Can you debunk a myth if it’s actually a fact? Continue reading
Two years from now, no one will remember the details of Senator Ted Cruz’s floor speech. They will not remember the continuing resolution. They will not remember his curious vote to end debate a day after saying he would vote against it. All they will remember is that he spent twenty-one hours speaking out against Obamacare.
For standing in front of the country and spotlighting the festering hulk of the legislative haunted house known as Obamacare, Senator Ted Cruz is considered an outlier and a belligerent extremist. And that’s just what his fellow Republicans are saying about him. Continue reading
I don’t really get “young earth” Creationism. If the world was created 6,000 years ago, then how do you explain the fossil record, which provides clear evidence of much older life? Why would God jam million-year-old bones into the bedrock just to confuse us? While He certainly isn’t averse to mystery (quite the contrary), this would fall into the realm of purposefully misleading.
On the other hand, I don’t get the near conniptions thrown by secular progressives in response to Creationists, as if a misguided belief about the origins of Earth is any more damaging to young minds than inadvertently hearing a Nicki Minaj song on the radio. Furthermore, their disgust with Creationists’ lack of acceptance of scientific evidence is a prime example of their not listening to Jesus’ teaching in the only subject they claim he cared about. Hypocrisy.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:3-5
Who really knows what happened 6,000 years ago? No one. But in the 5,999 years and 364 days since, people have consistently responded to financial incentives, yet the left still acts astonished when it happens. For example, when France’s new Socialist president enacted a 75% tax rate, a number of prominent millionaires left the country to avoid the extortion. How did the socialists react to this perfectly predictable response to their new policy? Shocked outrage.
Beyonce’s chart-topper Single Ladies is a tribute to fed up women who have finally kicked an unappreciative man to the curb. The culture rightfully cheers on those independent women. Yet when the abuse is financial, and an unappreciative society undermines small business owners or others making more than $250,000, the rich are expected to turn the other cheek, and are vilified as ungrateful traitors when they have other ideas. All hail the god of Envy.
In another case of blind-faith-divorced-from-reality Continue reading
Caught between their Catechism and Caesar, the Little Sisters of the Poor must either pay crippling fines or defy their church’s teaching and comply with the Obama Administration’s contraception and abortifacient mandate. It’s fair to say that you’ve surrendered any claims to pragmatism when your policies force those who have taken a vow of chastity to buy birth control. When my grandchildren ask me if there was a point when I knew for certain that the United States was going down the tubes, I’m going to say, “Yes, it was when we made the nuns buy condoms. That’s when I knew.”
The Little Sisters won’t be able to afford the fines for refusing to comply, and since all of their older siblings are Poor, they can’t expect much financial help there either. As a result, they’ve announced that they may be forced to move their order out of the country due to the religious intolerance. If that happened, the United States would join a prestigious list of Little Sister religious oppressors that includes the Chinese communists and Myanmar military junta. That’s like the Brazilian national soccer team suddenly joining an NFL division that included the Oakland Raiders and Baltimore Ravens, only incredibly sad instead of absolutely fascinating. Continue reading
Michael Ono of ABCNews found an interesting contradiction. Liberal icon Elizabeth Warren, practically the inventor of “you didn’t build that”, disagrees with an aspect of Obamacare, her ideological soulmate’s crowning achievement. Ono does well to note the discrepancy between Warren’s usual positions and her rhetoric in this specific instance. However, he misses the mark on what the contradiction really says. The opening paragraph’s embedded liberal assumptions and language obscure the real issue:
U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is a superstar within the Democratic Party and a lightning rod for Republican outrage over the issue of tax fairness. But there is one tax that Warren doesn’t like and it’s part of Obamacare.
Conservatives lose the battle over the language time and again. Allowing the party that created the family and ambition-destroying welfare state to get away with claiming the mantle of “social justice” is one example. Likewise, what is “the issue of tax fairness”? Did the Republican platform include a section titled “Our plan for unfair taxes”? Populist posturing that stokes envy against high earners should not associate the Democrats with “tax fairness”. More apt but less pleasant-sounding would be the clearer phrase “tax increases”.
The story continues by describing the one and only tax Warren just can’t stomach: Continue reading