Enjoy the Victory Lap While It Lasts!

At first I was disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.  Then I realized that Chief Justice Roberts has actually done something very smart indeed.  He gave the liberals a Pyrrhic victory.  And he saved the Court from being accused by the left of being too partisan.

Krauthammer has a thoughtful analysis saying, basically, that Roberts has been true both to is own judicial philosophy and to the preserving the institutional dignity of the Court:

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.
Law upheld, Supreme Court's reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.
That's not how I would have ruled. I think the "mandate is merely a tax" argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The "tax" is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that's not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice, and not the chief. But that's how he did rule.
ObamaCare is now essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won't make it easy for you.

See also the blog Universal Christian.

Albert Einstein and the Catholic Church

Albert Einstein once wrote about his attitude to the Catholic Church:

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks….

.

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

.

- Albert Einstein, Time magazine, 23rd December, 1940 p. 38

See also the blog Universal Christian.

"unaffordable ratchet effect"

Not a new article, but insightful, in my opinion is the idea in this article that welfare states need to be able to dial back their benefits during hard economic times.  Instead, benefits are ratcheted up  in fat times but not scaled back in lean times.   In fact, the we should learn from the Pharaoh's dream in the story of Joseph in the bible.  Here the Pharaoh had a dream about 7 fat cows and 7 lean cows and asked Joseph to interpret these for him.  Joseph said that the 7 fat cows symbolized 7 years of plenty, while the 7 lean cows represented 7 lean years that were coming.  Thus, he advised the Pharaoh to store up grain during the fat years to be doled out in the lean years.

Our governments never seem to learn this lesson.  We tend to spend like prosperity is going to last forever.
See also the blog Universal Christian.

Leftism's Legacy

Leftism has been around for a while.  The French Revolution and the teachings of Marx did much to place its nonsense to world scene.  But in America it really didn't take off until the 1960s.  Here the ideological old guard found a spoiled generation of thrill seekers hungering for some meaning in their lives and they were all too eager and ready to provide them with an Ersatz religion.  The 1950s saw unprecedented prosperity  and the rise of materialism with its attendant softening of spiritual discipline.

The youth of the 1960s were thus hungering for a deeper spiritual meaning in life to counter the emptiness of materialistic suburbia.  They sought to acquire this meaning with all too easy means.  Drugs, for example, especially LSD and Marijuana, gave them a small taste of momentary euphoria.  Sexual license, aka "free love," promised to give young people the ecstasy of intimacy without the burden of commitment.

Having rebelled against the sexual mores of their parents and rightfully rebelling against their parent's crass materialism left the 1960s youth as easy pray for the ideological left.  They sought to channel the rebellion into their socialist causes.  They made heroes of the likes of Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh and they enlisted in the ranks of the Democratic Party which veered ever more left away from the center.

Great social welfare programs were conceived, Medicare, Medicaid, LBJ's War on Poverty, etc.

But the animus for much of this was really based on feelings.  It feels good to care for the poor and the sick.  It also felt good to have sex and use drugs.  And so a whole generation began to subscribe more or less to the motto that was shouted from the rooftops at the time:  "If it feels good, do it!"

It is natural that a philosophy of life based on feelings should fill the spiritual void left by the abandonment of more traditional systems of values such as that based on the Judeo-Christian laws enshrined in the 10 commandments.  Nature abhors a vacuum.

I have to credit Dennis Prager with having first made me aware of this fact that leftism is really a religion that is based on feelings.   But, being dependent upon your feelings to tell if something is right or not does not prove effective in cultivating certain virtues such as fortitude or bravery.  Fortitude is developed by sticking to your sound principles in the face of opposition.  Feelings are not sound in this way, because it often doesn't feel good to stick to principles.  It is far easier to just shrug one's shoulder and mutter something about "to each his own," live and let live, and simply turn one's back when manifest evil appears.  Thus, the left preaches tolerance above all else, but when you ask them if intolerance should be tolerated you get nothing but blank stares and silence.  They embrace subjective relativism and don't want to be judgmental.  Judging other's behavior makes us uncomfortable, it doesn't feel good.  And so we seek refuge in a cowardly philosophy that pretends that all values and beliefs are somehow equal and therefore to be tolerated.

I wrote about a man today who lived around 500 years ago and knew precisely what it meant to stand his ground on principle, even at the cost of his life:  Thomas More.  He was truly a man for all seasons who spoke truth to power and said no to political correctness even though it cost him his life.

Such fortitude and bravery is very rare nowadays.  Instead we are surrounded by cowards who always seem to seek the easy way out.  Take our hapless president, Barack Obama.  Instead of trying to do the hard work of reaching across the aisle and finding sound bipartisan solutions to the most pressing economic problems of 2009 and 2010, nameless the problem of unemployment, he chose instead the easy partisan route of working with his Democratic compatriots to foist on the rest of America a mammoth health care overhaul involving one sixth of the economy.  That was the easy thing to do because he had a Democratic majority in the Senate and House.  He could run rough shod over all the GOP opposition.  Piece of cake.

In contrast to Thomas More, Barack Obama is a manifest coward.  But he is the perfect expression of the mindset that grew out of the sixties. He gamed the system with affirmative action and like a silver tongued devil talked his way into office without any qualifications or any real experience as a leader or even as a worker.  All talk, no substance.  A consummate phony, our Charlatan-in-Chief.  And, of course, he has a large cadre of cowardly leftists at his disposal in the media who will gladly and giddily embrace "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" and look the other way as this charlatan tramples on the US Constitution.
See also the blog Universal Christian.

Federal Spending on Poverty

In a book called The Dependency Agenda (Encounter Broadsides), Kevin Williamson describes what happens to all federal spending on poverty. If you take all of the money that the federal government spends on poverty programs and divide that amount by the number of poor families in America, you get average spending of $65,000 per poor family.  The national income average is only $50,000!   So where is all this spending on poverty programs going? It turns out that it is going to folks who have vested interest in "caring about poverty" but never really doing anything to solve the problem.

James Delong discusses this in a recent article.
See also the blog Universal Christian.

The Victim-in-Chief Admits Failure

Besides being Charlatan-in-Chief, our current president is a quintessentially liberal in the sense that he cannot own up to any mistakes, but must always see himself and the Democrats as victims.  They are unsuccessful because they are victims.  Here in this article on Newsbusters, he is back to blaming Bush for everything.  To be sure, he is speaking with an audience that already believes that the failings of the underclass minorities is always about victimization. 

But his analogy of the restaurant with the GOP running up a tab and running out just as he gets to the table, leaving him the tab, is tantamount to admitting that his presidency is, in economic terms, a complete failure.  He just wants to make sure that someone else is to blame.
See also the blog Universal Christian.

Any Questions?

See also the blog Universal Christian.

Great Analysis of Wisconsin

Here is the best analysis of the Winsconsin recall election that I've read to date.
See also the blog Universal Christian.

Not a Good Week for Democrats

It started Tuesday with the overwhelming loss in Wisconsin.  The Democrats depend on their union boss allies to deliver the goods (i.e., campaign donations) based of mandatory union dues.  The Democrats in turn scratch the backs of the union bosses by passing laws that keep such dues mandatory and give the unions monopolies in certain areas like health insurance.  But the taxpayers of Wisconsin appear to be tired of this game.  They elected a Republican governor named Scott Walker who vowed to curtail such practices.  The Democrats and union bosses responded with a tantrum year of demonstrations.  Democrat state senators fled the state in order to avoid having to vote on Walker's proposals.  They mounted a noisy recall campaign that culminated in Tuesday's recall election.  But the people of Wisconsin responded that they are tired of the tantrums and in fact like the fiscal results emanating from Walker's program of fiscal restraint.

The Democrat on Wednesday whined that they were outspent by -- heaven forbid -- outside money.  It is true that Walker raised more money through lots of small donations (under $50) from concerned citizens outside of Wisconsin.   The Democrats did the same and added huge union contributions to boot.   But the popular support financially and electorally went to the Walker side.

Then on Wednesday we received the news that the Romney camp raised more money than the Obama camp in the month of May.  Despite having cast his lot with wealthy celebrities making huge donations, Obama is not able to raise as much money as Romney who is like Walker getting numerous donations from average Joes.

Also on Wednesday we heard about the big dog, Bill Clinton, going rogue and contradicting the Obama machine message.  He said that Romney's record in the business sector was "sterling" after weeks of attempts by the Obama camp to paint Romney as a vulture capitalist.  The Obama camp couldn't quite shut him up like they did with Corey Booker, the mayor of Newark, and it wasn't until late Thursday that we heard that Clinton expressed real "sorrow" for going off message.

On Thursday we heard complaints coming from both sides of the aisle in the Senate about the intelligence leaks that seem to come straight from the White House.  An investigation is about to start and the Administration will no doubt try to squash it.

Also, on Friday there was more bad news for Obama.  A new poll found that nearly 70% of Americans are rooting for ObamaCare to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

So now it is Friday and we are learning that Obama's $25,000,000 dollars worth of advertising buys in May have yielded nothing in terms of polling numbers and may have even hurt him slightly in the polls.   And, even more entertaining is that prominent Dems like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC chair, are trying hard to acquire the Republican vocabulary.  Pelosi, for her part, used phrases like "private sector oriented" and "market oriented" to describe ObamaCare.  Wasserman-Schultz, on the other hand, is spinning the loss in Wisconsin as a failed attempt on their part to stop "government overreach" while they ensure that "the voices of middle-class families were heard."

So the spinning will continue and Democratic donors will continue to throw good money after bad and invest in the losing proposition of the Democratic machine.  They will continue to say that "up" means "down" and "down" means "up".   They will continue to have rockstar fundraising parties for their Rockstar-in-Chief with the Hollywood elites.  And it looks like they will not hear the two watchman on the bow saying, "Iceberg ahead!"

Here's another author's take on this week's election news.
See also the blog Universal Christian.

Euro Tipping Point is Near

Last fall, this article pointed to signs of the tipping point for euro collapse.   The key sign was what the global banking and financial market makers did with their money.  They would pull out of risky markets and seek safe havens.   This is now happening.  The bond rates are diverging:  the riskier countries like Greece, Italy and Spain, have to pay exorbitant rates to keep investors interested (no pun intended).   The safer countries like Germany and Denmark, don't have to pay hardly any interest at all, because investors are flocking to their sovereign instruments.   This past week the German Bund even went negative, meaning that investors were paying to park their funds there.   And I we say investors, I mean primarily big money investors like banks.

That article was written over 6 months ago.  Now the piper has arrived.   Read today's article to see what is happening right now.   George Soros believes that Europe has a three-month window to get it right before a serious collapse sets in.  Even if Europe reacts correctly and shores up their system like we did in the fall of 2008 with TARP and other measures, this will likely usher in a double-dip recession.   But if the Euro cracks apart and sovereigns like Greece, Italy and Spain simply default on their bonds because they just can't pay the interest, there will be shockwaves across the world.   The US will not be immune and will take a big hit.   But we will survive.   At least until our own sovereign debt problem becomes the main actor on the stage.

Barbarians at the Gate? No, in our Midst

The traditional notion of barbarism is that it is matter of one less civilized culture or nation attacking and plundering a more civilized culture or state.  Such is the image of the barbarians tribes from northern Europe, the Vandals and the Goths, invading and plundering Rome in the early centuries AD.   We also think of the Huns and the invading Mongolian tribes traversing the steppes of Russia to attack the cities of middle and Western Europe. 

In today's multicultural, ethnically mixed societies such as the United States, this picture is not quite relevant.  The US does not stand in danger of being overrun by hordes coming across our borders, despite the real problem of illegal immigration.  However, the US does stand in danger of internal barbarism in which large numbers of its own citizens, long dependent on government subsidies, and having no inner moral code compelling them toward self-control, rise up when the subsidies become unsustainable and intimidate the more civilized members of American society. 

We are already seeing hints of this.  In this article by Bert Atkinson, Jr., we read of the many signs that are American civilization may be breaking down.  Let's us hope that a strong leader is voted into power in November who will put a stop to this very scary stuff.

Scott Walker: True Progressive

Scott Walker is doing the unions a favor by helping them get their economical house in order, but the radicals in Madison don't seem to care or notice.   They see their power of union thuggery being threatened, and so they march and rant in Madison.   But the signs are good that the rest of the state has already awakened to the common sense of Walker's policies.  He has already helped school districts, and therefore unionized workers, save lots of money.

It is now being recognized that what he is doing is truly progressive in the sense of helping the public good, rather than union thugs' ideology that tends to saddle states with crushing debt.

For great insight into this, see this article by Steven Greenhut at reason.com. 

The HHS Mandate: A Truly Unjust Law

The bishops of the Catholic Church in America are rightly sounding the alarms bells about the HHS mandate.
 In a letter to the faithful on their website, the bishops quote the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

 I would agree with Saint Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all." Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Dr. King wrote this in 1963.  It is part of his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail".



The bishops, for their part, have this to say about the HHS mandate:

It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith.

It is essential to understand the distinction between conscientious objection and an unjust law. Conscientious objection permits some relief to those who object to a just law for reasons of conscience—conscription being the most well-known example. An unjust law is "no law at all." It cannot be obeyed, and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal.

The First Amendment Under Attack

Many folks don't realize that the first amendment to the US Constitution has two clauses having to do with freedom on religion.   The full amendment is this:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  The first two clauses have to do with religious freedom.  Please note the second clause:  "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".   Of course one can argue that the President is not Congress and so he is not bound by this.  But he is bound by a larger one:  Only Congress can make laws.  

However, when it comes to interpretation and enforcement of laws, the Executive Branch must necessarily exercise judgement.  In the case of the HHS mandate, as interpreted by the Obama Administration as part of the Affordable Health Care act (aka ObamaCare), the Executive Branch has taken upon itself to define what religion is! 

In a very insightful article, Janine Turner says, among other things, the following:

"Obama has not only taken on the Catholic Church, he has taken on all religion because he is redefining religion. Obama is dictating where a religious people are religious and where they are not, where they have a right to be religious and where they do not. According to President Obama, religious morality and compassion only exist in the temple itself. Catholic-initiated outreaches and missions extended in schools, colleges, hospitals, social service institutions, and charities are not religious, according to Obama. This redefinition conveniently gives him the self-declared right to dictate how these Catholic institutions operate."

This is a violation of the Constitution on several accounts.  He is de facto making law which the Constitution expressly forbids of the Executive Branch, and doing what the Constitution even forbids Congress to do, namely prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

If ObamaCare is not struck down by the Supreme Court this month, it will surely be struck down when these lawsuits by Catholic institutions such as the University of Notre Dame finally reach that bench.

Turner's Article

Did You Get Zucked?

A new dirty, four-letter word has entered the English language all in the space of a week: The verb to zuck. It is used mostly in the passive voice as in "to get zucked" and it means, to get screwed as Marc Zuckerberg screwed all the Facebook investors. He's laughing all the way to the bank while he drops off a big donation into Obama's re-election campaign coffers.

Besides generously supporting the Narcissist-in-Chief, the Zucker also made sure that he did not tie the knot with his wife until after the IPO.  After all in community property state like California, he did not want to have to share his billions with his wife.  He can always just discard her and get a new one when he is tired of her.  C'est la vie in California.