It is common nowadays to hear people (especially scientists and if I may be bold, atheists) ask that we just look at the facts, and not let any bias interfere. Listen to what Obama had to say back in March when he lifted the ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research:

It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda—and that we make scientific decisions based facts, not ideology. (Janie B. Cheaney, “Popular science,” WORLD Magazine, July 4th, 2009, 32)

What the President is attempting to say here is that Bush enacted this ban because he was serving some sort of an ideology that prohibits research on embryonic stem cells. By the way, the definition of “ideology” is “the doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of an individual, class, etc.” Of course, the “ideology” that he speaks of turns out to be Christianity, of which both he and Bush subscribe to. Bush was a dedicated Christian who did not divide his beliefs from his actions, and was criticized for doing so relentlessly. And I might add that this a fundamental and radical difference that can already be seen between the philosophies of Bush and Obama: one believes that his actions should and will inherently flow out of his religion and the other thinks that in regards to religion, it is something reserved only for one’s private life and that “decisions [must be made] based on facts, not ideology.”

Unfortunately, facts do not interpret themselves. This point is made repetitively in an audio series, “If Evolution is Right, Can Anything Be Wrong?” According to Obama though, there are some areas of life in which there cannot be any differing opinions. The President means that embryonic stem cells offer hope to those with debilitating illnesses. Because they do, it is wrong to say that we should not experiment on human life. So while pro-life critics argue that we ought not to experiment on embryos since they are human lives, those from the Obama circle believe that the end justifies the means. In the end, Obama believes that certain areas of life such as civil government, cannot allow religion; there are neutral areas. Or put more bluntly, his actions show that he does not really believe in a God, or at least the Christian God he ascribes to. If he did, he would fear Him regardless of his position in society.

The problem (for atheists at least) is that science in itself becomes a religion. This is where we actually get back to my original question in my first post about when and why courts should get involved in civil affairs. Why do people ridicule Christians for their protests against abortion? They believe that they have an inherent right to privacy, free from all restraint. If you are bankrupt and have several kids, why can you not kill them? They are YOURS, and came from YOUR body (and they have part of your body in them), just like a fetus you carry. Americans have been led to believe that when the Declaration of Independence says that all men have certain rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), that means they can do anything that pleases them (with exceptions of course). But they cannot tell you why the exceptions are what they are (like killing your kids). If that makes someone feel happy, why can’t they do it?

Many people might use the same appeal for support of gay marriages, as if the Declaration licenses everything that anyone might find happiness in. Many people do not like to be reminded of the fact that the Declaration also states that people are given rights by their Creator. If Thomas Jefferson believed that (besides the fact that he went to church, and even donated tax dollars to them), why should we believe that he had anything as ludicrous in mind as making it a woman’s liberty to abort her child? One cannot take the Declaration’s (or anyone else’s) words, and force their own interpretation upon them. How stupid would it be for a murder convict to say, “I am of a religion which permits and encourages murder to further the human race. On the grounds of the First Amendment and freedom of religion, I ask that my beliefs be respected and that I be released”? We have an under-girding moral system in this country that prohibits murder, and so we would never give a thought that the First Amendment could make it okay. Our moral system used to outlaw abortion, and thus it would never have been thought that the Declaration (or Constitution) legalized it.

Since Christians are ridiculed for being so restrictive and “close-minded,” it is appropriate to here give an example of how even the other side does what liberals claim Christians do. Back in 2004, Dr. Mary Schweitzer found a T-rex bone in Montana that contained red blood cells. Now most scientists think that these dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. What does this mean? Well, if we were going to just make “decisions based on facts, not ideology” we would have to assume that T-rex lived only thousands of years ago, not millions. But this would never fit into the evolutionists’ timeline. Christians however, do believe that dinosaurs only lived a few thousand years ago. Said Schweitzer,

“I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew
that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data
[evidence] would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’” (Barry Yeoman, “Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery,” Discover (April 2006), 37:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna)

Let me rephrase that: even though she had found a physical bone with physical red blood cells, he could not believe that it was real simply because it messes with the evolutionists’ system.

Who exactly was being close-minded here? In all actuality the critic was being foolish, especially if we are to use liberals’ reasoning. Having said that, it is important to note that both atheists/evolutionists and Christians are on a level playing field. Both groups draw conclusions using different interpretations of the same realities. Moreover, they draw them by faith. Yes, evolutionists live by faith. Did anyone ever see the Big Bang? Has anyone ever seen life come from non-life? Or a monkey morph into a man? No, the atheist starts with the presupposition that there is no God. Then he works out a system that accommodates that belief. While I say that we are all on a level playing field, I will hopefully show in a future post why Christianity has the upper hand.

In conclusion, President Obama along with his evolutionist allies thinks that they can find a safe haven from religion’s reaches in science. They are wrong. Obama’s ideology holds that human life can be disposed of because it is an animal. It has no sacred worth but what it can do for society. No God; no rights but what men give. Bush saw embryos as tiny lives that bore the stamp of their Creator (and not animals), and thus were to be valued; using them for experimentation would not honor their special-ness. Let me close with this:

“Beware of the man who tells you that he will explain—
fully explain—any complex human action or event by resort[ing] to ‘coldly objective,’
‘empirically verifiable,’ ‘statistical data.’ He is deceiving himself, and perhaps seeking
to deceive you. For in the first place we do not all see the same event in exactly the
same way, let alone interpret it the same way—not even events which do not involve
the complicating factor of human purpose.” (Sylvester Petro, The Kingsport Strike (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1967), 27–28.)

December 2008: 52% of Californians vote for Proposition 8 and against gay marriage. May 2009: California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8. April 2009: Iowa Supreme Court overturns Iowa law against same-sex marriage arguing it unconstitutional. Is there a discontinuity that anyone notices? There is one that has been brought to my mind after thinking upon these two states’ battles: the flaws of a democracy. Why I recognized this now is a mystery. I began thinking about the will of the people and court interference. It brought a few questions to mind: 1) when should the majority’s will be upheld, 2) when should the minority be favored, and 3) why (in either case)? In California, the people were left as the final authority, and gays shouted: “It’s not fair to be run over by these religious lunatics! We want equality!” But in Iowa, it was the majority protesting elitism’s theft of their vote.

The founders of our country knew that a pure democracy would be dangerous to the minority. So they designed it so that the majority would be less likely to railroad the minority. What they came up with was a constitutional republic, which restrained the government. However, this plan only works in certain instances. For example, in a country with a solid law or moral base (aka Christianity). In the early years of our country, we were very Christian in our laws and attitudes. Men understood that while they were required to uphold the law, they answered to a Higher Authority. Countless times our founders appealed to God to bless their plans to get their rights back. Why? They believed that their rights as human beings and as English citizens were being violated. They believed that their rights came from God. Founder James Otis said:

The rights of every man to his life, his liberty, no created being can rightfully contest. They are rights derived from the Author of nature—inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible by any law, compacts, contracts, covenants, or stipulations which man can devise. God made all men naturally equal.

How are the courts to determine when the majority’s will should be upheld and when should it choose the minority’s? Without a solid law base, the courts will do this arbitrarily. Thomas Jefferson argued:

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gifts of God?

Take away God, and you end up empty handed.

This issue is so complex that it is hard to stay on homosexuality, because there are a host of other laws that prohibit actions that don’t seem harmful to anyone. Until recently, some states had laws against homosexual relations. There are laws against using foul language on prime time TV, and against child pornography (with severe penalties). What is wrong with those things? Or what about Janet Jackson’s incident with Justin Timberlake a few years back? Why can’t women strut around at the Super Bowl in nothing but a bra and panties? After all, one only has to go to the beach or a Kohl’s flyer for the same. The issue is this: law will be made based on someone’s worldview. Law will be defended based on someone’s worldview. Thus, a homosexual cannot just say that they have a right to marry because the Declaration declares that everyone has a right to pursue happiness. Their worldview tells them that man is the final authority; thus, man can do anything he pleases. This worldview also says that killing pre-born babies is a woman’s fundamental right, and that murdering people to advance man’s evolution is okay. In this worldview nothing is wrong. And instead of law being according to the unchanging law of God, the power in society rests with a group of arbitrary elitists. Where “[t]ruth is majority vote of that nation that could lick all others” (Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes) .

Our country is at a pivotal point in our history; one in which the last remnants of our Christian country are slipping away and we trying our footing on the slippery slope of secular humanism. Before the 20th century, Christian influence abounded. But in the ‘40s, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black completely misconstrued Thomas Jefferson’s words to the Danbury Baptist Church regarding the separation of church and state. Since then, his minority ruling has set precedence for many others. Suddenly we can no longer have Ten Commandments hanging in our courtrooms; we cannot talk about God in our commencement addresses, or set up Nativity scenes in the public park. In our efforts to make it “fair” for everyone and not to push our beliefs upon others, and make sure that the state is neutral in regards to religion and just be objective; we have horribly damaged our people. Does anyone remember having the numbers of rape, abuse, and murder that we have today 100 years ago? Every day, it seems, there is another murder, another sexual abuse, and another child killing. Has religious neutrality worked? Of course, we cannot forget Hitler or Stalin, who believed that they were helping the human race through their bloodthirsty massacres.

Back to our original question: when should the courts interfere and when should the peoples’ vote stand? When a law-standard is being violated by the people, the courts should interfere for the sake of the innocent (just who the innocent are will hopefully be confronted in my next article). When law is not being violated, the vote should stand. Many people would like to appeal to a natural law: homosexuals are not hurting anyone by marrying, thus they should be allowed to do so. This again is based on humanistic, atheistic, materialistic reasoning. If all that there is our material world (there is no God), then fine, they can marry. But I do not believe that is the case. Until my next article, when I will hopefully delve more deeply into the worldview issue, remember that nothing is neutral! Every decision you make, every law passed by Congress, is influenced by an undergirding belief system. Moreover a democracy will only last as long as the people in it adhere to a Christian standard. Otherwise, it will fall apart as ancient Greece. It will become tyrannical. If this country is to survive, people will have to learn to think in this way, and hopefully it will cause them to see the folly of humanism’s ways.

“You know, you might want to look into this, [President Obama], because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight. …

“Rush Limbaugh hopes the country fails? I hope his kidneys fail, how ’bout that?”

First off, I find it highly inappropriate to wish another person dead, and secondly, it is quite offensive and insensitive to make a joke about 9/11 by equating an influential radio personality to one of the 20 highjackers.  Whether or not you agree with Rush Limbaugh, his zeal and passionate remarks are out of his deep appreciation for American democracy, freedom and constitutional rights.  I am more than certain that the infinitesimal brain of Wanda Sykes has never been exposed to any of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program to begin with.  So, her remarks are unfounded and unwarranted and nothing more than childish personal attacks.  This behavior is unquestionably attributed to Wanda’s (and most liberals) disdain for Limbaugh because of the way he is negatively portrayed by the main stream media.  But I digress…  The point here is that in the wake of this incident there have been no calls in the MSM or by liberal watchdog groups like Media Matters for Ms. Sykes to apologize.  Of course not!  Instead, the response (or lack thereof) from the MSM and liberal supporters indicates that her routine was a real knee-slapper (because the joke targeted a Republican) and Republicans just need to lighten up and learn to take a joke.  But can the left take a joke of the same nature?

Let’s say that Rush had gone on his radio program and said that Wanda Sykes was a terrorist and he hoped that she died.  What type of reaction would that have garnered, after all, Rush was just trying to be entertaining?  I am just guessing here, but cries of racism in the media, defamation suits involving the ACLU and NAACP and public demonstrations organized by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?  Far fetched?  I think not.

David Feherty, a golf analyst for CBS Sports, recently came under heavy fire for a joke he recently wrote in a column for a local Dallas magazine.

“From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though,” (Feherty is involved with the “Troops First Foundation). “Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.”

Of course, the uproar from the left was outrageous upon hearing about this.  The spokespeople for Pelosi and Reid immediately came out denouncing these remarks.  Pelosi’s rep had this to say about the comments: “Such comments are beyond the pale and an insult to our patriotic men and women in uniform.”

And I thought the joke was directed towards Pelosi and Reid?  Media Matters for America representative Eric Burns said,

“Mr. Feherty’s violent comments about Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are disgusting.  “Suggesting that our troops would attack the leaders of the very democracy they’ve sworn to sacrifice their lives for is an insult to their integrity, honor, and professionalism. CBS Sports should demand it’s golf analyst apologize to our soldiers.”

CBS released a statement saying that Feherty’s column was an “unacceptable attempt at humor and is not in any way condoned.”  Feherty, as expected, issued a public apology.

Feherty’s tasteless joke was of the very same nature as Syke’s and both should have been equally condemned.  Instead, liberal intolerance reared its ugly head, deciding that only Feherty’s comments were unacceptable because they were directed at liberals.  But what do you expect?  The MSM supports the liberal establishment and they will do anything and everything in their power to trash the opposition, while always portraying their fellow liberals as witty, tolerant intellectuals who are always right and never wrong.

Or then there was this off-base remark by actress Janeane Garofalo responding to the Tea Party Protest back in April [For the record, Keith Olbermann is the biggest joke on national television that I know.  His “uh-huhs” and “uh-ums” in response to Garofalo comments, as if she is some sort of expert on this, are downright laughable]:

So, let me get this straight…since Garofalo didn’t agree with the views of the protestors or she didn’t like the anti-big government/anti-Obama sentiment of the tea parties it must mean that everyone who attended them were a bunch of intolerant, racist red-necks.  Hmmm?  Okay, I think I got it.  When the left doesn’t like your position on an issue or they think you are intolerant, they resort to name-calling so as to undermine and discredit you and your point of view.  How can someone who decries the intolerance of the opposition be so intolerant themselves?  Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Lastly, we have all heard about the controversy surrounding Miss California’s, Carrie Prejean, response to the gay marriage question she was asked during last month’s Miss USA Pageant.  Her response, which said that marriage should be between a man and a woman, started a media firestorm and lead to a string of personal attacks.  Since then, the attacks on Carrie from the media and other members of the left-wing, pro-gay marriage establishment have been nothing short of despicable and hateful.  As if the name-calling by the “esteemed” pro-gay blogger, Perez Hilton, and others wasn’t enough, they sought out ways to damage Carrie’s character and undermine her credibility by releasing nude photos of her (photos that she later said were taken without her consent).  The smear campaign organized by the likes of Perez Hilton and other liberal elitists was deeply concerning, but not surprising.  First amendment rights are not what they used to be anymore, at least if you’re a social leftist.  Any position other than what they believe is considered to be intolerant and wrong.  This type of elitism exists among the left in politics and science too.

Carrie Prejean gave her respectful, honest opinion about her stance on gay marriage, the very same opinion shared by President Obama, coincidentally.  Thus you can make the deduction that the controversy and the personal attacks go beyond her stance on gay marriage.  It can be attributed to her seemingly “intolerant” worldview, shaped by a belief in God, a belief that just can’t seem to be tolerated anymore by anyone who believes otherwise.

“Is all life sacred?”

Yes, all human life is sacred and the right to life is a basic human right intrinsic to all persons regardless of their size, level of development (age, mental capacity), environment and degree of dependency.  The rights of a woman and the rights of her child begin at the moment they came into existence. The question that needs to be answered by those who criticize the Pro-life view is: What is the unborn?  “How does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb change the essential nature of the unborn?” What makes us human?

“Do all fertilized embryos deserve the right to life? If we had to bring every single fertilized embryo to term, do you realize the amount of taxes we would have to incur to support the population?”

Yes, fertilized embryos deserve the right to life.  How should a civil society treat innocent human beings that would cause us hardship (i.e. more taxes)?  Does hardship justify homicide so that it will alleviate the possibility of more taxes?  I think not.

Let me pose this question: “If we continue to allow illegal immigrants to filter across the border without requiring them to become American citizens (and subsequently being required to pay taxes), do you realize the amount of taxes we will incur in order to support this growing part of the population?  Why is it that we are more inclined to give rights to illegal immigrants or terrorists than to a fertilized embryo?  What are the repercussions if our government continues to insist on treating radical, Islamic terrorists, whose mission it is to annihilate America, like Americans citizens with all of the rights of an American citizen (i.e. the judicial process, freedom from questionable interrogation methods)?  I would rather deal with the “hardship” of taxes incurred from preserving the life of a fertilized embryo than the taxes incurred from allowing a terrorist to sit in an American jail awaiting trial in the American judicial system or from an illegal immigrant free-loading off the American economy.

“The existence of absolute truth is highly subjective.”

The existence of absolute truth is only subjective when people refuse to investigate all of the facts.  If people really cared about finding the truth to an issue, they would follow the facts wherever they lead.  For example, the facts tell us that there is no scientific explanation or theory that is able to explain the gap between nothing and matter and the gap between matter and life, thus exposing the holes in the scientific theory of evolution and naturalism.

“The closest thing to absolute truth that human beings can comprehend is the existence of scientific laws and theories.”

Why is it that science is constantly adjusting its understanding of truth?  The scientific theory of evolution (whether you believe in it or not) lacks truth and credibility in many ways, yet scientists continue to search for answers and adjust their findings to fit their arguments in support of evolution.  For example, evolutionary science cannot explain the Cambrian explosion or why the fossil record lacks evidence of transitional life forms, but evolution is still widely regarded as the only explanation for our existence.  This is the problem with thinking that science is the closest thing we have to an absolute truth.  This undoubtedly leads to science being seen as the only method of searching for answers and explanations by using scientific reasoning, which is not a perfected system.  The science community will never be able to accept any of the facts that the Bible presents because these facts cannot be “tested” or they aren’t “tangible.”

I welcome scientific discovery and advancement.  Science has made great strides towards improving our way of life through advancements in modern medicine and many other areas; however, this does not mean that science is the closest thing to absolute truth.  The truth presented in the Bible stands firm, yet it is always quickly dismissed by society and science.  This is due in large part to the overwhelming presence of moral relativism in our culture which assumes that there is no right answer to a question, except science of course, right?  To use scientific reasoning as the source for truth on issues such as embryonic stem cell research, abortion or evolution, to name a few, is dangerous because it gives way to the same arrogance that you claim Christianity portrays.

“The issue I have with the concept of absolute truth is that it disregards the evolution of human intelligence and understanding.”

That is if you believe that humans are continuously getting better and better and will one day reach perfection…the absolute truth of the matter, explained in the Bible, is that human nature and understanding is continuously becoming more depraved.  One needs only to take a look around to see the growing presence of deceit, violence and evil in the world today.

“You will be hard pressed to find any humanitarian issue today that is not extremely complex.”

The absence of consensus does not mean there is an absence of truth. People once disagreed (and still do) about slavery, racism and genocide, but that did not make them complex issues. Nor did it mean that there were no right answers.  Today, the moral questions of embryonic stem cell research and abortion can be answered by asking one question: What is the unborn?  Once that question is answered, moral clarity is possible.  But, it remains to be seen if society will even bother pursuing moral clarity.

The good news is that the spending spree seems to have slowed (at least for now), but that has given Obama and his administration the opportunity to focus on stirring other pots in the kitchen.  At the end of March, the unthinkable happened (yes, even more unthinkable than the rampant spending spree over the last three months); at the behest of President Obama, Rick Wagoner was asked to step down as the CEO of General Motors.  As unprecedented as this was, it seems to have been lost in the shuffle with every other momentous event that occurred in the last three months.  You could make the deduction that this is what happens when the government supports you by giving you money or bailouts; they effectively own you.  Call up George Orwell, its time to party like its 1984.

April started off with the G20 meetings in Europe and Obama’s World Apology Tour.  Aside from handing over a great deal of American sovereignty to the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the IMF, Obama deemed it necessary to take the opportunity to apologize for all of America’s shortcomings.  In his quest to maintain his superstar status and his populist ideology, Barack Obama came clean about America’s arrogance and derisiveness towards Europe.  These type of confessions, according to White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, changed the image of America around the world” and made the U.S. “safer and stronger.”  Obama’s yearning for popularity and blaming America for the world’s financial crisis, lead to the acceptance of bad policies that forced America to meet European demands for strict regulation of tax havens and hedge funds.  Only time will tell if Obama’s ploy to “restore” America’s standing in the world community will help strengthen our national security.

Take a breath…

As if that wasn’t enough, in an act of transparency, the Obama administration continued their oxymoronic ways and released four controversial CIA interrogation memos.  Transparency to the American public or Obama’s way of placating the left?  This strategy offers little, if not any, help to America’s national security directive.  What this does accomplish, is that it emboldens the Islamic terrorists, magnifies anti-American sentiment and nullifies one of our most strategic advantages when it comes to ensuring our national security.  Isn’t it peculiar that the Obama administration and the Department of Homeland Security are more concerned about labeling and identifying “right-wing” extremists in our own country, instead of focusing on the most obvious threats like Islamic terrorists, Iran’s mission to eradicate Israel or dealing with North Korea’s defiant missile launch?  Is there an agenda behind this modern-day witch hunt ?

One hundred days in and so much damage has been done.  Let us hope that this is not a taste of the changes to come.

My whole perspective on the bonuses changed when it was revealed that Chris “Countrywide (see mortgage crisis)” Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and his staff removed a provision from the stimulus bill-the 1100 page bill written behind closed doors by house Democrats and signed by President Obama that no one had the time to read!  This exemption would have blocked the AIG executives from receiving their bonuses.  Dodd had denied any knowledge of these bonuses the week prior.  Woops!  We also discovered that Tim Geithner knew about these bonuses on March 3rd!  This is downright corrupt, but most everyone will give the Obama administration a pass because, “Hey, we should all just get along.”

Geithner knew about these bonsues weeks ago!

So why the crocodile tears Chris?  Why the crocodile tears Timmy?  Why the crocodile tears Congress and Obama?  What purpose did denying any knowledge of these bonuses serve?  Why does Congress then proceed to blow this thing out of proportion to make it seem like AIG has wronged the American people?  Could it be that they are trying to take the attention off their limitless spending and the worsening state of the economy?  Or is this one of Obama’s tactics to create class envy and label the wealthy individuals and corporations as evil and untrustworthy?  One can only wonder…

Last Wednesday Barney Frank, the uncouth, Elmer Fudd-Congressman from Massachusetts (sorry I couldn’t resist the ad hominem attack) and several other members of a house subcommittee, spent the day on Capitol Hill lambasting AIG CEO, Edward Liddy, about the bonuses.  Over the course of the day, Frank demanded that Liddy release the names of the AIG execs who received bonuses.  Liddy said that he would only release the names if he could be assured that they wouldn’t be made public.  Liddy’s request is legitimate, of course, given the death threats made against AIG employees.  Barney Frank’s response: “If you feel unable to do that, then I will ask the commitee to subpoena them.”

Uh, excuse me Mr. Frwank…these are private American citizens and you have no right to jeopardize their safety in your pursuit of “justice.”  The AIG bonus payments are not the issue here and AIG should not be the scapegoat.  The problem is big government and corrupt politicians like yourself;  politicians who will use any political controversy to boost their political capital and in order to gain undeserved favor with the American people.

To top it all off, the House passed a bill last Thursday that would tax 90% of the bonuses.  It is now awaiting Senate approval.  This is unconscionable.  It is yet another sign that our government is finding anyway to exercise greater control over individuals,  private industry and the free market.

Again, I go back to the question, why all the hoopla over $165 million after all the money that has been spent by the government on things much more controversial?  There is a reason for the deceit, the smoke and mirrors and the meaningless political rhetoric.  These crooks are well aware of their motives.  They would love nothing more than to shift all the attention to AIG and take the focus off the proposterous spending and failed economic policies of the first two months of the Obama presidency.  As a result, they come out looking like the good guys while corporate America, wealth-holders and Wall Street are viewed as the spawn of Satan.

Mr. Dodd, Mr. Geithner, Mr. Frank and the other Washington “Ivy-league intellectuals” would do well to heed the advice from a certain bible verse before they spend too much time chastising companies like AIG for their abuse of taxpayer dollars:

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Luke 6:42

What exactly does the word “socialism” mean?  Merriam-Webster.com defines it as, “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

A comment on a previous post asked what means of  production the government now controls that it didn’t prior to the Obama administration.  This question is valid, but it misses the point.  The first of the bailouts, valued at $700 billion, happened at the end of Bush’s term.  I was strongly opposed to this strictly because of the control it gave the government over our banks.  Similarly, I have been opposed to all of the spending Obama has done in his first two months.  However, Obama has just continued to fuel the fire and to this point he has failed to cauterize the wound.  Even worse, he has continued to propose bigger spending and more government control of the health care sectors, education and energy policies (i.e. cap and trade).  Has he learned nothing from the failed Bush bailout?  Remember how we were told that something had to be done now or else America could slip into a major panic?  Did that first bailout help the economy?  Why should we believe that throwing more money at the problem will make it go away?

The government has given almost $170 billion to AIG and now owns 80% of them.  Why?  Because Obama and his advisers think that AIG is to big too fail.  Well since AIG is apparently so important to the government, you would think that they would have known what was going on with the company (maybe like the bonuses that were just paid out…).  This whole thing reeks.  It gets better though…

The second bailout, which cost $787 billion, was signed into law by Obama in February.  This was the 1,100+ page bill that had several revisions sent back and forth between the House and Senate.  When all was said and done, no one from the opposition (Republicans) was able read through the entire bill stuffed with useless pet projects because the bill was sent to the president’s desk before this could happen.  And we were told that this would help to create jobs…

About a week and half later, Obama proposed his unprecedented budget, projected to cost $3.6 trillion.  His priorities for this budget: health care, energy and education initiatives.  Slow down Barack, your country has no more money left to spend.

Most recently, there was the $410 Omnibus spending bill loaded with 8,000 earmarks, which of course Obama  reviewed ‘line by line’ as he promised he would do during his campaign.  Already breaking campaign promises two months in?  Sounds to me like more of the same Washington politics.

So back to the definition of socialism; Do these policies not reflect the economic and political theories of Obama?  Have they given the government control and ownership of businesses responsible for the production/distribution of goods and services (AIG, Banking System, Auto Manufacturers)?  The answer is rather obvious.

Consider this final fact: In 1999, government spending made up 34.3% of the GDP.  Early projections expect that number to grow to 40% by next year.  Compare that to the 47.1% of GDP that a majority of European Union countries average on government spending, and it is clear that we are moving ever closer to become like the social democracies in Europe.

Part 2 of this post will look at the true cost of the bailouts and what it means for the future of this country and the national deficit.

Please check back on Tuesday evening for a detailed post on this topic.