All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Commentary

Paul Ryan takes on Democrat Brad Sherman on the worsening economy

1 Comment

Video is here – from Larry Kudlow’s show on CNBC. (8 minutes)

The Democrat blames Bush and calls for more government spending.

Here he is in Congress making his stand. (4 minutes)

The Veronique he mentions is Veronique de Rugy, whose work I blog about all the time.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard is calling for Republicans to embrace Ryan’s Road Map for America.

Excerpt:

For Republicans, the Road Map authored by congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the most important proposal in domestic policy since Ronald Reagan embraced supply side economics in the 1980 presidential campaign. It’s not only the freshest, boldest, and most comprehensive Republican thinking, it’s also the most relevant. If Republicans adopt the Road Map as their basic ideological blueprint, it offers them the prospect of a landslide in the midterm election this year, followed by victory in the presidential election in 2012.

For sure, that’s a lot of weight for a policy statement drafted by a 40-year-old House member to bear. But the Road Map is perfectly timed to deal with the crises of the moment: economic stagnation, uncontrolled spending, the deficit and long-term debt, soaring tax rates, health care, the housing problem, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Yet Republican leaders are wary of endorsing it, and for understandable reasons.

He lays out three reasons why the Republicans should swallow their fears and embrace Ryan’s plan.

Here’s the third reason he lists:

The third reason is the Republican message (or the absence of one). In Pennsylvania, it was “send a message to Nancy Pelosi.” Voters declined. I like the Republican slogan that worked so well in 1946—“Had enough?” But a slogan is not a message. The Road Map is a message. The country is falling apart, we’re going broke, government is on a takeover binge, the economy is wobbling. The Road Map is the solution. That’s a pretty good message.

Those who tremble at the thought of pushing a big idea should remember the campaign of 1980. Reagan, who for years had warned of the evils of government spending and overreach, suddenly became the champion of an across the board, 30 percent cut in tax rates for individuals and business.

That was very risky. The elder George Bush called it “voodoo economics.” Democrats were certain the whopping tax cut would turn the country against Reagan. Quite the opposite occurred. Reagan would have defeated Jimmy Carter without it, but not by the 10 percentage points he actually won by. The tax cut showed Reagan was serious about reviving the economy and not at all a weakling like Carter.

It’s good to be a Republican when we have guys like Paul Ryan. Let’s put him in charge and implement his bold ideas.

News

Does Obamacare really fund abortions with taxpayer dollars?

2 Comments

Remember when Obama said this?

From CNS News. (H/T Robb)

Excerpt:

If you want proof that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

“The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable,” Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

[…]The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill’s abortion funding, we were called ‘deceivers’ by President Obama and ‘liars’ by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.

“This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama’s Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

[…]McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions.  And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.

More here from Fox News.

Commenter MCS writes:

Health and Human Services Department spokeswoman Jenny Backus has issued a response saying the abortion funding won’t occur and officials in both states are revising their information that initially stated it would.

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6540.html

Polemics

Tangling with an atheist commenter on the grounding of morality

39 Comments

An atheist named Moo went after commenter Mary in the comments to this post. So I decided to step in.

Moo wrote this:

Marriage is not about God. I am personally married, with 3 children and do not believe in the existence of a personal deity. You need to broaden your view of the world as most of the world does not believe the same as you do. Tolerance is a virtue that too many people underestimate. Your views of the topic should have any impact on the lives of people and their right to marry. This is an arrogant position as you assume that you have some moral authority.

Then I wrote this:

Are you tolerant of Mary’s view? Does Mary have a right to vote for policies like traditional marriage? Why is it “intolerant” when Mary thinks she’s right, and yet not “intolerant” when you think you’re right? Is Mary wrong? If you think so, then why aren’t you “intolerant”, according to your definition of intolerance? Where does this moral obligation to be tolerant come from, on atheism? To whom is the duty owed?

More important, let’s cut to the chase. My view is that atheists cannot ground morality rationally. If you disagree, you tell me where moral rules come from on your view, what is the means of existence of moral rules and moral obligations, and why should humans treat moral obligations as meaningful and prescriptive when it goes against their self-interest. Where does the free will necessary for moral choices come from? Why should an atheist sacrifice their live to save someone else – e.g. – by hiding Jews in Nazi Germany? Why is it rational, on atheism? Why is it rational for an atheist to do anything other than to pursue pleasure in this life? What else is there other than pleasure in an accidental universe than can be the motive for action?

Atheism is the negation of meaningful morality. (That’s my contention – it’s the denial of morality)

The statement “I am an atheist” is equivalent to saying “Morality is illusory”. Dawkins should have called his book “The Morality Delusion”, because morality is a delusion if atheism is true.

Then Moo wrote this:

Yes, I am tolerant of Mary’s views when they do not infringe on the rights of others. If Mary believes that her marriage requires a commitment to god then this is fine. Nobody other than her immediate family are impacted. A gay couple, atheist couple, whatever couple should not be impacted or offended.

As for morals, you have made a common mistake of tightly coupling these with faith. Morals have been around longer that religion, is evident (to a lesser extent) in the animal kingdom.

You seem to be implying that religious people are more moral than agnostic. Is that right? There is no need going into the evolutionary reasons for morals as i am sure that you will dispute the credibility of the scientist and science. Something for another debate ;-)

Then I wrote this:

What do you mean by the word tolerate? Please define tolerance and explain why supporting traditional procreative marriage is intolerant but supporting the re-definition of marriage to include any arrangement between any number of people, animals and anything else is tolerant. Why is Mary intolerant because she holds to a different definition than you do, but you’re tolerant and you hold to a different definition (“anything goes”) than she does?

I need you to answer my questions about morality, or I will assume that you think morality is illusory and there is no such thing as right or wrong. And no such thing as human rights. If that is true, then I will delete every comment you make that mentions morality or human rights. Either ground morality and human rights in your worldview or stop using moral language. Answer the questions. Ground the notion of morality or stop asserting how Mary ought to be.Ground the notion of rights on atheism or stop telling Mary that her ideas of morality violate other people’s rights.

Then Anon wrote this: (he’s smarter than I am, so he gets to the point faster)

Again, what is your view of the kind of relationship promoted by the like of NAMBLA?

Then I asked Moo to answer the question Anon asked:

Can you give Anon a direct answer on NAMBLA. Moral or immoral? And don’t forget to answer my questions about how you ground moral values, moral duties, free will, moral accountability, motivation for self-sacrifical morality, and ultimate significance of moral decisions. I want this all explained within the worldview of atheism. How does that all work on atheism?

Where do “rights” come from on atheism. Name a right and explain to me how it exists in reality. Where does it come from, on atheism? If you can’t ground it, then what do you mean by using the word?

Concepts like rights and morality and free will have no being in atheism. They don’t exist objectively. They’re not rationally grounded by an accidental, purely material, universe. You think you are referring to something real, but you won’t be able to explain those concepts. They are theistic concepts.

Then Mary wrote this:

Moo, on what basis do you say that impacting the rights of others (e.g. children) is immoral?

Then Moo wrote this:

The largest basis would be my upbringing. The values that were instilled in me by my parents, life experience, such as travelling extensively and living in other countries with a variety of cultural norms. I think that this is true for most people no matter what their beliefs are. You might want to acquaint yourself with “The Evolution of Morality” by Richard Joyce as it describes that the morals/values that we have are not contrary to other evolutionary factors. They are not a negative, in fact they are the things that have allows the human species to populate this world and flourish more than any other creature.

The specific issue I have with NAMBLA and generally people who could be deemed as “predators” is that they are impacting on the lives of others without their consent. There is a grey area around “what is the age of consent”, however I do not have firm position on that as I would have to do more personal research if this was of interest.

And I wrote this:

1) If the moral standards are valid depending on “how I was raised” then in what sense is racism wrong if that’s how the racist was raised. Or, to put it more bluntly, isn’t it true that on your view NOTHING is right or wrong, people are just fed a bunch of customs depending on the culture of the time and place they were born into – which is ARBITRARY. And on atheism, morality is just ARBITRARY CUSTOMS, like driving on the left or right side of the road. “How I was raised”.

2) Why is the population of this world by humans good, on your view? What makes humans so special, on your view, compared to any other creature who should “populate the world”? Explain where humans get their objective moral value compared to trees and snakes and maggots. And make sure that when you pick your criteria, that it isn’t just your opinion. It has to be objective – i.e. real.

3) Why is it wrong to impact the lives of others without their consent, objectively? Is that just your opinion? Is it how you were raised? How about the opinions of another atheist, like STALIN, who killed 100 million innocent people because it was his opinion and how he was raised. Why are you right and why is he wrong, on atheism?

And this is why I believe atheists think that morality is illusory on atheism. If they act nice, it’s because they are “aping” Christian morals that dominate the culture in this time and place. To find out what atheists are really like, go to North Korea and other communist nations, and look at what goes on there. That’s atheist morality. Nothing is really wrong or right – it’s just how you were raised. And that’s why Christians like William Wilberforce tried to stop slavery while atheists today kill unborn children and advocate for same-sex marriage to avoid being inconvenienced in the pursuit of sexual pleasure. They only think they think is “wrong” is that you’re making them feel bad for their selfish hedonism.

There is no self-sacrificial morality on atheism – just selfish hedonism. They are trying to have a good time before they die and to avoid feeling bad about their immoral actions. And that’s why they go along with any evil rather than fight it – because there is no right and wrong objectively on atheism. They want to use the force of law to stop you from making them feel bad as they redefine marriage in a way that denies children either a mother or a father. That’s atheist “morality”. Seek pleasure, and to hell with children’s right to life and children’s right to a mother AND a father. All that matters to atheists is that the strong are happy – who cares about the weak. It’s survival of the fittest – that’s atheist morality.

More about atheistic concepts of morality

Some debates on God and morality