News

Why does the Obama administration always side with terrorists?

Leave a comment

Story from the Australian. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

The US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be “far preferable” to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.

Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison.

The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer.

The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were “surprised, disappointed and angry” to learn of Megrahi’s release.

[…]The US has tried to keep the letter secret, refusing to give permission to the Scottish authorities to publish it on the grounds it would prevent future “frank and open communications” with other governments.

Why does Obama support terrorists and oppose law enforcement?

And in completely unrelated news, Obama is going to appear on “The View”.

Mentoring

Bill Craig explains how to answer a non-Christian without apologetics

5 Comments

It’s in his question of the week. The question is from a student who is not familiar with apologetics, but who is being challenged by his co-workers on his faith. None 0f his co-workers are Christians.

Excerpt:

I took your question this week, John, because I think it’s one that many Christians face. We don’t all have time to become skilled apologists, and yet we find ourselves in situations in which we’re called upon to give “a reason for the hope that is in us” (I Peter 3:15). What are we supposed to do?

One easy thing that we can all do is learn to ask questions. Greg Koukl recommends asking two questions of non-believers:

1. What do you mean by that?

2. What reasons do you have to think that?

It’s amazing how these two disarmingly simple questions can tie people in knots! For example, ask the unbeliever what he means when he says he doesn’t believe in God—is he an atheist or an agnostic? (Be prepared to explain the difference to him!) Whatever he says, ask him, “What reasons do you have to think that?” Many people don’t even understand what they mean by their assertions, and probably most don’t have any good reasons for them. So long as you’re asking questions, you’re not making any assertions at all, and so don’t have to prove anything. Let the non-believers bear the burden of proof for their claims.

[…]A second thing you can do is refer the unbeliever to some resource. You don’t have to have any brains to tell someone, “Have you seen the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? Before you say there are no intelligent theists and no good reasons to believe in God, maybe you’d better look at that book first. Otherwise, you’re not really informed.”

[…]Shame the unbeliever for his ignorance of the literature. If he’s a sincere seeker, on the other hand, recommend that he peruse this website or watch a debate.

And it goes on like that. Five points in all.

The whole thing is worth reading… it’s pretty funny in parts, because he is telling him exactly what to say.

Commentary

Private sector jobs are lost when government creates public sector jobs

10 Comments

Here’s a story in National Review. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

In this paper, published in Economic Policy Journal, economists Yann Algan, Pierre Cahuc, and Andre Zylberberg looked at the impact of public employment on overall labor-market performance. The authors use data for a sample of OECD countries from 1960 to 2000, and they find that, on average, the creation of 100 public jobs eliminated about 150 private-sector jobs, decreased overall labor-market participation slightly, and increased by about 33 the number of unemployed workers.

Their explanation is that public employment crowds out private employment and increases overall unemployment by offering comparatively attractive working conditions. Basically, public jobs that offer higher wages, require low effort, and offer attractive fringe benefits attract many workers and crowd out private jobs. This is especially true when the public jobs exist in the private sector (transportation and education, for instance). The impact is bigger when these new employees are paid with new taxes.

The bottom line is that it is possible that, by increasing public employment, the stimulus money is further hurting private jobs.

And that’s why the unemployment rate is so high after a government spending-spree. The money for non-productive public sector jobs come from the productive private sector.