Responding to the Left’s “care” for the homeless

I’m all for finding practical solutions to homelessness and we are long-time contributors to a local Christ-based shelter.  But when the “Christian” Left is busy “caring” about the homeless with other people’s money, be sure to ask a few questions:

1. Are you willing to house them yourselves?  If not, you don’t really care about them.  That’s the homeless version of their fallacious pro-abortion argument claiming that we don’t care about the children after they are born.  We do care, of course, and do a lot with our own time and money.  And we would obviously protest infanticide and toddler-cide just as much as we oppose killing children in the womb.

2. I thought you liked government micro-managing our lives with soda sizes, making people pay for others’ birth control, etc.  Why pull up the drawbridge now?  Have you considered that there are downsides to to giving the government that much power?

3. Have you ever studied the issue carefully enough to realize that if you make it too easy to be homeless that you remove incentives for them to change?  Go talk to them yourselves!

Leftists dominate media, education and entertainment businesses

Yet we still managed to have a great showing on election night.  It shows the power of our ideas.

We should not discourage Christians from being in those businesses.  If we withdraw, what kind of results should we expect?

Also, we need to continue to be wise and work around the mainstream media.  People like Dan Patrick in Texas did it very successfully.

Via Donor Data Show Overwhelming Leftist Bias of News, Entertainment, and Academia




Some clever ideas: 6 bills the GOP should pass

Congress has a unique opportunity to not only do a lot of good for the country but to be shrewd and position themselves for the future with young voters.  They would have tons to run on: They would have elected young people, females and minorities and addressed a lot of issues those constituencies care about.  They would also disarm the Left of their silly “war on women” meme.  Even if Obama vetoes them the Republicans would still score points and position the issues for future success under a Republican President.

Via 6 bills the GOP should pass:

1 End the federally imposed 21-year-old drinking age. The limit was dreamed up in the 1980s as a bit of political posturing by then-secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole. It has been a disaster. College drinking hasn’t been reduced; it has just moved out of bars and into dorm rooms, fraternities/sororities and house parties. The result has been a boom in alcohol problems on campus. While drunken driving has declined, it was declining before the age was raised and has declined just as fast in Canada, where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province.

As John McCardell, vice chancellor of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., writes, “If you infantilize someone, do not be surprised when infantile behavior — like binge drinking — results.” . . .

2 Decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Many states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal under federal law. That’s bound to change sooner or later — and the GOP might as well get ahead of it. Would Obama veto it? Doubtful. . . .

3 Repeal the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This awful law passed in the Clinton era is a giveaway to the entertainment industry. It places major burdens on Internet and computer users and electronic innovators. In fact, we should reform copyright law in general: A 28-year term was good enough when America was new; double that would be fair enough now as opposed to the nearly perpetual duration copyrights enjoy today. Shorter copyrights would encourage Hollywood and the music industry to produce new material, instead of endlessly recycling old stuff.

Bonus for Republicans: The entertainment industries hate them, so this would be a species of payback. Would Obama veto this, protecting fat-cat industry types who were his own big contributors? Probably, but it wouldn’t look good.

4 Make birth-control pills available over the counter. Cory Gardner made this a part of his winning platform in Colorado’s Senate race. Let women choose. If Obama vetoed this, Republicans could accuse him of waging “war on women.”

5 End public-sector employee unions. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker eliminated dues-withholding for public employee unions in his state. The unions were so angry that they organized a recall campaign against him. They lost. They then tried to recall a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who upheld his action. They lost. They then tried to beat Walker in last week’s election. They lost again.

President Franklin Roosevelt opposed public employee unions because he thought that people whose salaries came from the taxpayers shouldn’t have the right to collectively bargain against citizens whose taxes were being collected by force, and that collective bargaining by public employees was a conflict of interest. He was right. Obama would veto this, but his veto would be highly unpopular and set up an issue for 2016.

6 Institute a “revolving door” surtax on those who make more in post-government employment. Leave a Treasury job making $150,000 a year to take one in private industry paying $750,000, and you’ll pay 50% surtax on the $600,000 difference. Most of the increased pay is based on knowledge and connections you got while on Uncle Sam’s dime, so why shouldn’t Uncle Sam get a share? An Obama veto would be unpopular.


Great quotes on the minimum wage debate

The minimum wage is proven to hurt the Left’s voters, but they advance the argument anyway to demonize their opponents and buy votes. Here are some great responses. Note the racist beginnings. Thanks to Glenn for the list!

Intervention by politicians, judges, or others, in order to impose terms more favorable to one side – minimum wage laws or rent control laws, or example – reduces the overlapping set of mutually agreeable terms and, almost invariably, reduces the number of mutually acceptable transactions, as the party disfavored by the intervention makes fewer transactions subsequently.  Countries with generous minimum wage laws, for example, often have higher unemployment rates and longer periods of unemployment than other countries, as employers offer fewer jobs to inexperienced and low-skilled workers, who are typically the least valued and lowest paid – and who are most often priced out of a job by minimum wage laws.

It is not uncommon in European countries with generous minimum wage laws, as well as other worker benefits that employers are mandated to pay for, to have inexperienced younger workers with unemployment rates of 20 percent or more.  Employers are made slightly worse off by having to rearrange their businesses and perhaps pay for more machinery to replace the low-skilled workers whom it is no longer economic to hire.  But those low-skilled, usually younger, workers may be made much worse off by not being able to get jobs as readily, losing both the wages they could earn otherwise and sustaining the perhaps greater loss of not acquiring the work experience that would lead to better jobs and higher pay.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.70

If someone has a right, someone else has an obligation.  But the proposed right to a “living wage,” for example, is not based on any obligation agreed to by an employer.  On the contrary, this “right” is cited as a reason why government should force the employer to pay what third parties would like to be paid.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.157

Crusaders for a “living wage” or to end “sweatshop labor” in the Third World, for example, may invest great amounts of time and energy promoting those goals but virtually none in scrutinizing the many studies done in countries around the world to discover the actual consequences of minimum wage laws in general or of “living wage” laws in particular.  These consequences have included periods of unemployment, especially for the least skilled and least experienced segments of the population.  Whether one agrees with or disputes these studies, the crucial question here is whether one bothers to read them at all.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.181

The last year in which black unemployment was lower than white unemployment – 1930 – was also the last year in which there was no federal minimum wage law.  The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was openly advocated by some members of Congress on grounds that it would stop black construction workers from taking jobs from white construction workers by working for less than the union wages of white workers.  Nor was the use of minimum wage laws to deliberately price competing workers out of labor market unique to the Davis-Bacon Act or to the United States.  Similar arguments were made in Canada in the 1920s, where the object was to price Japanese immigrants out of the labor market, and in South Africa in the era of apartheid, to price non-whites out of the labor market.

Any group whose labor is less in demand, whether for lack of skills or for other reasons, is disproportionately priced out of labor markets when there are minimum wage laws, which are usually established in disregard of differences in skills or experience.  It has not been uncommon in Western Europe, for example, for young people to have unemployment rates above 20 percent.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, pp.450-451

Intellectuals give people who have the handicap of poverty the further handicap of a sense of victimhood. They have encouraged the poor to believe that their poverty is caused by the rich — a message which may be a passing annoyance to the rich but a lasting handicap to the poor, who may see less need to make fundamental changes in their own lives that could lift themselves up, instead of focusing their efforts on dragging others down.

Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p.544

This is a good start for Republicans

Via Senate Republicans Offer Dem Leader Reid Help Blocking ‘Obama’s Lawless Amnesty’ | MRCTV.

Six Republican Senate leaders wrote to Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today offering to help him block Pres. Obama’s planned executive order granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

The Republicans offered to help Reid pass a measure that would avoid a “constitutional crisis” by “blocking any action the President may take to violate the Constitution and unilaterally grant amnesty.”

If Reid refuses “to defend the Senate and Constitution,” the Republicans say they’ll use “all procedural means necessary” to stop the president’s “lawless amnesty.”

“Surrendering to illegality is not an option,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of the Republicans writing to Reid, said in a separate statement. Echoing the letter to Reid, Sessions said a now-Republican Congress will take action – and Democrats will have to choose between defending their constituents and supporting Obama:

“A Republican Congress will defend itself and our citizens from these lawless actions. Surrendering to illegality is not an option. Democrats will have to choose sides: protect the President’s agenda, or protect your constituents.”’

Either way, they win.  If Reid doesn’t join in, the Left will look terrible to most citizens and the Right can get it done anyway, thanks to Reid’s changing of the rules.  Well played, Republicans.  Keep it up!

If you love your neighbors you’ll fight this blanket amnesty.

Pulpit freedom — preach on everything!

God is sovereign over every last molecule in the universe.  The notion that our ideological enemies can label a topic as “political” and then demand that we not talk about it in church is ridiculous.  

Voddie Baucham (via his Facebook page) and this link made some great points — Are Churches Subject to Section 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code?

 For those who insist our current problems are the result of the Church “refusing to give up it’s 501(c)(3) status, please BE INFORMED! A church CANNOT GIVE UP 501(c)(3) status! Consequently, for those who live in fear of the IRS, a church also cannot lose it’s 501(c)(3) status. All they can do is take your certificate (and even when they do that, you can get it back). All your certificate does is guarantee people that their gifts are tax deductible. However, their gifts remain tax deductible by virtue of you being a church whether you have that certificate or not.

People who shout, “Just give up the tax break” are uninformed. First, it’s not a “tax break.” Churches are not taxable. A tax break is a reduction, or elimination of taxes one would otherwise owe. Second, giving up the tax benefit (assuming we could) would not change the fact that we are classified as 501(c)(3) organizations.

But there’s another issue… The Johnson Amendment. This is the unconstitutional amendment, passed without discussion, analysis, or scrutiny, that was designed to protect LBJ from a political opponent. THIS is the pretext for the attempted ‘gagging’ of the Church. ADF has been trying to challenge the Johnson amendment for years through it’s Pulpit Freedom initiative. However, the IRS won’t take the bait! Pastors are preaching “political” sermons, but they’re not being challenged. They’re not having their 501(c)(3) status taken away. The result, 1) we haven’t been able to challenge the Johnson amendment, and 2) we have learned that it is a paper tiger!

Folks, if churches cannot be involved in politics, then, the minute marriage became political, we lost our right to preach on it. Moreover, the minute the deity of Christ enters the political sphere, we’ll have to leave that alone too. DON’T BUY THE LIE! Preach on EVERYTHING!


Obligatory schadenfreudelicious post-election post

OK, that was sweet.  After all the ridiculous race- and gender-baiting done by the Left, today the Right is celebrating wins by Mia Love, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Joni Ernst and more.  And I’m seeing more and more evidence of people wising up and leaving the plantation.  I must admit that I laugh when thinking of the Leftists I know who continually say that the Right are racists.  My favorite is the guy who has literally zero people of color as Facebook friends (Uh, unless you count the person whose profile picture was a black Labrador).  Hey mainstream media, why don’t you have bigger coverage of the historic Mia Love and Tim Scott wins?  Shouldn’t you be happy about those?

Even with the rampant media bias, Leftist educational indoctrination, shameless race / gender pandering, IRS targeting of Conservative groups, hypocritical Koch-blaming, rampant voter fraud and morewe still won!

Yes, I know the influence peddlers have already begun their work to corrupt this process, but last night was huge.  The rate of decline of the U.S. was dramatically reduced.

Hopefully the Republicans will be smart and pass one common sense bill after another until Obama’s veto pen runs dry.  After running from Obama during this election, the Left may not want to be associated with opposing what most Americans want, and at a minimum they’ll expose Obama as the anti-American enemy he is.  They should vote to repeal or neuter Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, prevent Obama from granting dangerous and costly amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, investigate the IRS/Fast & Furious/Benghazi, and more.  Otherwise, we should find some Republicans who will do those things.

I also hope they’ll work to educate people on basic economic principles so they will understand how minimum wage increases are counterproductive, how supply and demand works, etc.  They have the microphone now with an opportunity to use it wisely.  Hopefully they’ve learned that majorities aren’t forever.

This should bode really well for 2016.  Obama is too proud to change, so the Left will have to run away from him.  That will alienate some of his base.  And Hillary will implode at some point.  The “war on women” meme ended up hurting the Left his time, and that will only get worse after last night.


Also see

The youngest women elected to office are Republicans.

Dear Republicans: No One Elected You to Work with Democrats

There is no one of good faith left on the other side who will agree to any legislation that is not poisonous to the fabric of the Republic. Consider what they have stood for the last two years – they have literally tried to rewrite the First Amendment to make it not apply to wealthy conservatives. They have tried to force religious institutions to pay for abortions and participate in gay marriage ceremonies regardless of their religious convictions. They have confiscated billions of tax dollars in the name of “economic stimulus” and self-dealt their families and friends huge awards of taxpayer money. They have consciously eliminated the free choice of Americans in their health care decisions. They have shown more concern about Islamic terrorism being called “Islamic terrorism” than about stopping Islamic terrorism. They believe in eliminating the death penalty for convicted first degree murderers but in using taxpayer funds to pay for the deaths of unborn children. They have consciously and deliberately fomented racial, class and gender divides in America for the sole reason that they perceived that it would help them to remain in office.

They have not apologized for doing any of these things and they show no remorse for any of it. None – zero – of them have taken a stand against the excesses of their party while they were in power.

Not only should they not be worked with, they should not even be invited to the table to be part of the discussion lest their gangrenous, festering and destructive ideas should further infect our caucus. These are not people who should be trusted to babysit a cat, much less to have access to the levers of all the coercive powers of the Federal government.

Working with these people is not what America elected you to do Republicans. It elected you to stop them. So for the sake of America, stop being so concerned about sounding “reasonable” to the talking heads on cable and get the buckets of flaming tar ready.