The Moral Relativism Of Left-Wing Logic

May 9, 2013 2 Comments

Heather MacDonald of the New York Post has a piece attempting to figure out what she calls the madness of liberal moralizing. In the world of the left a 15 year old is mature enough to buy the one pill version of the morning after abortion pill. That same 15 year old isn’t mature enough for the two pill version of the morning after abortion pill. The 15 year old also isn’t mature enough to smoke a cigarette until she’s 18, some liberals want to make that 21. The 15 year old in question isn’t mature enough to have a glass of wine until she’s 21. In liberals minds no one is mature enough for a 17oz Coke nor are we mature enough for raw milk cheese or unpasteurized pancetta from Italy.

The FDA is investigating age restrictions for caffeinated beverages. So our 15 year old, who by liberal logic is mature enough to have sex and take one morning after abortion pill but not two is nonetheless not mature enough to drink an energy drink or perhaps a cup of coffee. Over in Europe the EU wants to criminalize seeds which aren’t registered with the government. How long before our left decides this is a terrific idea in order to protect those who aren’t mature enough, all of us apparently, to eat vegetables grown by unregistered seeds?

We all know the common denominator here is sex and abortion, both of which the left will defend in nearly all circumstances. As far as the left is concerned any 15 year old is mature enough for sex and aborting a baby without her parents knowledge but at the same time they want to throw parents in the slam for giving their kid a glass of wine. The logic only makes sense in light of the left’s obsession with free sex and baby killing. Neither of which the left would care about but for the fact that they help tear down Christian society and further leftist agendas, particularly the left’s eugenics agenda.

We’ve been treated to leftist hypocrisy in the news just this week. The sexual enslavement of three women in Cleveland resulted in several dead babies that were buried in the back yard. The media was very concerned and outraged over this. Yet the same media isn’t covering the Kermit Gosnell trial. Gosnell is an abortionist who killed late term babies out of the womb. The man kept a pair of pickled baby feet in a jar on his desk. The left-wing media isn’t interested in this story in the least but the babies who were killed by a slime ball kidnapper are to be mourned. Both situations are outrageous but the left refuses to be outraged over the grisly details of an abortion clinic because to be outraged over the death and gore of an abortion clinic would call into question the entire practice of abortion.

The left loves to regulate our lives, they love to tell us what we can and can’t do. We can’t have cheese made with raw milk, we can’t have a glass of wine until we’re 21, we can’t have a 17oz pop in New York City, we couldn’t have foie gras for awhile in Chicago etc. But at 15 the left will defend the maturity and right of a girl to have sex and kill her baby without parental consent. She isn’t mature enough of course for two pills, just one. She also isn’t mature enough to quit school, truancy laws keep her in school until at least 16 if not 17 or 18 depending on where she lives. She also isn’t mature enough for a R rated film. But she can get a baby killing pill. The moral relativism of the left is appalling.

Filed under abortion Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Gun Control A Matter Of Freedom VS Slavery

April 17, 2013 16 Comments

It looks like Obama’s gun control bill is going to be up for a vote today in the Senate. Whether it will pass or not isn’t clear at this point. Sen. Harry Reid has acknowledged that he doesn’t have the votes, though he claims the winds are shifting in his general direction. The Toomey-Manchin proposal, which would close a loophole concerning internet gun sales which really doesn’t exist, hasn’t seen the widespread support the two of them initially thought it would. While the press is making a big deal out of the Senate vote, it’s worth nothing that unless Speaker Boehner wants to lose his job this issue won’t even come to a vote in the House.

It’s been rich watching the administration the past week or so. They’ve been using the families of Newtown victims as props in their push for gun control that would have done nothing to prevent the Newtown crime. The nation was subjected to a weepy mother during Obama’s weekly radio address. If the nation is swayed by an illogical, emotional response from a grieving mother than there is no hope for our nation’s future. It is foolhardy to have public policy dictated by emotion. The fact is, nothing in the proposed bill would do anything to prevent Newtown. Joe Biden even acknowledges this.

According to Obama, Congress shouldn’t “defy” the American people by shooting down gun control. It’s funny, Obama wasn’t worried about defying the American people when he forced through Obamacare against the nation’s will. In his world only the “enemy” (read: Republicans) can defy the American people. Obama was just doing what’s good for us when he forced through Obamacare against the people’s wishes. Obama was punished, harshly, by defying the American people. He got his Obamacare but he lost the House, probably for good. The GOP risks more by defying their constituents, which overwhelmingly support opposition to gun control.

Gun control zealot Nanny Bloomberg believes there’s something wrong with your family if you sell a gun to your kid. Apparently one can get around just about any background check by buying a gun on behalf of a family member then selling it to them. Maybe Bloomberg’s dad simply gave him everything in life, in the real world family members buy and sell between themselves all the time. There must be something wrong with you if you sell a gun to one of your kids for $100. What exactly is wrong isn’t clear. It’s also not clear if there’s something wrong with you if you sell a car, house or computer to your kid. This is a typical left-wing tactic, criticizing family and trying to tear it down and apart. There must be something wrong with these families, we should submit to the collective.

Gun confiscation is the goal here, it’s already happening in New York. The goal is a national gun registry, then they’ll create regulations which ban the ownership of guns for just about everyone. Guns equal control. If the people cannot legally own guns, government will be in full control over every aspect of our lives. If we have the freedom to own guns, government can and is kept at bay, however minimally. The government wants us to be completely dependant on them for security. We need only look at cities like Chicago and Detroit, which have strict gun control, to see that the state isn’t capable of providing us individual security. (interestingly cities like Houston, which has fairly lax gun control, have less crime) If we want to be dependant and controlled, we’ll support gun control. If we want to be independent and free, we’ll oppose it.

Filed under Guns Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Who Do Your Children Belong To?

April 9, 2013 10 Comments

Who do your children belong to? The answer of course is that they belong to God. In fact, we all belong to God as he created us from dust. From here the question is who did God entrust with the raising of children. The answer is families, on the specific issue of education (spiritual and otherwise) the answer is fathers. Remove God from the equation and the question becomes open and debatable. Over at MSNBC, host Melissa Harris Perry wants children raised by the collective. She wants to rid the world of the idea that children belong to their parents, she doesn’t like this sort of individual thinking. Thus we have a debate as to whether children belong to their parents or the collective.

Briefly looking at Perry’s statement, it could have easily been said during the progressive heyday in the early 20th century. The whole point of government education was to separate children from their parents and indoctrinate them at schools which were charged with shifting the nation in a progressive direction. Thomas Dewey and Horace Mann, the fathers of the progressive government school movement were quite up front about what they were doing. Leftists the world over followed their lead. Hitler dismissed opposing ideology by claiming that the Nazi’s already had the children and their parents beliefs would be gone soon. All of the communists banned private education. In Germany today homeschooling remains illegal thanks to laws ordained by Hitler.

The flip to this is the libertarian notion that children belong to their parents. Perhaps more extreme libertarians might argue that children belong to themselves. Either way, we Christians must be careful with this position as well. We are charged with raising children in a Godly manner. While we certainly find more agreement with the libertarian or individualist position, it’s still not one that we should fully embrace. We are only entrusted with raising our children, they don’t belong to us. Having said that, individual families making individual choices for their children is far more preferable than leaving children to be raised by the whim of a collective. (read: government)

Parents know what’s best for their children. Government really ought not have any say over the matter. For the progressives, this position is a threat because they know they can’t change American society without capturing children. Just look at the homosexual marriage issue, 15 years ago the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed homosexual marriage. Today a majority support it. The difference? A generation of young people have been indoctrinated in the virtues of homosexuality at the government schools. It’s the young who support it the most. If government and progressives didn’t have access to the nation’s children support for homosexual marriage would be nowhere near what it is today.

It should hardly come as a surprise when the progressives over at MSNBC push collectivist ideas. What’s interesting is that they did it in a promo so it was a planned statement rather than a spontaneous comment made during a debate. MSNBC is doubling down on their extreme left-wing propaganda. Look for them to feature more collectivist ideas in promos and ads in the future. Miss Perry’s position is wrong of course. Our children don’t belong to a collective, it does not take a village to raise children. It takes a family, with one mother and one father if you want the best odds for children to grow up happy and successful. In the end, our children and we ourselves belong to God. We don’t belong to ourselves or to a collective, we belong to God.

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Soda Ban Exposes Progressive’s Totalitarian Desires

March 13, 2013 2 Comments

By now everyone has heard that a judge issued an injunction against Nanny Bloomberg’s soda pop ban. I haven’t had the opportunity to read the opinion (I don’t even know if a written opinion was even issued) so I don’t know what law the judge applied in issuing his injunction. Since I’m not a lawyer in New York and am generally unfamiliar with their laws I wouldn’t want to guess. In this issue we’ve seen the far left show their true colors. They want to control our every move. It’s hilarious that they’ve exposed themselves on an issue as ridiculous as this. Make no mistake, they’ve exposed themselves.

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski threw a hissy fit over this ruling. She declared that movie theater owners were killing people with salty popcorn and pop. She declared sugar is poison, then told us we should be mad at ourselves for buying pop and other products that contain “poison.” She then exposed what the left is really up to in all of this. Brzenzinski declared that the sugar industry is going to be brought down via litigation, just like the tobacco industry. That isn’t really a surprise but Brzezinski is probably about five years ahead of the curve here. Make no mistake though, litigation is being eyed by liberal groups on this matter.

Meanwhile our old pal Piers Morgan wondered on Twitter what the point of being Mayor is if the Mayor can’t make his city healthier? For those who pay attention to the news in New York, Brooklyn broke out in fights the other day. The job of the Mayor isn’t to regulate what people eat, it’s to make the streets safe. Morgan went further in declaring that sometimes we need the nanny state to tell us what to do. Adults ought to be able to decide for themselves whether they want 17oz of pop or not. In the world of Piers Morgan, that’s a decision best left to the government.

Nanny Bloomberg is addicted to cheez-it’s. You know, those disgusting bright orange, salty crackers. It’s funny how he isn’t trying to place restrictions on the purchase of food he likes. It’s only soda and other sugar drinks that he wants to place restrictions on. Part of the problem here is that we’ve allowed government to get involved in our healthcare. If we were responsible for our own healthcare, then we would bear the cost of being overweight. Instead, government is paying the bill and we can hardly be surprised when government pays the bill that they want more control over the personal decisions we make.

The future of healthcare and freedom in this country is pretty clear. If you want single payer, socialist healthcare then you have no problem with the government restricting what we put into our bodies. If the government foots the bill for every medical procedure we have, they’re going to want a say in you eat. The left will tackle this in three ways. They’ll tax foods they don’t approve of, they’ll sue the manufacturers of foods they don’t approve of and they’ll ban foods they don’t approve of. Personal choice, personal responsibility and personal freedom won’t exist anymore.

What the left is offering is nothing short of a totalitarian state. What we eat may seem like a minor issue but it isn’t at all. There is nothing more personal than what we choose to eat. It affects all of us daily, usually several times daily. It’s bad enough that government has banned unpasteurized cheese from Europe, we don’t need them limiting how much Coke or how many french fries we consume. These matters are simply none of the government’s business and yet they are because of the socialist health system we’ve allowed to slowly creep into existence since the 60′s. Nanny Bloomberg is just the beginning. It’s easy to dismiss him as an extremist. In a decade though governments across the country will be enforcing the same ban he’s tried to place in New York City. Courts across the country will hear cases against food manufacturers for selling “poison” to people. Give it time, the far left playbook is abundantly clear. They want totalitarian government and they’ll stop at nothing to get it.

Filed under Food Police Tagged with , , , , , , ,

It’s Come To This: The Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act

March 11, 2013 Leave a comment

Josh Welch, a second grader at a Baltimore government school, was suspended for two days. His offense? He nibbled away at a pop tart turning it into the shape of a gun and then pointed it at friends in what one can imagine was a game. The timid souls at the government schools suspended the kid, up in New York no doubt Nanny Bloomberg wants Josh’s parents locked up for giving him a pop tart. It’s bad enough the school suspended a kid for making a pop tart gun, they made matters worse by offering counseling for any child “troubled” by said pop tart gun. If I were a kid I would be more troubled by the utter stupidity of those in control than I would be by a pop tart gun.

State Sen. J.B. Jennings has introduced what might as well be called the Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act. The bill would limit the overreactions common among the timid souls who run government schools. Sadly Josh Welch’s case isn’t atypical. Little boys across the country are being punished at government schools for pointing fingers at each other and saying bang. A 9 year old in metro Detroit brought cupcakes to school for his birthday (who knew those weren’t banned by the liberal food police?). The treats had little plastic toy soldiers on them, which of course caused the school to fall to pieces. No word on whether traumatized students have been offered counseling.

There are two things going on here. First is a hysteric overreaction to the Sandy Hook school shooting. Last I checked the shooting was perpetrated by an adult, not by a pop tart wielding child. The notion that little boys pointing their fingers at each other or that plastic toy soldiers on cupcakes creates a threat or is somehow a form of intimidation is ludicrous beyond belief. Surely even the timid souls at the government schools know they’re being ridiculous. Which, if so, suggests they’re really up to something else.

No doubt the left views the children of today as the generation that will ban guns in the future. That’s one reason why they’re trying to scare children over guns. They’re also waging a war on boys, which is their broader goal. For decades the government schools have waged an assault on boys. They don’t just promote girls, they tear down boys. Anything that is generally common among boys is torn down, be it playing war games at recess, gym class, focusing on heroes in class etc. The government schools has for decades pushed to drug little boys so they’ll sit in class. The hysterical over reaction to pop tart guns is both an over reaction to gun violence and a typical reaction to anything boy.

This is yet another example of why people need to remove their children from government schools. Especially so for Christian parents. The godless government school worldview that they teach children ought not be acceptable to Christian parents. That the schools on a regular basis fall to pieces over common things boys do ought to concern us almost as much as the worldview. We’re laughing at the teachers in Baltimore and metro Detroit for their over reaction. But they’re not laughing, they’re very serious. They really think pop tart guns traumatized students, they really think cheap, plastic toy soldiers on cupcakes pose a risk. The sort of worldview that prompts these reactions to seem as normal is a threat to the future of our republic.

Filed under Guns Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Obama Expands Drone Strikes To American Soil

March 6, 2013 8 Comments

Back when Bush 43 was President the anti-war left, Obama included, pitched a hissy fit over drone strikes on terrorists. In fact they pitched a fit over both wars and the detentions at Guantanamo Bay. Since Obama became President the anti-war left suddenly fell silent on all of these issues. Thus proving that they really weren’t against the war, they were just against Bush. Obama didn’t stop the wars immediately, in fact got involved in a third war in Libya. Guantanamo is still open. No one seems to talk about that anymore, the press suddenly doesn’t care how the prisoners there are being treated.

The bigger issue today is that the left is silent on drone strikes. They were outraged over drone strikes on terrorists, accusing Bush of killing children and other innocent people. Obama hasn’t just adopted Bush’s drone strike policy, he’s expanded it. From all accounts Obama goes through terrorist files and picks and chooses which ones to attack. Bush limited attacks to foreign terrorists, Obama with Eric Holder’s help has expanded the attacks to include Americans who may be working with our terrorist enemies. Thus these American citizens, evil though they may be, are denied their Constitutional rights. Obama is their judge, jury and executioner.

All of the drone strikes in question have taken place on foreign soil. It would be one thing if during the course of war the American military killed Americans who are wearing the combat uniform of a foreign power. But these drone strikes involve people who pose no direct threat like, for example, someone who pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. These are people who may be hatching evil plots but at the time of their execution via drone strike they don’t pose an immediate threat. If Holder believes killing these Americans is Constitutional what is to stop drone strikes on American soil?

Nothing according to Eric Holder. Holder in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul says that while conditions for an American soil drone strike may be rare and unlikely, it would be constitutional. Holder already set the precedent for killing Americans via drone strike abroad. He’s using that precedent to expand it to include American soil. All it takes is an American ”terrorist” and a President willing to push the button. All in the name of public safety of course. Any lunatic dreaming big evil dreams involving death and destruction in his parents basement are potential targets of Holder’s policy. All in the name of public safety.

It’s potentially worse than that. Political opponents can be branded as terrorists and taken out via predator drone. More than a few Democrats called the NRA domestic terrorists after the Newtown shooting. Under Holder’s precedent the President could decide to take out the NRA headquarters in Virginia. All in the name of public safety of course. If we elect ourselves a particularly evil President, it is hardly out of the realm of possibility that this precedent could be used to take out members of other political parties. If the Supreme Court doesn’t like it, he’ll drone attack them too.

Obama is unlikely to attack political opponents in this manner. But that’s not the point. The point here is that we’ve seen this administration expand the use of drone attacks to first include American citizens and now to use drone attacks on American soil. There are no limits on these drone attacks other than the limits the administration has created for itself. We’ve seen these limits erode over just the last four years. Congress needs to limit the power of the President to use drones on American citizens. In fact, Congress would be wise to eliminate the Holder precedent by banning drone strikes on Americans altogether. The government should not be entrusted with the power to declare Americans terrorists without a trial. The potential for corruption is far too great.

Filed under constituton Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Obama Wasting Political Capital On Gun Control

February 26, 2013 9 Comments

The true colors on the far left have been seen in recent weeks concerning gun control. In Washington a gun control bill included home searches, in Missouri and Minnesota bills included gun confiscation. California Democrats are threatening to ban gun manufacturers (I’ll bet they move to Texas) and New York Democrats passed the most far reaching gun control bill in history. The Justice Department apparently believes most of Obama’s gun control proposals won’t work. Their solution is confiscation and a national gun registry. It should hardly surprise anyone that Eric Holder’s Justice Department favors gun confiscation. He’s supported it in the past.

This is typical of the Obama administration. The White House comes out with a proposal and eventually we discover that a government agency has a more radical plan to float around. The administration distances itself from the more radical plan in the hopes that suddenly their proposal, itself extreme, looks more reasonable. This is how the radical left has shifted the country for the better part of a century. The NRA is using the Justice Department plan to attack Obama, as well they should. Eric Holder and those in the Justice Department work for the President. The buck stops in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile in order to harass Republicans, the Obama machine’s Twitter arm is sending fake tweets to members of Congress. Apparently liberals were supposed to send copious amounts of tweets to Congressmen concerning gun control. When that didn’t happen, team Obama simply sent tweets on fake accounts. The administration response is that the twitter arm is separate from the White House. Anyone who believes that will buy a bridge for sale in Brooklyn. The White House and the campaigning and organizing arms of team Obama are all interconnected. These fools don’t even have the sense enough to lie about it. They could easily have blamed a computer malfunction. Instead, they sent reporters to the team Obama circle wherein everyone points the finger somewhere else.

Maybe this is the best Obama can do to get through to Republicans. It’s no secret that he loathes and despises the GOP. In fact, he hates Congress generally. Recall he never worked well with Democrats when they had super majorities in both Houses. Rather than call Republicans to negotiate Obama sent his Twitter minions to harass. It’s sort of pathetic when you think about it. The President must know that he’s unlikely to get much of anything passed on gun control.

The President used the Newtown shooting to gin up support for gun control. Conservatives rightly wonder where Obama has been as minority kids have been shot down in the hundreds in handgun free Chicago. Not just one year either, hundreds of minorities are killed yearly in handgun free Chicago alone. The President has been silent for four years, never bringing up gun control until after his re-election. His push for gun control has been disingenuous and purely political from the beginning. Never let a good crisis go to waste has been this administration’s motto. In the case of gun control he picked the wrong issue to hammer away at. He won’t get what he wants and he’s wasting political capital for nothing.

Filed under Guns Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Nanny Bloomberg’s Progressive Paradise

January 12, 2013 Leave a comment

Nanny Bloomberg is at it again. This time he’s trying to restrict painkillers at city owned hospitals. Bloomberg alleges that use of painkillers is a “major problem” that requires city intervention. For those who go to a city owned hospital and for whatever reason cannot obtain painkillers, you’re out of luck. For such people Bloomberg says “so you didn’t get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit.” No soup for you, come back one year! Nanny Bloomberg isn’t content regulating how much pop people drink in New York or whether they have a cigarette. He’ll stop at nothing until New York is rebuilt in his image.

Painkiller addiction is no doubt a problem in some sectors of the country. Bloomberg’s order is for city owned hospitals, presumably privately owned hospitals wouldn’t have to comply with Bloomberg’s order. The problem here is that this is a massive overreach of government. The City of New York is now stepping in between a patient and a doctor to dictate what the doctor can proscribe his patient. Because the city owns the hospital, they are well within their right to do that. Surely we wouldn’t begrudge a church hospital from doing this. The issue here is that leftists like Bloomberg want government run and controlled health care.

In Bloomberg we see the future that progressives crave. It’s a future where know it all politicians and bureaucrats dictate to all of us what we can and cannot do. With complete government control of health care there isn’t anything to stop the government from limiting how many pain pills a doctor prescribes or just as bad how many a patient receives. Whether the government argues that pain pills are dangerous or expensive, there is limited recourse for a law abiding patient in pain. While the patient is in pain, politicians and bureaucrats pat themselves on the back for protecting the pained patient.

All of Nanny Bloomberg’s proposals and laws point to a future progressive paradise where the government dictates everything to us for our own good. With government health care, government is perfectly in the right to limit how much pop its citizens drink. After all, the government will be charged with keeping costs down and we all know how expensive fat people are to the system. So are drug addicts, so government will most certainly have to limit painkillers. Bloomberg and company will always have access of course, it’s just us little people who need protecting.

There is of course an alternative to this progressive paradise: Freedom and free markets. If we get government out of the way on health care we can open the health care market back up to the free market. Let people eat at their own risk, let them obtain pain pills at their own risk. Insurers will increase prices for the fat and addicted or individuals will have to pay more for extra treatments. What we don’t need is the government stepping in and telling us what we can and can’t do all while telling us its for our own good. The adults of New York and the United States aren’t children. We certainly don’t need the government to treat us as such.

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , ,

Leftists Attack The Constitution

January 3, 2013 5 Comments

The left has spent the better part of the last month attacking the Constitution. It began with the Sandy Hook shootings which brought calls for massive gun control and/or an elimination of the 2nd amendment. A Constitutional law professor wrote an op/ed in the NY Times Sunday suggesting that we don’t bother following the Constitution anymore. Over in the UK, they’re demanding that we eliminate free speech. If we are not governed by the Constitution, just what will we be governed by? This is of course never mentioned by the liberals who want to rain on the Constitutional parade.

Louis Seidman suggests that following the Constitutional form of government is ludicrous and antiquated. He more or less argues that the Constitution should be viewed not as the law of the land but as a grand list of governing suggestions. It’s sort of like how the left views the Bible, they ignore what they don’t like. What this means in practical terms is anyone’s guess. Seidman suggests that the government will of course protect free speech and freedom of religion. But one gets the feeling that Seidman would do away with the 2nd amendment. Seidman wants to change the foundation by which our governing institutions claim their legitimacy but if we have no Constitution where exactly do these institutions claim any legitimacy?

When a nation goes down the slippery slope of ignoring its founding document it ends in tyranny. If we don’t have to follow the Constitution what is to stop Congress from passing laws banning free speech? They’re attacking free speech on Twitter, demanding “hate” speech be banned. While privately held Twitter can ban whatever speech it wants, the argument rests on the speech other countries ban. The argument is against the American 1st amendment. If we no longer need to follow the Constitution there will be nothing compelling Congress, the President or the Supreme Court from enforcing Constitutional protections such as free speech.

All free nations have a founding document of one sort or another that details the powers entrusted to the government. The Magna Carta and the Constitution are perhaps the two most famous. When a nation begins to ignore the founding document tyranny usually sets in. The French Revolution saw one Constitution after another destroyed by tyrannical politicians who ignored such documents. The result was Napoleon. The Wiemar Republic had founding documents which were ignored and ultimately eliminated by Hitler. We may not head down the path of Napoleon or Hitler but what exactly will protect our freedom if the government won’t follow its founding document?

The left hates the Constitution because it limits their ability to turn America into a European Socialist state. The only way they can win in the end is to discredit the Constitution, mock it and convince the public that it is worthy to be ignored. We’re seeing an increasing assault on the Constitution from the left, largely because it prevents Obama from going forward alone with his left-wing plans. Make no mistake, if a Republican were President the left wouldn’t be attacking separation of powers in the New York Times. We must as a nation ask ourselves whether we want a government unlimited by the Constitution. Do we want a government that has the power to cast aside the first amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. If we’re willing to cast aside the details of the Constitution, we’re willing to forgo free speech, free press and freedom of religion. Give the government and inch and they’ll take a mile.

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Big Government Is What Keeps Blacks Poor, Dependent

December 10, 2012 Leave a comment

Law Professor Michelle Alexander of Ohio State’s Law School spoke at an event sponsored by Detroit’s Central United Methodist Church. This church resembles a Saul Alinsky styled community organizing group as opposed to the bride of Christ. Alexander criticized the American prison system, alleging it is a race based caste system and the moral equivalent of Jim Crow. She detailed the negative consequences of having a felony on your record all while pretending the prison system is aimed squarely at blacks. There is much to criticize in American criminal law. But the blame for black poverty doesn’t belong on criminal laws, it flows from the destruction of the black family by the welfare state.

We could spend quite a bit of time attacking American criminal justice. Our drug laws have built countless prisons to house otherwise non-violent felons. Our drug laws have created the gang underworld which thrives on violence over drug distribution. If Alexander wants to attack those laws on non-race grounds, that would be one thing. But to pretend as though those laws are focused squarely on blacks ignores the fact that thousands of white people have been convicted of these crimes and suffer the same post-sentence consequences as blacks and other minorities.

No doubt post-sentence consequences play a role in keeping convicted felons in relative poverty. The problem isn’t those consequences, it’s the law in the first place. But even these laws aren’t to blame for modern black poverty in America. It would be easy to point out that under Obama the black middle class has been destroyed. But the problem for blacks, and to a lesser extent poor whites, goes well beyond drug laws. It’s easy not to get convicted of a drug law, all it takes is staying off drugs and not selling them.

What keeps blacks and poor whites down is the welfare state which has replaced fathers and men with the government. The illegitimacy rate in the black community is 80%, it would be even higher if over half the abortions in this country weren’t black babies. Men aren’t needed to provide for a poor family anymore, it’s easier to have government provide. It’s more cost effective, no one has to work. Since the 60′s Great Society welfare programs black illegitimacy has skyrocketed and male delinquency has not surprisingly mirrored these rates. Men aren’t needed in the black community anymore. For men rather than serving the higher purpose of a family, they serve the higher purpose of gangs and when they don’t do that they make life go away with drugs and alcohol.

It isn’t any better in the poor white community, where the illegitimacy rates are lower but shockingly high at over 40%. Government has replaced men with welfare. Both the black community and the poor white community can justifiably complain about terrible government schools which don’t exactly kick start any career other than drug dealer, juvenile delinquent or knocked up teenager. Poor whites and blacks have more in common than liberal black social justice advocates care to admit.

The theme in all of these problems is government. Government created the war on drugs and has built hundreds of prisons to lock up non-violent drug users, to say nothing of the violent gang drug sellers. Government has created the welfare state, which has dispatched with husbands and fathers in exchange for a monthly welfare check. It is government that has sent up all the negative consequences for families and society from not having fathers in the home. It is government that is responsible for the disgraceful education available at the inner city government schools. Don’t fool yourself, your suburban school isn’t all that great either.

Rather than demand bigger government, Alexander and Detroit’s Central United Methodist Church would be better served advocating for smaller government. Big government has done little more than create big poverty for blacks. We can begin with Jim Crow, which outrageously used the power of government to keep blacks down. Now we can focus on the welfare state and other big government programs that have radically altered the black family (to say nothing of poor white families). The black community has never embraced what will truly make them equal: less government involvement in their lives and a strong nuclear family. Alexander will cry racism over the prison system but that’s not what keeps blacks poor. Government and the unintended (intended if you see a racial motive) consequences of big government are what keeps blacks poor and in an endless cycle of poverty.

Filed under race Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers