Discourse vs. Deception

Liberal role-model?

It seems like an eternity has passed since then-prospective presidential candidate Governor Mitch Daniels was calling for a “truce” on social issues so that conservatives and liberals could unite to focus on much-needed economic and entitlement reforms. Even the last faint dying glimmers of hope for such a truce are now gone. In recent weeks, the Obama Administration and its allies have launched an all-out attack on religious freedom and especially the Catholic Church. Worse still, liberals are employing shockingly dishonest tactics to advance their radical agenda.

Sandra Fluke has emerged as the standard-bearer of the Obama Administration’s push for “free” (i.e., government-mandated and employer-funded) birth control, sterilizations, and abortion-inducing drugs. Initial media reports identified her as a 23-year-old law student at Georgetown University, but a look at her online profile at LinkedIn reveals that she is actually a 30-something agitator for something called “reproductive justice” and has a lengthy résumé of feminist organizations.

Furthermore, when Ms. Fluke decided to attend Georgetown University, she did so precisely because she knew that, as a Catholic institution, they would not cover the cost of her contraceptives and thus she could use her opposition to the Church’s teachings and longstanding university policy as a means to advance her personal political agenda and her career. According to a friendly biographical piece at the Washington Post, she has been lobbying the school to sacrifice its beliefs in favor of her own from the moment of her matriculation, even before the HHS contraceptive mandate was a twinkle in Obama’s eye.

In another instance, the New York Daily News reported that Barbara Johnson was denied communion at her mother’s funeral because she happens to be a lesbian. The mainstream media did not report that she approached the priest before the Mass and introduced him to her lesbian lover which prompted the priest to tell her that he could not in good conscience give her the Eucharist. Nevertheless, she insisted on approaching the altar anyway and then later complained to the press about her supposed “ill-treatment” when the priest again refused. Predictably, the liberal response was outrage that the priest could be so insensitive.



However, a quick glance at the Facebook and Twitter pages of her art school (for children!) reveals a series of pro-abortion and pro-homosexual links which are clearly and explicitly at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. A small sampling is reproduced nearby. Ms. Johnson is entitled to her beliefs, but instead of also respecting the beliefs of her dead mother and the congregation at her mother’s parish, Ms. Johnson crassly used the occasion of her mother’s death to advance her personal political agenda. Just as in the case of Ms. Fluke, the timing of this incident is suspicious, as Maryland passed a gay marriage bill the same day the story broke.

The liberal narrative is that the Catholic Church is oppressing women, but the truth is that radical liberals who do not believe in the Church’s teachings are manufacturing controversy with the help of manipulative media elites. The freedom of religion is inextricably linked to the freedoms of speech, expression, and even thought itself. More importantly, for people who disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings, the freedom of religion gives each of us the right to not believe. Nobody is compelling anyone to ascribe or adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church—or any church.

These small deceptions are part of a bigger lie. Whenever conservatives oppose government mandates and taxpayer funding for policies which violate their consciences, it is a liberal cliché that conservatives are trying to ban those things outright. The freedom of religion gives us the right to believe or to not believe, but the freedom of religion also gives us the right to do what we believe or to not do what we do not believe. In these two cases especially, one doesn’t have to agree with the Catholic Church on contraception and homosexuality to respect faithful Catholics who do not want to engage in or support these behaviors.

Winston Churchill once said that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” President Obama’s liberal allies in the media and elsewhere have taken that maxim and stood it on its head. The American people are not at war with their government. We deserve a basic level of honesty in public discourse. Especially when it comes to something as fundamental as the freedom of religion, the truth should be able to stand on its own. If liberals have to resort to deception to make their case before the public, it only underscores the weakness of their cause.

Share

The Contraceptive Mandate, Occupy Wall Street, and Anti-Semitism

They were the 99 percent too.

In his remarks this past Friday, President Obama repeated the bogus statistic that "99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives." We will examine the provenance of the 99% figure presently, but first, we must understand what is really at stake. Liberals are trying to frame the debate over the HHS contraceptive mandate as an attempt by conservatives to ban or limit access to birth control, but that is not even at issue. This is a debate about the fundamental meaning and structure of the Constitution.

Think of it this way: more than 99% of Americans will drink tap water at some point in their lives. But water is not free. Even in the bluest-of-blue states, you (or your landlord) get a bill for fresh drinking water supplied to your home. Perhaps low-income households get some help to pay this bill, but according to the President’s logic, because 99% of Americans drink water, the federal government should not only require every American to purchase public water (as opposed to say bottled water or rain water collected in a cistern) and furthermore, that employers should be required pay everyone’s water bill.

Likewise, the real debate today is about the ObamaCare individual mandate which requires every American to purchase insurance which covers birth control and the HHS employer mandate which requires every employer to provide insurance which covers birth control. Regardless of one’s opinion about birth control, this is an unprecedented exercise of government power in the private lives of every American. As the Prolix Patriot tweeted the other day, "Even if the socialist HHS mandate did not target religious freedom, it would still be socialist."

That said, perhaps it is true that most Catholics have used birth control at some point in their lives, but Lydia McGrew at the blog “What’s Wrong with the World” has examined the 98% number and basically, all you can really say is that 98% of Catholic women who have used contraception have used artificial contraception. That’s not saying much. The statistic does not include women who are either celibate or actively trying to get pregnant—which is far more than 1-2% of Catholic women. As a corollary, there are probably also many Catholics who are have used birth control in opposition to Church teaching, but who nevertheless oppose government intervention in this area.

But for argument’s sake, let’s take the 99% argument at face value. It is an actual fact (as opposed to a bogus statistic) that 98-99% of Americans are not Jewish. Of the 1-2% that are, only about half attend synagogues regularly and then only half of those are Conservative or Orthodox Jews. That leaves perhaps 0.25-0.5% of the total American population. According to the 99% argument, does that mean the First Amendment does not protect the religious expression of the very small minority of Jews who still conform to the Law of Moses and the Talmud?

Jews have historically been oppressed in their religious expression for centuries, so it is not a coincidence that Meir Soloveichik, a prominent Orthodox rabbi, joined with an the leader of an evangelical non-profit and a Catholic cardinal in a letter to the Wall Street Journal opposing the HHS contraceptive mandate. Furthermore, the 99% argument sounds suspiciously like it was borrowed from the Occupy movement which has been a well-documented hotbed of anti-Semitism. Indeed, there are liberal voices which make an explicit connection between the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate and the Occupy movement.

The First Amendment was created precisely to defend the rights of a small minority against the tyranny of the majority. Any time you hear the 99% argument as justification for Obama's policies, remember that Josef Stalin and Saddam Hussein routinely won 99% of the vote in their sham elections. Whether in the anti-Semitic ranting of Occupy Wall Street or the anti-Catholic vitriol of liberal journalists and bloggers, the 99% argument is in essence an appeal to mob rule no less disturbing than Robespierre’s reign of terror or the Bolshevik purges. It is easy to stand with the 99%. It takes real courage to stand for the rights of the weak and the oppressed—especially when the heads start to roll.

Share

The Devil is in the Details

In an election that was supposed to be about jobs and the economy, President Obama now finds himself in a battle over the signature accomplishment of his presidency--namely, ObamaCare. Democrats made a huge miscalculation by rushing the law to passage with a nakedly partisan majority, but now the Obama Administration is compounding the error by pushing ObamaCare through the courts and using its regulations to attack religious freedom in the midst of an election year. This chain of errors stands a good chance of costing Obama re-election.

More than half the states and numerous other parties have joined together to challenge the individual mandate provision which would require every American to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. Meanwhile, although the Catholic Bishops initially supported some form of healthcare reform, they are now united in opposing the implementation of the law by the Secretary of Health and Human Services which will require religious institutions to provide contraceptives that can also be used for do-it-yourself abortions.

As the battle for ObamaCare reached a climax in the spring of 2010, all of the maneuvering and political posturing was exhausted and the final sticking point was an amendment to the bill to ban the taxpayer funding of abortions. The Democratic majority had succeeded in quashing any objections over the enormous cost of the bill and the weakness of many of its policies, but a small cohort of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak of Michigan had managed to hold out. By folding on this issue, Bart Stupak committed political suicide, but he may ultimately end up taking President Obama with him.

Conservatives are hopeful that the Supreme Court will strike down ObamaCare either wholly or in part on the basis of the individual mandate, but if the Court does not strike down the law, this will open up an even more horrifying possibility. If the individual mandate and HHS regulations are upheld, it will mean that there is effectively no limit on what the federal government can compel citizens to do. Indeed, because of Stupak’s cowardice, there is nothing in the law to stop the government from requiring abortions in difficult pregnancies if a bureaucrat decides that saving both mother and child is too costly.

It is ironic that as the debate over ObamaCare is being reignited the Gospel reading yesterday tells of a battle between Jesus and the Devil:

The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes. In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit: he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"

Jesus rebuked him and said, "Quiet! Come out of him!"

The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, "What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him."

Like the possessed man of scripture, ObamaCare suffers from a Devil inside. As the old proverb states, “the Devil is in the details,” and in the rush to win passage of the law, Democrats failed to consider the full implications of its various provisions. Indeed, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously said, “…we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” By failing to scrutinize the law and allow deliberate consideration of its many provisions, the Democrats have unleashed a terrifying power that is already being turned to evil designs.

America is a nation of laws and although our laws sometimes seem contradictory and inefficient, they are the only protection we have for our most basic freedoms. In the dramatization of Thomas More’s final days, the film “A Man for All Seasons” spells out what is truly at stake in the fight for religious freedom today:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake

We would do well to remember this and to consider the full implications of every new law before we consent to it. Unless ObamaCare is overturned and repealed, we are only witnessing the beginning of a descent into a tyranny that resembles the forced eugenics of Nazi Germany or the population control policies of Communist China. It may seem unthinkable that this could happen in America, but when the law is perverted and its safeguards removed, we are truly at the mercy of the Devil—such as it is—and our destruction is all but certain.

Share

The Great Firewall of China and Internet Piracy

A weapon of war

Almost from the beginning, the Chinese Communist Party recognized the power—and the threat—of the Internet and has invested huge resources to limit access to its own people while simultaneously using the internet to undermine the intellectual and economic output of the United States. Whether we admit it or not, we are in a state of digital war with China. How we fight this war today will have lasting consequences not only for freedom on the Internet but also for freedom generally.

The Internet has matured to the point that actions in the digital world can now cause real changes in the physical world. Last year, we witnessed revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere that were started online. We also witnessed a hacking attack which disrupted an Iranian nuclear research laboratory. The Iranians responded by hacking into an American stealth reconnaissance drone and hijacking it—digitally. The Internet is no longer a mere novelty. Digital actions affect real-world events.

One front of this digital war is the rampant and aggressive intellectual property theft which is likely sponsored directly by the Chinese government. State-sponsored and well-funded hackers are constantly attacking American companies to steal intellectual property and the piracy of movies, music, and software is only one element of this attack. Nevertheless, Congress has crafted misguided legislation in SOPA and PIPA to target this small fraction of the onslaught while mostly ignoring the larger conflict.

We must be wary about ever limiting access to the Internet. The amazing power of the Internet to bring freedom to the world is precisely because of its openness. China recognizes this and along with North Korea and Iran is one of the most restrictive countries in the world. There is a legitimate need to combat piracy, but the language of SOPA and PIPA is so broad that the Chinese and other bad actors could actually use it against us by causing self-inflicted restriction of the Internet. This will only benefit the Chinese government’s efforts to restrict access and limit the free exchange of ideas.

The Internet has the power to bring freedom to China, Iran, North Korea, and all the other tyrannical regimes on the face of the earth. As Napoleon once said, "I fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousand bayonets." Just as Gutenberg’s printing press brought about the Enlightenment in Europe, so too can the Internet bring about a global digital renaissance. America invented the Internet and is arguably the most creative nation in the world. We can use this power to be a force for good in the world—or not. The choice is ours to make.

Share

Iowa Caucus Ends the Myth of Romney’s Inevitability

Mitt Romney received more votes than any other candidate in last night’s Iowa Caucus, but for the establishment and media favorite to win the nomination, that’s not good enough. Romney is not an inspiring candidate, so he needed to win convincingly to prove he can appeal to more than just the moderate wing of the Republican Party. However, instead of emerging as the clear winner, he emerges bruised and weak. Romney’s win last night was so narrow that he will continue to face strong opposition in the weeks and months ahead.

The biggest story is of course Santorum’s stunning rise from relative obscurity to come within eight votes of Romney. One after another, other challengers have surged as the anti-Romney candidate, but they peaked too soon to see any benefit in the caucuses and primaries. Santorum, on the other hand, was right to praise God in his speech last night for his very providential surge on the eve of the first-in-the-nation contest in Iowa. 75% of votes last night were cast against Romney and the winner of that group was unquestionably Santorum.

Romney’s biggest problem is his lack of message. In his “victory” speech last night, Romney merely reiterated his standard nebulous bromides about American greatness and there was even a moment prior to the speech when his staff began setting up a teleprompter in front of his lectern before being hurried away when someone realized this might make for an unfavorable comparison to President Obama. By contrast, Santorum gave an emotional speech which was well calibrated with an appeal to social conservatives, working-class “Reagan Democrats,” and even a nod to the Tea Party.

The lack of a compelling message is a severe handicap for Romney. In the coverage last night on Fox News, Brett Baier stated that the Romney Campaign spent roughly $110 per vote while Santorum only spent about $1.50 per vote. Although the numbers are slightly different, data from BuzzFeed corroborates the vast difference between Romney and Santorum’s spending levels. Looking at it another way, Romney spent about 29% of the total money to win about 25% of the vote, while Santorum spent less than 1% of the total money to get almost exactly the same number of votes.

As a result, Romney’s performance in Iowa in 2012 was no better than his performance in 2008. Despite being the establishment favorite, outspending every other candidate except Rick Perry, higher overall turnout, his many advantages as a campaign veteran, and with better organization on the ground in Iowa than any candidate except possibly Ron Paul, Romney’s share of the vote remained virtually unchanged from where it was four years ago.

In the end, Romney won a costly and hollow victory in Iowa. Although he leads the polling in New Hampshire, the same was true in 2008 before John McCain’s upset there. Because of his perceived weakness, Romney will be the subject of withering all-out attacks from Newt Gingrich, Santorum, and Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire and South Carolina in the next few weeks. If Romney does somehow manage to win his party’s nomination, it will be a long and painful contest.

Share

National Popular Vote: An Alternate History

The Prolix Patriot has written in the past on the virtues of the Electoral College system, but the liberal campaign to institute a popular vote for presidential elections is in the news again. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a proposal whereby participating states agree to give their electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the votes cast for either candidate within the state. The compact will automatically go into effect if enough states join it to give the NPV states control of at least 270 electoral votes.

The election of 1960 was razor thin. Thanks to shenanigans in Chicago and other major Democratic strongholds in the Northeast, Kennedy won the popular vote by a margin of about 100,000 votes, but because of the Electoral College system enshrined in the Constitution by our founding fathers, Kennedy had a clear mandate of 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. Now, let's pretend the NPV had been in effect.

Polls in Nixon's home state of California close a full two to three hours after those in Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. As reports come in that Nixon is only down by a small margin (less than 0.25%), the Nixon campaign pushes organizers and supporters in California to get a few more voters out to the polls in Republican-leaning precincts to swing the national popular vote over to Nixon's favor.

When California finally begins tallying votes, voila, the final count comes in with Nixon ahead by 500 votes. Even though Kennedy should have a clear victory in the Electoral College, the NPV rules require Kennedy strongholds of Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland (all current NPV compact members) to give all their votes to Nixon. Given the slim margin, both the Kennedy and Nixon campaigns start requesting recounts and filing legal challenges, counter-suits, and injunctions in almost every state in the Union.

California, Texas, Illinois, and New York are simultaneously adjusting their vote tallies when it becomes clear that Kennedy may still win the popular vote. Nixon supporters in California react by launching a signature drive for a ballot initiative to leave the NPV interstate compact. Meanwhile, disgusted with the possibility that a Republican may take the election, Mississippi's unpledged electors announce they will give their votes to Kennedy.

Lawsuits galore are now headed to the Supreme Court, and then, as an added twist, Kennedy supporters and the press start a campaign to pressure Eisenhower's Supreme Court nominees to recuse themselves from any election-related cases, because Nixon served as an advisor to the Eisenhower administration's nomination and vetting process. By the time the dust has settled the decision on how to resolve the crisis is left in the hands of only four justices with a real possibility of deadlock.

As popular outrage builds with the escalating crisis, Eisenhower convenes all 50 governors at an emergency meeting in Dallas to consider the possibility of deploying the National Guard to maintain order. While traveling from the airport to his hotel, he is assassinated by a disgruntled Communist sympathizer named Lee Harvey Oswald. Nixon is sworn in as acting president while the results of his own election are still being litigated and tabulated. Massive riots and violence break out across the nation and Nixon declares "temporary emergency measures" in an attempt to bring the situation under control.

We are used to thinking of such a constitutional crisis as a preposterous and impossible scenario, but if the NPV ever goes into effect, this is exactly the sort of crisis that could happen in the very near future. In fact, the Heritage Foundation and the State Leadership Foundation hosted an event this morning with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell which examined just these sorts of problems. As former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith once observed, “We are so accustomed to stable, generally good government that we sometimes forget that failure of government structures is historically much more common than success.…[W]e tinker with our success at our peril.”

Share

The Power of Inequality

In Soviet Union, Winter Occupies YOU!

As the Occupy Wall Street movement fizzles out with the approach of colder weather, it is worth revisiting the Occupiers’ central argument. Namely, that income inequality between the top 1% and the rest is somehow relevant to the present economic crisis. However, this is a dangerous diversion from the heart of the problem. Instead of focusing on income inequality, we as a society should be focused on improving economic growth.

Income inequality is an inescapable reality. Even in famously egalitarian countries like Sweden or Norway, there is no such thing as perfect equality. Whenever people engage in economic activity together, there is some element of wealth creation over what could be achieved if each person had to fend for himself. Although on a small scale it is possible to apportion wealth creation evenly to all participants, history has shown time and time again that it is more efficient to apportion the rewards of economic activity in proportion to individual contributions.

Furthermore, according to recent economic data from the CIA Factbook, there is no real correlation between income inequality and economic growth. As an example, both South Korea with a low Gini coefficient of 31.4 and Mexico with a very high Gini of 51.7 have similar growth rates. Conversely, Japan and India have similar Gini coefficients, but the annual GDP growth for India is more than double that of Japan. Indeed, an academic paper on the subject concludes that, “Evidence from a broad panel of countries shows little overall relation between income inequality and rates of growth and investment.”

Worst of all, policies which are intended to promote income equality are not always successful and almost never contribute to greater prosperity. When pursued on a large scale, such policies can result in economic disaster as was the case during Stalin’s infamous five-year plans and Chairman Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” both of which lead to crop failures and the deaths of tens of millions of people from starvation.

Income inequality is a distraction from policies which contribute more directly to promoting prosperity. Numerous studies have demonstrated the relationship between strong property rights and economic growth. As the evidence shows, Americans do not need the government to tell them how to live their lives. If the government fulfills it central purpose of protecting our long-cherished rights of personal liberty and private property, Americans will be free to pursue their own aspirations of happiness and prosperity in whatever way they see fit.

Share