcy code.

While this initiative is bold, it should not be. In fact, this is the first responsible budgetary initiative that has come from Congress in the last 50 years. And it has been a long time coming.

My fellow Americans, the sad truth is that we have more government than we can afford. That is the $16 trillion elephant in the room, which has been defecating all over the floor. The President–for all his talk–has delivered mere smoke and mirrors. In the past, I have failed in that I have allowed him to get away with it while hoping that he would be willing to get serious.

While he has not done so, it is no excuse for Congress to fail to act.

I wish there were a better answer. I for one do not wish for any government employee or contractor to lose a job. These are good people with families, homes, mortgages, and who have the same hopes and aspirations that the rest of Americans do.

At the same time, mathematics is not on our side here. This is not about what I want, it is about what the American people can afford. We have more government than we can afford.

When you look at the deficits–which have exceeded $1 trillion for the last 4 years, and exceeded $400 billion in the four years before that–it is a symptom not of a revenue problem, but rather a spending problem.

If you were spending $10,000 more than you made every year, and then promised to cut $1,000 over ten years, you’d be laughed out of the room. And yet, your President is telling the same thing, and calling that a substantive cut.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is trying to fight a forest fire with a water pistol.

As your Speaker, I am demanding that THIS CONGRESS do what the President PROMISED to do in his first term.

We will balance the budget. That deficit will be zero at the end of this Congress. And we will release the American people to build the society that government promised but has failed to deliver.

These moves will be difficult and painful. For 12-18 months, the economic outlook will not be pleasant, as so much of our economy has become predicated on the growth of government.

At the same time, the endgame will be promising. By delivering a stable budget, our country will be the best place for foreign capital. We will become a country that rewards saving and investing and capital formation: the things that drive real economic growth. We will become a country that rewards hard work, not providing incentive to freeloaders. We will become the center of innovation once again. We will become the center of manufacturing once again.

What I am saying has historical precedent.

In 1920-21, we had a nasty recession. Unemployment spiked to 15% in short order. You would think that government would have responded with big spending, but that didn’t happen.

Instead, we balanced the budget, we allowed businesses to fail, and we allowed the private sector to adjust accordingly.

As a result, within short order, we returned to full employment, and the outcome was a decade of unprecedented prosperity.

Our best days need not be in the past. But in order for us to return to real prosperity, we must get our financial house in order.

This Congress will do that. We will settle for no less.

We call on the President to cut the shenanigans and have the adult conversation. We invite him to a public summit where we can provide a detailed accounting of that situation.

But we will balance the budget. We will do it with this Congress. And we will start now.

6 comments

President Obama and the Law of Unintended Consequences

January 15, 2013 Can't Fix Stupid, Gun Rights, Politics, WTH

In the wake of various high-profile mass shootings–the Aurora, CO theater, the Oregon Mall, Sandy Hook, and the assault on the New York firemen–President Obama has sought to impose a “meaningful ban on assault weapons”, ostensibly to keep them off the street.

If that were his true intention, he has already failed miserably. Over the past month, there has been an absolute run on semiautomatic rifles above .22LR caliber. This has only guaranteed that more of those rifles are now in civilians hands. In fact, many people who would have never considered owning a semiautomatic rifle are now proud owners of AR-15s, AK-47s, or other variants of rifles that fire those calibers. And the prices for the ammunition–especially .223 caliber–are now running at about a dollar per round.

(NOTE: I have no gripe with civilians buying said firearms; in fact, I welcome it. Will some of those folks be bad guys with malevolent intentions? Probably. Almost all, however, are seeking to protect themselves from a government that has shown to be less-than-trustworthy, or perhaps a potential breakdown of local government.)

There also seems to be a very significant number of folks–including women–seeking concealed carry licenses. Last Saturday, MrsLarijani took a concealed carry class. Every student in the class was female.

At any rate, had Obama simply kept his mouth shut and left gun rights alone, you’d have an order of magnitude fewer assault rifles on the street today.

6 comments

Bumpy Ride Ahead

January 11, 2013 Can't Fix Stupid, Gun Rights, Politics, WTH

I’m not a Spring chicken; I’ll be 46 in less than 2 weeks. But I never thought I’d live to see the day where our White House is on the verge of launching the worst attack on American freedoms since the Wilson Administration.

I was born during the Vietnam era. While that was not a war for my generation, I probably would have found myself opposing the war while having nothing to do with the nutjobs who screamed, “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!” and spat on our troops. The problem was not our troops–who were fighting a war for which they did not ask–but rather the policy wonks and their Commander-in-Chief.

Still, for all of the faults of JFK, LBJ, and even Nixon, Ford, and Carter, none of them had an interest in assaulting the firearm rights of Americans in the manner that the current President seeks to do. (The Gun Control Act of 1968, travesty that it was, pales in comparison to what Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has on the table, let alone the threats of gun-control-by-executive-order by our Vice President on behalf of his boss.)

I was in 8th grade when President Reagan was shot. I remember his recovery, and watching the speech he made to the joint session of Congress in his return. He could have used his own shooting as a perch to attack “gun violence” and demand more gun control. But he didn’t: he lauded the Secret Service agents who performed valiantly; he lauded the physicians who treated him; he read some of the well-wishes from children; he empathized with the family of James Brady.

In short, Reagan kept his eye on the ball, and cooler heads prevailed. In fact, five years later, he would sign the Firearm Owner Protection Act of 1986, which–in spite of the restrictions on production of machine guns for civilian use–provided badly-needed protections for Citizens who were having their rights attacked by government at all levels. (I mean seriously: before FOPA, duck hunters were being prosecuted for simply driving through the wrong counties. And the ATF’s abuses were so bad that even the DEMOCRATS were recoiling in horror.)

My point: back then, we had a President who kept things in perspective, sought to keep government out of our business, and promoted the best of America. He didn’t do everything right, but he had a grasp of what was really important. AS a result, we were a better country in 1989 than we were in 1981. THAT is how the Cold War was won.

But Obama is literally destroying this country with his threat of gun bans. I’ve never seen things this bad across the board. Every gun store is sold out of semiautomatic rifles, something I’ve never seen in my lifetime. He is taking recent tragedies and using them to promote a fascist, totalitarian agenda that has disaster written all over it. While the left will complain, “Oh come now, government will never try to confiscate guns,” one has reason not to trust them. After all, the Department for Homeland Security has enough ammo to supply every employee of said agency with over 2,000 rounds of .223 ammunition. And we have no idea who is on the “terrorist watch list.” Moreover, we have government entities who have sought to classify everyone from NRA members to Ron Paul supporters as potential “domestic terrorists”.

Against the backdrop of a government that seeks to regulate what you put in your mouth, I’d say that is plenty good reason not to trust government.

What angers me though is not Obama: he is doing exactly what I expected he would do. Nor is it Feinstein: she is doing exactly what I expeted she would do. We all know where Obama, Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, and all their lackeys stand.

No…what makes my blood boil is the inaction by Republican leaders: where the heck is House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)? Where the heck is Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Other than our fine Senator–Rand Paul–where are the conservative voices in elective office?

And what about the military leaders who wear the uniform and have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? Why aren’t they pulling the President back and telling him, “Mr. President, you need to cool it with your gun agenda. Not only are you on the verge of promoting a societal breakdown from which it will take decades to recover, you are committing an act of war against the American people. For the sake of this great country, knock it off!”?

It is glaringly obvious that we no longer have two parties; what we have is a bicameral fascist system where leaders only disagree on the degree of fascism. The military leaders–with perhaps a few exceptions–are just suckups to the President, as the real leaders have been “retired”. If you expect the Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise the President to knock it off, that will happen about five minutes after Hell freezes over.

I told MrsLarijani that I never imagined that the end of our Republic could happen in my lifetime. But–as the son of an Iranian immigrant of Kurdish ancestry who knows quite well what happened in Iran in the 1970s–that is a very real possibility.

Is it a conspiracy, or is government really that stupid? There was once a time when I would have answered no on the first and yes on the second. Now, it could be yes on both.

The next four years are going to be quite bumpy.

12 comments

Charlie Brown Does It Again

January 3, 2013 Can't Fix Stupid, Humor, Politics, WTH

House Republicans (Charlie Brown) have re-elected Boehner (Lucy) as their Speaker.

He’ll be holding the football for them.

That will end really well…

5 comments

Boehner, Ryan, Obama, and The Never-Ending Fiscal Cliff Charade

January 1, 2013 Can't Fix Stupid, Fascism, Feminism, Govt Funnies, Gun Rights, Politics, WTH

Conservatives had better wake up, smell the napalm, and identify the real enemy to their lives and livelihoods.

It isn’t President Obama. Sure, he is no hero to the Constitution. Sure, he cares not about personal liberties or free markets. Sure, he opposes gun rights, supports abortion (even at taxpayer expense) and gay “marriage”. But let’s be honest here: he’s not selling anyone out. In fact, Obama is promoting the very agenda he has promised from day one.

Nor is it Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is recovering from a plane crash in Iranbout with the stomach flu that resulted in a concussion. Sure, she’s a socialist liberal repackaged as a moderate. But…seriously? She is the Left’s version of Pat Buchanan, only not as skilled a wordsmith. Every time she gives a speech, she pisses off more people than she inspires. This is why she couldn’t beat a one-term Senator for the nomination of her own Party in 2008.

Nor is it Sen. Dianne Feinstein (R-CA) or her ilk. Sure, she’d ban–and confiscate–every firearm in America if she could get away with it. But–seriously–if any such gun ban gets passed, it will take far more than her to get it done.

That leads me to the very enemy of the American people: the political leaders who will sell everyone down the river, as they speak of their great accomplishments. They will piss on your back, and tell you it’s raining.

I’m talking about those who claim to be on your side. Like Rep. John “Sobbing Johnny” Boehner (R-OH). Like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). These are the “conservatives” who gave us TARP. They are the “conservatives” who gave us the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, General Motors, and Chrysler. They are the “conservatives” who gave us Medicare Part D under Bush, and lifted nary a finger when Bush expanded government beyond all recognition.

My point here is that your real enemies are not your enemies; they are your “friends”.

Sadly, there are very few friends of the Constitution in either House of Congress. Of those–such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)–few have made a forceful case for immediate, drastic spending cuts and a fundamental reduction in the size and scope of government. Even Sen. Paul has spoken in terms of balancing the budget slowly, when in fact the problems are so severe that major cuts must be made now. (Note: Rand Paul needs to make his case now. If he walks the straight and narrow, he will be the best anti-establishment chance since Reagan.)

If The Fiscal Cliff Charade–which gives us over $600 billion in taxes but only $15 billion in spending cuts–is a portrait of things to come, things are not looking good.

The President wants to take up gun control as soon as this Cliffhanger has passed.

If the GOP response here is any indicator of how they will handle the Second Amendment, I’d say we need to get ready for our “friends” to roll over on us.

2 comments

Vox Day Leaving WND

December 18, 2012 Politics

Sorry to see that. He is the only regular columnist over there–besides Pat Buchanan–that was any good.

As much as I enjoyed Ann Coulter, she just hasn’t been the same since she stopped being the standard-bearer for conservatism and took on the role of the Top Shill for the GOP Party Line.

My recommendation to WND: Go after Mike S. Adams.

No comments

Ya Know What They Say about Payback

November 26, 2012 Can't Fix Stupid, Economics, Politics

As Vox Day and the Austrian-school economists will tell you until they are blue in the face: static economic models are useless. One of the biggest reasons–perhaps THE biggest reason–is that, whenever you change the law, people change their behavior.

Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged, does a wonderful job explicating that dynamic through the character of John Galt, who–fed up with the burdens of collectivist society–organized a strike of the creative, innovative, producing sector of the population.

Rand’s detractors have often dismissed Atlas Shrugged as hypothetical, whereas free market economists see the wisdom behind Rand’s premise that when the law changes, people change their behavior. I would also suggest that Ayn Rand was correct: there is a tipping point beyond which the expansion of collectivism destroys productivity, as producers and entrepreneurs decide that the cost of producing outweighs the benefits.

Too much downside risk + too little upside benefit = prohibitive backside pain.

Here is an example of that, courtesy of an Instapundit commenter (HT: Vox Day)

After the election, my wife and I are going partial Galt. We’re in California, so our state income tax went up in addition to what’s sure to come out of Washington.

My wife quit her job last week. I increased my participation in a tax deferment plan offered by my employer to bring my taxable income as close to $250K as possible. We’ll be cutting back a little, but the government is going to getting a whole lot less.

My wife’s entire salary barely covered our tax bill – she was 100% slave to the government, while I was a 10% slave. Now she is 100% free, and I’ll be a ~35% slave As a couple, 17.5% of our time is slaving on the government plantation from an astounding 55% previously.

My wife is deliriously happy, our children are delighted to have mom home, the dog gets more walks, and I find not spending money rapturously satisfying.

No comments
« Older Entries