Sunday, March 28, 2010

Pelosi’s analogy is all too clear

For an analogy to be worthwhile it must achieve the desired result. For example, one might illustrate a poor decision by comparing it to benching Payton Manning in favor of a rookie quarterback. Conversely, no one wanting to praise a military campaign will say it was as successful as Hitler’s siege of Stalingrad.

Such a short lesson in analogies. Yet for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it is a lesson unlearned. During the pro-healthcare speech she delivered just prior to the House vote she made a terrible analogy. Madame Speaker said, “We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, healthcare for all Americans.”
Pelosi’s comparison was wholly illogical. Why would a supporter of the healthcare legislation compare the bill to two bankrupt behemoths? That’s like bragging on your team’s chances to win the 2010 World Series by comparing them to the Chicago Cubs. To promote the healthcare bill Pelosi should’ve compared it to something, anything, besides Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security isn’t exactly the model for sound financial management. The New York
Times reported in 2004 that Social Security would be in the red by 2018 and the trust fund depleted by 2044. That’s not a healthy financial outlook, and even the Times’ dour forecast is overly optimistic.

Last year, Heritage Foundation analyst
David John painted a far gloomier portrait of Social Security. According to Mr. John, Social Security is running a deficit right now with little to no chance of reversal. He predicts that the trust fund will go broke in 2037, seven years earlier than the 2004 report projected. Furthermore, the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) says Social Security’s unfunded liability exceeds $17.5 trillion.

Medicare is no more secure than Social Security. In fact, Medicare’s future is far bleaker. The NCPA places Medicare’s unfunded liability at more than $89 trillion. That’s a big number. Let’s put it in its proper perspective. There are roughly 31.5 million seconds in one calendar year. If you earn one dollar for each of those seconds ($3,600 per hour) it would take 2.82 million years to satisfy Medicare’s future benefit obligations. In astral terms, 89 trillion is 15 light years away, or about three times the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri.

By 2054 the combined Social Security/Medicare payroll tax
burden will rise from today’s 15.3-percent to 37-percent. Half of all general revenues collected will be transferred to those programs in 2030, rising to nearly 75-percent in 2060. And these expenditures will be required of a government that consistently outspends its annual receipts.

One has to wonder if Speaker Pelosi realized what she was saying when she beamed about joining the creators of Social Security and Medicare. According to her own analogy Congress and the Obama administration have imposed upon America a program destined for high taxation, inadequate service, saucy bureaucrats, fraud, waste and future insolvency. If she was trying to boost public confidence in the healthcare bill she should’ve exercised greater care in picking her comparisons.

Pelosi’s words did nothing to confirm the legitimacy of her argument. However, through sheer chance, she couldn’t have been more on target. We’re a nation of enormous debt, a bloated budget and a growing sense of entitlement. Now we have a healthcare program that a third-grader wouldn’t believe will reduce any of the three.

Pelosi is correct; she and her party joined those who established Social Security and Medicare, and all the red ink that goes with them. That’s no accomplishment of which a reasonable person would boast. No wonder her
favorable rating is 11-percent.

Originally published at:

Gay weddings in D.C.: A sign of the times

So the District of Columbia is the latest U.S. enclave to recognize homosexual marriages. This will draw ire from social conservatives and evangelical Christians just as surely as a lightning rod attracts static electricity. However, those criticisms may be ignoring the larger problems.

Marriage is more a religious than legal institution. Religion, expressed in true faith, answers to a higher authority than government since legality isn’t necessarily synonymous with spirituality. Therefore, unless homosexual couples admit to worshipping government as their “higher authority” they can make no claim to marriage. And if they worship government they have adopted a false god, which renders their religion and their unions invalid.

Irony being what it is the first couple to plunge into D.C.’s gay marriage pond was two female reverends. Darlene Garner and Candy Holmes are leaders in the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), a church dedicated to canonizing the gay and lesbian community. What’s more, their ceremony was conducted at the offices of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), an influential lobby for the gay rights movement.

To say that MCC and HRC are biased is an understatement. In any other situation their partiality would result in their legitimacy being questioned. However, political correctness has deemed all things homosexual beyond reproach. Therefore all questions must come from a different angle, the religious angle.

How can Garner, Holmes and the MCC reconcile their ceremonies with the Bible they claim to believe? Biblical text, from beginning to end, contains vivid denouncements of homosexual activity. The Apostle Paul explicitly addressed homosexuality in his letter to the Romans, calling it “unseemly” and “vile affections.” Furthermore, Paul declared that people who commit homosexual acts realize their error but take pleasure in it anyway. The Mosaic book of Leviticus refers to same-sex relations as abominable. Moses taught that anyone engaging in such acts will face consequences.

The Metropolitan Community Church isn’t deterred. The MCC has rationalized these passages until the text fits both their sexual preference and civil agenda. An MCC ad campaign considers Christ’s healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew’s eighth chapter as the divine endorsement of a gay couple. Another ad claims that Ruth entered into a lesbian relationship with her mother-in-law, Naomi.

I have no doubt that Christ will forgive sinners; that is the basis for Christianity. In John, chapter eight, Jesus forgave a woman caught in the act of adultery, which could’ve resulted in the woman being stoned. He will likewise forgive the homosexual. But Christ’s forgiveness isn’t unconditional; repentance is required. Jesus also told the adulterous woman, “go, and sin no more.”

The MCC not only shuns repentance, ignores sin and promotes unsound doctrines but also twists the Scriptures to condone their positions.

Jesus himself spoke of such false prophets. The New Testament repeatedly warns of apostates, people with knowledge of the truth who have turned from it and taught others to do likewise. It’s difficult to view “Rev.” Garner, “Rev.” Holmes, and the Metropolitan Community Churches as anything but wolves in sheep’s clothing.

This is where many Christians make a mistake. We assume that government can rescue us from our moral descent. That change must begin in the hearts of men, which means in the church itself. Is that likely when churches publicly reject biblical teachings and cling to unsound doctrines?

We have all sinned. Yet there’s quite a distinction between repeating a sin and explaining it away. Christians cannot influence the world when the Christian witness is compromised and basic morals are ignored.

The answer to our cultural abyss doesn’t lie in governmental legislation or decree. It lies in the individual Christian’s witness and that of the church overall. I fear we’re failing that obligation.

When freedom succumbs to necessity

In December, 2009 the Los Angeles Times editorialized in favor of Sen. Lindsay Graham’s and Sen. Charles Schumer’s promise to resurrect comprehensive immigration reform. But where is their bill? Internet searches are fruitless and a review of THOMAS--the Library of Congress’ database of pending legislation--reveals nothing. Yet the bill must exist for it’s been discussed in reputable media outlets.

At the heart of immigration reform is a biometric national identification card. This card, according to a Wall Street Journal
article, will carry imbedded personal information used to identify legal workers. The key word is “legal”. Sen. Schumer believes the best way to stop illegal immigration is to require legal citizens to register with the state (as if we aren’t already). What an insult, not only to our liberty but also to our intelligence.

Page 214, Section 274A(a)(7), of the House’s immigration reform bill (
H.R. 4321) forbids creating a national ID card. Apparently no such protection exists in the clandestine Graham-Schumer proposal. Perhaps, like the healthcare reform bill, it must be passed before anyone can know how it reads. Anyway, it seems that every American worker will be required to obtain the biometric ID card. Doesn’t that sound a bit Soviet? Present your papers, comrade!

A biometric ID will, like all infringements on our liberty, be sold as a necessity. Frankly, legitimate government has no authority to sacrifice liberty on the altar of some ill-defined greater good. As William Pitt said of necessity, “It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

Why should American citizens be forced to prove our innocence in order to work while illegal aliens are granted amnesty? There must be a better alternative to controlling illegal immigration than an invasive ID card. Halting welfare payments, food stamps, free education and non-emergency healthcare for illegal aliens comes to mind. But these ideas only make sense if stopping illegal immigration is the Graham-Schumer purpose, which is doubtful.

Immigration isn’t the only area in which Americans are told to relinquish liberty because the government lacks the will and courage to perform its duties.

Look at air travel since 9/11. Six
imams sue an airline, and their fellow passengers, because the imams themselves behaved suspiciously. A suicidal bomber conceals explosives in his underwear and our government won’t even identify him as a Muslim. Thus we must remove our shoes in airports, face strip searches and submit to full body scans so Islam isn’t offended. Shampoo, nail clippers and knitting needles become weapons of mass destruction. It’s a necessity.

Another example lies in the right to bear arms. Innocence must be proven before government allows Americans to buy guns. We must prove our innocence to carry concealed weapons. Yet the thugs who are arrested for violent gun crimes sport rap sheets longer than War and Peace.

Criminals are criminals because they could care less about legality. They aren’t concerned with government approval. Criminals just act. Yet the lawful must allow their assailant sufficient opportunity to retreat or face possible prosecution from the same government that paroled the violent convict.

The entire outlook is backwards. Government confronts lawlessness and violence with greater restrictions on the blameless. If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion the prisons will someday be filled with the virtuous while the malevolent roam free. It’s a necessity.

Government’s failure to address crime results in the erosion of self-defense and Second Amendment rights. Government’s failure to identify enemies results in massive inconvenience and loss of privacy for American citizens. Now government’s failed border security means innocence must be proven in order to work and we should consider it a necessity? No thanks!

Originally published at:

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Guest appearance on the G. Gordon Liddy Show

Click on the link below to listen to my appearance on the G. Gordon Liddy Show. A special thanks to Mr. Liddy for allowing me to be his guest.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Democrat dogs bark at the facts

Will the truth set you free, or is that notion outdated? In a business, personal, or spiritual sense the truth unquestionably sets you free. However, in politics the truth will earn you scorn and a stint in the doghouse.

Senator James Forrester (NC-41) has experienced this phenomenon first hand. During a recent speech Sen. Forrester said “slick city lawyers and homosexual lobbies and African-American lobbies are running Raleigh.” The Senator apologized to anyone who may have taken offense. However, he also noted that cause for offense didn’t exist in his statement, which Democrats called “the lowest and worst type of politics.”

Who’s wrong and who’s right? Was Sen. Forrester engaging in hateful speech? Or did he merely declare what democrat politics are all about? Before you answer remember that truthful political dialogue invites attack. Now let’s look at it.

Slick city lawyers do play a major role in Democrat politics. Since 1990 the American Association for Justice (AJJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has donated $31.5 million to politicians. Democrats received $28.5 million, or 91-percent, of that amount. In no election cycle have Democrats received less that 85-percent of AAJ’s contributions and since 2006 the Democrat share has topped 95-percent.

AAJ opposes tort reform, reasonable malpractice awards and most anything that interferes with the bonanza known as tort litigation. The Democrat Party supports that agenda. However, few people care if trial lawyers are offended. Let’s look a little deeper.

Homosexuals. Now there’s an aggrieved segment of society. Did Sen. Forrester insult homosexuals when he included gay lobbies among Raleigh’s power brokers? It’s difficult to see how, unless homosexuals admit to seeking cause for offense.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the top homosexual political lobby in America. Would you believe that Democrats get 90-percent of HRC’s campaign donations? That percentage has increased in recent years. And why not? Democrats support harsher sentences for crimes committed against homosexuals even though crime is crime and should be punished equally.

This is no surprise. In the Democrat ideology it’s not enough for homosexuals to do what they do in private. No sir. Their activities must be accepted--if not openly embraced--by everyone. It’s an idea that permeates the party from the state level right through the presidency.

Is it possible that black lobbies and voters also favor Democrats? African-American lobbies promote race-based preferences in both employment and college admission. They demand wealth redistribution and a collectivist, centralized government. These ideas are harmonious with Democrat objectives.

Thus 95-percent of black voters favored Democrat Beverly Perdue for North Carolina’s Governor, 96-percent chose Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican Elizabeth Dole and 93-percent favored Democrats in congressional elections nationwide. Black voters favor Democrats even though the party’s policies have done more harm to black families and black economic progress than the Ku Klux Klan could ever dream of accomplishing.

Sen. Forrester should have included labor unions in the Democrat’s corner. Of the top 100 campaign contributors over the last 20 years, 23 are unions. Those unions contributed $499 million to political campaigns, nearly all to Democrats.

Connect the dots for yourself. Democrats control North Carolina’s government and receive great support from trial lawyers, homosexuals and blacks. Sen. Forrester spoke the truth and he’s been roasted over an open fire for his trouble.

It is the North Carolina Democrat Party, not Sen. Forrester, that’s engaging in the lowest form of politics. Democrats are ignoring facts and assassinating the messenger for the sole purpose of pandering to preferred constituencies. Truth may have made Sen. Forrester a target. But the Democrat’s reaction proves that truth hurts them far worse. Remember, the hit dog barks loudest.

Originally published at
Pundit House » Anthony Hager

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Don’t let anti-gun silence breed complacency

What should we make of a recent editorial arguing that the Obama White House has made no attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment and that Obama openly declared his respect for the right to bear arms during his presidential campaign?

It’s true that President Obama hasn’t advanced the gun control agenda. He hasn’t even sought a renewed ban on “assault” weapons. However, the idea that President Obama has more in common with Wayne LaPierre than with Sarah Brady is misleading. Remember the “bitter clingers” comment? Therefore, if eternal vigilance is freedom’s price complacency must be its worst enemy. The Second Amendment is under assault even as the Supreme Court seems poised to recognize the individual right it protects.

Rep. Bobby Rush’s Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act (
H.R. 45) would require a license to possess a firearm. That license would also be required to transfer a firearm and a tracking number would be assigned to each sale. Most ominous is H.R. 45’s prohibition on storing firearms and ammunition in any manner that a child could access.

Rep. Rush’s bill assaults the basic notion of a right. Free people need no government license to exercise a right. This bill would also create de facto gun registration and render firearms inadequate for self-defense. Unloaded guns are rather poor clubs.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee produced the Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act (
H.R. 257). Section Three in Rep. Lee’s proposal would impose 10 year prison sentences upon firearm sellers if they have “reasonable cause to know” their customers intend criminality. Section Four criminalizes the sale of a firearm without an approved security device. Section Five effectively forbids keeping a loaded firearm for self defense whenever a child is present, much like H.R. 45. Section Six requires adult chaperones for minors at gun shows. Under Section Six (b)(8) the offending parent can be charged with child abandonment.

Since a defensive firearm must be kept loaded and most homes contain children at least periodically it’s clear that Rep. Rush and Rep. Lee intend to abolish the use of firearms for personal defense. They also require dealers to be clairvoyant. To deny sales opens dealers to civil rights violations while approving sales opens them to prosecution. It’s a catch-22 for gun sellers.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act (
S.1317) denies firearms to “dangerous” terrorists (is there another kind?). What Sen. Lautenberg has authored is a clever ruse. No one can argue that denying guns and bombs to terrorists violates the Second Amendment, right? Let’s see.

Section 922A(1) of S. 1317 grants the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny access to firearms. The AG, under Section 922B(g)(1) can also withhold information used in the denial from the aggrieved party. Should gun owners feel secure if Eric Holder wields such authority?

What about Pres. Obama’s stated respect for gun rights? Well, politicians will say just about anything to get elected. Obama is on record as supporting a ban on “
assault” weapons. Furthermore, his administration is backing a U.N. treaty that would regulate the small arms trade worldwide. Don’t scoff. The President can constitutionally enter such treaties under Article 2, Section 2. Said treaty would become law under Article 6, at least temporarily.

Inaction on gun control doesn’t make President Obama a Second Amendment loyalist. Inaction doesn’t mean that politicians and bureaucrats hostile to private firearms aren’t at work. Gun owners will benefit from a dose of extra vigilance now, even while the gun control waters appear still.

This column originally appeared at American Thinker.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Texting ban is unauthorized, unnecessary and misguided

Driving is dangerous. That’s easy to forget because we do it daily. It’s common and completely comfortable. But comfort breeds distraction, even under ideal conditions. Insert text messaging and distracted driving increases exponentially.

To lessen that distraction Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act (ALERT). The proposal will coerce states to adopt laws banning drivers from texting while behind the wheel.

It’s hard to argue that texting doesn’t distract drivers from more pressing matters. Most of us have seen it happen. On the surface, ALERT sounds like a fine idea. However, to determine if Sen. Schumer’s proposal is legitimate we must dig below the surface.

Do we need the central government enacting anti-texting laws? Does Congress even have that authority? The answer is no to both questions.

Twenty-five states already have some form of ban on texting while driving. Those laws passed without federal prodding. Additionally, Schumer cites the regulation of interstate commerce as authority for his bill. He reasons that texting devices are produced, conveyed and used in interstate commerce; therefore Congress can take action under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to regulate commerce only, not personal acts or the private use of products.

Under Schumer’s reasoning Congress could ban anything. Ready for a federal ban on applying make-up while driving? How about federal bans on tuning radios or changing CDs? Should Congress prohibit conversation with passengers, or traveling with children? All can be distracting and all can be considered interstate commerce under Schumer’s misapplication of Article 1, Section 8. In fact, Congress can claim authority over anything with such an interpretation.

Let’s also consider Washington’s bully tactics. If Congress has constitutional authority to enact ALERT it should do so outright. But no! Congress prefers to force state compliance by withholding highway funds, which is how ALERT accomplishes the texting ban. It is an authoritarian act and the antithesis of Congress’ enumerated powers.

Frankly, it’s inconceivable that free people need Sen. Schumer to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they can quit on their own. Anyone who knows they shouldn’t be texting is smart enough to stop without Schumer’s assistance. Additionally, legislating to prevent drivers from texting ignores the basic function of law.

Laws don’t stop bad behavior, they identify it. There are laws against theft, rape and murder. Yet theft, rape and murder occur daily. The existence of laws does not prevent lawlessness, nor does law prevent people not inclined toward lawlessness from committing crime. Honorable people won’t steal, rape, or murder even if those acts aren’t criminalized.

Punishment after the fact, not prevention, is all we can reasonably expect from the law. Sen. Schumer isn’t so stupid as to believe his bill will prevent texting while driving, but he thinks we are that stupid.

Laws simply determine acceptable social behavior. To legislate for the punishment of texting while driving is one thing. To pretend laws will prevent acts that are easily self-regulated is slavish and immature.

A ban on texting while driving is sensible. Leave it to Charles Schumer to expand, corrupt and spin the idea until it makes no sense at all.

This column originally appeared at American Thinker.