Day: January 7, 2018

DACA and the Rule of Law


In its introductory section on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA immigration policy, Wikipedia closes by citing the findings of several studies – to wit, that DACA decreased the number of “unauthorized” immigrant households living in poverty and that it increased mental health outcomes for those households.  According to “most economists,” DACA benefited the economy.  (What other economists say on this point is not mentioned here or elsewhere in the Wikipedia entry.)  And “there is no evidence that DACA-eligible individuals are more likely to commit crimes than any other person in the US.”

In other words, if an “unauthorized” alien benefits from entering the U.S., and, “according to most economists,” the economy benefits as well, and the alien commits no more crimes than average (not including the crime he committed by illegally entering the country), the law that prohibited his entry should be ignored.

To put it in another context, say a man “without authorization” kills another man.  Before we assess any penalty, we must first assess whether the loss of the victim is a net positive or negative for society.  Did he have a job, or was he on welfare?  (Was he Democrat or Republican?)

Such reasoning puts economic considerations above the law.  It puts materialistic concerns above concerns for justice.  Some, no doubt, would deny this.  They would point to some “unauthorized” alien minor and contend that the minor did no wrong, and so, were he deported to his parents’ nation of origin, that would be the injustice.

The problem with this is that the people whose laws were violated did no wrong, either.  So why should they be prevented from enforcing their laws?

There is a third party to consider as well, comprising those seeking to immigrate into the United States legally.  To the extent that illegal immigration occurs, there is less opportunity for these prospective legal immigrants.  They did nothing wrong, either, yet they are the ones receiving the real punishment.  Do we, on account of “economic considerations,” forget about them?  Are they somehow less economically beneficial to the United States than illegal – I mean, “unauthorized” – aliens?  Would they be less likely to assimilate and to become law-abiding citizens than those who, from the very start, violate the laws of the United States without consequence?  Obviously not.  Obviously, the opposite is true.

But the illegal aliens are here, and the ones seeking to be legal immigrants are not here.  Possession, they say, is nine tenths of the law.  But there does remain that pesky other tenth, which is guided not by possession (or economic considerations), but by the demands of justice.

If we look to justice, it gives no answer, for the minor is not to blame, the laws and the people who enacted them and want them enforced are not to blame, and those seeking legal entry are not to blame.  So who is to blame?

First, the parents are to blame.  One can understand and be sympathetic toward their crime, but it is a crime nonetheless.  Failing to deport a minor because the minor himself is not to blame rewards the crime.  Can a nation that professes to honor the rule of law reward those who break it?  Can a nation that rewards the breaking of a law hope or expect its immigrants to assimilate into a law-abiding a society when, through that very process, it demonstrates its disregard, if not contempt for the law?

Second, those Democrats who, for perceived political purposes, facilitated such illegal entries are to blame – as are Republicans who, fearing political backlash, did not oppose such measures.  Given the demands of politics, the role of both in this matter may, like that of the parents, be understandable. 

The one who really merits the greatest blame and condemnation is Barack Obama.  This is not because he was a Democrat seeking to bring in more Democrat voters – coming from a partisan Democrat politician, this is understandable.  But Obama was more than a Democrat – he was the president, sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Under the Constitution, it is clear that the enactment of laws lies with the Legislative Branch of government.  It is also clear that immigration policy falls within such purview.  (If it doesn’t, what does?)  Nonetheless, when the legislation Obama desired failed to pass Congress, Obama “enacted it” through executive action.

What can be passed through executive action can be removed through executive action, particularly when that action is unconstitutional.  Obama created a legal status for immigrants, but it was a status that could be removed with the stroke of another president’s pen.  Obama surely did not think that would happen.  He surely believed he was creating a situation that, politically, would be hard to undo.  (Indeed, it is.)  But for this very reason, it should be undone.  If it is not, then, through his abuse of presidential authority to create a situation difficult to undo, Obama has achieved his aim.  He will be rewarded, and a precedent will be set. 

If we are to be a nation of laws, there must be some penalty for the violation of the law.  For this reason, this writer suggests that, as an alternative to full deportation, DACA minors should be required to return, presumably with their parents, to the nation of their origin, but with the proviso that they will have the right to return after four years.  Should they return, it will be as permanent residents, not as citizens.  They will, under the laws, be treated the same as American citizens, but they will not have the right to help determine laws; they will not have the same rights as those immigrants who have come to this nation legally from the start.

Unless there is some price to be paid for the violation of law, sufficient to deter, there is no law. 

Bert Peterson is the author of a newly released and timely e-book, Does Our Banner Still Wave? The NFL Protests and Trump’s Opportunity.

In its introductory section on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA immigration policy, Wikipedia closes by citing the findings of several studies – to wit, that DACA decreased the number of “unauthorized” immigrant households living in poverty and that it increased mental health outcomes for those households.  According to “most economists,” DACA benefited the economy.  (What other economists say on this point is not mentioned here or elsewhere in the Wikipedia entry.)  And “there is no evidence that DACA-eligible individuals are more likely to commit crimes than any other person in the US.”

In other words, if an “unauthorized” alien benefits from entering the U.S., and, “according to most economists,” the economy benefits as well, and the alien commits no more crimes than average (not including the crime he committed by illegally entering the country), the law that prohibited his entry should be ignored.

To put it in another context, say a man “without authorization” kills another man.  Before we assess any penalty, we must first assess whether the loss of the victim is a net positive or negative for society.  Did he have a job, or was he on welfare?  (Was he Democrat or Republican?)

Such reasoning puts economic considerations above the law.  It puts materialistic concerns above concerns for justice.  Some, no doubt, would deny this.  They would point to some “unauthorized” alien minor and contend that the minor did no wrong, and so, were he deported to his parents’ nation of origin, that would be the injustice.

The problem with this is that the people whose laws were violated did no wrong, either.  So why should they be prevented from enforcing their laws?

There is a third party to consider as well, comprising those seeking to immigrate into the United States legally.  To the extent that illegal immigration occurs, there is less opportunity for these prospective legal immigrants.  They did nothing wrong, either, yet they are the ones receiving the real punishment.  Do we, on account of “economic considerations,” forget about them?  Are they somehow less economically beneficial to the United States than illegal – I mean, “unauthorized” – aliens?  Would they be less likely to assimilate and to become law-abiding citizens than those who, from the very start, violate the laws of the United States without consequence?  Obviously not.  Obviously, the opposite is true.

But the illegal aliens are here, and the ones seeking to be legal immigrants are not here.  Possession, they say, is nine tenths of the law.  But there does remain that pesky other tenth, which is guided not by possession (or economic considerations), but by the demands of justice.

If we look to justice, it gives no answer, for the minor is not to blame, the laws and the people who enacted them and want them enforced are not to blame, and those seeking legal entry are not to blame.  So who is to blame?

First, the parents are to blame.  One can understand and be sympathetic toward their crime, but it is a crime nonetheless.  Failing to deport a minor because the minor himself is not to blame rewards the crime.  Can a nation that professes to honor the rule of law reward those who break it?  Can a nation that rewards the breaking of a law hope or expect its immigrants to assimilate into a law-abiding a society when, through that very process, it demonstrates its disregard, if not contempt for the law?

Second, those Democrats who, for perceived political purposes, facilitated such illegal entries are to blame – as are Republicans who, fearing political backlash, did not oppose such measures.  Given the demands of politics, the role of both in this matter may, like that of the parents, be understandable. 

The one who really merits the greatest blame and condemnation is Barack Obama.  This is not because he was a Democrat seeking to bring in more Democrat voters – coming from a partisan Democrat politician, this is understandable.  But Obama was more than a Democrat – he was the president, sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Under the Constitution, it is clear that the enactment of laws lies with the Legislative Branch of government.  It is also clear that immigration policy falls within such purview.  (If it doesn’t, what does?)  Nonetheless, when the legislation Obama desired failed to pass Congress, Obama “enacted it” through executive action.

What can be passed through executive action can be removed through executive action, particularly when that action is unconstitutional.  Obama created a legal status for immigrants, but it was a status that could be removed with the stroke of another president’s pen.  Obama surely did not think that would happen.  He surely believed he was creating a situation that, politically, would be hard to undo.  (Indeed, it is.)  But for this very reason, it should be undone.  If it is not, then, through his abuse of presidential authority to create a situation difficult to undo, Obama has achieved his aim.  He will be rewarded, and a precedent will be set. 

If we are to be a nation of laws, there must be some penalty for the violation of the law.  For this reason, this writer suggests that, as an alternative to full deportation, DACA minors should be required to return, presumably with their parents, to the nation of their origin, but with the proviso that they will have the right to return after four years.  Should they return, it will be as permanent residents, not as citizens.  They will, under the laws, be treated the same as American citizens, but they will not have the right to help determine laws; they will not have the same rights as those immigrants who have come to this nation legally from the start.

Unless there is some price to be paid for the violation of law, sufficient to deter, there is no law. 

Bert Peterson is the author of a newly released and timely e-book, Does Our Banner Still Wave? The NFL Protests and Trump’s Opportunity.



Source link

Is Society Evolving toward Extinction?


A recent online article about a computer glitch has exposed yet another vulnerability civilization faces – not despite its technological complexity, but because of it.  We all know that society depends heavily on computers, and we have become painfully aware that viruses and malware can disable those computers, leading to catastrophic disruptions in air traffic, communications, the power grid, and national defense, to name a few.  The very technology that makes our lives safe and comfortable can also become our downfall unless we understand what is happening and how to protect ourselves.

Some examples from the animal world are helpful to that understanding.  Two creatures that have adapted to their environments are the starfish and the elephant.  The starfish is far more simple and primitive, but it enjoys an important survival advantage.  If it is cut (or bitten) in half, each half can independently regrow its missing half and continue living.  You cannot easily kill one.

By contrast, the elephant is a far more complex creature, and it enjoys the benefits of great size a tough, leathery skin – but a single tiny spear point can abruptly end its life.  This is because complex creatures (including elephants) have vital organs, and in order for the animal to survive, each and every vital organ must not only function well, but function in precise coordination with all the other parts of the organism.

Our computer infrastructure has evolved to a phase in which it has made us exceptionally vulnerable to a cybernetic spear, but without the leathery skin to protect the vital components of that infrastructure.

The irony is not merely symbolic.  More than once, our advanced technology has been defeated by primitive methods, at least in small ways.  For example, during the Gulf War, we were able to disrupt enemy communications by jamming their electronic signals.  Then it was revealed that the enemy could communicate by couriers on mopeds – not as swiftly, of course, but effectively.

More recently, a sniper attack on a single substation in the power grid occurred.  It could have, but for good fortune, disabled a large portion of the West Coast power grid and perhaps produced a cascading effect that would have crippled the nation for a long time.

What is particularly disturbing about all this is that even when flaws in the system are detected, the very repairs that are suggested could themselves prove worse than the problems they are intended to fix.  As the article cited earlier points out, the remedy to any one problem affects every other part of the system, and does so in ways that may not be evident until serious additional damage has been done.  In this case, banks are hesitant to put in a software patch designed to compensate for a defect in a microchip, because the patch might corrupt anti-virus defenses that are already in place.

This principle will become a major problem in the near future, when so-called self-driving cars begin to replace the kind of car you now drive or ride in, assuming you are not Amish.  (The Amish use a more primitive system involving horses.)

Self-driving cars are already a reality, although not yet in widespread use.  The first serious advances in this technology were the result of a competition sponsored by DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).  What is notable about this competition is that in its first year, none of the competitors was able to meet the standards, but in the second year, all of them did – underscoring the exponential speed of technological advance when proper incentives are applied.

The main issues here include the fact that self-driving vehicles will not smoothly integrate themselves into the transportation system.  The integration, instead of being purpose-designed from the ground up, will be the product of various committees, each with its own agenda and competing interests.  It will be like converting your automobile into an airplane but using it every day during the conversion.

Highways have been designed and constructed for human drivers, not for robots.  Autonomous vehicles are designed to incorporate artificial neural networks, an advanced form of artificial intelligence.  In contrast to human drivers, each “robot” driver will be able to monitor all the others simultaneously.  This will enable them to avoid collisions and to cooperate with each other to effect orderly and efficient flows of traffic.  Human drivers will impede that system, perhaps in the same way horse-and-carriage drivers impede present-day traffic flows.  Therefore, human drivers will compete for the roadways, and at a disadvantage.

Perhaps the most significant thing about autonomous vehicles is that they will be vulnerable to hacking.  Another danger is that big government will find a way to control self-driving vehicles, in much the same way that it provides air traffic control for airlines.  Worse yet, the government already possesses the means to monitor your every movement.  Autonomous vehicles will enable government to control where and when you may travel.

If in 1776 we were a starfish, today we are a mighty elephant, but tiny North Korea has become a serious threat.  No longer can we simply send in the Marines and have them home for supper, as we did against banana republics in earlier years, to assert our dominance.  North Korea can easily be conquered, but not without horrific losses by our allies.

The age of complexity overtook us some time ago, and we have yet to work out how to defeat the aboriginal aiming his spear at our heart.  At 70 years of age, I have no answer – but you had better get one.

A recent online article about a computer glitch has exposed yet another vulnerability civilization faces – not despite its technological complexity, but because of it.  We all know that society depends heavily on computers, and we have become painfully aware that viruses and malware can disable those computers, leading to catastrophic disruptions in air traffic, communications, the power grid, and national defense, to name a few.  The very technology that makes our lives safe and comfortable can also become our downfall unless we understand what is happening and how to protect ourselves.

Some examples from the animal world are helpful to that understanding.  Two creatures that have adapted to their environments are the starfish and the elephant.  The starfish is far more simple and primitive, but it enjoys an important survival advantage.  If it is cut (or bitten) in half, each half can independently regrow its missing half and continue living.  You cannot easily kill one.

By contrast, the elephant is a far more complex creature, and it enjoys the benefits of great size a tough, leathery skin – but a single tiny spear point can abruptly end its life.  This is because complex creatures (including elephants) have vital organs, and in order for the animal to survive, each and every vital organ must not only function well, but function in precise coordination with all the other parts of the organism.

Our computer infrastructure has evolved to a phase in which it has made us exceptionally vulnerable to a cybernetic spear, but without the leathery skin to protect the vital components of that infrastructure.

The irony is not merely symbolic.  More than once, our advanced technology has been defeated by primitive methods, at least in small ways.  For example, during the Gulf War, we were able to disrupt enemy communications by jamming their electronic signals.  Then it was revealed that the enemy could communicate by couriers on mopeds – not as swiftly, of course, but effectively.

More recently, a sniper attack on a single substation in the power grid occurred.  It could have, but for good fortune, disabled a large portion of the West Coast power grid and perhaps produced a cascading effect that would have crippled the nation for a long time.

What is particularly disturbing about all this is that even when flaws in the system are detected, the very repairs that are suggested could themselves prove worse than the problems they are intended to fix.  As the article cited earlier points out, the remedy to any one problem affects every other part of the system, and does so in ways that may not be evident until serious additional damage has been done.  In this case, banks are hesitant to put in a software patch designed to compensate for a defect in a microchip, because the patch might corrupt anti-virus defenses that are already in place.

This principle will become a major problem in the near future, when so-called self-driving cars begin to replace the kind of car you now drive or ride in, assuming you are not Amish.  (The Amish use a more primitive system involving horses.)

Self-driving cars are already a reality, although not yet in widespread use.  The first serious advances in this technology were the result of a competition sponsored by DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).  What is notable about this competition is that in its first year, none of the competitors was able to meet the standards, but in the second year, all of them did – underscoring the exponential speed of technological advance when proper incentives are applied.

The main issues here include the fact that self-driving vehicles will not smoothly integrate themselves into the transportation system.  The integration, instead of being purpose-designed from the ground up, will be the product of various committees, each with its own agenda and competing interests.  It will be like converting your automobile into an airplane but using it every day during the conversion.

Highways have been designed and constructed for human drivers, not for robots.  Autonomous vehicles are designed to incorporate artificial neural networks, an advanced form of artificial intelligence.  In contrast to human drivers, each “robot” driver will be able to monitor all the others simultaneously.  This will enable them to avoid collisions and to cooperate with each other to effect orderly and efficient flows of traffic.  Human drivers will impede that system, perhaps in the same way horse-and-carriage drivers impede present-day traffic flows.  Therefore, human drivers will compete for the roadways, and at a disadvantage.

Perhaps the most significant thing about autonomous vehicles is that they will be vulnerable to hacking.  Another danger is that big government will find a way to control self-driving vehicles, in much the same way that it provides air traffic control for airlines.  Worse yet, the government already possesses the means to monitor your every movement.  Autonomous vehicles will enable government to control where and when you may travel.

If in 1776 we were a starfish, today we are a mighty elephant, but tiny North Korea has become a serious threat.  No longer can we simply send in the Marines and have them home for supper, as we did against banana republics in earlier years, to assert our dominance.  North Korea can easily be conquered, but not without horrific losses by our allies.

The age of complexity overtook us some time ago, and we have yet to work out how to defeat the aboriginal aiming his spear at our heart.  At 70 years of age, I have no answer – but you had better get one.



Source link

How Do Liberals Flunk Science? Let Us Count the Ways.


With most of the U.S. recently in the grip of significant cold, and given the proper goading from President Trump, liberals again felt led to lecture us on the difference between weather and climate.  It’s lost on most leftists how they so often fail to apply the same standards to themselves.  Whether blizzards, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, record heat, record cold, and so on, with religious devotion, liberals almost never fail to link dramatic weather events to their apocalyptic climate narrative.

One of the easiest jobs in the world has to be that of climate doomsayer.  No matter the weather, the climate kooks can scream, “Man-made global warming!,” and the faithful will follow with a hearty “Amen!”  In spite of the folly and the pseudo-science behind the man-made global warming movement, time and again, the modern left insists that it is conservatives – especially Christian conservatives – who have abandoned science and reason.

Last year, The New York Times went as far as to blame evangelicals for our “post-truth society.”  The New York Times lamenting a “post-truth society” is like Satan complaining about sin.  Few organizations or individuals in the history of humanity have waged a more enthusiastic war on the truth than has “the newspaper of record.”

Because all sound science – yes, there are plenty of scientific charlatans – always points one to the truth, it is little surprise that those so often opposed to the truth frequently find themselves at odds with what sound science reveals.  For those unsure of where they stand on the spectrum of understanding what real science and scientists have revealed, let me take a moment to chronicle some actual “settled science.”

First of all, back when Adam took his first home-school anatomy course, science long ago revealed that there are only two sexes: male and female.  There is no such thing as a “gender spectrum.”  Any sentient adult telling you that such nonsense exists should have his grown-up card revoked and be required to repeat kindergarten at an approved location.  What’s more, contrary to LGBT propaganda, basic biology is not “transphobic.”

Unlike the modern left’s practice of using a fake problem – man-made climate change – to explain real weather-related catastrophes, tolerating the very real transgender madness of the modern left has led to all sorts of very real human-related catastrophes.  Men using women’s restrooms and locker rooms, men competing against (and taking trophies from) women, women occupying the front lines of our military, and so on are all the direct result of the fake science preached and produced by liberalism.

Just as settled as is the science of who is a male and who is a female is the science of life in the womb.  Life in the womb for a child is as well documented as anything in science.  With ultrasound and Doppler machines, as well as other technology, one can monitor the life of a baby in the womb from very near the beginning until birth.

Moments after conception (hardly a serious biologist in the world would argue that life does not begin at conception), the resulting single cell contains all 46 chromosomes necessary to grow into an adult human being.  Within 48 hours of conception, the mother’s body starts producing a hormone to let her know she is pregnant.  In the beginning of the third week, the baby’s heart begins to beat, with a blood type that is often different from his mother’s.

During week five, eyes, legs, and hands have begun to develop.  By week six, brain waves are detectable.  Week eight has every organ in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and the baby can begin to hear.  By week twelve, the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester.  He has all the necessary parts to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.  He can grasp objects placed in his hand and has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, and circulation.

By week fifteen, he has an adult’s taste buds.  At week twenty, the earliest stage at which liberals used to conduct partial-birth abortions, the child can recognize his mother’s voice.  He is within one or two weeks of the stage where babies can routinely be saved outside the womb.

In spite of all this, to justify the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children, abortion apologists have regularly ignored the indisputable science of life in the womb.

Recently, liberals have gone so far as to launch a massive billboard campaign that refers to abortion as “sacred,” “a blessing,” and even “life-saving.”  Abortion is so far from the concept of “life-saving” that it’s not too difficult – especially among the government-educated – to find individuals who advocate infanticide.  We shouldn’t be surprised by this when the last U.S. president – elected twice – basically advocated the same.

And why the devotion to killing the most innocent and defenseless among us?  The will to do whatever one wants sexually without the consequences is a powerful force, and those corrupted by liberalism will go to almost any length – including fake science – in order to keep abortion popular and legal.

Speaking of a liberal’s libido, real science does no favors for the homosexual agenda, either.  As Obama’s senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, learned in 2010, even well established liberals can draw the ire of the homosexual community by simply implying that homosexuality is not innate (meaning genetic), but is rather a “lifestyle choice.”  (Jarrett quickly backtracked and apologized.)  We’ve been told for decades now that homosexuality is a genetic and unchangeable behavior – that people are “born gay.”

In 1993, when the journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer (et al.) that strongly suggested the existence of a gene for homosexuality, an eager and complicit media celebrated.  National Public Radio trumpeted the findings.  Newsweek’s cover asked, “Gay Gene?”  The Wall Street Journal announced, “Research Points toward a Gay Gene…”  The New York Times noted, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes.”

However, noted psychiatrist, physicist, and author (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Jeffrey Satinover concluded that “the Hamer study is seriously flawed.”  Many genetic researchers also quickly took issue with Hamer’s study.  Yet the myth grew.  Today, it is commonplace for liberals in the media, Hollywood, and like-minded politicians again to ignore the real science and perpetuate the falsehood that homosexuality is strictly genetic.

Dr. Satinover notes, “The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief.  There is not the slightest evidence for that[,] as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.”  What science does reveal is that homosexuality is a rather unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

And much to the dismay of many on the modern left, sodomy doesn’t produce babies – because, you know, science.  Thus, we now have fools declaring same-sex couples “infertile” and demanding that health insurance companies foot the bill to remedy this.  So along with paying for abortions and “gender reassignment” surgery, liberals want us to foot the bill so that two men can have a baby.

As they foolishly declare their “belief in science,” liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren remind us that what liberals are devoted to is not science, but scientism.  Because of this, their policies will always, ultimately, fail.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor is the author of 
The Miracle and Magnificence of America.

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

With most of the U.S. recently in the grip of significant cold, and given the proper goading from President Trump, liberals again felt led to lecture us on the difference between weather and climate.  It’s lost on most leftists how they so often fail to apply the same standards to themselves.  Whether blizzards, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, record heat, record cold, and so on, with religious devotion, liberals almost never fail to link dramatic weather events to their apocalyptic climate narrative.

One of the easiest jobs in the world has to be that of climate doomsayer.  No matter the weather, the climate kooks can scream, “Man-made global warming!,” and the faithful will follow with a hearty “Amen!”  In spite of the folly and the pseudo-science behind the man-made global warming movement, time and again, the modern left insists that it is conservatives – especially Christian conservatives – who have abandoned science and reason.

Last year, The New York Times went as far as to blame evangelicals for our “post-truth society.”  The New York Times lamenting a “post-truth society” is like Satan complaining about sin.  Few organizations or individuals in the history of humanity have waged a more enthusiastic war on the truth than has “the newspaper of record.”

Because all sound science – yes, there are plenty of scientific charlatans – always points one to the truth, it is little surprise that those so often opposed to the truth frequently find themselves at odds with what sound science reveals.  For those unsure of where they stand on the spectrum of understanding what real science and scientists have revealed, let me take a moment to chronicle some actual “settled science.”

First of all, back when Adam took his first home-school anatomy course, science long ago revealed that there are only two sexes: male and female.  There is no such thing as a “gender spectrum.”  Any sentient adult telling you that such nonsense exists should have his grown-up card revoked and be required to repeat kindergarten at an approved location.  What’s more, contrary to LGBT propaganda, basic biology is not “transphobic.”

Unlike the modern left’s practice of using a fake problem – man-made climate change – to explain real weather-related catastrophes, tolerating the very real transgender madness of the modern left has led to all sorts of very real human-related catastrophes.  Men using women’s restrooms and locker rooms, men competing against (and taking trophies from) women, women occupying the front lines of our military, and so on are all the direct result of the fake science preached and produced by liberalism.

Just as settled as is the science of who is a male and who is a female is the science of life in the womb.  Life in the womb for a child is as well documented as anything in science.  With ultrasound and Doppler machines, as well as other technology, one can monitor the life of a baby in the womb from very near the beginning until birth.

Moments after conception (hardly a serious biologist in the world would argue that life does not begin at conception), the resulting single cell contains all 46 chromosomes necessary to grow into an adult human being.  Within 48 hours of conception, the mother’s body starts producing a hormone to let her know she is pregnant.  In the beginning of the third week, the baby’s heart begins to beat, with a blood type that is often different from his mother’s.

During week five, eyes, legs, and hands have begun to develop.  By week six, brain waves are detectable.  Week eight has every organ in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and the baby can begin to hear.  By week twelve, the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester.  He has all the necessary parts to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus.  He can grasp objects placed in his hand and has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, and circulation.

By week fifteen, he has an adult’s taste buds.  At week twenty, the earliest stage at which liberals used to conduct partial-birth abortions, the child can recognize his mother’s voice.  He is within one or two weeks of the stage where babies can routinely be saved outside the womb.

In spite of all this, to justify the slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children, abortion apologists have regularly ignored the indisputable science of life in the womb.

Recently, liberals have gone so far as to launch a massive billboard campaign that refers to abortion as “sacred,” “a blessing,” and even “life-saving.”  Abortion is so far from the concept of “life-saving” that it’s not too difficult – especially among the government-educated – to find individuals who advocate infanticide.  We shouldn’t be surprised by this when the last U.S. president – elected twice – basically advocated the same.

And why the devotion to killing the most innocent and defenseless among us?  The will to do whatever one wants sexually without the consequences is a powerful force, and those corrupted by liberalism will go to almost any length – including fake science – in order to keep abortion popular and legal.

Speaking of a liberal’s libido, real science does no favors for the homosexual agenda, either.  As Obama’s senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, learned in 2010, even well established liberals can draw the ire of the homosexual community by simply implying that homosexuality is not innate (meaning genetic), but is rather a “lifestyle choice.”  (Jarrett quickly backtracked and apologized.)  We’ve been told for decades now that homosexuality is a genetic and unchangeable behavior – that people are “born gay.”

In 1993, when the journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer (et al.) that strongly suggested the existence of a gene for homosexuality, an eager and complicit media celebrated.  National Public Radio trumpeted the findings.  Newsweek’s cover asked, “Gay Gene?”  The Wall Street Journal announced, “Research Points toward a Gay Gene…”  The New York Times noted, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes.”

However, noted psychiatrist, physicist, and author (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth) Jeffrey Satinover concluded that “the Hamer study is seriously flawed.”  Many genetic researchers also quickly took issue with Hamer’s study.  Yet the myth grew.  Today, it is commonplace for liberals in the media, Hollywood, and like-minded politicians again to ignore the real science and perpetuate the falsehood that homosexuality is strictly genetic.

Dr. Satinover notes, “The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief.  There is not the slightest evidence for that[,] as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.”  What science does reveal is that homosexuality is a rather unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

And much to the dismay of many on the modern left, sodomy doesn’t produce babies – because, you know, science.  Thus, we now have fools declaring same-sex couples “infertile” and demanding that health insurance companies foot the bill to remedy this.  So along with paying for abortions and “gender reassignment” surgery, liberals want us to foot the bill so that two men can have a baby.

As they foolishly declare their “belief in science,” liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren remind us that what liberals are devoted to is not science, but scientism.  Because of this, their policies will always, ultimately, fail.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor is the author of 
The Miracle and Magnificence of America.

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com



Source link

The Left's False Vision of Economics and Morality


Commentaries by the left repeatedly emphasize the words “fairness,” “morality,” “equality,” “community,” and “the poor.”  According to the left, morality and fairness are economic concepts, not biblically based, divinely approved commands.  Morality and fairness are undermined by “disparity.”  The rich, and possibly those awful, fanatical, and outrageously hypocritical conservative Christians, are disrupting “community” (sometimes referred to as the “global village”).  Without the distractions of Christians and conservatives, there would be much more social coherence, fairness, community, and even better weather!

But there’s even more: get rid of income inequality, put more constraints on the rich, stop America’s love of autos and such wasteful stuff as wanting to be warm in the winter (remote control over home thermostats is on the horizon), and we would have a more healthy, unified, and good society and world.

Wait.  There’s more: subjugate the conservatives and religionists, the pro-lifers and the heterosexual lobby, and then you’ll have a “free society” without ignorant hypocrites.  We are oppressed and beleaguered by that crowd of country bumpkins who go to NASCAR races and cling to their religion and their guns (oh, my – the Second Amendment has to go, too!).

Let us squash once and for all those dead and superficial thoughts from the white, elitist, Protestant, racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, self-centered, hypocritical American past.  (What a horrible place this country has always been!)  Let’s get over the 18th- and 19th- century ideals and move on to the future with a “new” corporate-government alliance, where the government part of the alliance assures and controls that the common good is adhered to.

Wall Street can be and will be replaced with a more knowing and enlightened elite.  The government will restore balance and a vision of the greatest good for the greatest number.  Utilitarianism tweaked with a Marxist sense of the radical disconnect between the exploiters and the exploited will replace laissez-faire ideas.  We will move from the present mixed economy to a new stage of a controlled mixed economy, with more control and less “mix.”

According to the hyped and hyper left, now having its epicenter not in the Socialist Party or the Progressive Workers’ Party, but in the Democratic Party, if we could get out of the mindset of the past, we can really advance the modern cause of security, not liberty.  To the left, the nation-state is an excrescence.  Globalism and one-world government are the preferred format, and that is where we are going and must be going.  Further, individual liberty is an illusion in a world controlled by capitalist greed.  We can be in tune with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which affirms the goal of “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person,” not “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

With the Marxist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” applying in North America as well as around the world, poverty would belong to history.

By listening to the sweet tones of the dialectic materialist vision, we can allow ourselves to be drawn into a new religious vision, a religious vision without God.  Science will be put in the service of people – not in the service of a race to the patent office, the banks, or the pharmaceutical companies.  The technology of warfare will be eliminated.  This is the true “peace on earth and good will toward man.”  One can almost hear the demonic, derisive laughter of the atheistic left as it contemplates belief in the “Prince of Peace.”

Day and night, they reflect on the selfishness of reactionary minds, which keeps them from catching this vision.

However, the truth is the opposite of this egregiously distorted vision.  The rich getting richer is not the cause of the poor getting poorer.  The middle class did not arise in this country because the rich were (first) less rich, nor is poverty a result of increased wealth either in the middle classes or among the rich.  The rise of a managerial class or middle class can be traced to large-scale industrialization just as much as the proletariat can be traced to that period.  Land grant colleges were created to increase the numbers of scientifically trained experts (middle class) in agriculture, and later in engineering.

Colleges were founded by industrious and wealthy Protestants to provide advanced education for ministers (middle class).  Public education gave rise to the normal school movement to turn out sufficient numbers of teachers (middle class) for the increased student population.  Andrew Carnegie and others were benefactors of society (Carnegie founded and funded the New York Public Library system).  Thousands and tens of thousands of small businesses contributed to the building of the railroads, the steel industry, automobiles, ship-building, tool and die, meat-packing and processing, and the construction of skyscrapers and subways in our urban centers.  (The subways of NYC, by the way, were built and financed privately when they were created.)  Never mind the millions of mom-and-pop hardware, grocery, jewelry, barrel-making, blacksmithing, carriage-making, dry goods, etc. businesses.

The idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer expresses resentment for the rich and is a ploy of demagogues rather than a significant or useful economic concept.  The drumbeat of class warfare is a bottomless pit.  It can and will turn around and bite everyone, not only the top 1% or top 0.1%.   The top 1% already pays 60% of the taxes.  What’s fair about that?  Can I rob a bank or shoplift with the thought “they have so much; they’ll never miss what I take”?  Robin Hood was a criminal.  I have prospered because of my students, but does that mean part of my income should be taken and redistributed directly to my students each year?  Let’s think through the implication of some of these ideas from the pseudo-egalitarian lexicon.

How often has this writer heard leftists criticize Christians for not living up to biblical standards of morality?  However, while Christ expressed a preference for the poor, Christian morality based largely on the morality given by God to the Israelites in the Old Testament does not put the wealth of the faithful in opposition to true morality.  Many biblical heroes from Abraham to David to Solomon were among the super-rich of their times.  The problem with wealth is not that the wealthy have the money, but that they are too absorbed by their wealth and thus resist true, God-centered morality.  That is the true meaning of “You cannot love God and mammon, too” (Luke 16:13).

The Judeo-Christian standard of morality is a standard of righteousness based on the commandments of God!  It is wrong to steal, not to be in the top 1%.  It is wrong to seduce your neighbor’s wife, not to be in the top 0.1%.  Until this is understood and accepted, there will be a tendency among various circles of people to confuse wealth with criminality (unless your name is Kennedy or Clinton), to confuse order imposed by government from above with true community based on caring (“love thy neighbor as thyself”), and to confuse rabble-rousing with reason.

Commentaries by the left repeatedly emphasize the words “fairness,” “morality,” “equality,” “community,” and “the poor.”  According to the left, morality and fairness are economic concepts, not biblically based, divinely approved commands.  Morality and fairness are undermined by “disparity.”  The rich, and possibly those awful, fanatical, and outrageously hypocritical conservative Christians, are disrupting “community” (sometimes referred to as the “global village”).  Without the distractions of Christians and conservatives, there would be much more social coherence, fairness, community, and even better weather!

But there’s even more: get rid of income inequality, put more constraints on the rich, stop America’s love of autos and such wasteful stuff as wanting to be warm in the winter (remote control over home thermostats is on the horizon), and we would have a more healthy, unified, and good society and world.

Wait.  There’s more: subjugate the conservatives and religionists, the pro-lifers and the heterosexual lobby, and then you’ll have a “free society” without ignorant hypocrites.  We are oppressed and beleaguered by that crowd of country bumpkins who go to NASCAR races and cling to their religion and their guns (oh, my – the Second Amendment has to go, too!).

Let us squash once and for all those dead and superficial thoughts from the white, elitist, Protestant, racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, self-centered, hypocritical American past.  (What a horrible place this country has always been!)  Let’s get over the 18th- and 19th- century ideals and move on to the future with a “new” corporate-government alliance, where the government part of the alliance assures and controls that the common good is adhered to.

Wall Street can be and will be replaced with a more knowing and enlightened elite.  The government will restore balance and a vision of the greatest good for the greatest number.  Utilitarianism tweaked with a Marxist sense of the radical disconnect between the exploiters and the exploited will replace laissez-faire ideas.  We will move from the present mixed economy to a new stage of a controlled mixed economy, with more control and less “mix.”

According to the hyped and hyper left, now having its epicenter not in the Socialist Party or the Progressive Workers’ Party, but in the Democratic Party, if we could get out of the mindset of the past, we can really advance the modern cause of security, not liberty.  To the left, the nation-state is an excrescence.  Globalism and one-world government are the preferred format, and that is where we are going and must be going.  Further, individual liberty is an illusion in a world controlled by capitalist greed.  We can be in tune with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which affirms the goal of “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person,” not “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

With the Marxist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” applying in North America as well as around the world, poverty would belong to history.

By listening to the sweet tones of the dialectic materialist vision, we can allow ourselves to be drawn into a new religious vision, a religious vision without God.  Science will be put in the service of people – not in the service of a race to the patent office, the banks, or the pharmaceutical companies.  The technology of warfare will be eliminated.  This is the true “peace on earth and good will toward man.”  One can almost hear the demonic, derisive laughter of the atheistic left as it contemplates belief in the “Prince of Peace.”

Day and night, they reflect on the selfishness of reactionary minds, which keeps them from catching this vision.

However, the truth is the opposite of this egregiously distorted vision.  The rich getting richer is not the cause of the poor getting poorer.  The middle class did not arise in this country because the rich were (first) less rich, nor is poverty a result of increased wealth either in the middle classes or among the rich.  The rise of a managerial class or middle class can be traced to large-scale industrialization just as much as the proletariat can be traced to that period.  Land grant colleges were created to increase the numbers of scientifically trained experts (middle class) in agriculture, and later in engineering.

Colleges were founded by industrious and wealthy Protestants to provide advanced education for ministers (middle class).  Public education gave rise to the normal school movement to turn out sufficient numbers of teachers (middle class) for the increased student population.  Andrew Carnegie and others were benefactors of society (Carnegie founded and funded the New York Public Library system).  Thousands and tens of thousands of small businesses contributed to the building of the railroads, the steel industry, automobiles, ship-building, tool and die, meat-packing and processing, and the construction of skyscrapers and subways in our urban centers.  (The subways of NYC, by the way, were built and financed privately when they were created.)  Never mind the millions of mom-and-pop hardware, grocery, jewelry, barrel-making, blacksmithing, carriage-making, dry goods, etc. businesses.

The idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer expresses resentment for the rich and is a ploy of demagogues rather than a significant or useful economic concept.  The drumbeat of class warfare is a bottomless pit.  It can and will turn around and bite everyone, not only the top 1% or top 0.1%.   The top 1% already pays 60% of the taxes.  What’s fair about that?  Can I rob a bank or shoplift with the thought “they have so much; they’ll never miss what I take”?  Robin Hood was a criminal.  I have prospered because of my students, but does that mean part of my income should be taken and redistributed directly to my students each year?  Let’s think through the implication of some of these ideas from the pseudo-egalitarian lexicon.

How often has this writer heard leftists criticize Christians for not living up to biblical standards of morality?  However, while Christ expressed a preference for the poor, Christian morality based largely on the morality given by God to the Israelites in the Old Testament does not put the wealth of the faithful in opposition to true morality.  Many biblical heroes from Abraham to David to Solomon were among the super-rich of their times.  The problem with wealth is not that the wealthy have the money, but that they are too absorbed by their wealth and thus resist true, God-centered morality.  That is the true meaning of “You cannot love God and mammon, too” (Luke 16:13).

The Judeo-Christian standard of morality is a standard of righteousness based on the commandments of God!  It is wrong to steal, not to be in the top 1%.  It is wrong to seduce your neighbor’s wife, not to be in the top 0.1%.  Until this is understood and accepted, there will be a tendency among various circles of people to confuse wealth with criminality (unless your name is Kennedy or Clinton), to confuse order imposed by government from above with true community based on caring (“love thy neighbor as thyself”), and to confuse rabble-rousing with reason.



Source link