Extremism in Defense of Liberty

This post is best begun with a YouTube clip (be patient its a bit slow to load). Watch:

I have to point out the stark difference between Barack Obama’s bumbling, backtracking and general verbosity and John McCain’s conciseness of response– this difference is due in large part to the fact that while John McCain has principles (even though I disagree with many of them), Barack Obama has none– at least no consistent ones. But this is to be expected. John McCain has led a life of public service, and Obama hasn’t even finished his first term in the Senate.

If you watched the clip, you’d know that the Junior Senator said that answering the question of when a baby gets human rights is “above his pay grade.” In other words, he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know? A one-year old is a baby– does he have human rights? Of all the things that he could’ve said, this was the dumbest.

Strange words coming from the most liberal, pro-human rights candidate in history. Do you think the folks who presented him with the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award feel a bit… awkward?

But Obama has had plenty to say on the issue of Human Rights; here are some highlights.

At the Council on Foreign Relations in 2004:

In every region of the globe, our foreign policy should promote traditional American ideals: democracy and human rights

Yes, but how, under your leadership, can the US promote Human Rights when you don’t even know at what point people get them? Lets move on. At the ‘Citizen of the World’ speech in Berlin:

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe?

I don’t know Barry, how can we, under your leadership, if the question of whether they deserve them at all is ‘above your pay grade’?

But Obama did not think that it was above his pay grade in 2001 as a state senator, when he voted against the infanticidal Born Alive Infants Bill, which would require that a child that has been born and has survived an abortion to receive the same care as a child that was born prematurely; Obama would rather the baby be left to die. Ironically, Obama made substantially less money then than he does now: maybe his standards went up?

Perhaps Senator Obama does not realize that as president of the United States, he’ll be making decisions that effect the lives of millions of people, including the unborn. If that question is above his pay grade, then –in all seriousness– maybe he should apply for another job. If I had been Rick Warren, I would have stopped him before he continued into his bloated elaboration, and I would have asked him, “Senator, if its above your pay grade to answer that question, do you believe your daughters have human rights?”

My father has done quite well for himself in his life, the majority of which he has spent working. He started his own plumbing company, which is now one of the most successful on the northshore of Chicago; he did all of this himself. I have a lot of admiration for him.

Today, I had a rare conversation with my father. We often talk about politics, since he is the more conservative of my parents, and therefore has more in common with me; but our talk is usually filled with levity– it never takes on a serious tone. Today was different.

I asked my father how much money he makes a year. I thought I had a pretty good idea, but I wanted to be sure. The number that he gave me seemed very low– much lower than I thought, considering my family’s lifestyle. I asked my him if he was sure about the figure he gave me, and he started to talk to me about tax deductions; thats when I realized why the number seemed so low to me– he wasn’t talking about how much money he made each year, he was talking about how much he made after taxes. I asked him how much he really made each year.

“Why does that matter?” He asked.

It was at that moment, looking into my father’s tired eyes, that I realized that when the government takes money from him, it takes so much more than just monetary wealth– it takes a piece of my father’s pride; it robs him of the joy that comes from the achievement of a value. It takes a piece of my father’s spirit.

Just to come to the understanding that my father doesn’t look at how much money he earns each year in terms of how much wealth he was able to create, but rather– of what tax bracket he belongs in, to really understand the full implication of that fact– it truly saddens me.

And to come home and to talk to these people on the internet who are my age, who think they know everything, who talk about how much they are inspired by Barack Obama’s plan for “social justice,” who talk about how they find socialism “interesting,” who speak voluminously about their love for humanity…

I just think about looking into my father’s eyes in that moment.

Last night, the two remaining contenders for the presidency took the stage together for the first time in the election cycle. The event, as you probably know, was held at Saddleback Chruch in Lake Forest, California. All in all, this event showed us two things:

• Any casual observer learned (and probably already knows) that Barack Obama cannot preform well off-the-cuff, and that John McCain can; this means the debates between these two are going to be interesting, and that this election may be a lot closer than many of us previously thought.
• We also learned that both candidates despise their own happiness– or at least consider it something to feel guilty for, to try to hide from the public.

Case in point: when asked what his greatest moral failure was, Senator Obama mumbled something about drug use, but then went on to say that it was a “fundamental selfishness”

I am proud to say that what Barack Obama lists as his greatest moral failure is the thing that I would consider to be the greatest moral achievement a person could aspire to: selfishness.

When Pastor Rick Warren asked McCain why he wanted to be president, he said that he wanted to,

“inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self interest.”

For all their disagreements (and agreements) on foreign and domestic policy, these two candidates sure do come down together on the issue of whether or not Americans have the right to live for their own sake: the answer, firmly, emphatically, is: no.

John McCain is not the first politician that has called for a generation to bow to a cause greater than themselves; watch the clip. Barack Obama is not the first politician to call for a country that– like in the clip above– “knows no class distinction;” This is not a Change I can believe in– in fact, its not a change at all. Its been done before.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, the actors change, but the course of history stays the same.

John McCain wants you to serve your country; Barack Obama wants you to serve, not just your country, but an amorphous “others.” But what these men forget– or rather, what they do not forget– but instead, what you forget is that where there is a servant, there is a master, ladies and gentlemen.

And don’t comment saying that its inappropriate for me to compare modern day political figures to Adolf Hitler, because it isn’t; watch the video.

Besides, that’s just what I do: I compare people to Hitler.

I was doing a bit of intellectual slumming earlier tonight, watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann; Rachel Maddow was guest hosting. Initially, I was just going to shut the garbage off, but she previewed a segment on Jerome Corsi’s new book The Obama Nation that would appear later in the program, and since I am currently reading it, I decided to stick around for a bit.

I should have left the room.

I sat uncomfortably through the bizarre first half of the program, which, amid numerous calls for a united Democratic Party, mostly consisted of impugning John McCain for his wealth—very strange.

Finally, the segment I had been waiting for started, featuring Eric Burns, who was presented as a non-partisan “media critic.” I was skeptical. The segment started with Maddow saying flatly the book is full of lies that have all been debunked. “OK,” I said to myself, “if that’s true, Burns should have some solid information for me, and I can throw my copy in the trash.”

What did Burns actually have to say to discredit the book? Here he is:

“Let me… You didn’t ask me this, but I just have to mention this to you… You know, one of the other things that gives a book cachè—a non fiction book—is foot notes; you look at the back of the book and you see all these footnotes, dozens of pages of them, and you say, ‘this guy did a lot of research.’ Well, before the show tonight, and I didn’t have time to do more… but, of the first eleven footnotes in the book, nine of them, in nine of them, Corsi quotes Corsi—in other words, he quotes previous writings of his own. It’s a dubious practice to say the least.”

Wow, I thought. If that’s true, Corsi really must be a truly dishonest journalist. I happened to have the book right beside me at the moment, so I checked out what Burns had said. It was true! Of the first eleven footnotes, nine of them are of Corsi’s own writings. Shocked, I checked the actual text to see what they referred to.

Lo and behold, the citations referred to the preface of the book, which is entitled Who I Am and Why I Wrote This Book. The very first clause of the preface is footnoted, and it is one of the footnotes in question. It reads as follows:

“In 2004, I coauthored Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.”

The corresponding footnote reads:

John E. O’Neill and Jerome r. Corsi, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2004).

A dubious practice indeed. Burns made it seem as though Corsi was being dishonest in citing himself, when he clearly was just being thorough.

Eric Burns is a renowned “media critic” with considerable experience. If Corsi’s book is so full of lies, why does a professional such as he have to distort the facts about the book itself in order to prove his case?

I can appreciate the athleticism, hard work and ability that it requires for one to get to the Olympics; in fact, I probably admire that most about the event. What I cannot stand is watching the games with others, who fail to appreciate the skill of other country’s competitors because of their blind worship of their own.

I do not wish to be misunderstood; I love the United States of America. But waving a flag and cheering for Michael Phelps just because he’s American does not make you a patriot, it makes you a tribalist moron, and when you do it, you disgrace everything that America means.

Unfortunately, for most people who watch the Olympics in this manner, America means nothing more than the flag that athletes’ hold, and the athlete is nothing more than a flag-holder. The tribalist does not admire the athlete because of his skill and ability, but because he holds his flag; and he admires the flag for no reason other than because he was born under it.

Americans jump and holler when an American man defeats a French man in a swimming competition– why did they prefer an American victory? Because they happen to come from the same country? Because of an accident of birth? What honor is there in that? The American and the Frenchman are both individual people with whom I have no relationship whatsoever; I see no reason to take pride in a victory that I did not personally have some part in, just because the victor comes from the same tribe.

There is nothing wrong with watching the Olympics, as long as one does so with no preference at all as to the winner’s country of birth. In any competition, the only rational choice for a desired winner is: the man of greatest ability; the man who deserves to win. When you’re watching the Olympics this week, here are a few questions you should ask yourself and consider:

• Do I want the best athlete to win, or simply the one from my country?

• Does this competitor’s country of origin have any real effect on their athletic ability?

• If I want someone other than the most deserving athlete to win, what does that mean that I want for the most deserving?

• In a competition between the deserving and the undeserving, where the undeserving is the victor, have they really earned their victory?

• If I desire that an athlete achieve an unearned victory, what am I really interested in when I watch the Olympics?

• If I desire the unearned, what does it mean about my values?

I’m tired of the global warming debate in this country. It isn’t any fun at all. Nobody on either side of the argument knows how to properly discuss an issue, and I’m just about fed up.

First, let me be clear about what is being argued. The only thing still up for debate today, it seems, is how and why climate change is occurring. One side believes that global warming is occurring because of some natural force outside of man’s control, the other side believes that it is entirely man’s fault.

Now, pretend I’m the average American.

I’m not an expert on climatology; I really have no idea why global warming is occurring– I can’t be too sure if its happening at all. There are pundits and politicians on every side of me, yelling at me, telling me to take action, that its the biggest hoax in the history of mankind, that if I don’t agree I’m on par with Holocaust deniers. What am I supposed to believe? The whole issue just seems so political; who can I trust to be impartial? I can’t be called upon to know, or to think about it myself, thats for sure. So who do I turn to? Who knows? The scientists, of course!

But the scientists don’t agree either.

You are probably aware that in 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes released a study of peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003. She found that the majority of the work published during that period supported the conclusion that global climate change exists, and that it is man made.

What you probably did not know is that recently, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte updated her research. From DailyTech:

Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, [Schulte] examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.

This is hardly a consensus, especially considering that of all the papers that were reviewed, only a “single one” accepted the view that climate change could lead to “catastrophic” results– the dominant view held by Al Gore liberals.

So even the experts don’t agree. In fact, most of them admit that they don’t even know.

So here’s my question: if the majority of scientists are undecided about climate change, how can folks be so gung-ho about diving into regulating industry and levying carbon taxes?

Let us quit obsessing over majorities and consensuses. Let’s slow down, take a deep breath, and remember that science has nothing to do with what percentage of people believe what. Just ask Galileo. We can chill out a little bit, and have a real debate about this issue; we can come to real conclusions– you know, scientific, objective ones…

Listen to both sides of the argument, and whichever one seems most rational to you, that is where you should throw your hat. Hear what the scientists have to say, but do not let them decide for you. Science has a long history of political motivation. Finally, if you listen diligently to both points of view within the scientific community and you believe that major catastrophe will occur if we do not act immediately, recognize that you are in a small minority within the scientific world. Recognize also that there are other ways of reducing the effects of said global warming without the need of such a vast reduction in carbon emissions.

Personally, I believe that the reason that we are experiencing climate change is because of the increase of sun spotting; I think that the problem is solar.

But hey, that’s me. What do you think?

“Diversity Week” is a week that is set aside by my school in order to celebrate our diversity.

What is diversity, and why does it warrant celebration? Diversity is the state of being diverse. In order for a thing to be diverse, it must necessarily be made up of distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements. What does diversity mean in reference to a community, such as my school community? First we must define community. A community (in this context) is an interacting population of individuals in a common location. In such a context, diversity would then mean that these particular individuals, who make up our community, hold distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements. What is an individual? An individual is a single human, regarded as possessing a unique personality, who is considered either apart of or apart from a society or community. The above process of logical deduction shows us that every community is necessarily diverse; every person is an autonomous, unique individual that posses distinct characteristics, qualities, or elements. Diversity Week spits in the face of the true meaning of diversity, declaring that the only true standard of diversity is ethnic background, which is a racist and offensive claim.

To set the standard of diversity as one’s heritage and nothing more is to claim that it is only this trait that makes an individual unique. In other words, this means that as a school we are promoting a perverse form of racism that looks at people not as individuals with unique personalities and traits, but “groups” that are different from each other—why? Because of the color of their skin, and for no other reason. We do not celebrate people who enjoy different kinds of music or books or games or fashions or TV shows or ice cream flavors during diversity week; why do you think that is? I’m a white guy, and I’d be willing to bet that there are plenty of black guys out there who watch the same TV shows that I do, and who derive the same pleasures from the same kind of ice cream that I do—why then, during diversity week, are blacks singled out along with Hispanics, Asians, and all the other various groups? What do these arbitrary groupings mean about a person? Nothing. But the implication that is given every year during Diversity Week is that because a person looks different, they must think different because of it—otherwise why place an Asian girl in a different group than me? What makes the two of us different?

You might say to me, “But Bill, Diversity Week isn’t really about all that idealism you’re preaching of ‘diversity of character,’ or any such nonsense; I mean, what you say—it sounds nice in theory, but its really not very practical… And besides! Everyone knows that what Diversity Week is really about is celebrating the minorities in our school!”

These arguments are weak.

If what I am saying sounds nice in theory, then why hasn’t it been tried? Could we be so slothful as a society that we abandon true diversity, the diversity the individual human spirit and mind, as our ideal and replace it with the false diversity of the skin and the body simply because it is somehow more practical? Doubtful. It is far more likely that most of us have been deceived into believing that diversity is something that it is not. Celebrating diversity is not equal to celebrating “minorities” in our school. Who are these “minorities” and why do they deserve celebration, then, while I or some other white person does not? Here’s a fact that many of the proponents of Diversity Week are unaware of and fewer care to acknowledge: the smallest minority is the individual, the single person, and all true diversity flows from him—or her. Until we recognize this fact, there can be no celebration of diversity of any kind, anywhere.

Dear Exxon Mobil Executives,

Yesterday, you made public your quarterly earnings, setting a record for the biggest profit in the history of the United States: 11.68 billion billion dollars. Over the next few weeks (and quite possibly over the next few years), you should expect to get a lot of flak from Washington, as well as the American public, about how you have made an “unfair profit;” they’ll tell you that the money that you’ve made rightfully belongs to somebody else. Just today, Barack Obama has said that he thinks your profits should be divided up and given to the American public– but did they earn those profits? No!

This is the United States of America, the greatest country in the history of civilized men. Here, each man is entitled to the sweat of his own brow, to the products of his labor. I am proud to live in a country where a corporation has earned as much as yours has; I consider it a great honor. Gentlemen, when the entire country comes to you demanding a share of your wealth, do not capitulate. Do not give in to their threats, or their corrupt moral code that demands that you do. Do not accept guilt for living on this earth, or the way that you have chosen to do so. Do not listen to them.

And when you are called before Congress to testify for your crimes against the American public, this is what you tell them:

I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody’s good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won’t. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!”

I am proud of what you Gentlemen have achieved, not because of the “public service” that you have provided, but because of the virtue that it requires to achieve it. You are heroes; do not give in.

For weeks now, Pelosi and the Dems in Congress have refused to hold a vote on American energy solutions. We need to drill here and drill now. But for weeks, Pelosi has used her power to block a vote in House. She knows that if such a vote went forward, the Democrats would lose, and the liberal dream of state controlled and rationed oil would be gone– or at least, delayed.

Now, though, Pelosi has gone too far. She will not allow a debate on the House floor; she’s shut down the cameras, the mics, and the lights, and refuses to reassemble congress. She is a fascist, and she hates all human life on this planet.

But the GOP is standing up to Pelosi’s bullying, and they are refusing to leave the House until Pelosi readjourns Congress, or Bush calls for an emergency session, so that they can have a vote on this crucial issue. They are walking around the House floor, indignant, and some are Twittering and Qiking the event. If you want to follow John Culberson’s live Qik feed, go here. Democracy will not be stopped. Be proud of your Republican Congressmen today.

I am.

I read an excellent piece in the Washington Post recently that put into print exactly what I had been thinking for months. The piece is called Why We’re Gloomier Than the Economy, and its by Neil Irwin. Check it out, and smile a little!