Liberals don't understand rights

From the Huffington Post, we read this new tactic of one, radical liberal who wants to foist gun control on us:

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

OK, so it's not that new – I've heard variations of this argument before. I just think it's hilarious. I really don't think such an assault on common sense could ever gain much popularity among the population at large and certainly couldn't become law. Still, liberals have surprised me before so I never take their crazy ideas too lightly.

Do I really even need to explain what's wrong with the idea of making self-defense illegal? Such a bizarre concept can't even stand up to its own logic: The constitution also says I have the right to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, an attacker who intends me harm or an intruder who intends to steal from me has already infringed upon my rights. So the liberal's solution is that I should let this person victimize me so he can face a fair trial later? This is why I say liberals are brain damaged.

I believe the flaws in this argument are self-evident so I won't waste any more time pointing them out. Instead, I want to use this as an opportunity, once again, to educate liberals in the concept of rights.

Our founding fathers believed our rights are endowed by our Creator. It's not the government or the constitution that grants us our rights. They are literally, God-given. We establish governments to do things like keep the peace, build roads, and defend our borders. We give them the power to make laws and we agree to live by those laws. We also understand the government needs money to do the things we expect it to do so we also agree we'll pay taxes.

When we grant the government so much power, we risk creating a tyranny. To help prevent this, the founding fathers placed specific restrictions on the government saying there are certain things we will never allow it to do: it cannot infringe on our right to practice our religion, for example, or to speak, or to assemble, or to own guns. The government can't search our homes without a cause and, if we're ever accused of a crime, we must have a speedy trial and be judged by our peers – not by some bureaucrat. The thing to remember about our Bill of Rights is that the restrictions are meant to limit what the government can do and protect us!

Private citizens aren't restricted by the Bill of Rights. One right I have is the freedom of speech. This specifically means I am able to share my thoughts about politics or religion or whatever strikes my fancy and the government cannot censor what I have to say. Believe me when I say I have a lot of opinions and I exercise my freedom to speak every time I blog. If you have a different opinion than mine, go start your own blog but don't expect me to open my blog to you so that you have a forum. If I want to censor the comments people leave on my blog, I will. If I should censor someone's comments, I'm not “violating” his free speech. He's free to speak somewhere else. I'm not obligated to provide someone else a forum to speak but neither can I stop him.

Liberals have a misunderstanding about rights. They believe the constitution gives us our rights and that it's the job of the government to guarantee that we get to exercise our rights. For example, liberals believe there is a “right” to health care. Therefore, they want the government to either provide medical insurance (like medicare or Medicaid) or force private employers to provide insurance. In other words, if someone doesn't have medical insurance, liberals think everyone else is obligated to provide that person with insurance so that his right to health care is not infringed. This attitude about rights is exactly backwards. It grants more power to the government and places more burdens on citizens.

The liberals' abuse of rights can be seen in many forms. I've already talked about the “right” to healthcare. There's also some imagined right to birth control so Obamacare requires insurance companies to provide contraception for free. There's a right to have an abortion so federal funds are made available to groups like Planned Parenthood. From time to time, liberals bring up the fairness doctrine that would require radio stations that air conservative radio hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, to provide equal time to people with a liberal point of view. They believe this “protects” the freedom of speech by ensuring the speech is “balanced.” That's funny, I don't remember the word “fair” being part of the first amendment – only “free.”

So now liberals want innocent, law-abiding citizens to become victims so that rapists, murderers, and burglars can be guaranteed their right to have a trial. I'm sorry, but that's not my job. The criminals are the ones who are putting their lives and liberty at risk when they choose to commit crimes. If someone tries to harm someone in my family, I will let God judge him; I'll also do what I can to arrange the meeting.

The Yawn Factor

People who read my blog have probably already guessed that I'm very disappointed and a little surprised by the election results. There's been a lot of talk from the right since Tuesday about why we lost the election and theories abound. In my opinion, Obama rivals Jimmy Carter as the worst President in my lifetime. Both are failures in their foreign policy. Both presided over disastrous economies. Both saw fuel prices sky rocket during their terms. At least Carter can be thanked for real estate values rising during his time in office (a silver lining in the gloomy cloud of the high inflation seen in the 70's) but home owners have watched the values of their homes fall below the amounts of their mortgages due to Obama's lack of a plan to save the housing market.

As much of a failure as Obama had been, I was under the impression that there was no way he could be reelected. The disappointment in his policies hasn't just been felt by me and other Republicans, many Democrats have felt the same way. Support for Obama has waned considerably since 2008. Obama was elected into office with 69,498,516 votes. That was nearly 10 million more votes than McCain received. In this last election, 9 million fewer people voted for Obama. If just ½ of those 9 million had voted for Romney this time, he would have been elected. Instead, they must have decided to stay home.

The ebb in Obama support is only ½ the story. If Romney could have held on all the McCain voters, he would have only needed a few hundred thousand more votes to beat Obama. With the eagerness of the right to get Obama out of the office, I would have thought everyone and his brother would drag people to the polls to vote. But it was not to be. Romney actually got 2 million fewer votes than McCain did!

It seems to me that elections are being decided not as much by the engaged voters but rather the apathetic couch potatoes. Conservatism beats liberalism every time and if we had true conservative candidates, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. Every primary, though, Republicans vote for the candidates they think are the “most electable.” They look for moderates who will supposedly appeal to the “independent” voter so we end up with weak candidates like Romney, McCain, and Bob Dole.

There's nothing appealing about Obama's policies. He certainly can't boast a successful record. He should be an easy candidate to beat. Why couldn't we beat him. We don't have a candidate that conservative voters can be enthusiastic about.

Have you ever heard a Republican say he would hold his nose and vote for McCain or Romney? It's because they're not excited about the candidate but would prefer him over a Democrat like Obama. If a Reagan-like conservative were on the top of the Republican ticket, people would turn out in droves to vote for him. As it it now, they vote reluctantly or stay home.

Yawn.

The Crack Pots are Liberals

Just recently, I had a light-hearted discussion about the statistical fact that believers in UFO's and Big Foot are usually evolutionists. It was a half-joke in response to the common claim that creationists are crack pots who subscribe to junk science.

So, Brian Ross, a “reporter” for the alternative news outlet, ABC, is on the air talking about the CO shooting when he carelessly makes a tenuous connection between Jim Holmes and the Tea Party. You can see the irresponsible statements in this video.

There's something familiar about comments like this. It reminds me of how evolutionists call creationists, “crack pots.” I've noticed that whenever fringe nuts commit crimes, there is a usual response among left-wing “reporters” to quickly blame conservative groups and radio talk show hosts for inciting the incident with their “hateful rhetoric.” Do you remember the calls to tone down the rhetoric after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford? I recall they blamed Sarah Palin for having bulls-eyes over certain congressional districts on her website. The funny thing is that these early, careless reports always turn out to be wrong. The Jim Holmes who is a member of the Tea Party is not the same Jim Holmes who murdered a dozen people in the CO movie theater. The man who shot Rep. Gifford was not political and likely never even visited Sarah Palin's website.

But let's pause for a moment and think about this. What if Holmes really had been a member of the Tea Party? What does that mean? Does that suddenly make the Tea Party a terrorist group? Holmes was also once a PhD student at the University of Colorado. Does that mean the University of Colorado is a terrorist group? Any attempt to link Holmes to any conservative group is nothing more than a pitiful, guilt-by-association argument.

Liberals should think twice before trying to make a connection between Holmes' crime and his religious or political associations. I've seen the pictures and videos of Holmes. I'm not a professional, criminal profiler or anything but let me tell you what I think about Holmes. He doesn't strike me as the church-going type. I would guess he's more likely an atheist or at least he's non-religious. He probably doesn't vote but, if he does, I would wager that he's registered as a Democrat. He has not attended any Tea Party rallies but I suspect he's sympathetic to the Occupy Movement (Occupy seems especially popular among young, college students).  I'll bet he has expressed concerns over global warming and believes we should raise taxes on the rich.  He's not a member of the NRA. He doesn't hunt or fish. He's not a Ditto Head.  I am also 100% sure he is not a young earth creationist but is, instead, an evolutionist. Does anyone think I'm wrong on any of these points?

I think that liberals' attempts to label extremists as “right wing” are red herrings to move the subject away from the truth – that the nuts are usually liberals. Oh, by the way, I did a search of Obama donors and found that there was a James Holmes who gave to Obama's campaign in 2008. Now, I'm not sure if this is the same Jim Holmes who committed the shootings but....

If I Wanted America To Fail

Here's a provocative video put out by a group called, Free Market America.  The video speaks for itself so there's not a lot I could add except maybe, "Amen"!

What's Not Being Said About Rush Limbaugh's Comments

We've all heard about Rush's remarks concerning law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified before congress. We've all heard about Obama's call to Ms. Fluke, offering his condolences for Rush's remarks. We've all heard Nancy Pelosi's seeming outrage and her comment that Rush should be “advertiseless.” We've all heard Sean Hannity and other conservatives correctly identify the double standard of Democrats who condemn Rush's remarks but have no comment about the hateful things liberals say about conservative women. Well, here's something you probably haven't heard:

I'm a firm believer in free speech. Rush's remarks, though they may be offensive, are his opinions and he has the liberty to speak them. Of course, since Rush broadcasts over publicly licensed radio signals, there are certain words he's not allowed to use. Beyond that, he can speak his mind no matter how extreme his views may be.

Like Rush, Bill Maher is free to speak his mind. Unlike Rush, however, Bill Maher broadcasts over cable television so he can even use 4-letter words which Rush can't (and he uses them frequently). Compared to Maher's comments about women, Rush's use of words like “slut” and “prostitute” are somewhat tame. Even so, Rush Limbaugh's and Bill Maher's comments are both protected by the First Amendment.

Not only are Rush and Bill free to speak their views, but we who listen to them are also free to condemn them. Some people have called for a boycott of Rush. Some people are canceling their HBO subscriptions because of Bill. The people who are upset with Rush or Bill and are reaching out to sponsors are simply exercising their free speech. When someone like Rush or Bill speaks his mind, he might persuade or repulse others. Listeners will either affirm or condemn their remarks. This is the marketplace of ideas. This is liberty.

What I see wrong in this whole affair is the condemnation of Rush made by elected, public officials. The First Amendment specifically protects the political speech of private individuals from the government! If President Obama uses the bully-pulpit of his office to shame Rush, he is using the power of the Presidency to infringe on the Rush's free speech. When Nancy Pelosi suggests that advertisers should drop Rush, she too is infringing on his First Amendment rights.

The left in notorious for their war on liberty. They don't care that Rush has free speech; they want to silence him. Neither do they care that their radical views on contraception (which inspired Rush's comments) violates people's freedom of religion. And while we're at it, what about their continuous maligning of FOX News? Have they noticed the First Amendment also protects the freedom of the press?

And let's be clear about something: these liberals aren't really offended by Rush's remarks; we know this because they say not one word about Maher's much worse misogynistic remarks. They are specifically interested in squelching Rush's political speech.

So let's sum up: private individuals are free to make offensive remarks. Other private individuals are free to embrace or reject those remarks. We can call on other people to boycott talk shows when the host says something we don't like. We can even boycott companies that decide to drop advertising on talk shows that we do like. We can say and do all these things and elected officials should not be able to use the sway of their office to influence our private discourse because our rights are protected by the First Amendment.

They do use their political sway, though. Fortunately, I have a blog and intend to exercise my right to speak out about the shameful tactics of these enemies of liberty.

Rights Belong to Individuals

In my last post, I talked about how Obama-care has mandated employers to provide things like contraceptives and other services which might conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. In an effort to defend this dangerous idea, liberals have raised many weak arguments. One example of a weak argument is the idea that, since pregnancies and babies are expensive, paying for contraceptives actually reduces the overall cost of health care.

The wisdom of this argument (if any) rests on the premise that it's better to sacrifice individual liberties for the betterment of society as a whole. In this case, by forcing employers to pay for contraceptives, everyone enjoys lower health care costs. This same argument has been used for years regarding seat belt laws: since seat belts saves lives and reduce injuries, forcing individuals to wear seat belts reduces health care costs to society.

First, let me ask: Is this really the precedent liberals want to set? Do they really want the benefit to society to be greater than the rights of the individual? In this case, they probably do which is why they raise the argument. However, this opens the door to tyranny. According to this logic, what would stop congress from passing a law mandating that everyone use contraceptives? Some might say, “Well, congress wouldn't do that” but the question still remains if congress has the power to do it. If we buy into the argument that congress can decide what's best for society – even at the cost of individual liberty – then yes, we've given them the power to do it!


In case there are liberals who still don't see the danger, let me ask this: what happens if next year, congress decides there aren't enough babies being born?  For the good of society, congress decides that no women may use contraceptives.  If the benefit to society is the objective, then what argument will liberals use then?

Second, there's a glaring flaw in the liberals' arguments: You see, the very notion that society incurs a cost for individuals' health care decisions stems from the liberal idea that society should pay the costs individuals' health care. Here's a suggestion: if someone makes a poor decision, let him suffer the consequences of it. When people don't have any consequences for bad decisions, it's a license to sin.

Since we've been talking about contraceptives, let's talk about a related issue – out of wedlock births. Today, more than half of all births to women under 30 are out of wedlock. In almost every area examined, children born to unwed mothers suffer for it. They are more likely to live in poverty, to drop out of school, and to commit crimes. What is the liberal solution to the problem? It's to give money to women who have children out of wedlock! Unmarried mothers often get food stamps, free health care (Medicaid), rent subsidies, daycare subsidies, etc. What if they have still another child? Why, they get more money, of course! Here's the weirdest part – if the women consider marrying the fathers of their children, they understand they will likely loose their government benefits. So women have babies and get benefits – they marry and loose benefits. By the way, with contraceptives so readily available, why is the illegitimacy rate so high anyway? Given the fact that illegitimacy rates are so high, do you think that at least some women might have an incentive to make bad decisions?

Consider the alternative. What if women who have children don't receive more government benefits but are simply burdened with another mouth to feed? What if they knew they would be saddled with higher and higher daycare costs for every child they have (while they have to work two or three jobs to pay for it)? If a woman knew how much of a burden a child would be, might she make better decisions about birth control or premarital sex?

Compelling all people to share the burden of those few who make bad decisions is another road to tyranny. When individuals have no consequence for making bad decisions, they have no incentive to make better decisions. This leads to higher and higher costs for the rest of us. It's the exact opposite of what liberals are trying to argue now. There is no savings. If something seems “free,” then more people will abuse it which leads to higher costs. If women believe they can have children with no consequence, then the overall cost to society is greater: higher poverty, higher taxes, higher crime, higher dropout rates, and higher everything.

Rights belong to individuals. So do responsibilities. When the government tries to protect the rights of society at the expense of the rights of the individual, it's not liberty. It's despotism.

Who Has the Biggest Right?

It's not unusual for liberals to lie but the lies... I mean “political spin”... surrounding the contraception controversy are getting a little more whopping than usual. On the DHHS website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, “This proposal [the Blunt Amendment] isn't limited to contraception nor is it limited to any preventive service. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. This is dangerous and wrong” (bold added for emphasis). Nancy Pelosi has said the Blunt Amendment is, “part of the Republican agenda of disrespecting women’s health issues [by] allowing employers to cut … basic health services for women, like contraception, mammograms, prenatal and cervical-cancer screenings and preventive health reform benefiting 20 million women” (bold added for emphasis).

Lie, lie, lie. The impression given by these statements is that Republicans want to take away women's access to birth control or any other “health care” service they might want to deny on a whim. It's a bold misrepresentation. No one is denying or even discussing denying women access to any health service. The only question being raised is, “who has to pay for it?”

The controversy was raised when Catholics began to publicly and strongly object to the DHHS guidelines that mandated Catholic employers like churches, hospitals, charities, and colleges, to provide contraception to their female employees as part of their employer-provided health insurance plans. The Catholic church objects to the use of contraceptives and said forcing them to pay for contraception for its female employees violates their freedom of religion.

What part of the First Amendment is ambiguous? Let me remind everyone what the Bill of Rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Catholic Church has long objected to the use of contraceptives. To suddenly mandate the Church to pay for contraceptives for its female employees clearly places a prohibition on their free exercise of this long standing belief.

But liberals see it differently. They believe other rights exists – like a right to “health care.” Now, I've read the Constitution but I can't quote it from memory so I've done a word search on the Constitution. Curiously, the words, “right to health care” aren't found anywhere. By the way, neither could I find a “right to privacy.” If these rights exist, they aren't enumerated the way our freedom to religion is. At best, they are implied.

Let's assume, for a moment, that there is a right to health care. Who has the bigger right? Does the implied right to healthcare somehow trump my enumerated right to exercise my religion? Why must it?

Of course, that's not good enough for liberals. If someone has a right to health care, they believe that means they're guaranteed health care. OK, let's apply that same logic to the right to bear arms. Consider this analogy: The right to own a gun is enumerated in the Constitution. Have you ever bought a gun? A nice gun isn't cheap. A 9mm handgun could set you back about $400.00. Are only rich people allowed to exercise the right to own a gun? How can poor people like me afford $400 to buy a gun? Since I have the right to own a gun, what I need is for my employer to buy me one.

Here's a twist: what if I worked for Rosie O'Donnell? From what I've heard, Rosie O'Donnell doesn't believe people should have the right to carry guns (except for her bodyguards). That doesn't matter, though. I have the right to own a gun and, according to liberal logic, Rosie must buy me one no matter what her own conscientious objection might be.

Somehow I don't think liberals would go for the idea of compelling employers to buy guns for their employees. But they can't see the similarity in that and forcing employers to provide contraceptives for their employees.

“Rights” are not entitlements nor guarantees. The idea that the government can compel one person to act against his conscience in order to guarantee the right of another is anathema to liberty. The dangers that surround this issue are many and I intend to spend a couple of more posts talking about them. For now though, let me just say that a woman's “right” to birth control is no more sacred than my right to exercise my faith. Here's an idea: I will practice my religion and you buy your own contraceptives!

It's Not Funny Anymore!

Liberals are crazy. I mean that literally. Liberalism is a mental disorder and I'm just waiting for the AMA to recognize it as such. Normally it's not acceptable to laugh at people who are mentally challenged but I have made an exception for liberals. At certain times in the past, I've just found their twisted way of thinking to be funny. One example I've used before is how liberals want to ban salt and legalize marijuana. It's hilarious. Lately though, it's getting out of hand.

You might have already heard about the recent incident in Hoke County, NC, where a 4 year old kindergartener was told her homemade lunch wasn't acceptable. According to the Carolina Journal, “The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.” The little girl was served a cafeteria lunch instead and her parent received a note explaining that, “students who did not bring a "healthy lunch" would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.”

It's tempting to make another joke about the hypocrisy of liberals. I could say something like, “liberals don't want to test welfare recipients for drugs but want to inspect kids lunches” but the situation is too alarming to make jokes. This is like a Seinfeld episode come to life. It's the soup Nazi snapping, “No turkey for you!”

The event has captured nationwide attention and the school's actions have been harshly criticized. In a follow up to the story, WRAL.com tried to explain that this was all a misunderstanding. Assistant Superintended in Hoke County, Bob Barnes explained, “The assessment requires the school to review children's lunches for nutrition.... If a homemade lunch is determined to be missing one of the food groups required by United States Department of Agriculture regulations, the school is supposed to offer it to the student for free.”

Does he really think that helps his case? The problem is not necessarily how this situation was handled. The problem lies in the very premise that school officials believe its their job to inspect kids' lunchboxes in the first place. This is a symptom of liberal elitism. They think they know what's best for us and so have deployed federal agents to make sure we're taking care of ourselves correctly.

Watch this short video where Debbie Squires tries to defend the elitist position before a Michigan House Committee Meeting (I apologize for the poor video quality):

Do you see what I mean? Elitists think we might want to take care of ourselves and our kids but we just don't know how. They see it as their job to step in and protect us from our own ignorance. Where do these regulations stop? Will there be federal agents in restrooms to make sure everyone washes their hands before exiting? Maybe we should take our cars to the BMV every month to make sure our tires are properly inflated and our fluids topped off. When we renew our driver's licenses, maybe we should provide proof of gym membership to demonstrate we're also getting enough exercise.

Actually, I'd better stop before I give liberals ideas for new regulations.

The NC example is another reason why homeschooling has become so popular. Unfortunately, it's gone far beyond the schools. Rush Limbaugh has warned before that liberals might be funny when they're out of power but when they're in power, they're dangerous. I see what he means. The police state has already gotten out of hand. We don't need help from the government to live our lives. This isn't funny anymore!

Ann Coulter's book: Demonic, How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America

I received Ann Coulter's book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, for Christmas this year. Thus far, I've only had a chance to read the first four or five chapters yet I've read enough to see it's another winner. Ann Coulter is definitely one of my favorite political authors. She's funny, insightful, and straightforward. She articulates the conservative position as well as anyone I've heard. Perhaps what I like most about her is that she drives liberals absolutely crazy! The mere mention of her name brings out that demonic frenzy she has correctly identified that exists inside liberals. As always, her book fails to disappoint.

The premise of her book is how liberals exhibit a mob mentality. Mobs are unable to think rationally and are instead driven by base emotions. According to Coulter, “All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by [Gustave] Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism – simplistic, extreme, black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty, inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas, being transfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders, and a blind hatred of their opponents.”

Coulter introduces the book by quoting Mark 5:2-9 which details the encounter between Jesus and the demon possessed man, Legion. It's an attention grabber and sets the tone for her myriad of examples of how liberal mobs exhibit the same demonic behaviors.

I might write a more thorough review once I've finished the book but the close of Chapter One is so intriguing that I wanted to reproduce it here. Coulter uses the biblical account of the crucifixion of Jesus to illustrate the typical, demonic mob.

The seminal event of the New Testament – Jesus' cricifixion – is a dramatic illustration of the power of the mob. 

When the mob was howling for Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death, even Pilate's wife couldn't convince him to spare Jesus. After having a dream about Jesus, Pilate's wife sent her husband a note saying Jesus was innocent – a “just man.” Pilate knew it to be true and that the mob hated Jesus out of “envy.” But not his wife, not even his own common sense, was enough for him to resist the mob.

Three times Pilate told the “multitude” that Jesus was innocent and should be spared. He pleaded with the mob, proposing to “chastise him, and release him.” But the mob was immovable, demanding Jesus' crucifixion. Pilate was required to release one of the prisoners, so he gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious murderer and insurrectionist – in other words, someone who incites mobs. Again, the mob “spoke with one voice,” demanding “with loud shouts” that Jesus be crucified.

Capitulating to the mob, Pilate ordered Jesus' death.

Even one of the mob's victims, a thief being crucified alongside Jesus, joined the mob's taunting, saying to Jesus, “If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.” The other thief rebuked him, noting that they were guilty and Jesus was not. He said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into they kingdom.” And Jesus said, “Today shalt though be with me in paradise.” 

Pilate gave in to the mob out of fear. The thief joined the mob to side with the majority. The mob itself was driven by envy.

Although it all worked out in the end – Jesus died, darkness fell over the Earth, the ground trembled, and the temple veil was ripped in two, and three days later, Jesus rose from the dead, giving all people the promise of everlasting life - here was the stark choice, to be repeated like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence: Jesus or Barabbas?

Liberals say Barabbas: Go with the crowd. C'mon, everybody's doing it – it's cool. Now let's go mock Jesus. (As is so often the case, the mob said, “Kill the Jew.”) 

Conservatives – sublimely uninterested in the opinion of the mob - say Jesus.

Yahoo! Is a Bunch of Liberals

I noticed a few years back that Yahoo! seemed to exhibit some left-leaning tendencies. For example, I mentioned in one blog how Yahoo! Movies seemed to conspicuously not print reviews to pro-Christian or conservative movies. Since then, I've seen a few other examples but I haven't made a big deal about it. Just recently, though. I've been a personal victim of their political correctness.

I occasionally post answers on Yahoo! Answers. Sometimes it gives me inspiration for an idea to write on my blog. Often, the questions are things I've already answered on my blog so I'll copy and paste what I've already written. That's exactly what I did a few weeks ago when someone asked the question, “What are the reasons that gay-marriage should be illegal?”

I have written on this subject a couple of times but when I replied to this question, I copied and pasted a post I'd written called, “Is there a 'Right' to be Gay?” I won't rehash my points here but I invite you to read it for yourself. Certainly, I'm opinionated but I ask you, was I mean? Did I use any gay slurs? Didn't the question directly ask for reasons that gay marriage should be illegal? Of course I addressed that but my answer was really more about the origin of rights than about gays. I just leveraged gay rights as an example.

Well, Yahoo! Answers seems to think the answer was in violation of their “community guidelines”. It seems someone “reported” my post and Yahoo! agreed so they promptly removed it – right after it had been voted as “Best Answer”! They weren't specific about how my answer was in violation of the policy. They merely said,“This answer has been removed. You may not have realized this, but all answers submitted on Yahoo! Answers must comply with the Answers Community Guidelines.”

Some of the “forbidden practices” include:

1) Venting, ranting or using hate speech
2) Chatting or otherwise violating the question-and-answer format
3) Being mean or obscene
4) Exploiting the community
5) Cheating
6) Violating the law
7) Behaving maliciously
8) Misusing Answers
9) Doing harm

Hmmm. Some of those are pretty subjective but I honestly can't see how my reply violated any of them. Someone asked why gay marriage should be illegal and I answered. I didn't vent, rant, chat, or use obscenities. I answered the question. It just looks like someone didn't like that I actually believed gay marriage should be illegal and so he reported me. Perhaps simply being conservative qualifies as “hate speech”?

It offered me the option to appeal which I did. It warned me that a failed appeal will cost me 10 “points” but the points don't really mean anything. What I was a little more concerned about was the warning they have posted:

Violating the Community Guidelines may result in the termination of your Answers account without warning. In extreme cases, violations may result in the termination of your Yahoo! ID, and consequently, access to all other Yahoo! services.

That seems somewhat severe, don't you think? If people don't like my opinion they can black-list me? I hope they don't find my blog! I guess it's a good thing it's hosted by Google, huh? I have a few Yahoo! email addresses that I use for various things. It would be a pain if I were blocked from them. On the other hand, given the direction that Yahoo! seems to be heading, maybe I should have been rid of them a long time ago.

How Liberals Think that Deficit Reduction Costs Us Money

So, I'm in McDonald's yesterday eating a $3 breakfast from their value menu because I can't afford a breakfast buffet anywhere because gas is almost $4/gallon... Anyway, McDonald's usually has their TV tuned in to CNN Headline News or some other liberal, morning show. This day, they were talking about the debate going on in Washington over the budget. As they cut away to a commercial, the reportette teased the upcoming segment by saying something like, “Medicare. When we return, find out what the deficit reduction plans will cost you.”

I sat there for a minute chewing on my sausage biscuit and thinking about what I just heard. Let me get this straight: are they saying that Washington spending less money is going to “cost” us something? Perhaps someone needs to be reminded that it is our money that is being spent! If the Feds spend less of it, then we are saving money! If I'm spending $90K/year but am only making $50K per year, I would obviously save money if I cut out the $40K/year excess. Duh! Maybe I was doing some really fun things with that extra $40K. but doesn't matter. I can't afford to forever spend nearly twice what I make.

I believe the liberal attitude that a savings is really a cost turns over the understanding of the word “our.” Is this “our” money? When a liberal says, “our” he means, “us liberals.” This isn't everyone's money; it belongs only to the elite folks in Washington and the people to whom they choose to dole it out. This is why they always invoke class jealousy. Most of the people who receive government benefits don't pay any taxes so it isn't “their” money being spent. Instead, if we reduce our spending, they might receive less in benefits. This is why liberals say that a reduction in spending “costs” them.

Along those same lines, when Obama talks about “everyone” having to sacrifice, he really means that rich people have to pay more in taxes. Never mind that only 50% of the people are already paying almost 100% of the taxes; to him, they (that is, “we”) are not paying enough. If liberals are forced to spend less on their favorite causes, then the “rich” (which means anyone who pays taxes) have to pay more in order to be “fair.”

It's been said already that the federal government doesn't have an income problem. It has a spending problem. We need to cut spending. Saying that it's going to “cost us” to have deficit reduction is a shameful attempt by liberals to stir up the support of the recipients of wealth redistribution to fight back against conservative calls for fiscal discipline in Washington. Hopefully, enough people have grown tired of these class-warfare arguments by now that they won't listen anymore.

Exodus 21:22-23: Does the Bible Consider the Unborn a Baby?

It's typical of liberal Christians or even liberal non-Christians to attempt to use the Bible to support their liberal views. Ordinarily, they wouldn't concern themselves with the word of God but when they can find a passage they believe supports their cause, they champion it like – well, like it's Scripture. They do this because they know conservative Christians seriously regard the Bible and if the liberal can convince the conservative that the Bible is on the liberal's side, it should settle the matter.

One such argument used by liberals concerns abortion. Conservative Christians, of course, recognize correctly that the unborn are still created in the image of God and deserve protection as much as any other person. Liberals justify their position on abortion by claiming the unborn child isn't really a person. The Bible certainly doesn't support their extreme view but I've heard a few liberals cite Exodus 21:22-23:

If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

By citing this verse, they argue that even the Bible recognizes a difference between the unborn child and the life of the woman. In this passage, if a man strikes a woman and she “miscarries”, he has to pay a fine. But if she dies, it becomes a capital offense and his own life is forfeit. At first glance, their argument seems to have merit. However, as is always the case, it's a good idea to look up a passage for yourself before trusting a liberal's cite.

I'm not a Bible scholar or anything but when I first heard this argument, I had to search a while before finding the translation being used. The above passage is from the Douay-Rheims Bible. Now, tell me the truth, have you ever heard of the Douay-Rheims Bible? It is an English translation from the Latin Vulgate (as opposed to a translation from the original language into English). The fact that it is a translation of a translation presents more than a few problems and I honestly can't recommend it as an acceptable translation.

When we read the same passage in more mainstream translations, the liberal argument loses all credibility:

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely
but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.
(New International Version ©2011)

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.
(New American Standard Bible)

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(King James Version)

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life.
(English Standard Version)

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(American Standard Version)

We can see in these more familiar translations that this passage is more in line with the conservative position. If a man strikes a pregnant woman, and she delivers her child prematurely, he must pay a fine. However, if the woman or the child dies, he must give a life for a life.

It's rather pathetic that liberal theologians, who hold little regard for the Bible anyway, attempt to use the Bible to support a position so contrary to God's will. And to use such an obscure translation is not simply intellectual laziness but outright dishonesty. They had to hunt out this passage while intentionally overlooking the rendering in more trusted versions.

What is almost equally as sad is that too many Christians fall victim to this tactic. When I've seen this con employed online, the simple rebuttal is to point out the same passage in a more mainstream translation. Instead, I've seen Christians falling all over themselves trying to spin a pro-life position in this flawed translation. I suspect they never stopped to look in the Bible for themselves.

The Bible is very clear in its position on the unborn. God is pro-life! His clear word is not undone by the bad translation of a single verse.

Some Thoughts About Tucson

There's an old adage that you can judge a man's character by how he acts in a crisis. There's a lot we can learn from watching how liberals and conservatives have acted in the wake of the recent tragedy in Tucson. I've seen conservatives react the same way they always react. In typical fashion, they suspend their political differences and offer sincere prayers and condolences to the victims involved. Oh sure, there might be some nuts on the web who make light of the event but I defy anyone to find a mainstream conservative (on FOX News, talk radio, or anywhere else) who has dared suggest that the victims deserved what they got. Such a person does not exist. It's simply not in our nature.

Likewise, liberals have also reacted in their typical fashion. They immediately blame Republicans. It's a joke really, but every time something bad happens, liberals blame Rush Limbaugh as a matter of first resort. I'm not talking about the fringe left (although one might label all liberals as fringe). I'm talking about run of the mill liberals like the Pima County sheriff, the on-air personalities at CNN or MSNBC, members of Congress, and many other mainstream Democrats. It's sad that they use such tragedies as a political tool. Such a tactic derails conversation from useful things we might have learned from an event like this (like how to identify and help the mentally ill). I also think it cheapens the tragic impact of the events on the victims. Liberals aren't sincere. They're making political hay. How unfortunate. I apologize to the victims for their outrageous behavior.

It's easy to see that liberals aren't sincere. As I listen to them whine about the supposed vitriol coming from conservative media, I'm reminded how they were strangely silent while real, violent speech was being hurled at conservatives (see Michelle Malkin's article). And where is the evidence that this person even visited Sarah Palin's website or attended a Tea Party rally? Liberals have rushed to paint the shooter as a right-wing extremist, whipped into a murderous frenzy by heated, political rhetoric. They've done so without a single shred of evidence. In the same vein as Rahm Emmanuel, they will not let this crisis go to waste without using it to bludgeon their political opponents.

I could write a lot about liberal hypocrisy but much has already be said about it. Their behavior is so predictable that anything I say or write about it isn't new or clever anyway. Let me just say something about conservatives that I haven't heard discussed: I think we react the way we do in part because of our faith. Even if we vehemently disagree with someone, we seldom wish harm on them. What we prefer is to persuade that person to our belief. As a Christian, it is my hope that I would lead my enemies to Christ. The Bible says there is no rejoicing in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). I have no idea of the spiritual condition of those who died in Tucson. I really don't even know their political views since they are far removed from my district. But if they weren't Christians, then their untimely death is made all the more tragic. It is something I would never make light of.

How the Constitution is Like the Bible

The first act of the newly elected Republican House today was to read the entire Constitution on the floor of the House. In the days leading up to the event, I've heard a lot of different opinions about it – both good and bad. I noticed that a lot of the things I was hearing sounded strangely familiar. If I were to make a list of documents that have greatly influenced the world, such a list would include both the Bible and the Constitution. Granted, the Constitution is not in the same league as the Bible but, in certain way, they are similar. Interestingly, conservative attitudes the same toward both, liberal attitudes seem the same toward both, and the conservative and liberal attitudes differ in the same ways.

The first similarity should be obvious: both contain a set of laws. However, I've noticed that many liberals do not view either document as a set of laws but rather a list of guidelines. They don't see them as rules but as “suggestions” and feel that it's ultimately up to us (actually, liberals think it's up to them) to do the right thing.

Along these same lines, many conservatives hold a similar regard for both the Constitution and the Bible. We view the laws as being beyond opinion. They must be absolute and equally applied regardless of our personal feelings. Note carefully that I said “equally applied.” The law shouldn't be used to guarantee equal results. Jesus said, for example, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). That is absolute and applies to everyone. It doesn't matter if we don't think it's fair. Liberals, on the other hand, want to abuse sound doctrine and apply some fuzzy “biblical” principle like, “we're all God's children.” Huh? Where does it say that in the Bible? So they reject actual Biblical truth and misuse the Bible to promote “fairness.”

Liberals take this same approach to the Constitution. For example, the Constitution protects my freedom of speech (“protects” not “grants”). I can use my blog to speak my views about the President, the Congress, the courts, the media, or anything else my heart desires. I expect the government to protect my right to say these things. At the same time, I realize the government must protect the free speech of people who might disagree with me. That is applying the rules equally. Yet once again, liberals invoke some vague, “constitutional” principle of “fairness.” Instead of protecting individual free speech, the feel it's the government job to insure that all speech is balanced and that all views are heard. Just listen to some congress people as they talk about FOX News. And don't forget the Fairness Doctrine. Just as they mistreat the Bible, liberals also misuse the Constitution to promote fairness.

Another similarity between the Bible and the Constitution is that they are both immutable. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and the Bible contains a stern warning that nothing should be added or removed from it (Revelation 22:18-19). The Constitution may not be quite as rigid but it was specifically designed so that amendments were difficult to pass. If we are to live by rules, we must be certain of what the rules are. Here again, liberals differ from conservatives. To liberals, both documents should be seen as “living documents.” Their opinion is that the Bible and the Constitution were written in a different time, in different cultures, for different people. Liberals don't feel like we should be rigidly bound to the rules of the Bible or the Constitution. Since we live in a different society now, they believe we should temper the rules to fit the circumstance. How can we call them “rules” if they are transitory? I think Walter Williams summed up best by asking, “Would you play poker with me if I said the rules of poker were 'living rules'”?

Finally many liberals have been ridiculing the Republicans for reading the Constitution. Liberals don't understand (or pretend to not understand) why conservatives regard the Constitution the way we do. They feel we're slavishly following an archaic document written centuries ago and we need to wake up and join the 21st century. These are the same things the liberals say about the Bible.

And think about this: how often have liberals claimed the Bible is the opium of the people? They say that the people in power would use the Bible to keep the masses in check and to perpetuate their own power. I suppose there was a period in history when a corrupt church used the Bible to hold sway over kings and their citizens. However, at the same time, the church fought to keep the Bible out of the laity's hands. After all, it's safer to tell people what the Bible says rather then letting them read it for themselves. Today, liberals abuse the Constitution to perpetuate their own power and to appease the masses. Their motto is to tax the rich and give things to the poor. They take from the few and give it to the many – all under the supposed authority of the Constitution. Perhaps that's also why they ridiculed the Republicans today. Maybe they don't want people to know what the Constitution really says!

Why Don't Rich People Stimulate the Economy?

I first heard the lie from Nancy Pelosi: unemployment compensation gives the best stimulus bang for the buck. If you give an unemployed person a check, he will spend it which will create jobs. The logic is an obvious failure though because with all the people currently receiving unemployment, we should be growing the economy like crazy! As a matter of fact, unemployment just went from 9.7% to 9.8% so we now have MORE people out of work even though we pay unemployment benefits for 99 weeks.

The current debate over extending the Bush tax rates leads me to question the sincerity of liberals who think unemployment compensation is truly stimulative. Suddenly, they're concerned with the deficit. Their tact now seems to be that rich people paying less taxes doesn't stimulate the economy and actually raises the deficit. Are they serious?

First, let's be clear about something: no one is receiving a tax cut. The current debate is only about a tax increase. If nothing is done about the expiring tax rates, everyone's taxes will be going up starting January 1. If the tax rates are extended, then everyone's taxes will merely continue at the current rate. No one's taxes are going down no matter what happens. The debt problem we have is due to the reckless spending that's been going on. If tax rates continue at the same rate as now, it has ZERO impact on the deficit. I wish the alternative news outlets like CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc, would get that right.

But even if this were a tax cut, there's a question I'd like to ask liberals: What do you think rich people do with their money? Seriously, what do you think? Do they invest it in stock? Do they take vacations? Do they start businesses? Do they buy fancy cars? Do they buy fancy homes, nice clothes, or eat at expensive restaurants? The obvious answer is that they do all of these things. So under what premise is it that liberals claim this doesn't stimulate the economy? Who do you think works in the hotels where the rich people vacation? Who builds the cars that rich people buy? Who builds the homes or makes the clothes or serves the food where rich people spend their money? Who works in the businesses that rich people start?

People spending money is what makes an economy – and rich people have the most money! The impact of the dollars they spend is significant. It creates jobs.

Now, don't get me wrong, poor and middle class people who spend money create jobs as well but their impact isn't the same. Many people who are out of work will try to “tighten their belts.” They try to save their money and pinch their pennies. They might not buy a new car, for example, but may buy a used one instead. When someone buys a used car, nothing new has been manufactured. Also, an unemployed person might not take the vacation he had planned. He might put off the home remodel or even the home repairs. Unemployed people tend to only spend their money on the necessities. It is because of these things that the economic impact of their spending is much more narrow.

I once heard a liberal say in an online debate that the rich only get their money by taking it from the poor. Can they not see the lunacy in such a statement? If I have a product to sell, I don't even try to sell it to people who don't have money to buy it. How can I get rich off people who have no money? In order for me to make money, I have to offer some good or service that someone else who has money wants to buy. It's a win-win proposition: they get a good or service and I get money. It's the American way!

Allowing tax rates to go up in a tough economy like this is insane. Don't let the liberals' attempt at class warfare fool you. Even if only the rates on the “rich” are raised, the poor people – the ones who need jobs the most – will suffer as well.

Get Out And Vote

Mel Gibson versus Roman Polanski

Mel Gibson is a textbook example to the dangers of drinking. When this guy has had too many, he really has a way of putting his foot in his mouth. The Bible says that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34). Gibson obviously has some issues and, when he drinks, he makes them known. It's a happy coincidence that his most recent episode should occur about the same time Roman Polanski is again in the news because it gives me an opportunity to highlight the shallowness and hypocrisy of the liberal elite in Hollywood.

Gibson has been vilified by the Hollywood left ever since he produced the film, The Passion of Christ. In spite of his own moral turpitude, he really made a good film that has become a standard in the Christian film genre. Since then, he can do nothing right in the eyes of godless celebrities. His recent drunken rant, in which he made some vulgar (and racist) comments to his ex-girlfriend, is simply another log on the fire. He is now officially a misogynist. Certainly I can't defend anything Gibson did but I really can't see why it's become the big deal that it has. When couples argue, they sometimes say things they shouldn't – especially when they're drunk. Gibson is a jerk of the highest order but I don't see things the way the liberals do.

What I think is curious is Hollywood's treatment of Roman Polanski. Here is someone who has plead guilty to giving drugs and alcohol to a minor before sodomizing her. For some reason, the same crowd that decries Gibson adores Polanski. Why is that? I would think that a rapist would qualify as a misogynist more than a drunken jerk. Alas, no. Gibson's true crime is that he is a political conservative and a Christian (though you would hardly know that from his behavior) and, according to liberals, being a Christian is the worst crime of all. All Christians are women-hating, racist, homophobic, bigots. What about people who are truly racist bigots? What about someone like the late Senator Byrd? Again, no. Liberals who actually exhibit sexist and racist behavior are excused while conservatives on whom they can pin the label "racist" or "sexist" are condemned.

So let's get this straight:

A conservative makes some vulgar comments to his girlfriend while drunk and he's fired by his talent agent.

A liberal rapes a 13-year-old girl and gets a lifetime achievement award.

A conservative uses the “n-word” during a heated argument and he is shunned by his peers.

A liberal recruits for the KKK and is made the Senate Majority leader.

How strange.

Liberals are very forgiving of their own. Remember Bill Clinton? When he exposed himself to Paula Jones, somehow he became the victim and she the villain. While President, he admitted to a sexual relationship with a college-aged intern and somehow Monica Lewinski became the predator planted by Republicans. Even when the allegation of a violent rape surfaced, it was dismissed by the left because everyone knows Juanita Broaddrick was lying. That's funny because when Anita Hill claimed that Clarence Thomas made a comment about a pubic hair on his coke can, everyone on the left believed her and was aghast at the abuse she suffered.

That liberals are hypocrites is hardly news. I'm still surprised, though, by the extremes to which they go. For another liberal, no sin is so great that it can't be forgiven; for a conservative, no transgression is so small that it can be overlooked.

Fair Weather Friends

The Tea Party Movement that's swept the country in the last year has really ruffled some feathers. At first, the liberal media tried to simply ignore them but their silence became so painfully conspicuous that they could no longer ignore the protests and still maintain the label of a news medium. Their next tactic was to attack the movement by trotting out the tired terms like “racists” and the much more vulgar term, “teabaggers.” Liberal politicians said this wasn't a “real” movement but referred to it as “astro-turf.” The concerned citizens who protested at the Town Hall meetings were called a “mob” and “un-American.” In other words, the Tea Party did not have any friends among the liberal elite.

It was a completely different story among conservatives. FOX News (a truly balanced news channel but seen as conservative) was the only news network to cover the Tea Parties. Rush, Sean, Glenn, and all the usual suspects discussed the protesters in glowing terms saying that the movement represented the true heart of America. The people were sick of out of control government and had finally had enough. These were citizens standing up to unfair taxes just like the early revolutionaries of their namesake had done.

Since tax-and-spend is the only play Democrats use to solve anything, much of the Tea Party protest was directed at them. Therefore, Republicans were overjoyed, seeing this as a possible windfall for the Republican Party in the 2010 elections. It seems the friendship was fated to be short-lived. After the recent Tea Party convention, I'm starting to hear a different tune from Republicans.

I think the Republican Party is starting to realize that the Tea Party movement isn't exactly a group of Republican cheerleaders but a movement against government waste – whether the “waster” is a Democrat or Republican. Moderate Republicans (like John McCain) aren't likely to receive a ringing endorsement from the Tea Party.

The fear of the Republicans is that the Tea Party will beginning running 3rd party candidates. In an election, a Tea Party candidate could very well split the conservative vote allowing the Democrat candidate to win. Suddenly, the Republicans aren't so keen on the Tea Party movement. They are starting to warn the protesters that running their own candidates would be against their own best interest.

If the Tea Party decided to run its own candidates, I have to agree that it it's not likely they would win and it very well cost also ruin the election opportunity for the Republican on the ticket. But the solution isn't for the Tea Party to water down their message. Conservatives shouldn't have to hold their collective noses and vote for the Republican (or RINO as the case may be) simply because of the “R” after his name. The solution is for the Republican Party to run more conservative candidates.

I still remember the Republican revolution of 1994. We've come a long way since then (the wrong way). We've not only lost our majorities in both the House and Senate, we've lost them in a big way – giving up until recently, a super-majority in the Senate. I saw it coming when I heard Colin Powell speak at the Republican National Convention, 1996. There had been talk leading up to the convention about how Republicans need to become a “big tent.” At one point, Powell mentioned he was pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) and got a standing ovation. I had to check my TV guide to make sure this was the Republican convention. Had they already forgotten the conservative message that swept them into office only 2 years earlier? What were they thinking?

The Tea Party needs to put as much pressure on Republicans as is necessary to insure they run conservative candidates. If it costs us a couple of elections, then so what? In the last election, Republicans pitted a very moderate McCain against the very liberal Obama and look at what happened?

A Review: State of the Nation 2 with Ken Ham

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis , gave the group's 2nd “State of the Nation” address. All I can say is – he nailed it! Well, that's not all I can say.

He subtitled his address, “Reminders Removed,” a reference to Joshua 4:4-7 where men from each of the twelve tribes piled up stones in order to leave a reminder to their children how God had provided for them. Today in America, we have forgotten the Christian traditions upon which this nation was founded. Ham brought out many quotes of President Obama where the President said, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” In many ways, the President is right; the reminders that we were once a Christian nation are progressively being removed. Prayer, creation, the 10 Commandments, the Bible, and the mention of God have all been removed from public schools. Things like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage are now being eroded by practices like abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage.

Ham expressed (correctly) that the increase in apostasy has followed increased compromise on the word of God. Much of this compromise involves an attempt to reconcile the Bible with man's opinion. This is a dangerous practice because whenever God's word opposes man's opinion, it is usually God's word that gets compromised

This watering down of the word has caused people to reject the Bible and their faith outright. After all, if the Bible is wrong on one point (such as the Genesis account of creation) then how can it be trusted on any point? This is a logical question and rather than trust the Bible over man's opinion, many people have chosen to reject the Bible. Ham referenced several times the new book, Already Gone where this phenomenon has been detailed.

As faith has waned, society hasn't become a neutral vacuum concerning religion. Rather, popular culture is becoming increasing hostile toward Christians. Such an attitude is in agreement with Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Rejection of God is replaced with secular humanism which worships the creation and mocks God (Romans 1:20-25). Ham played this shocking video of Professor Lawrence Krauss from Arizona State University:

Besides the shocking comments, I was almost as equally shocked by the laughter and cheers from his students.

But Ham doesn't spend an entire hour wringing his hands over how bad everything is. He details the situation but also offers the solution: a return to the Bible.

The video is a good watch and a must see for every Christian. I recommend everyone invest an hour of their time to see it.