Some Leading Democrats Don’t Seem to Care About Women

Debbie Wasserman Shultz is one of the least likable people in politics. She is a Florida congresswoman who has no shame and is an embarrassment to our country. She will attack her opponents with no regard for human decency. Differing opinions are valuable in a democracy, but this woman contributes nothing to our political discourse except hatred and bigotry.

Most recently, she has used domestic violence metaphors to describe what she views as Governor Scott Walker’s anti-woman administration. She said the Walker has “Given the back hand” to woman, and that “Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.”

She clearly does not have a problem trivializing domestic abuse by using it as a metaphor in a political attack.

What is especially aggravating about this situation is that liberals have recently demanded that college professors give “trigger warnings” to their students if content like domestic abuse will appear in a reading assignment. The liberal reasoning is that if a student has been a victim of violence, than reading about the subject could “trigger” negative feelings, therefore a blanket warning must be issued before reading, in case the material has any content that could possibly offend anyone about anything. I have written about this before, but today I simply want to ask Debbie if she supports trigger warnings, and if she does, why didn’t she issue one before she made her shameful remarks and insulted those women who have had to face the horrors of domestic violence?

It is instances like this that show how many Democrats don’t really care about woman, but simply want to use them for their own political advantage by inventing a “war on women”.

Meditation vs. Prayer

An astute observer can’t help but notice that there is a trend in our society of turning things form religious to secular. I am not talking about an outright rejection of religious practices and norms, such as denouncing God and refusing to attend mass. What I mean is that we are taking religious acts and beliefs, and simply secularizing them.

A mild example of this trend is especially prevalent among young people who say they are spiritual, but not religious. A great priest at Boston College, Father Neenan, used to respond to students saying this by saying “I’m spiritual too, I drink scotch.” He had quite the sense of humor. But his point was that in order to be religious and truly follow God, you need to belong to a group (i.e. a church). You cannot go at it alone.

A more extreme, and possibly more common example of secularizing religious acts is the movement toward “meditation”. Outlets like the Huffington Post and other progressive publications have articles exposing the benefits of taking time to relax, think, and contemplate life. Feeling stressed? Meditate. Have a big event coming up and want to prepare? Mediate.

Growing up in a Catholic home, this advice sounded very familiar. The only difference is that instead of calling it mediation we called it prayer, and instead of naively thinking that the human mind can solve all of its problems on its own, we would admit that we needed God’s help.

So it appears that the “mediation” hype is just secularists trying to re-invent the wheel. Secularists can’t acknowledge that believing in God has benefits for humans, so instead they take habits of the faithful and give them a different name. Hopefully people will begin to realize that all that “meditating” they are doing is really just praying.

Staying Strong in the Face of Terrorism

The rise of a new barbaric state in the Middle East has brought with it renewed threats of terrorism in the United States and Europe. The United Kingdom has recently upped its terror threat level as ISIS/ISIL threatens attacks. While we must always take seriously the threat of attacks on our homelands, we must also remember to stay strong and not cower in fear. That is what the terrorists want us to do, because it makes them look and feel powerful. If we abandon our liberties in the name of security, the extremists will have succeeded in destroying our western way of life, which is their goal.

This is not to say that we should not fight terrorism. I am simply saying that it is a fight that is as much mental as it is physical. If we as a people refuse to be terrorized and fearful, than extremists can’t win. They know they can’t win a conventional war against any legitimate western military, so they depend of psychological warfare to harm a population. We simply cannot give in to these tactics. So long as we remain steadfast in our dedication to liberty and use our military to destroy any imminent threat to our people, we will emerge the clear victor in this fight.

The Basket Case That is Europe

Boy am I glad my grandparents decided to leave Italy for a new life in America. They may have traded sunny beaches for cold winters in New York, but the positives still far outweigh the negatives. Europe today is in shambles, and things only appear to be getting worse.

Economically, the European Union is pathetic. Only Paul Krugman has the lack of intellectual honesty to claim that the European economic model of excessive taxation, and more importantly regulation, is superior to a more free economy such as the USA’s. Even before the crisis in 2008, the EU’s unemployment rate was consistently 4 points higher than the United States’. Today, It is not uncommon to see European unemployment rates over ten percent as Europe appears to be sliding into another recession. For all of Obama’s faults, at least America has been growing (if only at an anemic pace). Ill credit the growth to the GOP, who are blocking Obama from forcing through even more bad legislation like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the stimulus. But you also cannot discount the unbeatable American spirit and work ethic. It takes a lot more than one bad president to keep us down.

Europe has always shown its lack of economic competence by supporting continually expanding government (except in places like Scandinavia, where they are actually paring back government). But more recently the world has been reminded that Western Europe is also unwilling to stand up to bullies like Putin, even as he rolls tanks into Ukraine. You would think the Europeans would be tougher. Men and women are still alive who have memories of the horrors that came about the last time an autocrat decided to annex large swaths of territory. But alas, Russian natural gas is simply too important to Europe (I thought they were supposed to be using all renewables by now?). So Germany, the only country on the continent with any relative economic strength, lets Putin off with light slaps on the wrist. Part of this is President Obama’s fault, of course. Before he came along, the USA would have at least tried to be a leader in sanctioning Putin in a meaningful way. Instead, we put light sanctions on him in a reactionary way because we didn’t want to “escalate” the situation and prompt him to do something drastic like annex Crimea or invade Eastern Ukraine. Oh wait…

It remains to be seen what will come of Europe’s economy and Putin’s aggression. Hopefully all will end well, with an economic boom and a dialing back of military tensions. No use cheering for more human suffering to occur.

Humility and Conservative Ideology

It takes humility to be a conservative. In fact, I believe being humble is a big difference between liberals and conservatives. A liberal believes they are smart enough to engineer a society to conform to their own views of justice. A conservative acknowledges that people are unique and complex beings, who when put together form an even more unique and more complicated society that cannot possibly be fully comprehended by a single person or group. And without fully understanding something, says the conservative, there is no use trying to alter it “for the better”. There is a small chance the proverbial tinkerer will get it just right and the risk of unforeseen and unintended consequences is too high.

Lets use the economy as a case study. Liberals claim they can fix a bad economy by manipulating interest rates, regulating businesses and using fiscal policies such as deficit spending. Conservatives on the other hand realize that an economy is an immensely complex thing that is the sum of millions and millions of little decisions made by all the people in the economy each day. Because of this complexity, it is foolhardy to think that even the best minds in the world could ever take the perfect actions necessary to fix such a complex thing. Best to leave the managing of an economy to the millions and millions of interconnected yet impersonal people making their own decisions for themselves, and let the magic of the free market do its thing.

This is not to say that government fixing an economy is literally impossible. In theory, a government could take the exact right measures at the exact right time needed in order to improve economic conditions. But this task is simply too hard to complete and the risk of causing more harm than good is too high. It is the equivalent of having a first year biology student preform brain surgery. Yet liberal minded people still have the hubris to believe they can accomplish such a task.

Bias Against Conservatives in Academia

As students begin to flock to college campuses for the fall, we are reminded of the sad truth that on many campuses, conservatives are considered backwards, bigoted, anti-intellectual fools who are against the progress of mankind. It is no secret that academia is full of liberal minded Phd holders. I have written on this subject before, but I think it is worth re-visiting.

I have no problem with liberal professors on campus. I think that universities ought to have an intellectually diverse faculty so that students can be exposed to opposing views, and ultimately decide for themselves where their loyalties lie. Perhaps someday this will be a reality at schools, but I won’t hold my breath because it has been this way for a long time. Even in the 1920s, academia saw the conservative presidencies of Harding and Coolidge as dark spots in history that followed the “enlightening” terms of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson may have been responsible for thousands of American deaths by entering us into World War 1, but at least it was with the good intentions of “making the world safe for democracy”. Bush may have used the same excuse to go into Iraq, but I doubt academics will ever give him the same “good intentions” credits they give Wilson. In comparison, the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge ushered in a new era of rising living standards for the average American. It wasn’t called the Roaring Twenties for nothing.

This brings me to my central point: despite being scoffed at by “smart people”, true small government conservative policies work. Free markets are responsible for our prosperity and constitutionally limited government (not simply majoritarian politics) is responsible for securing our liberties. The types of policies peddled by the “smart people” are what cause the problems in our society. A few examples:

We have poor people, so lets create government programs that traps the poor in poverty and treats them like children instead of human beings.

People should own houses so lets use a series of government policies to encourage banks to give loans to people who can’t afford them (what can possibly go wrong?).

The economy has crashed due to our poor policies, so lets spend trillions of dollars we don’t have and hope growth magically happens (if that doesn’t work, maybe we should put sawdust in the economy’s engine).

Our health care system is broken because government distorts the market, so lets use more government to try and administer a national health plan.

These examples could go on and on, but that is a good taste. Maybe someday academia will wise up and realize that perhaps societies are too complex for them to micromanage and engineer.

Warren Buffet is Good at Two Things: Making Money and Tricking Democrats

The difference between rich republicans and rich democrats is that often time republicans will at least admit they want to minimize their tax bills and make a lot of money. The same cannot be said for guys like Warren Buffet. He says rich people should pay more taxes, but he goes out of his way to take advantage of every loophole in the book. He justifies his actions by saying that his contributions would only be a “drop in the bucket” unless everyone else also paid more.

Two things:
1) Even if everyone else paid more, his increased contribution would still be the same “drop in the bucket”
2) Did Jesus not live by the morals he preached simply because himself alone could not suddenly make the whole world moral?

Today we got more news from Buffet, mainly that he is helping Burger King move their headquarters to Canada to take advantage of their more favorable tax policies (which makes sense considering the USA has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world). Liberals are naturally calling foul on this play because they don’t believe in companies minimizing their taxes (though many high profile liberals don’t mind legally minimizing their own taxes, even if that means using tax havens). Many are also disappointed that Buffet, such a loyal supporter of the President and supposedly a rich guy who “gets it”, is helping facilitate BK’s move. But this should surprise no one. Buffet is most likely just as self interested as any other rich and powerful person. Just because someone gives to charity and talks as if they are against rich people doesn’t mean they are consistently loyal liberals.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with what Buffet helped BK do, or that he minimizes his tax bill. I’m just saying that people on the left shouldn’t be surprised that the richest man in the world isn’t a male version of Elizabeth Warren.