Category: Politics

Obama keeps saying that 95% of people will get a tax cut under his economic plan.

Here is the truth,

Before one understands the difference between Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s tax plan, one must understand the difference between a tax cut and a subsidy. A tax cut is when someone makes money and the government allows that person to keep more of the money that was earned by that individual. A subsidy is when the government takes from one person to give to someone else. Many people in the mainstream media use the terms interchangeably, even though there are major differences between the two.

Presently, the bottom 40% of income earners pay zero income taxes. The top 20% pay 80% of all the federal income taxes. Therefore, it is not possible to give the bottom 40% a tax cut because they pay no money to the government. So this begs the question: How is Barack Obama proposing to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans?

The truth is that he is not going to give a tax cut to most Americans; it is not possible. Instead, he is going to give welfare subsidy to the bottom 40%. Sadly, the mainstream media does not know the difference so they claim that Obama is telling the truth. In fact, it is very likely that Obama does not understand the distinction either.

Obama is a liar.

Doug

The fact that civil leadership by a woman is not part of the general creation order (which it is not), and rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse, which it is (Is. 3:12), does not mean that any given instance of a woman ruling has to mean that the woman is disobedient,

Mark

That’s right. Deborah didn’t install herself as judge, nor was she elected by her constituency. Have we been called to assist God by electing Sarah Palin?

Doug,

and/or that the men around her are wusses. The Bible never says that.

Mark

It’s a reproach and contrary to the creation order. The reason behind the reproach is irrelevant.

Doug,

In other words, outside the Church, a woman in a position of authority over men ought to be treated as an anomaly, not as a sin or a disgrace.

Mark,

Certainly Deborah was neither sinning nor disgraceful. But Israel was sinning.

Doug,

A woman pastor is not an anomaly; it is disobedience.

Mark,

That’s right. But pastors are called, hired or appointed by men who have no business acting in a manner contrary to Scripture. Prophets and judges were not hired, elected, or appointed by men. False dichotomy Doug.

Doug,

But a woman who runs the household of her quadriplegic husband

Mark,

Did she maim him in order to gain ascendancy? Since she didn’t it is a non sequitur Doug to suggest that because a woman can run the household of her quadriplegic husband, therefore Christians should vote for a female magistrate to be head of a nations political household.

Doug,

But such a virtuous action on her part does not keep it from being anomalous.

Mark,

But no more anomalous than a single father raising his children. The point proves nothing. Inane point Doug.

Doug,

And to use the kind of example I have used before (and which no one in this debate has answered yet, incidentally), can a father or husband leave an inheritance to a daughter or wife if that inheritance includes the laboring jobs of males? Can a Christian woman inherit a factory that employs fifty men? The answer is of course.

Mark,

It has been answered and his is no proper comparison. Employees are free to leave the company. Her authority over what rightfully belongs to her doesn’t affect my house, my church, my role in society. The role of magistrate is categorically different. She will be party to decisions about how my taxes are spent, whether or not we will go to war, how my children will be educated in the public schools and every other area where the gov’t has taken authority whether legitimate or not. Perhaps a better question would be whether the inheriting daughter should maintain control of the company after she’s married? What say you Doug?

Anomalies exist. God, in bringing them about is exercising his right of ownership. God takes life whenever he chooses. The murder of a righteous man is an anomaly. What personal behavior can we justify with that? God’s actions don’t validate our acting in ways inconsistent with Scripture — such as voting against God’s creation order by voting for a female magistrate.

I know very few people who are as good at argumentation then Doug Wilson. In fact, I admire Doug’s ability on that score. Doug’s brilliance is especially seen when he is arguing a weak point. Nobody is better then Doug at making a weak, indefensible point look like the Rock of Gibraltar. Doug goes very slippery when he is arguing a losing hand, but for as slippery as Doug is when he is arguing a losing proposition, I think we will try to use some vice grips to hold him still long enough to see the weakness of his point.

Doug continues to try and suggest that it might be Biblical for Christians to vote for women magistrates in the article located here,

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5910

I am fisking the whole thing below.

Just a few things right out of the starting blocks. First, I agree with Tim Bayly’s argument on the creation order and women in civil leadership. Second, I don’t really agree with Geoffrey Botkin’s argument that the Sarah Palin move on the part of the GOP is the mother of all sucker plays. I agree with Botkin that it could be that, but I don’t believe that it is by any means self-evident yet.

First, I agree with Wilson that Bayly’s argument on the creation order was excellent. The only exception I took from Tim Bayly’s fine article was when he ended by saying that he hadn’t ruled out voting for Palin.

Second, Wilson’s willingness to believe that Palin isn’t the mother of all sucker plays makes him Charlie Brown to the Republican Party’s Lucy who continues to promise Doug that she’s not going to move the football this one time, after moving it every time previously she promised Charlie Brown (Doug Wilson) to hold it still so he could kick the ball. Republicans have consistently played the evangelical crowd for suckers. What makes Wilson think that anything is different this time? When one looks at Wilson’s suspension of belief it almost seems like he is practicing wish fulfillment.

Now having said that, I admit that Palin may indeed be a case where the Republicans have been to smart by half. But given Republican history I seriously doubt it and so should Doug.

While I don’t differ with anything in Tim’s post, there might be a possible quibble down the road — picking up on a comment made by someone else on his post. The fact that civil leadership by a woman is not part of the general creation order (which it is not), and rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse, which it is (Is. 3:12), does not mean that any given instance of a woman ruling has to mean that the woman is disobedient, and/or that the men around her are wusses. The Bible never says that.

First, Doug says that “rule by women generally is treated by Scripture as a curse.” Can Doug give any example where Scripture explicitly states that being ruled by women is not a curse? Doug says it is generally a curse, as if Scripture communicates there are times when it is not a curse. What times in Scripture do we find it was not a curse?

Second, I agree that “any given instance of a woman ruling” does not have to mean that the woman is disobedient. I’m not sure about the idea that the men around her, in such cases, aren’t wusses. I’m still undecided on that one. But all because a woman is not disobedient because God has thrust leadership upon her doesn’t mean that God’s people can be disobedient to the creation order that God has established by voting for a woman to be leader. It is God’s prerogative to raise up non disobedient woman leadership. It is not our prerogative to use what God has ordained in His eternal counsels as a reason to disobey what God’s word clearly teaches regarding the creation order. This is a point we will return to time and again.

In other words, outside the Church, a woman in a position of authority over men ought to be treated as an anomaly, not as a sin or a disgrace. A woman pastor is not an anomaly; it is disobedience. But a woman who runs the household of her quadrapalegic husband would be in disobedience if she refused to do that. But such a virtuous action on her part does not keep it from being anomalous. That is not the way it usually goes, but it has to go this way in this instance — and not because her husband is abdicating either. In short, the oddball situations here and there that result in a woman holding political office or occupying the position of leadership in a family don’t bother me at all, not even a little bit. And to use the kind of example I have used before (and which no one in this debate has answered yet, incidentally), can a father or husband leave an inheritance to a daughter or wife if that inheritance includes the laboring jobs of males? Can a Christian woman inherit a factory that employs fifty men? The answer is of course. That’s not feminism. It is not egalitarianism. It is not common, but life is funny sometimes (Num. 27:7), and we should all of us just loosen our shoelaces. This kind of thing can happen without anybody being disobedient.

I’m glad to affirm that when God creates anomalies we should be at peace with that. I seldom tie my shoelaces so I’m good there. However, Doug can’t use this reasoning to say that since God creates anomalies we are therefore sanctioned to create those anomalies by disobeying God’s revealed Word.

Second, it was an oddball situation that resulted in a true anomaly when a King died without having sons and so the regency was passed onto a daughter. It is not an oddball situation that resulted in a true anomaly, in the same way, when in a Republic, God’s people contribute to the creation of the anomaly by disobeying God’s creation order by voting for female magistrates. The first is an anomaly that we can pin on God’s eternal counsels. The second is an anomaly that, while still according to God’s eternal counsels, came about, in part, because of those who violated God’s clear teaching on the created order. It is difficult for me to see how Doug isn’t arguing that we should do evil (voting for a female magistrate) that good (the end of abortion, somehow in some strange way connected to the person of Palin) may come.

And this brings us to that poor warrior Barak, just one of many giants of the faith who ran afoul of modern sentimental pieties. The Bible describes as righteous a number of men and women who are dismissed by us in the most cavalier way — Jacob is the premier example, but this also applies to Tamar, and Jepthah, and Barak. And in the one place where Barak missteps, it is not because he was subservient to a woman. His problem was that he refused to do what a woman required of him — just like some people on the Internet stoutly insist they would also do. But even so, the Bible describes him as a man of faith (Heb. 11:32), and not as some kind of pencil neck.

We need to be more precise here then Doug is, since Doug’s imprecision leads to wrong impressions. To be precise, Barak’s failure was that he refused to do what the Lord God commanded him as communicated through a prophetess. If he had obeyed God, he would have been being subservient to God and not to a woman, who was a only a mouthpiece of God.

Next, we have to keep reminding ourselves that the time frame of Barak and Deborah in Judges is a time-frame that creates oddball situations which in turn leads to all kinds of anomalies. This is a time where the children of Israel were doing evil in the sight of the Lord. Because that is true it is very precarious for us to try and take what is going on in Judges 4 and make it prescriptive.

At the same time, if women are being thrust into positions of leadership generally because everybody is in the grip of egalitarianism, and the assumption is made that men and women should all be doing the corporate and political thing fifty/fifty, what’s wrong with you people?, then that is a clear sign of the Isaiah 3 curse.

And that is just the time we live in now. Sarah Palin was chosen precisely for the reason of that kind of egalitarianism that Doug describes. Nobody with a ounce of political moxie would ever argue that on the basis of qualifications alone that Palin was the best VP choice. Palin was chosen because of identity politics with hopes that she could peel off some of those female Hillary Clinton supporters that were discontent with how Barack had treated Hillary. And now, even in light of that reality, Doug seems to continue to want to wiggle towards advocating that Reformed Christians can vote for a clear sign of the Isaiah 3 curse.

Just a couple of comments about Botkin’s article. First, I was genuinely surprised at his attitude toward football — not just objecting, as every Christian gentleman should, to the travesty of putting girls in pads and out on the field. He also plainly objecting to putting our sons into “organized combat on the football, soccer and hockey circuits.” At Logos, the contact sport is lacrosse, what the Iroquois appropriately “the little brother of war.” This objection to contact sports for everyone was more than a little revealing, in my view.

Yeah, I thought that was goofy also.

And second, Botkin summarized the Plan that usually keeps evangelicals voting Republican. His summary: “The other candidate is a Democrat. He is therefore scary. Be very afraid. Vote Republican.” I actually think that this is a very good summary . . . but we should also note that it is a compelling argument. The Democrats are really scary — that is not a bugbear, but is rather kind of like the truth. While it is customary to say that we have two parties in Washington — the Evil Party and the Stupid Party — the reality is not quite so simple. Twain once said the music of Wagner was better than it sounds, and we have to realize the Republicans are not as stupid as they behave.

First, I don’t agree with Doug’s characterization. Both Republicans and Democrats are evil. Democrats are practical communists while Republicans are practical fascists. Now certainly there are individual exceptions in each party to that broad stroke characterization but in general it holds true. We are not embracing less evil by voting Republican. We are only embracing different evil.

Second, at this point Doug is invoking the “lesser of two evils” canard. Doug is suggesting that it is reasonable to vote for lesser evil out of fear of greater evil. Even if that were true (and I don’t believe it is) what Doug is saying is that we should be governed by our fears. A great part of the problem with this argumentation is that we ought to be motivated by our fear of man. And yet Scripture teaches us over and over that where there is fear of God only there exists no fear of man. As such, Christians who fear God shouldn’t be able to be motivated by fear of man. Christians should fear God and do what is right and let God handle the results. Instead Doug seems to be suggesting that we should fear man and so disobey God by voting for what he perceives to be the lesser of two evils.

I recently read a better summary of the way things are from a friend who detests McCain, but who is planning on voting for him anyway. Why? Because he would rather live under a crime syndicate than under the utopians, a sentiment that I fully share. That is certainly my preference, and that is also what I believe our choices to actually be — the Republican Mafioso or the Democrats of the Shining Dawn. Give me the former every time — far less blood.

Doug is only saying here that he would prefer the fascists to the communists. A Christian stance would be to stand up on two legs and loudly pronounce a pox upon both their houses instead of lending the fascists (Dougs, Mafioso) their strength with their vote. This is as if a wolf and a bear are fighting in order to see who can make a lunch out of Doug with Doug concluding that since being eaten by a wolf would be less painful then being eaten by a bear he’ll vote for the wolf.

I’m sorry, I will die not understanding that kind of reasoning.

And so the issue is not what I would personally prefer — no question, the Republicans. The issue is what is legitimate for me to vote for. The thing I am working through is whether the Palin choice represents a blundering crime syndicate or a very tricksy crime syndicate. I am leaning strongly toward the former.

What is legitimate for any Christian to vote for is obedience.

And please don’t give me that I’m looking for a perfect candidate. That is just not true. If I were looking for a perfect candidate I wouldn’t vote at all. What I am looking for is a candidate that keeps us from going in the direction of destruction. I would be glad to vote for a candidate that had all kinds of flaws if only they would operate out of a worldview that is other than some kind of socialism.

Doug’s has a weak hand here and he is being slippery in his argumentation. I respect Doug Wilson but I must do what little I can to expose him for the naked emperor he is on this issue.

Because of the recently aired ABC interview Americans have their first beginning insight into Governor Sarah Palin. Below is a brief review of the interview.

Abortion question – Palin is not pro-life. Her position is that abortion is an issue that should be turned over to the States. Given this answer her position indicates that she would be satisfied on the abortion issue if all fifty states had the most liberal abortion laws as long as each of the states had determined the law for their state. Abortion is one issue where “States rights” as a theory isn’t acceptable. The Constitution gives the Federal Government the responsibility and role to protect life. Palin may be pro States-rights on this issue but she isn’t pro-life.

Also on the abortion issue it was interesting that Palin kept saying that “pro life was her personal opinion.” She didn’t explicitly contrast her personal opinion with what she would do in the way of public policy although the way she kept insisting that pro-life was her personal opinion one wondered what Palin public policy on abortion would be. Remember in 2004 John Kerry likewise said his personal opinion was that he didn’t like abortion although he couldn’t translate that into public policy. So the question is, will Sarah Palin translate her personal opposition to abortion into public policy. If Palin’s record as Governor of Alaska is any indication we should be slow about concluding that she would be willing to take abortion on in the public square.

Earmarks question – While Palin may be a Reformer in some sense, she clearly isn’t a Reformer on the earmarks question. She lobbied for earmarks while a Mayor. She accepted the earmark money for the Bridge to Nowhere, even if she didn’t build the bridge. Now, I understand the way Government works. I understand that politicians have a twisted responsibility to bring home the pork. I don’t like that but I understand it is the governing reality of the way things work. Therefore I am not surprised to learn that Palin tried to get her fair share (and maybe more) of the booty that was stolen from taxpayers through confiscatory taxation. What I am insulted by is the cynical attempt to try and sell to the nation that Palin is a reform politician when it comes to the pork and earmarks question. On this issue she is just another politician who operates just the same as Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski, and all the rest.

National Security Credentials question – Would someone please tell me what the ability to see Russian territory from the State you Govern has anything to do with National security. It’s embarrassing to hear someone seriously put that forth has some kind of answer to how one is qualified on National Security questions. Also, with respect to National security issues, I am less than impressed with someone being in charge of the Alaska National guard. To be fair though, Obama doesn’t have any National security experience, and I can think of quite a number of other Vice Presidents that didn’t have National Security experience when they were tapped to be Vice President so I don’t think the lack of experience on this issue is that debilitating as it pertains to be qualified to be Vice President.

Homosexual Question — Palin was evasive on this issue and it seemed clear that she didn’t want to address the issue. Gibson tried to get her views on whether homosexuality is genetic or whether it is something that someone chooses. Palin dodged the question.

Sexist question – Charles Gibson asked whether or not it was sexist to ask a woman candidate about her ability to be Vice President given the reality that she has small children and a large family to care for. The very asking of this question indicates that there remains some sort of residue in the American psyche that a woman with a family should be spending the preponderance of her time nurturing her family. The reason that the same question is never asked of a man in the position Palin is in is because there is no residual belief that a man is supposed to be the nurturer to the family the way a mother is. The fact that Charlie Gibson can ask this question, albeit in an embarrassing and apologetic manner reveals the hypocrisy of many Christians who are flying right past this issue barely pausing to consider it. It seems that Charlie Gibson is more Christian then many Christians. At least he asked the question.

An alternative and more cynical explanation for Gibson’s “sexist question” is that by asking the question Gibson is not revealing some Christian worldview residual hangover but rather he is attempting to subtly expose the contradiction in the worldview of Palin’s social conservative Christian base. On one hand this base has long been opposed to the feminist agenda while on the other hand they are rallying around somebody who embraces substantial elements of the feminist agenda.

This reality is seen in what Palin had to say about Title IX. In answering Gibson’s “sexist question,” Palin said she was a product of Title IX. Social conservatives have consistently (and rightly) gnashed their teeth about Title IX legislation. Most have noted that Title IX legislation was an attack on the family and that its reason for being was feminist philosophy. Social conservatives have hated title IX legislation and now they are cheering and rallying behind someone who proudly proclaims that she is a product of Title IX.

Finally, on this whole feminism issue, Palin went out of her way again to praise Hillary Clinton. I understand that a great deal of what Palin is saying on this issue may possibly be for public consumption in order to pick off some feminist votes and may be contrived in such a way to make it difficult for the Marxist media establishment to oppose her but when Palin starts praising Hillary Clinton, as some kind of feminist role model I just feel ill to my stomach.

God Question – Here Gibson played a YouTube segment where Palin invokes God and His plan in Iraq. I am sure Palin had been briefed and coached on how to answer this question by the McCain campaign. On this question Palin went into full spin mode and somehow tried to offer Abraham Lincoln’s comments about needing to be on God’s side as an explanation for what she was saying on the YouTube comment. The answer made no sense whatsoever but given the possible explosiveness of this issue, Gibson left her incoherent answer alone. It should also be noted that Gibson didn’t give the whole context of the Palin quote. The way that Gibson framed the quote was significantly misleading.

Leaving Wasilla In Debt Question – Gibson pointed out that when Palin became Mayor, Wasilla was fiscally healthy while when she left office Wasilla was in debt. Gibson implied that such a reality hardly gave credence to the persona around Governor Palin that she is a fiscal conservative. Palin countered that the debt was due to the new sports facility for which Wasilla voters had opted in referendum. Palin thus suggested that the debt was legitimate since the voters had voted for it. Though, I understand that this is largely accepted reasoning I fail to understand how it is fiscally conservative for an elected official to allow 65% of the community which supports a sports arena (or whatever the vote was in Wasilla for the sports arena) to pick the pocket of 35% who voted against the sports arena. Why should a majority be allowed to vote to force a minority to join them in debt? Shouldn’t elected officials protect the interest of the minority in these matters?

There is one more thing that interests me about Palin given this interview. Several times Palin interjected some phrase like, “that’s my worldview.” I wish Gibson had picked up on that and had asked her to tease out what she meant by the idea of “worldview.” That might have been interesting.

As far as Gibson is concerned he was walking a tightrope in this interview. He can’t be perceived as going directly after her, or nothing he turns up in the way of negative information about Palin will be taken seriously because people will dismiss new revelations exposed by Gibson by saying that as a member of the elite media he was just trying to destroy her. On the other hand as a member of the Marxist media he clearly wants to destroy Palin. The whole God, Guns, and Life had to drive Gibson nuts. I would also say that Gibson came across in the interview as condescending and patronizing.

Given the way that the major media treats Palin I don’t know why the campaign just doesn’t boycott them and take their message to alternative media outlets. Such a move would be a blow against the major media outlets while at the same time giving legitimacy to the alternative outlets. I believe that the alternative outlets are strong enough now that such a move could be successful.

Another note of concern about Palin has come up in light of the continued unraveling of American financial institutions. Palin has said that we need to overhaul the nations oversight and regulatory apparatus since their inadequacy has led to the recent financial meltdown. The error with Palin’s position is that she is recommending a socialist solution (more and better government financial regulation) to a problem that was created by the very thing she is offering as a solution. The reason that financial institutions are melting down is that, because of Government involvement, those running the financial institutions that are melting down never had to worry about the shady investments being made because they knew that the Government would bail them out if those questionable investments went bad. In fairness Palin did say that letting Lehman brothers go down without a bailout was solid.

Overall, I think we have reached the nadir of identity politics. Those of us with half a brain in our head realize that neither Obama nor Palin are qualified to be on their respective tickets but in the spirit of affirmative action we have nominated two unqualified people simply because of the amount of their melanin and because they have a uterus.

Also, I’ve been mulling the whole celebrity thing. First Obama reaches celebrity status and then Palin turns around and goes celebrity. It’s as if the mentality that created and attracts viewers to “The American Idol” has infused the Presidential campaign. I just don’t get it. Qualifications are irrelevant. All that is important is glitz.

This may be the strangest campaign cycle that I’ve ever studied and I’ve studied most of them. A black guy with a Muslim name who boasts about being a community organizer and who has lifelong ties to racists (Jeremiah Wright), terrorists (William Ayers), and Marxists (Saul Alinsky). A Pentecostal woman at the bottom of the ticket getting far more attention than the guy at the top of the ticket. Christians violating their historic convictions on God’s created order that teaches that men are to men lead in order to vote for a Pentecostal woman, who, for all we know may get a “word from the Lord” to bomb Iran.

Lewis Carroll couldn’t have created all this strangeness on his best day.

Sanity is hard to come by.