Obamaville updates

The Occupy Wall Street movement continues to amaze me.

First, from the “you can’t make this up” category, see Occupy Wall Street Kitchen Staff Tired of ‘Freeloaders’?

Apparently some of the folks slaving away to cook politically correct meals for the participants of Occupy Wall Street are sick and tired of working themselves to the bone for homeless people, criminals, and other freeloaders who are eating their food. This is called being mugged by reality.

It is also pretty darn funny.

The New York Post reported that volunteer kitchen staff at Occupy Wall Street are angry about working 18-hour days to feed the protesters but are being taken advantage of by the local homeless people and criminals. And they are going on a work slow down to protest at their protest.

. . .

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, the Post reports from one Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

So, these Occupiers are tired of cooking for freeloaders, eh? And they want to ration the food?

It’s all rather amusing. One wonders if these people see the irony or catch even a whiff of a “lesson,” here?

“Free” invites abuse. Abuse causes rationing.

Can I ask them why they think Obamacare will be any different? Can I ask why they think offering everything else by government for free will result in anything less than obscene abuse and ultimate rationing and ineffectiveness?

Are these Occupy people so unable to think critically that this lesson is lost upon them?

I really hope that some of them see the error of their thinking and convert to conservatism.

Next up, an adult at the OWS movement literally pimped out a 16 yr. old girl.  To recap:

So, the 14-year-old girl sexually assaulted at Occupy Dallas, the 11-year-old boy who got drunk at Occupy Missoula, now the 16-year-old pimped out at Occupy New Hampshire. Anybody see a pattern here? I mean, if it was Catholic priests doing this stuff, somebody would have noticed the pattern.

The “worsening income inequality” meme would not justify the OWS demands (whatever those are), but the facts don’t even back it up:

Let’s compare the change in share of the tax burden since 1980:

Top 1%

Top 5%

Top 10%

Top 25%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

19%

36.80%

49.30%

73%

93%

7%

2009

36.70%

58.60%

70.50%

87.30%

97.75%

2.25%

See The Evangelical Left’s Nostalgia Trip Down Wall Street for a great analysis of how false teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie are drawn to these explicitly non-Christian protests and encouraging the covetousness of those involved.
Finally, this explains a lot.

Did Hermain Cain lie about Planned Parenthood?

Consider Cain’s words here:

Schieffer also pushed Cain on his history of comments attacking Planned Parenthood as an organization that favors “genocide” in the black community — comments Cain said he still believes.

“I still stand by that,” Cain said. “If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger’s own words, that’s exactly where that came from … What I’m saying is, Planned Parenthood isn’t sincere about wanting to try to counsel them not to have abortions.”

Those words are 100.00% accurate.  No lies there.  It is a fact that abortion rates in the black community are three times that of whites, and pro-legalized abortion voters and Planned Parenthood deeply desire taxpayer-funded abortions that are certain to increase that rate.  Therefore, the policies most dear to them result in the black population shrinking as a percent of the total.  Just imagine the outcry if Republicans supported policies that killed more blacks in a week than KKK has done since their inception.

But false teacher Chuck Currie says that  Herman Cain lied about Planned Parenthood Lie (and Chuck would know lying, I suppose).  But what of Cain’s claims?  PolitiFact quotes Cain here:

“When Margaret Sanger – check my history – started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world,” Cain said during a talk in Washington, D.C., at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group.

“It’s planned genocide,” Cain added. He wants the U.S. Congress to yank funding for Planned Parenthood, which receives about $75 million a year to provide non-abortion health services.

Technically Cain may have been wrong on the precisely worded original goals of Planned Parenthood (although it it easy to see how proud Sanger would be of how many blacks PP aborts).  But even PolitiFact notes this, though they water down Sanger’s evils:

The supposed evidence that Sanger supported black genocide is a loose collection of her most objectionable statements, her ties to the disgraced eugenics movement, and her work on what was called the Negro Project. That effort, started in 1939, brought birth control services (but not abortion) to black communities in the South.

That’s not “supposed evidence,” that’s evidence.

And speaking of lies, why don’t Chuck & Co. criticize Planned Parenthood for their serial lies in hiding statutory rape?  Or their lies about offering mammograms?  Is lying bad, or not?

Truths: The greatest killer of black human beings in the U.S. is abortion.  The abortion rates in the U.S. mean the black population is a smaller part of the whole than it would be otherwise.  Democrats support this 100%.  Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, aggressively worked to decrease the black population.

I’m going to side with Herman Cain over a false teacher and Planned Parenthood on this one.

—–

More things to consider

Here’s one time when Planned Parenthood didn’t lie and when I agreed with them: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Sadly, that was their view in this 1964 advertisement but they changed it when they realized how profitable abortions would be and how they could fulfill Margaret Sanger’s vision.

Regarding genocide: A pro-abort on Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ blog tried to insist that as a conservative and pro-lifer I was just trying to keep my majority.  I enjoyed pointing out that if I wanted to do that I would be just like her and fake Christians like Chuck: I would support Planned Parenthood, I would oppose crisis pregnancy centers and I would vote for Democrats.

Also see Group of 99% whites raises money to destroy group of 76% blacks. Anyone else find that creepy?

Yes, Herman Cain is “a black man who knows his place” — the White House!

You just can’t make this stuff up.  The racist Left just doesn’t learn and keeps accusing Republicans who support Cain of being racists who are trying to hide their racism by supporting a black man.  Their true racism shines through, as they can’t see why we vote for ideas and character and not skin color.  See Video: MSNBC Analyst: GOP See Herman Cain as ‘Black Man Who Knows His Place’.

Who has seen Courageous?

I rarely go to any movies so I must confess I haven’t seen this one.  If you saw it, do you recommend it?  What did you think of it?

“We’ve minimized the role of fathers, so we’ve created a generation of barbarians—children who become men without growing up. They stay in boyhood through their 20s and 30s, sometimes their whole lives. They think of themselves first, indulge in pornography, do what they feel like, and leave their wives and culture and churches to raise their children.” —Nathan, character in Courageous novel (www.epm.org/courageous)

Why Republicans should not vote for Romney

1. He’s a RINO (Republican In Name Only).  Example: As much as he has tried to pretend he is pro-life, it is all just weasel-words in the predictable “I’m personally against crushing and dismembering innocent human beings but if elected I won’t do a thing about it” political spin.

2. Even if he wasn’t a RINO he can’t beat Obama.  He can’t run against Obamacare, because it is mirrored on Romneycare.  And the Democrats and the mainstream media (redundancy alert, I know) are well aware of that.  That’s why they and the Republican elite keep pushing Romney as the front-runner. Their worst-case scenario, which has a slim chance of occurring, would be a President that is almost as Left as Obama.

See Federal Government Provides Life Support for RomneyCare.

State treasurer of MA absolutely shreds RomneyCare, which “has nearly bankrupted the state” and is surviving solely because of federal aid…

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.

…[T]he state’s health insurance law…Cahill said, “has nearly bankrupted the state.”

Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress…
Voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina should take note. After all, they are paying for RomneyCare along with all of the rest of us.
3. The media will do the same thing with Romney that they did with McCain: Be his cheerleader until the primaries are over, then bring out the knives.  Only then will you hear them bring up the oddities of Mormonism and other attacks.
Conclusion: Don’t be suckers and let the Democrats tell you how to vote!

Getting Galileo wrong. Twice.

Galileo and Viviani

Image via Wikipedia

Darwinists reflexively use the story of Galileo to advance the religious vs. science false dichotomy.  That fails on two levels.

1. The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements.  And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo?

And as far as religious (or non-religious) beliefs getting in the way of science, who knows if Einstein’s presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant?  After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.  That hypothesis cuts both ways.  This happens often in science, such as the myth of “junk DNA” that went on for years because Darwinists assumed it without evidence.

2. Which is the more pertinent element of the Galileo story?

A. Some religious people were wrong while other religious people were right.

B. Those in power were wrong and abused their authority and those not in power were right.

People who use the Galileo example typically assume A, but I think it is B.

The August 2011 issue of Salvo (great magazine and web site, btw) had an article about a professor forced to write an apology to a student he had harassed in class over her unwillingness to believe in Darwinian evolution.  He wrote a non-pology instead, “apologizing” for “appearing to denigrate” her beliefs and insisting that he hadn’t meant to offend her.

Worse yet, he had the gall to refer to Galileo.  The girl’s lawyer replied to him noting the irony of the Galileo example.  After all, who was the authority figure in this case and who was the victim?  The professor was authority figure (the “Pope” of this situation) and he used his power to deliberately humiliate the woman taking risks in opposing the majority view.  The professor cast himself as the hero, but the woman was the one challenging the orthodox position and standing up for free thinking.

P.S. The religion vs. science canard always reminds me of this gag from The Simpsons,  where Lisa Simpson finds a phony fossil of what appears to be an angel.  The judge presiding over a trial about the fossil said this:

As for science versus religion, I’m issuing a restraining order: Religion must stay 500 yards from science at all times.

Repent and believe. Seriously. God commanded it.

Eternity is a mighty long time.  Here’s the Good News: By God’s grace alone, He adopts, completely forgives and eternally blesses everyone who repents and trusts in Jesus.

Brandon had a great list of passages to consider in Do you have to repent to be saved? « Touch ya Neighbor Ministries:

God said repent: (Ezekiel 18:30-32; Acts 17:30), the Prophets said repent: (1 Kings 8:47-49; Ezra 10:11; Isaiah 55:6-7; Isaiah 1:16-17), John the Baptist said repent: (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:4; Luke 2:3; Luke 2:8),Jesus said repent: (Mark 1:14-15; Luke 5:32; Luke 13:5; Luke 15:7; Matthew 4:17; acts 5:31), the disciples said repent: (Mark 6:12), Paul said repent: (Romans 2:4-5; 2 Corinthians 7-10; Acts 17:30), Peter said repent: (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19-20; Acts 11:18), John said repent: (Revelations 2:5; Revelations 2:16; Revelations 3:3; Revelations 3:19), James said repent: (James 4:9-10).

My favorite (I love Acts 17!):

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. Acts 17:30-31

Point people to the Word (Jesus – John 1) and the word (the Bible).

If the Tea Party events were allegedly racist . . .

What does that make the Occupy Wall Street events?  Via Actual Headline: Little diversity among ‘Occupy Chicago’ protesters:

Just a reminder, this is what OWS own study showed:

81.3% are white and just 1.3% are black. By comparison whites make up just 66% of the US population and blacks make up 12.4%.

Yep, the % of blacks at the OWS rallies are 1/10 the rate of those in the general population.

But of course, Tea Party candidates are the real racists, and they hide that by strongly supporting Herman Cain.

I’ll buy cars made in America, but not from American companies

I’ve owned cars from foreign companies (though sometimes built in the U.S.), mainly Honda, and I’ve owned cars from U.S. companies.  The quality differences have been significant.  It isn’t just the cost, it is the stress and wasted time of taking cars for repairs.

In 2002 a friend wanted to borrow our Consumer Reports auto issue to do some research.  I happened to scan the “used cars to avoid” section and was saddened to discover that I owned two of them, both from U.S. companies: a Ford Windstar and a Cadillac Catera. They had many problems but I didn’t realize how badly they compared to other vehicles.

We traded those in and bought a Honda Odyssey and a Honda Accord, and other than a failed transmission in the Odyssey, both have been very reliable and low-maintenance and are going strong at nearly 10 years of age.

See You Can’t Rely On American Cars Because American Car Makers Rely On Bailouts.

The Consumer Reports Company just rated the reliability of 28 makes of automobile from around the world. No American car manufacturer scored better than 13th in ordinal ranking. Ranked on a Lickert Scale from 1 to 5, Jeep, the best American competitor, scores approximately 3.0. No American car does better than average at staying in one piece. This raises a fair question: did we really save GM and Chrysler or did we just screw the bondholders to put off the inevitable?

Much-hyped and manfully-bailed General Motors finished 22nd out of 28 world manufacturers.

Not surprisingly, the biggest problem in terms of cost and quality has been unionized labor.  Entitlements are very destructive.

This harkens back to the “Lordstown Syndrome” that ironically afflicted this very same plant back in 1971. GM modernized their line until it was the fastest in the world at that time. This led to an explosion of labor unrest from employees who felt they were being driven too hard and paid too little.

The brand new production line was the fastest in the world, cranking out 100 cars per hour. Lordstown workers protested the speed of the line, and the lack of control they held over their own work. As Jefferson Cowie describes, “The workers balked at the speed and discipline by working strictly to rules, letting production slip by unfinished, pushing absenteeism and turnover to new highs, taking drugs and alcohol on the job, and engaging in a wide array of sabotage on the job.”* The situation led to a long strike, beginning in March 1972, and the press coined the term “Lordstown Syndrome” to cover the dissatisfaction many American workers felt toward the quality of their jobs in the early 1970s.

Defenders of the bailout of GM, and the socialization of American industry in general, would point to Ford Motors falling from 10th to 20th place out of the 28 manufacturers rated. They would pointedly ignore the fact that Honda manufacturers Civics in Ohio (not too far from Lordstown.) Honda Motors finished 5th in reliability without any “assist” from President Obama or the UAW.

That is Honda used workers from virtually the same socio-economic and cultural pool as GM except for two vital differences. Honda has no bailout backstop and Honda doesn’t have a UAW shop. Honda cars and Honda factories work. GM cars and GM factories do so with much less predictability. American labor can and does build very reliable cars. They just don’t seem to build those cars as members of the UAW or employees of America’s Shrinking Three Auto-makers.

This reprises my initial question. Did we really succeed with the bail-out, or have we just incinerated money to postpone Darwinian Evolution in the automobile industry?

Unions are even more destructive in the public sector.  Sadly, Ohio is about to take a big step backwards and reward the unions with more wasted taxpayer funds.

Turning the tables: If evil exists then atheism and moral relativism are both wrong

circle-slash.jpgThe “problem of evil” is a classic argument used against the existence of God, but it is self-refuting. If evil exists — real, universal evil and not just people’s opinions that some things are evil — then that defeats the foundations of both atheism and moral relativism.

  • Atheism – Universal moral laws require a universal moral lawgiver.  Even if Darwinian evolution was true, it could account for feelings of morality but not objective morality.
  • Moral relativism – Making universal claims about right and wrong goes against their worldview.

Both groups rarely go three sentences without making moral claims that they expect you to adhere to, but their worldviews can’t support them and give you no reason to take them seriously.

Evil doesn’t disprove the existence of God, it supports it. Even if it didn’t fail in these ways it still wouldn’t disprove the existence of God.  Atheists can’t prove that God couldn’t have a morally sufficient reason to permit evil for a time.

Hat tip: Stand to Reason

How Herman Cain should have answered the abortion questions

Herman Cain

Image via Wikipedia

I believe that Herman Cain is authentically pro-life and that he would appoint judges who would interpret the Constitution properly.  But he tried to get too political in answering questions about abortion from Piers Morgan.

Please see How I wish the abortion-for-rape debate would go for a simple and effective way to navigate through the rape and incest exception questions.  This works whether you are being interviewed by a “gotcha” journalist or just having a conversation with a friend.

Pro-lifers need to quit apologizing for their views and start being more consistent.  This is not that complicated.  The unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  That is a scientific fact.  They shouldn’t be killed because they are unwanted or as punishment for a crime someone else committed.

Also see ‘Controversy’ Over: National Right to Life Vouches for Cain’s Pro-Life Bona Fides where Stacy McCain advises how to navigate these questions.

Another item in the “I’d put a parent warning label on this post, except . . .”

The public schools want to teach this to your kids!  Sometimes the topics I address are so graphic that I’m tempted to edit them more.  Then I remember that not only does the Liberal establishment want to mention the topics, they want to teach your children that they are normal, safe and something they are expected to do.  And they won’t just mention the topics, they’ll tell your kids how to perform them.

This is the liberal-dominated education system in action.  See If It Weren’t Public School Doing It ….

“New York City 11-year-olds will soon be learning sex education from workbooks that include instruction on “mutual masturbation, French kissing, oral and anal sex, and “intercourse using a condom and an oil-based lubricant.”

The shocking revelations were uncovered in “recommended” workbooks reviewed by The New York Post. . . .

One of the preferred resources for students is Columbia University’s website, “Go Ask Alice,” the Post reported. That site includes discussions on topics ranging from “doggie-style,” oral sex with braces, fetishes, and “sadomasochistic sex play.””

The New York Post reports: “Starting in the spring, the DOE will require one semester of sex ed in sixth or seventh grades and one in ninth or 10th.

It says schools can pick any curriculum but recommends the widely used HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk programs and trains teachers to use them.”

Seriously, if any random stranger tried to talk to kids about stuff that schools teach in sex-ed classes, parents would be calling the cops. It’s just downright creepy to teach this kind of stuff to sixth-graders.

Will Ohioans make the right call on unions?

If they understand the issue properly, I think they will.  Thanks to unions, every Ohio citizen owes government workers $6,150!

See With Each Ohio Citizen Owing Gov’t Workers $6150, Union Bosses Urge A Return To Cannibalism | RedState.

Given that just a few short years ago (pre-market meltdown) Ohio’s taxpayers were on the hook for $46.5 billion due to its underfunded retirement system, one would think that November 8th’s decision to Vote YES on Issue 2 would be a no brainer.

After all, if you’ve got a system where union bosses have been able to put every single Ohio citizen (now) $6150 in debt, why would you want to keep it?

Moreover, if you’ve successfully ridden yourself of the system, why would you want to return to it?

Yet, that’s the issue that Ohioans have to decide when they go to the polls on November 8th to vote on Issue 2: Do . . .

Issue 2 on Ohio’s November 8 ballot poses a simple question to voters: Should SB5, Ohio’s government reform effort to get control back from union bosses, be allowed to go into effect?

As fellow RedState contributor Kevin Holtsberry explains:

Issue 2 is a result of a union led attempt to repeal Senate Bill 5 – legislation which brought much needed reform to Ohio’s collective bargaining laws.  A yes vote allows these important reforms to go into effect which will give much needed flexibility to government at all levels and will remove barriers to merit based management.

A YES vote on Issue 2 gives Ohio’s taxpayers the ability to see SB 5 go into effect. And, in the words of Building a Better Ohio:

It allows an employee’s job performance to be considered when determining compensation, rather than just awarding automatic pay increases based only on an employee’s length of service.

It asks that government employees pay at least 15 percent of the cost of their health insurance premium.  That’s less than half of what private sector workers are currently paying.

It requires that government health care benefits apply equally to all government employees, whether they work in management or non-management positions.  No special favors.

It asks our government employees to pay their own share of a generous pension contribution, rather than forcing taxpayers to pay both the employee and employer shares.

It keeps union bosses from protecting bad teachers and stops the outdated practice of laying off good teachers first just because they haven’t served long enough.

Finally, it preserves collective bargaining for government employees, but it also returns some basic control of our schools and services to the taxpayers who fund them, not the union bosses who thrive on their mismanagement.

 

I almost feel sorry for Richard Dawkins

Almost.  He is being rightly criticized by atheists and believers for dodging a debate with William Lane Craig.  His latest excuse is the Craig is pro-genocide, and he just can’t bring himself to debate someone of such low character (ignoring the fact that Dawkins’ worldview can’t explain why genocide would be wrong — you know, survival of the fittest and all that).

See Uncommon Descent | Dawkins for Prime Minister!

Richard Dawkins tells us that we should allow our thinking to be based solely on rational facts.

I’m all for rational thinking, but Dawkins should be reminded that his worldview says we are selected for survival, not truth.  He has no reason to trust his rationality.

If, on the other hand, you let a little emotion in, then this link might lead you to feel a bit of pity for the famed misotheist: http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/10/richard-dawkins-for-prime-minister/

It’s a model demolition job, on the ex-prof’s latest excuses.

Dawkins apparently still has a loyal fan-base who believe that their master is  a serious philosopher. Seeing a live conversation with an actual philosopher would be a bit of a shattering experience for many of those fans. So Dawkins has to keep coming up with the excuses to maintain their loyalty.

It’s a bit pathetic really – all the public efforts to explain why he won’t publicly debate Lane Craig are in themselves a public debate. They are the handing of publicity to the one that Dawkins claims he refuses to hand publicity to. The pretence is hypocritical. If Lane Craig isn’t worth spending time on, then why is Dawkins spending so much time on him? If he’s unworthy to notice, why spend time writing for the Guardian’s readership about him?

I almost feel sorry for his fans, too.  That must be a huge letdown for them.

This seems to sum up the Occupiers quite nicely

This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.

That was from Who Really Cares?, which addressed the myth that Liberals are more generous than Conservatives.  This is in addition to Liberals being bad at basic economics.  So other than being “generous” with other people’s money and not knowing their subject, they are doing a great job.

I’m no cheerleader for banks or credit card companies (unlike some celebrities who do ads for banks).  I just know that the problems with the bailouts and the mortgage meltdown were due more to politicians than the bankers.

Here’s more:

More frightening than any particular beliefs or policies is an utter lack of any sense of a need to test those beliefs and policies against hard evidence. Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.

One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate “forgiveness” of loans to third-world countries, a “living wage” for the poor and a “safety net” for all.

But these are all government policies — not individual acts of compassion — and the actual empirical consequences of such policies are of remarkably little interest to those who advocate them. Depending on what those consequences are, there may be good reasons to oppose them, so being for or against these policies may tell us nothing about who is compassionate or caring and who is not.

A new book, titled Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives when it comes to donating their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others. It is remarkable that beliefs on this subject should have become conventional, if not set in concrete, for decades before anyone bothered to check these beliefs against facts.

Hat tip to Pastor Timothy for this quote by Penn Gillette: