Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Wall Between Church and State Spoke Only of Federalism

Some liberal talking points extol how founding fathers would stand against conservative contemporary issues, which remains pointless conjecture. Unlike the liberals of today our founding fathers were pragmatists and did not adhere to any one political agenda; as a matter of fact they just about defined cognitive dissonance. For one Jefferson has a abolitionists yet owned (and bedded) slaves. Jefferson also spoke of glowing of native American culture, but savagely drove Indians west and said of those that resisted  "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". Jefferson was also so devoted to Christianity he wrote his own deist version of the New Testament.

The letters written by Jefferson were generally a discussion of Federalism, not a demonisation of religion; the protections from government in the original Bill of Rights only pertained to the Federal government not the states;  it was believed that the states could create whatever government or religion it wanted as long as it recognized and respected federal authority. What the first Amendment protections addressed was "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", IOW a prohibition from  Federal government creating a national religion. If a state wanted to establish a religion as part of their government process they would have been free to do so; the idea being no one would be trapped or force to endure what you believed to be a tyrannical state, as you could simply move to another, but that was not the fact if the Federal government established a religion. Today, because of the 14th Amendment all states must adhere to these Federal prohibitions, but that was not the case when the Constitution was written. The Federal Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in was convened in 1787, but the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1886, 60 years after Jefferson died.

"Jefferson's wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall's primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions ofthe national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns,
 such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury BaptistAssociation".

John T. McGreevy, "Thinking on One's Own: Catholicism in the American Intellectual Imagination, 1928-1960," Journal of American History, Vol. 84 (June 1997), pp. 97-131, and Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002).

Friday, March 6, 2015

The Biggest Lie of 2014; "Hands up, Don't shoot";

In 2013 the biggest lie of the year was, "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it." The biggest lie in 2014 has got to be, "Hands up, don't shoot." From the very beginning the Ferguson narrative that a seasoned veteran police officer murdered a unarmed suspect that was surrendering simply didn't pass the smell test. This narrative was first perpetrated by several questionable witnesses and soon after the autopsy results put  "Hands up, don't shoot" in a very questionable light; predictably however the main street media ran with the story and police Officer Darren Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department became ground zero for police violence against blacks. This also attracted the likes of  race-baiter  Al Sharpton, who continues to monetarily profit by stoking the fires of racism and black vicitimism. Well the DOJ report is in and it categorically refutes the  "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative, placing Michael Brown as instigator and controller of his own destiny. The left then adds insult to injury by claiming blacks have a right to the false narrative because of the discrimination they have experienced at the hands of the police; that it is the fault of the police that the false narrative was embraced. It would seem that the police internal affairs have enough trouble trying to investigating what might be real claims of police misconduct, then have to defend themselves from imaginary police conduct.

 "According to these witnesses, who are corroborated by blood evidence in the roadway," the inquiry states, "Wilson fired at Brown in what appeared to be self-defense and stopped firing once Brown fell to the ground...There is no evidence upon which prosecutors can rely to disprove Wilson's stated subjective belief that he feared for his safety,'' the report concludes. DOJ Ferguson Inquiry; Another interesting point is the majority of honest witnesses that testified to the truth had been constantly threatened to lie and maintain the falsehood of the "Hands up, don't shoot" narrative. Ferguson Grand Jury Witnesses often Cited Fear in Testifying.  But this is certainly no surprise to anyone. The left, in league with the main street media has made an art form out of fabricating narratives and stoking the fires of racial unrest. Who can forget the New York Times describing George Zimmerman a white Hispanic, in order to make the Trayvon Martin shooting a black/white issue; and NBC alters a 911 audio tape to make it sound like George Zimmerman was a racists. It's no great secret that a large percentage of American blacks have been relegated to live in isolated black identified neighborhoods that offer more violence, weaker schools and fewer jobs than  whites of the same economic class; and this is where black cognitive dissidence  comes in. Democrats have continually given blacks nothing more then lip service, keeping them marginalized by maintaining their victim mentality and taking for granted the black voting block while they turn their attention to Unions and court liberal rich political donors.

The big lie from the left is how the police discriminate against blacks and due to institutional racism the black man can not succeed in America today. While racism has not disappeared, the police still go where the crimes are being committed and socioeconomic reality of blacks is they commit more crimes than whites. It is not racism that holds the black community down, it is the result of the systematic destruction of the black family and the left passing off black crime as acceptable civil disobedience (not to mention the misogyny of gangster rap) . Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. Black on black crime is a pandemic, but ignored by Democrats and the main street media. It's much easier to blame the cops than to face the reality that progressive social engineering with the black community has been a disaster.

 If you’re going to correctly compare the rates at which police kill black and white male teenagers, you have to compare teenage crime rates. You can’t just compare crime rates among the entire black and white populations. The rate that these teenagers commit murder, not including rape and other less serious crimes, also provides a somewhat better measure of the perceived threat that they might pose to police...Among blacks, teenage crime is much more prevalent. Based on the most recent available FBI crime numbers, black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger  Dangerous Distortions of Cops Shooting Blacks. Instead the left continues to forward the "Hands up, don't shoot" fallacy; that young unarmed black men are being routinely murdered by the police, when the fact is it's a very rare occurrence; in a country of 300 million people, one might be surprised to learn that the number of (ruled) justifiable killings by police (which is the vast majority) is usually less than 400. So, considering the social and racial damage done,  the attempted coercion of witnesses to lie and the fact that the powers that be knew it was a false narrative, "Hands up, don't shoot" is certainly the leading candidate for the biggest lie of 2014.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Climate Change Models Faulty Due to "Confirmation Bias"

In a blog, a Man Made Climate Change zealot bemoaned the fact that,  "It's so sad that science isn't allowed to say "proven" after being 99% certain for 34 years without achieving the climate action needed to SAVE THE PLANET." editorial-march-1-2015-

Previously I wrote: The argument has never been about whether man is affecting the atmosphere; of course he has. For hundreds of years it has been observed that smoke from coal fires have raised the temperatures in London, by creating a warming blanket in the atmosphere. The question is what is the extent of Man Made Climate Change (MMCC)? Most of the 97% consensus studies didn't even contact the scientists and were based on very faulty criteria. We already know that predictions of MMCC by zealots like Al Gore were incredibly overstated; and most the climate computer models are not that less fantastic. The truth is no one knows. The only way to calculate the extent that man is affecting Climate Change is by the very computer studies that have been churning out faulty information for the past 10 years or so. What we do know is carbon credits are a scam designed solely to raise taxes and rationalize global governance. While “People tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their world view,” Governments have also used science to justify oppression and tyranny. And so it goes..

This was my response to the zealot..

It isn't science's job to save the planet or make the world believe anything. Science is also not a democratic process were the majority rules; it should be noted that the most spectacular scientific discoveries were believed by a small minority before they became generally accepted. Further, Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) has shown itself to be a political movement verging on religious dogma, which is often defined as "confirmation bias". "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs".

Further as I said before, while climate change is accepted science, as is MMCC to a lesser degree, there is absolutely no consensus on to what degree man is affecting the climate. As a matter of fact, the corner stone of MMCC, the raising levels of man created C02 causing global warming, has been called into question. For 18 years there has been no substantial global warming, even though C02 levels have continued to rise. It seems all the climate change computer models were based on the relationship between rising C02 levels and the raising global temperatures of the 1990's and the models have simply not been able explain the pause in global warming while C02 is still on the rise. But rather than question their global warming dogma, they have created other unsubstantiated theories to explain it without putting their theories into question (like the disproved theory that planet heat was hiding deep in the ocean; yes, ignoring physics by saying hot water sank below colder water). Another obvious example of confirmation bias. It isn't the point that science is not allowed to say "proven"; the point is that saying anything is proven is not science (in other words to wish science could declare a theory proven is wishing for the end to science); it's usually a political entity looking for a rationalization for oppression and tyranny.