Liberal Rhetoric 101: Double Standards

You can't talk about your faith in Jesus Christ in public, but you can definitely tell everyone about your private sex life and be celebrated for it.

You can't tell a woman that it's wrong for her to destroy her unborn child in the womb, but it's perfectly fine to tell people they shouldn't smoke tobacco, drink sugary beverages, and eat trans-fats (which only hurts themselves).

Don't you dare criticize someone's religious faith...unless they're Christians or Jews. Then go for it!

When there is a slow response by FEMA to Hurricane Katrina, it's totally George W. Bush's fault! When there's a slow response by FEMA to Hurricane Sandy, you can't blame Barack Obama!

Bill Clinton commits perjury but it's just fine because he lied about sex (under oath). Newt Gingrich has an extramarital affair but doesn't lie about it under oath, and he has to resign.

The 1% are evil! (Except for Steve Jobs, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon...)

Celebrate Diversity! (Except for conservatism, Christianity, or white people in general.)

There are so many examples of liberal double standards, spoken by politicians and college professors, repeated by Drive-By Media, regurgitated by liberals everywhere. Oh, there's always some excuse...often accusing conservatives of being the hypocrite to deflect their own hypocrisy.

Ultimately, the answer is to reject the premise that "one hypocrite in a camp means you can't say a word, even if you're not the hypocrite." Perhaps Newt Gingrich should have had to resign...but so should have Bill Clinton (especially since he committed a crime -- perjury -- and Gingrich was only morally wrong in his actions). If you don't want to hear people talk about their sexual orientation in public, don't complain when Tim Tebow praises the name of Jesus Christ. Either all religions are fair game for criticism or none are. It's that simple.

As always, the answer is to break down the ridiculousness of the premise and force your liberal opponent to debate with one standard. When that is required, few liberals can even hang in the debate.

Twitter Files: The Definition of Socialism

It seems one of Biblical Conservatism's recent posts has sprung an interesting series of responses on Twitter.  Ultimately, the problem is that too many liberals don't actually KNOW the definition of Socialism!

For the record, Wikipedia definines socialism as follows:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Socialism is specifically an economic system, and in our modern society it colloquially means a system of government. Which brings us to our mystery tweeter, who will be referred to here as Boo-Boo Bear (Boo-Boo's real name and handle have been whited out):

So much is wrong with what Boo-Boo had to say. For one, he never actually backed up my thesis in the original argument which stated specifically that JESUS was not a Socialist, but rather that Christ's actions were privately charitable by distributing both miraculous which were His to give and tangible gifts that were donated to Him also therefore His to give.

As far as the Church at Antioch, I believe Boo-Boo is missing out on the important theological message of Acts 2:44-45 and is instead reworking it into a political theory. First, the text of the passage:

44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. - Acts 2:44-45 (NKJV)

Two major issues with relating Acts 2:44-45 with Socialism. One, and this is perhaps the most important, the believers in Antioch were not FORCED to share their goods with each other. There was no government authority requiring it of them. It was 100% Voluntary.

Secondly, (now we will enter not into the realm of  fact but the realm of theological theory) I believe the early church was not applying some form of pre-Marx Marxism, but a different, very familiar concept: family

Throughout the New Testament, Christians referred to themselves as "brethren" and "brothers." I believe the actions of the Church in Antioch was acting as a family, caring for each other and sharing their possessions. 

Those who have read my blog have heard me mention my good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak. We attend church together and lead a Bible Study together. He and his wife are two of my dearest friends. I refer to his son as my nephew. If the Lord someday blesses me with children, they will call him and his wife Aunt and Uncle. In every way but genetics, he is my brother. I consider him, his wife, and his son my family in precisely the same way I consider my parents and two sisters family. The only thing missing is a genetic relationship.

Much like the Church at Antioch, we often share possessions. For example he still has my copy of "Moneyball" which he borrowed. (Dude, I want that back.) When his car needs serviced, he often hangs out at my apartment, even if I'm not at home, because it's close to the garage. When my car was in the shop in October, he and his wife loaned me one of their cars for a couple days. We've shared countless meals together and have supported each other through the most difficult times in our lives.

This is the model of the Christian church that Antioch modeled. Not socialism. FAMILY.

The difference, in a nutshell is simple: Treating people like family is a choice. Socialism is a government requirement. No, Boo-Boo, Jesus did not promote Socialism. Jesus promoted Christians treating each other as FAMILY.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: The False Premise

"I would never get an abortion myself, but a woman's body is her own business."

This is the classic, most prevalent liberal false premise. It is used to tell conservatives they don't have a right to argue against abortion, because it's essentially none of their business. They can feel free to not have an abortion themselves, of course, but they can't tell others what they can't do because of privacy, or something.

Don't get me wrong...privacy is important. People have the right to do pretty much any LEGAL thing in their own homes. If you want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, participate in any form of consensual activity between adults in your own home, as long as it does not harm another human being, I do not have the Constitutional right to stop you.

That being said, abortion does not fall under that criteria of "does not harm another human being." It is doing the highest form of harm to another human being...destroying him or her. Cliches about "a woman's body" are a false's actually NOT her body. It's that baby's body!

Let's take the "privacy" premise to it's next logical conclusion: if it's a matter of "privacy"  to allow a woman to destroy her unborn child in the womb, it logically would also be a matter of "privacy" to allow a woman to destroy her BORN child. What's the difference? 

Liberals will tell you that the unborn child is unable to survive without the mother, and this is true. You know who else is unable to survive without his parents? My two year-old nephew. He can't find himself, dress himself, change his own diaper, protect himself. Without his parents to care for him he would not survive. So if we applied the same logic that defends abortion, it'd be a matter of privacy if someone murdered him. 

"OF COURSE NOT!" I hear you shout at your screen, "HE'S A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING!" You're right, he is a living, breathing human being, and if I anyone attempted to do my nephew harm you better believe I would move heaven and earth to stop them...and if they succeeded may God have mercy on their soul.

Now for my real question: Why is it different if the child is in the womb? My answer is that it is not. I can hear liberals responding (probably "Jeff") that that I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, or privacy, or the Supreme Court, or some other such deflection to avoid discussing the real question: IS THAT BABY A HUMAN BEING. If it is a person (which I argue that it is indeed a person) then you cannot destroy it for your own convienence. 

Liberals cannot debate this issue on a true premise. The only true premise to debate abortion on is this: Is that unborn child a person. If it is a person, then, like all people, it is endowed by his or her creator with certain unalienable rights, among those are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the real question. If it isn't human, it's okay to destroy it, if it is, then it is a living, breathing human being then it is absolutely, unequivocally not okay to destroy it -- any more than it would be okay to destroy a living breathing two year-old human being -- with the sole exception being if the mother's life is in danger and it becomes necessary to save the more viable life (which in most cases would be the mother). 

If you want to argue that the unborn child is not a person based on medical and/or scientific fact, be my guest. I'll have that discussion.  Few liberals will. Liberals would rather deflect the reality on the false premise of "privacy" or "a woman's body is her own business" or perhaps on the back of what "the Supreme Court says." The bottom line, as demonstrated by the Kermit Gosnell trial, is a question of the humanity of that child. Any other premise of this debate is a false premise.

Liberals would love to debate this issue on any other subject. They won't debate it on the premise of protection of human life. It completely shuts down the rest of their arguments.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Teachers Should Earn More!

Liberals and "moderates" especially love to give lip-service to the idea of cutting spending, but never want to give up anything they deem REALLY, SUPER-DUPER IMPORTANT. Because if you can name something really, super-duper important, then the money grows on trees to pay for it. School spending is one of the most prevalent examples.

My sister is a middle school Biology teacher. She has bought into the idea that the problem with schools failing is that we're just not spending enough money. If we just threw enough money at the problem, it would go away!  Apparently if every student had an iPad and every classroom had a SMART Board, such problems as poor teachers with tenure, lack of parental involvement, and students who don't know how to read would just magically disappear.

Of course, they wouldn't disappear. Good teachers can teach with equal success with a chalk board and a 15 year-old textbook, especially in areas like History and English, where the material simply doesn't change that much. Romeo and Juliet hasn't changed since 1998. Neither have the events of the American Revolution. The Battle of Bunker Hill was still the first battle.

Similar to that is the attitude that "teachers don't make enough" based on the intangible "value to society." This mentality suggests that we should pay teachers like we pay business executives, because they're "more valuable to society." Except...

Except companies like Apple, Inc had nearly $156 Billion in gross revenue last year. They sell products that people want or need at a high market value. They have over $156 Billion coming in annually, making it possible for them to compete to hire the best and brightest in our country by offering them high salaries. 

Public schools, not to put too fine a point on it, bring in $0 in gross revenue each year. (Yes, they're nonprofit organizations. Just bear with me.) The employers of public schools are taxpayers. The Median Income of American Taxpayers is just over $32,000 a year. The median teacher's salary is right around $52,000 a year. That means the average teacher earns more than his or her (average) employer, the taxpayer!

Find a private employee who makes more than his or her employer in total compensation? It doesn't exist in the Real World. The idea that teachers should make more than a professional athlete or a movie star misses the reality of the latter two occupations: The athlete and movie star earn MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their employer and those employers both have millions and earn millions more from that person's work.

While a teacher's work may indeed have greater societal value in an abstract way, that does not change the reality that the employers of teachers (again, taxpayers) do not have the funds to pay based on that abstract societal value, while the employers of athletes and movie stars do. Furthermore, the employers of athletes and movie stars will get immediate, real world returns on their investment that will in fact exceed the initial investment. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means athletes and movie stars make lots and lots of money for the people who own teams and make movies.)

Teachers don't directly make money for their employers (taxpayers) so their compensation will necessarily be based on what their employers (taxpayers) can AFFORD to pay them. Considering only 7 states (5 of which are controlled by Republicans in both Governorship and Legislature for the record and the other 2 only have mixed control) do not have a budget deficit, clearly the money DOESN'T EXIST to pay more.

At the end of the day, it's not how much money an employee "should" make, it's how much their employees CAN pay. No amount of calling teachers really, super-duper important will make that money appear.

Reactions to the Gosnell Verdict

Kermit Gosnell is guilty and some of my faith in this country has been restored.

On Monday, a jury found Gosnell guilty of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter and countless lesser charges.

While Gosnell's actions were absolutely reprehensible and I would have far preferred that these children weren't murdered, the silver lining here is that his trial has shone a light on the realities of abortion. Stories have been told of individuals who were pro-choice have realized the reality of abortion -- and what is really going on in these procedures -- is as evil as those of us who are pro-life have said for years.

Gosnell is a murderer, plain and simple. He destroyed countless human lives in the womb, including several after he managed to botch the procedure destroying viable, living human beings.  That's called murder, friends.

This verdict does give me hope for America. It gives me hope that there are people who have risen past the canned liberal rhetoric that refers to destroying an unborn human as a "choice" and "a woman's body" instead of paying attention to the right to life of that unborn child.

A jury has convicted Gosnell of murder for these atrocities. Now perhaps we can have a real conversation about the nature of abortion in America?

The real issue is one of protecting a human life. Despite how liberals keep the focus on the pregnant woman (who, in nearly all cases made the conscious choice to have consensual sex which caused her pregnancy), the real focus ought to be the child.

My good friend and fellow blogger the JC_Freak shared with me an article where a pro-choice columnist actually had their mind changed by the Gosnell trial. Thank the Lord! Even though the Drive-By Media has largely ignored this trial, the story is out there and we can FINALLY have a real discussion about the travesty that is abortion without faltering to false cliches about "privacy" and "a woman's body."

Just in case someone who reads this
needs to have reality explained to them...

A jury has declared that Gosnell was guilty of murder. They were 100% correct. Now, let's have a real discussion about abortion that isn't entirely focused on the mother (who, as we discussed before, made the conscious choice to have sex in 99% of cases) and instead remember there is a second human being involved in the discussion -- THE BABY!

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Overgeneralization

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!"

"The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!"

 "Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

I'm guessing you've heard these claims, yes? It's all part of the liberal practice of taking a subject, looking at it from a great distance and boiling them down to a single common denominator while ignoring the dozens of other significant differences between the two. 

Lets consider the above three examples, shall we?

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!" and "The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!" belong in the same explanation, so we'll treat them together.

The argument is based on the overgeneralized fact that "Radical Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea Party are on the political right.  While this is true, there is a matter of scale that is ignored by this comparison (please excuse the crudity of this model, it IS NOT to scale):

Note that while the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan and Radical Islam (as well as Monarchy, added in for comparison) are on the right wing of the spectrum. But no one who actually UNDERSTANDS the Tea Party (rather than the Drive-By Media's meme of the Tea Party) could consider it the same as the KKK or Radical Islam.

The Tea Party stands for equality and freedom FOR ALL, irregardless of race, in stark contrast to the KKK. It stands for a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a monarch, in stark contrast to monarchy. Finally, the Tea Party stands for the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of Religion, in stark contrast to Radical Islam.

The same would be true if a conservative were to attempt to claim that American Liberalism was the equivalent of Nazism (yes, the NAZI party was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY aka Left Wing, not right) or Communism. While these two factions do fall on the Left of the political spectrum, they are starkly farther to the Left than American Liberalism. (Comparing American Liberalism to European Socialism is a close comparison, however.)

Now for my third example:

"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

While Christianity teaches us to help and provide for the poor, and liberals (at least claim) to try to help the poor using government welfare, there is a major difference in the way Jesus taught us to help the poor and how liberals try to help the poor. as I've pointed out over and over, there is no place in the Bible where Jesus said "Give your money to the government, and let the government help the poor." There's nowhere ANYWHERE in the Bible where God commands the government to care for the poor.

Even though liberals love to give the false impression that conservatives don't care about the poor, it's just not true. It's just that our plan to help the poor doesn't involve government. We believe in the Biblical model of individuals helping the poor either directly or through private charities.

All three of these examples show the liberal mentality of looking at things from only one angle, without looking at the nuances and specifics of the situations which make these supposed equivalencies not actual equivalencies.  To respond to these arguments is simple. Just take the time to break down the sheer ridiculousness of these comparisons by discussing the very nuances and specifics that make the equivalencies not equivalent.

*yes I AM quoting Back to the Future intentionally

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Just Pass a Law, Problem Solved!

I think this meme pretty wonderfully sums up the pure lack of logic in the liberal attempts to pass laws to stop gun violence by passing new laws. After the Sandy Hill Elementary Shooting, after the Colorado Shooting, and after pretty much any gun violence, liberal Democrats begin to push for the passing of new gun restrictions. As always they ignore the fact that not only do the criminals involved have no issues committing the crimes of murder and attempted murder, but also that the vast, vast majority of gun crimes do not in fact involve legally obtained guns.

Now let's take the above comparison of marijuana. Whether or not you believe it marijuana should be legalized, it is completely illegal in 26 states, 8 states have decriminalized possesion in small quantities but retained criminalization of sale of large quantities, 7 states have made it legal ONLY with a doctor's prescription, 7 have both medical marijuana and decriminalization laws in place and only 2 have legalized it for recreational use.

Does anyone want to tell me that marijuana use is stopped in the 26 states where it is illegal or that it is only used for medical purposes in the 7 states where it is only legal with a prescription? For that matter, does anyone believe people who want to obtain marijuana are stopped by these laws? OF COURSE NOT!

So why would any rational person believe that gun control laws would stop criminals from obtaining guns to commit crimes? It turns out criminals don't follow laws...only law abiding citizens do.

The answer is: "It wouldn't!" But liberals are convinced that passing a law would make a difference. Liberals want to make a difference, they generally mean least the Neighborhood Liberals do...but the results don't matter.

Yet, to go back to what we said above, how many people smoke marijuana even though it's illegal. And that's not even a violent crime motivated by hate.  Criminals DON'T follow laws. A gun criminal is already committing at least one crime: murder or attempted murder. But, they're apparently going to stop committing that crime which they have planned and premeditated because it's illegal for them to have a particular gun.

The only people who will be stopped from buying guns are law-abiding citizens. You know, the ones who would use those guns for protection. Perhaps those law-abiding citizens would use their legally purchased and licensed guns to stop a murderer?

Bottom line, passing a law only effects law-abiding citizens.  It doesn't effect criminals. Because criminals don't follow laws, by definition.

No "Jeff," Jesus was not a Socialist

Yep, "Jeff" is back, warping whatever he needs to warp to continue believing in liberalism. It's nothing new. "Jeff" now is claiming that Jesus was a socialist, in this tweet:

Oh "Jeff," seriously? I mean, it's just not possible you equate Jesus giving away what essentially belonged to him with socialism?

Let me ask you a question, "Jeff." If a doctor chooses to treat a patient, FOR FREE, without government compulsion but of his own free will, is that Socialism?

While we're at it, if I have food, and I choose to directly give it to a hungry person, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism?  Or, in the case of Jesus, if someone gave me some bread and fish to give to help feed hungry people I distributed them, is that Socialism?

Or if I were to take some wine, which I purchased with my own money, and wrap it up and put a nice bow on it and give it to someone, without government compulsion but of my own free will, is that Socialism?

No to all three, my friends. The first two fall under a very common English word: Charity. The third falls under another very common English word: Gift.

Now none of these are perfect analogies, because what all three of the examples "Jeff" gave were actually Jesus performing miracles. As God incarnate, Jesus took five loaves of bread and two fish and turned them into enough bread and fish to feed thousands miraculously; He healed the sick miraculously; and He turned water into wine miraculously.  Jesus healing the sick wasn't through government compulsion and it didn't confiscate peoples' money to provide it.

Jesus had the ability to heal sick people, so He healed them (similar, if not exactly, in result to a doctor who chooses to give a sick person free care on his own).

A small boy gave (donated) his lunch to Jesus to help feed the hungry crowd. Jesus then miraculously multiplied it to feed thousands.

Wedding patrons gave Jesus pots of water, which Jesus was able to turn into wine and give to the wedding guests.

Now, how is this socialism, "Jeff"? Before you answer let's review how Webster's dictionary defines socialism, shall we?

Socialism (n) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

So, "Jeff," was Jesus part of the government? No, He was not. Was Jesus taking collective goods by means of government and distributing them? No, He was not.

Jesus was privately charitable. And private citizens and charities taking care of the poor is not socialism, nor is it liberalism. It is an exercise of the conservative principle of charity. Plain and simple.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Condescension

"If you think X, you clearly don't understand Y at all!"

Ever hear that?  "You're stupid because you don't know how brilliant this liberal whatever!" Usually it is accompanied by either a quote about how much more they know than you (or the person they are quoting), or how much more educated they (or the person they are quoting) is, or how you're just plain dumb for believing whatever it is you believe.

It's a common debating tactic amongst liberals. Most of the time, they excuse it as "no, your points really are stupid so my condescension is validated." (I pretty much guarantee I'm going to get at least one of these via tweet or comment.) Liberals love to talk down to everyone. They're smarter than everyone, just ask them!

Often, this condescension is used in replacement of an actual argument. I spoke recently with an individual who was arguing with me for the need for hate-crime legislation. Ultimately, when I responded to all of his arguments, I was told he knew what he was talking about more than me because he went to law school. There was no need for him to provide actual evidence of the necessity of such laws know...actions like murder and assault are illegal, regardless of the motive behind the crime. He knew better because he was a self-described expert. (By the way, to this day, I have no idea if this individual's legal expertise was in criminal law, real estate, or business mergers.)

Yet another condescender was a person who I've known for years. This individual always feel back on the typical liberal response of "LOL, that's stupid because reasons." When asked for evidence, I would further be told how I should accept what Expert X said, again, because reasons. (Please note that "because reasons" doesn't equal actual evidence, just a one-off bumper sticker quote.)  These arguments fall in the same category with the classic statement "Italians are never wrong, just ask one!"

Far too many Activist Liberals use this tactic as a shut-down. It's all about making you feel like you don't even deserve to debate with them. Ultimately, the answer is to walk away from these individuals. At Biblical Conservatism, repeated condescension will get you blocked as a commenter, both here at the blog and on our Facebook Page. In real life, it generally is best to just walk away. If someone won't debate with respect, it's not worth debating with them. Let them look like a jerk, then walk away.