iPandora

The true solution is revealed in the nice lady who says that some bakeries have noted some demand for this healthier fare.
So then why do we not simply allow the market to work? If there is demand for healthier fare, bakeries will take advantage of that demand and work to supply product to meet the demand.

No fines or fees or arm-twisting needed.

No, it is just so obvious that the real reason the city of New York has made this a legal issue is that there are people who believe they know best how we ought to live. And they view themselves are caretakers of the general populace, protecting the idiot rest of us from our own carnal desires. These kinds of people tend to congregate in government, and they find each other.

For their own good, we should outlaw them.

I was just reading a newspaper article today about the Supreme Court and what influence the next President will probably have. Toss another brick for McCain onto the scale of the presidential election. Take a look at the article, it’s pretty short:

http://www.currentargus.com/ci_9731416

First, the Duh!

Gay men get HIV, and they’re getting it faster. 12% faster, says a new CDC report.

And of course, to remind those hotheads whose brains have boiled out: HIV is the disease the US Government released in Africa to desimate the black population.

The rest of us know it’s transmitted by homosexual relations between men. And that it’s not bias or bigotry that caused it, but pride, willful ignorance, and the natural result of an unnatural act.

Now the Interesting Stuff

Investor’s Business Daily reports that an architect the the Canadian socialized health-care system, that one we hear is so incredible and worthy of emulation from the leftist socialist running for POTUS, has had a change of heart:

“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says (Claude) Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”

Counteracting the tales of woe and terror which are peppering the debate south of our northern border, the IBD tells a tale of truth which ought to give those considering the proposed socialized utopia pause:

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

Because she’s a woman, and it’s her ovaries, it’s a real tear-jerker.

No, the point is that the capitalistic, profit-based system provides better care to a greater number of people with two primary reasons:

1. The costs cause people to evaluate themselves whether they really need that procedure, freeing the system from a glut of unnecessary and frivolous procedures.
2. Those same costs entice more skilled labor and research and development into medical/technological advances, enhancing quality and quantity of available care.

Read more at IBD.

Republican ‘”Obama”, Only With History And Substance’ Jindal takes the hard line

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who has actually accomplished things in his life, was outraged over the Supreme Court’s liberal judges finding the death penalty is not applicable or valid for use in extreme cases of child rape, so he signed a bill allowing chemical castration in certain specific cases of rape and sexual abuse.

Sponsored by Democrat Senator Nick Gautreaux of Meaux, LA, arguments surrounding the bill were mostly on scope and effect, rather than validity and right.

It sounds like, unlike the members state houses in many of the states, the members of the Louisiana State House are a group who actually have backbones connected to their brains.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted but recently I’ve been writing a fair amount about a variety of issues. So hopefully these next several posts are thought provoking. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or thoughts you may have about the arguments and/or writing style of my posts. That being said, here are my thoughts on global warming:

I see four issues that need to be addressed before we can adequately approach the problem:

1. The first point we must establish is: Is the Earth really warming at a significant pace? I’m skeptical but open to convincing that this is the case.

2. The second point: Is this warming caused by humans or is it natural? I know less about this point, but there are many intelligent people who think this is a natural phenomena — a cycle the earth goes through.

3. The third point: Are the effects of global warming harmful? Now I want to clarify here. I’m referring to the temperature increase alone. Obviously smog, carbon monoxide, wanton destruction of forests, etc. are bad. But is the temperature of the earth rising a bad thing? I’m not sure, no one really knows. Maybe it will be a good thing. Growing seasons might be longer, and right now many more people die of cold every year than of heat. Again, just some thoughts, I don’t think a compelling case has been made for either side.

4. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is it worth spending trillions of dollars to try and fix? People talk about market solutions like a carbon tax and so forth. Those are NOT market solutions. They are government solutions that allow for better individualized actions that are like a market. But how does a government know what the right level to set the tax at is? Who is deciding the carbon tax but politicians who are more beholden to special interests than voters. Furthermore, carbon taxes will create huge inefficiencies in the market. It will make everything that needs energy to be produced (which, by the way, is everything) more expensive. I think one commentator put it well when he said we are sacrificing the poor of the world on the altar of radical environmentalism. Sure we are wealthy here in the US and can afford some of these inefficient policies. But as we have seen with ethanol subsidies, our domestic policies affect the rest of the world, especially poorer countries.

Our best approach to solving this problem is to better define property rights and environmental regulations at a local, rather than national or global level. Cities and states should work to clean up rivers and emissions, based on clear demonstration of harm caused by the pollution to individuals, not some abstract and highly questionable global warming effects. As human beings one thing is certain, that no matter what happens, we will learn to adapt and improve our environment, whatever it is. Wealth is a key tool by which we will be able to face rising global temperatures, hurricanes, tornadoes, war, famine, etc.

The Lady Roxanne de Luca, contributing author at Haemet, has penned this gem regarding the recent Supreme Court decision finding it illegal to sentence those guilty of raping children to the death penalty:

(L)iberals have just written a Supreme Court opinion which is the jurisprudential equivalent of “If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it.”

Well put Roxanne.

Here we have one more glaring reason why this election matters so very, very much.

For those of you who aren’t interested in politics, let me give you three reasons why you should care enough to vote in the general election for president:

1. Human life is at stake. If you believe that the unborn are human being made in teh image of God, then you should care about who will be appoint new supreme court justices who may offer hope of overturning Roe v. Wade.

2. Morality and knowledge are at stake. The two candidates have very different views on education. One will give us the same old system, the other supports a major change in the system that could improve the education AND virtue of millions of kids.

3. Our country as a place of free and self-governing citizens is threatened. Will we go down the road of reliance and dependency on the government — living in an ongoin state of adolescent irresponsibility? Or will we fight against this trend?

Of course these issues will not be quite this extreme or solely decided by this election BUT these are issues in politics and they are very real divides and problems. I admit up front that this is a long note. I hope most of you will still read it because it has what I deem to be important things in it (otherwise I wouldn’t have taken the time to write it).

I don’t know if anyone else has experienced this (although I’m guess many of you have) but the idea of having to choose between McCain and Obama in the fall leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth. McCain has passed policies that absolutely drive me up the wall. They are infuriating. But Obama’s promise of Progressivism is even worse. Where will the nanny state end, where will dependency upon the federal government in every arena stop, if Obama is elected and begins instituting huge spending increases? Not to mention his show-stopper support of abortion. So I come back to the title of this piece, “What is a small government conservative to do?”

I’ll be the first to admit I have had mixed feelings on this. For a long time I was sure (and told a number of people) that I would vote for a third party this fall to “discipline” the powers that be in the Republican party for putting forward a big government conservative like McCain. I thought it would be ok to let Obama win because myself and many others chose to support a real conservative candidate. If Obama won I think ti would galvanize the country and the Republican party four years down the road. But I have changed my mind and I will tell you why.

First, let me tell you some of the things I detest about McCain’s policies. We can start with the infamous McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Not only was this a direct violation of the first amendment and our ability as Americans to express our political opinions freely by putting our money where our mouth is, it’s just a bad policy. It has increased the incumbency rates by making it more difficult for new candidates to raise money to challenge the incumbent. If that’s not a bad policy, I don’t know what is. Furthermore, it has led to increasing complexity in how campaigns are financed. There are now back door mechanisms and roundabout ways for groups to contribute money and express their opinions. But this is only an imperfect substitute for a free arena of public and political discourse. You know what else bothers me about McCain? If you guessed environmentalism, you would be correct.

Now I don’t want to make this a debate about global warming but about the policy McCain advocates. He position is that the US should reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050. Ok, is that a good idea? Will reducing our carbon emissions by that much effect the global carbon emissions? Let’s assume that China continues to grow (and pollute) over this time period. Not only that, let’s also assume that a number of other countries begin industrializing over this time period. I think it would be fair, in fact extremely generous, to say that if McCain’s 60% reduction goal was met, we would only decrease the world carbon emissions by 5-10%. Now, what effect will that have on the rate of global warming? Considering scientists can barely even measure the increase in temperatures now, I’m guessing not much at all.

So we’ve looked at the potential benefits (with regard to global warming) what about the costs? How will this reduction in carbon emissions come about? Well, best case scenario they come about gradually. We offer carbon tax credits that can be bought and sold by different companies in different industries. So the most valuable production will be allowed to continue (albeit at a higher cost) and the less valuable (though still valuable enough to exist) industries and companies will be driven out of business. Will there be innovation to reduce emissions? You bet. Will there be less emissions? You bet again. But economically we will be worse off. And not just us, but other countries that benefit from our production and consumption will be worse off. Because if we have less production, and thereby wealth, domestically, it follows we will buy fewer goods from foreign countries. Anyway, I think carbon tax credits are a bad idea because the costs far outweigh any benefits I have seen thus far. And carbon tax credits are the best idea they are considering. There are many many worse ones.

So, given these positions, why would I decide to support McCain? Well I’ll tell you. It’s the classic compromise position but I think it’s reasonable. THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH! Sure, I would love to vote libertarian and stick it to the Republicans. I would like to see people see the consequences of their actions and ideas – though it affects us all, those people who are well off and/or intelligent will be ok, it’s the poorer people and the less educated and intelligent who will be taken advantage of. And the problem extends beyond that; most middle class and upper middle class will be hit hard by the policies proposed by Obama and company.

But back to my first statement, I think that libertarian vote would be irresponsible. Can I choose to, in a sense, tacitly support abortion and allow it to continue? A vote for someone other than McCain supports Obama. Indirect of course, but clearly acknowledged. Ask anyone whether their voting libertarian instead of republican helps Obama and they will admit that it does. What about the judges the next president will appoint to the Supreme Court? For you history buffs out there (Mark Perkins) just think about the influence the Supreme Court has had over the past century. Those are pretty high stakes. Think about how difficult it is to cut government spending once it is in place, and how hard it is to remove bureaucrats and new layers of regulation and red tape. Those are pretty high stakes.

And McCain isn’t all bad. In fact, my writing this piece was spurred by reading a full page section in the Wall Street Journal comparing the two candidates on Taxes, Education, Social Issues, Diplomacy, Iraq, Energy, Health Care, and Housing. There are some important differences between the candidates. Allow me to highlight just a few for you.

In Energy policy: while McCain supports a 60% decrease in carbon emissions by 2050, Obama supports an 80% reduction. While McCain favors incentives (which unfortunately probably means subsidies) for nuclear power (which, by the way, I think will be increasingly important in the future), Obama supports subsidies for solar and wind energy and is against nuclear energy. I don’t know how many of you know this, but right now solar and wind energy are terribly inefficient ways of creating energy. That’s not to say they won’t be better in the future, but right now they are just not feasible on a large scale and throwing taxpayer money at them won’t change that anytime soon. It’s better to let the market handle that because they will look for the most cost effective and profitable methods, rather than the purely “research” or “scientific” methods. Furthermore, and you environmentalists will love this (Mark), it has been observed that giant wind turbines actually disrupt the environment. Wind and weather patterns and the migration of different types of birds have been damaged through existing wind turbines.

In Healthcare, Obama supports socialized medicine (a.k.a. bad medicine you have to wait months to receive) while McCain supports somewhat socialized medicine (a.k.a. you can still get good medicine from time to time, but it’s going to cost you big bucks) Actually, his position isn’t quite that bad. The estimates for his program are $7-10 billion while for Obama’s they are about $110 billion. A sizable difference if you ask me.

In Education McCain favors greater school choice and allowing parents to put their education taxes towards private or charter school tuition (although you don’t pay tuition at charter schools as far as I know; I have a feeling the writer just wasn’t aware of that). Obama’s position is to throw more money at the problem. He wants to spend money for pre-school programs ($10 billion), K-12 ($8 billion), and college ($10 billion a year). I don’t think I have to tell you that throwing money at the problem will not fix it and won’t even alleviate it. If you have questions about that, please ask.

Of course in Social Issues McCain opposes abortion while Obama supports it. If you believe that the unborn are humans created in the image of God, this should be a HUGE issue for you. The policy of abortion amounts to little less than institutionalized and government sanctioned murder. McCain thinks civil unions and same-sex marriages should be left to the states to determine whether they should be legal or not. Obama agrees, except he wants some states to have to acknowledge and uphold the civil unions created in other states. And McCain supports abstinence only education while Obama favors a “comprehensive” sex education program.

In Iraq, everyone knows that McCain thinks we should stay while Obama wants to cut and run. This is another one of those high stakes issues. While the war is a thorny issue, I think the surge has been very successful in that it has reduced the amount of daily violence in Iraq dramatically and has established relative order and peace. And furthermore there are some encouraging signs that Iraqis are continuing to try and improve their own conditions. The war has not been a success yet and I’m not arguing whether it was a good idea to go in or not, but cutting and running would cause a lot of damage. What is going to happen to all the people there when the American soldiers leave in the next year? Mass death. There will probably be sectarian conflict if not outright civil war, Iran will try to get in there and destabilize things as much as possible, etc. I think it would be morally reprehensible to leave Iraq at the drop of a hat.

As far as taxes go, McCain is in favor of lowering corporate taxes while Obama favors increasing the capital gains tax. For those of you who aren’t very familiar with the corporate world and the tax structure, here’s a 101 crash course:

Right now we tax business three times in this country. We tax the amount they pay their employees. This is what we commonly refer to as the income tax (don’t think I’m patronizing here because I’m not. It’s easiest to speak and understand things in the simplest terms) So employers (business) have to pay part of the social security taxes for every employee. Furthermore, they have to pay their employees more because they know their employees won’t be able to keep everything in their salaries (because of the income tax). Now, the capital gains tax is the tax stockholders and investors have to pay whenever they make money from buying and selling stocks. And as you probably know, companies raise their capital through selling their stock. The capital gains tax makes it more expensive for investors and stockholders to invest in corporations because any returns they may make will be reduced by the tax. Finally we tax business again through the corporate income tax. This means we tax the profits a business makes at some percentage. Right now it’s at 35%. So we triple tax business through the income tax, the capital gains tax, and the corporate income tax. Let’s just say we could increase the dynamism of the market and the incentives to produce wealth dramatically by reducing these taxes. (For those of you that are anti-wealth, we can talk about that later)

Well I think that’s it. I’ve mixed a lot of my opinion in with the positions, but of course, that’s bound to happen since I’m telling you why I’ve changed my mind and decided to support McCain. So what should you do? Well, first of all vote this fall for McCain. But we all know that our individual votes don’t really make a whole lot of difference so…….. Tell all your friends to vote for McCain. If you run into someone who says they are going to vote libertarian, explain to them why they shouldn’t; and if you have friends who are voting for Obama…. Tell them why they shouldn’t. Remember, don’t underestimate the power of suggestion and conviction. As human beings we often look to our friends and peers to see what they think and that can have enormous impact into what we think and do. So don’t be afraid to talk people about these things (albeit in a humble and non-overbearing way). Oh, and by the way, this goes for talking about morality and Christianity too. Maybe I’ll write some notes later on those more controversial, yet more important subjects.

Like many Americans I am concerned with the progressive growth of the federal government. However, unlike many of my fellow Americans, I don’t blame any party, business or particular person; rather I blame the American individual. From our nation’s inception the government was designed with the bottom/up model – “a government for the people and by the people.” To better assist the people the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to specifically limit the powers of the federal government. Clearly the Founders realized a society produces the most when it has the most freedom possible and the only body that could limit this freedom was the federal government; if you read The Federalist Papers you’ll see how concerned the first thirteen states were. I think it is reasonable to argue that ‘freedom’ can be classified as an untangle resource, like truth, love, morals, etc, because where one finds freedom in abundance one will find a prosperous nation; and you’ll notice if you look back into history mankind has traded freedom for things. This also leads me to ask what has been a big contributor to the growth of the federal government and how does one take back and renew freedom?

Now surveying American history I notice a very clear link between warfare and American freedoms and the general moral/ethical condition of the nation. Beginning with the War of Independence, Congress had a very hard time funding, organizing and keeping troop levels up to supply the war. After the providential victory, Congress ensured they would be better prepared for war by expanding its power to fund and supply. America next had smaller wars with, for example, Native Americans and Mexico but none of these would compare to the inevitable Civil War over slavery. The American Civil War took some 500,000 lives and witnessed a relatively large growth of the federal government to ensure the Union stayed together; and to pay for it the federal government instituted the income tax.

The link between warfare and statism can no better be seen than in the 20th century during WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, Korea/Vietnam. In just 100 years America has suffered all of these wars and even today in the 21st century we are at war. Each event marks a progressive growth of the federal government to answer the war which is needed. Honestly if America did not fight in WWI or WWII surely all of Europe would be under, at the very least, some form of Nazi government; and possibly Russia. Today we don’t regret these two great wars and for all that they cost in money and life we realize it was necessary because today American see the fruits of our grandparents’ sacrifices. Europe and Japan have more freedoms today because of America. During the Great Depression FDR began the “New Deal” which funded federal programs to employee Americans and slowly bring the nation out of the hard times. Prior to and after WWII the government continued its growth by increasing federally funded programs such as social security; all with taxes. Today with the War on Terror this freedom is continuing to be exported directly to Afghanistan and Iraq. I can’t argue with the fact that the people of these nations have more freedoms now and more hope; but logically at the cost to me, my fellow American and the soldiers’ life, which is a piece of freedom. Therefore, in a real sense American “freedom” like a resource has been exported to other nations throughout history.

It is very much necessary during times of hardship (economic or war) for the people of a society to come together and pool their resources for the benefit of each other. The early Christian Church and the Plymouth colony, for example, exercised a form of socialism to ensure everyone survived; so I understand the importance of this socio-economic structure. America also had to do this during its many hardships. However, the problem is the federal government did not relinquish its power once the hardship was over and the people were capable of providing for their needs. This fact of not demanding the freedoms back I blame on the American citizen and I also believe this is where the moral/ethical condition of America plays into the growth of the “nanny state.” As people have moved away from self government they have naturally turned to the State government because they are lazy and would rather trade their freedom for security; they like the idea of not having to work as hard to pay for their living. But like what Benjamin Franklin said:

For those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither.

Only freedom guarantees security. Too bad the people who are complaining about the failure and shortcomings of all these State programs don’t understand this. Therefore, the answer to turning back the wheel of socialism in America and taking our freedoms back is with self-government – with limited federal government. It is my argument that the level of socialism is determined by the level sin, therefore, we’ll always have some level of socialism, but the goal is to have the least. We will clearly always need government to protect our border, make war and treaties, deal with issues between states, standardize things such as money and food quality, check monopolies, etc. This leads me to the final question: In order to renew the resource of freedom how is one to self-govern?

I think it is very reasonable to consider our founding Fathers as a good starting point to determine this because they are the ones who best understand the ideal of self government and freedom; they lived it.

• “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” - John Adams

• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.” – John Adams

• “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” –John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress October 11, 1798

•”I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.” December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

•”Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell.” John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817

•”God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” – Benjamin Franklin. Constitutional Convention of 1787

“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.” - Jefferson

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” - Jefferson

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” - Jefferson

Quotes of our Father

It is quite clear that self-government entailed believing in a higher power, the God, our Father, Savior, Holy One and Christ, in order to know how we should conduct ourselves; even Jefferson and Franklin believed in a higher power. Also by the Constitution it is clear the Founders wanted the people to mediate the moral/ethical standards and not the State. I’m not about to begin the debate over whether or not one religion is superior to another (although I will declare my bias of believing the Holy Bible is superior to all other works) but I will say due to history we should attribute the success of America in regard to developing a society of freedom to Christianity; broadly speaking because all of Europe was influenced by it. In contrast let us look at the fruits of humanism, atheism, pantheism, etc. The horrific events resulting from Nazism and Communism under Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind. Furthermore, the bloody history of Egypt, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire come to mind. I am not dealing in absolutes but statistics and in this context Christian influenced cultures have been the least violent; even though so many ignorant people believe religion is the source of war.

Freedom is indeed a resource and it is renewable by self-governing with preferably the word of God. Now I know would have a heart attack over this and begin foaming at the mouth because they confuse the Bible with bad experiences as a child with lukewarm Christians or a bad church. What I am stating is that God’s word is the source of self-government and not the imperfect people who attempt to live it out. Is there a problem with the Ten Commandments? Which ones and why? I have many questions and there are things of which I do not have an answer for but it is not reasonable to require oneself to be omniscient (about the Bible) before accepting what is being said. I realize this is the point, as it is always, where people are not willing to do what it takes for the sake of freedom. However, mark my words this is the only means to permanent freedom.

Wars, natural disasters, economic hardships are guaranteed to happen again and again and deplete our resource of freedom, as well as others, but what will determine the future prosperity or downfall will be whether or not Americans renew this resource by self-government because the only source of limitless freedom is to follow the Holy Bible; which doesn’t mean you have to be a Jew or Christian or go to Church. At the very least just following the instructions will enable self-government; the later part, being a Christian, enables one to have a deeper understanding and eternal life. It sounds unreasonable to many but it’s more than just another book because it speaks of a rich history of people who’ve gone through fundamentally the same as we have; it is very personal and applicable.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that I realize this is hardly a thorough dissertation of history, government, morality, religion, etc and there are many premises which I presuppose – such as the very definition of ‘freedom’ (Another post maybe). I honestly don’t have the time and patients to break it down because while we’re bickering over the premises while the structures of America are falling down around us. I’m a keen observer of history and its patterns, more than a philosopher, and history points in the direction of which I am arguing for; the specifics can be figured out as we go. I just wanted to introduce the concept that freedom is a resource, America has seen the exportation and depletion of this resource, and that it is possible to renew it by obeying the Holy Bible.

David Limbaugh, the less bombastic, more correct brother of that dynamic duo (oh to be a fly on the wall during their childhood), has written an article regarding Barak Hussein Obama’s “reintroduction” to the American populace.

First with Gore, we joked about Gore Version 2.0 and 3.5, etc.

Then with Kerry, we just joked.

And now Obama. Following in the footsteps of the grand masters of moral ambiguity, personal power-gathering, and political pandering, he is trying to reinstroduce himself because apparently, we don’t really know the “real” Obama.

Who as been that messianic, sainted, robed and haloed bright and shining light illuminating all the brightest corners of our unexamined American experience? His evil twin?

The one with ties to Chicago-corrupt political machines and liberal terrorist friends and racist anti-Christ preachers, that must’ve been his evil twin. For sure.

So he is trying to set the record straight, reintroducing us to the “real” him, the “real” Obama. One question: Why do they think this ploy will be even potentially effective? Because of relativism.

In the enlightened eyes of relativist philosophy, there is no unambiguous absolute truth. Everything is subject to perception, and that perception, to our addled minds, must be truth.

(Writing that just now caused some flashing lights in my head: Relativism is born of our own despotic egos trying to rationalize an incredibly over-wrought sense of our own self-importance. If we do not bow to some supreme truth, we believe our own thoughts to be our own ultimate truth. And if our own thoughts are necessarily subject to our own biased perceptions, we must find some way of convincing ourselves that our biased perception can still be considered actual truth. Ergo: relativism, the belief that my limited perception of a small part of truth can somehow rise to the same level as that absolute truth.)

So, if perception is everything to relativists, Obama should be expected to try and reinvent himself.

Unfortunately for him, truth always prevails.

Throughout this election we have seen and we will continue to see ugly skeletons crawling out of Obama’s closets. McCain steadfastly refuses to capitalize on these and I do not believe he has been the source of any of their “outings”, but Obama cannot hide that he is a liberal and divisive and corrupt as they come. The truth will keep finding a way out and he will be stuck in perpetual damage-control mode trying to cover over those pernicious things we call facts.

David Limbaugh: It’s Only About Winning

Booyah!

Think the issue of homosexual marriage isn’t that important, or that it is not indicative of such terrible possibilities as many seem to say? Think again:

From the AFA