Replacing God with State

In any stable society there has to be a moral center, not necessarily a moral authority, and a place of comfort and last refuge. There will always exist this core in a society. What is there now is the church. I do not like that it is but it can not just be removed. It is to heavy an anchor that retains the development of what might be a better system. The better system is not there and that is why it must remain as it is.

The state does not control the church and the church does not control the state. The influence is applied from one to the other through the citizen. The citizen is not the all important check currently but it keeps a balance. The church as well has the important characteristic of not being run by one man or having it primary authority ie. God available for direct commentary. It is open to some small amount of interpretation and still stands. It can bend and not break. Demonstrated by the many denominations the have come along over the years. It is mildly amorphous and does not have the force of law behind it.

The popular alternative is the state. No balance at all. It's authority is there to speak, no interpretation and no flexibility. Everything falls under it's purview and it can use force of law to enforce it's ideas. The state should never be the core of a society. That should be pain to see at this point in history. U.S.S.R., 1930's Germany, 1950's China, Cuba, and on and on. The state becomes the core of a society and it ends in ruin.

Just an aside. Other candidates for the core? Humanity as a whole or the human being lends it self to more of a collectivists ideal. The individual? May lead to to much chaos. If the individual is all important them do the rules apply to you as an individual? The French revolution is an interesting case study in all of this. Nationalism end in stateism so no. I have given it more than a little though and have two conclusion. The state can not fill the void. Change can not happen with out chaos or oppression with out well rounded educated citizens. Back to the point.

As with most of the policies of Obama, he made small changes that right now and by themselves look harmless. Trouble starts when you add them up, take in the long term effects and others take action along the same ideology. It is becoming more clear that a move from the church to the state at it's core is being directly pushed by the administration.

It has started from loud small parts of the people. The marriage issue is the the tip of the attack. This is the others with similar ideology. They believe in the issue but are not looking down the road.

State encroaching on church

"As you know, one of my main reasons for supporting Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution to define marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, was because I believe that move to redefine marriage has the potential to put the State and religion organizations — especially the Catholic church — into a head-on collision.

Liberals, when confronted with this notion, will often argue that, while the Catholic Church objects to abortion, that’s never created a constitutional crisis. What they ignore is the fact that, while the church is not in the business of providing abortions, it is in the business of providing marriages. It also ignores the fact that abortion is a legal right, not a constitutional one, while gay marriage proponents have been framing it in the opposite way: they say gay marriage as a constitutional, rather than a mere legal right."

Then we have the naked and direct attack and take over of the church. They of course argue that it is for the good of the people. The government must act to fix the problem . That argument must necessarily ignore the fact that there are already laws to punish the the acts that are the problem.

Connecticut looking to regulate the Catholic church?

"This should send a chill down your spine, Catholic or not. What this will do is basically take away the existing organization of the Catholic church, and replace it with a governing board selected by the state. The pastors, bishops, and archbishops in Connecticut would see all of their authority in the church taken away. The archbishop or bishop would have a seat on the board, but would have no right to vote. This bill is directed only at the Catholic church. "(cont.)

"Here's the problem with that reasoning. Theft and fraud are already against the law. If a parishioner believes that theft and/or fraud has taken place, then they can take legal action. If they feel they've been deceived, then obviously there's no legal action they can take -- there's no law against lying or deception, even if it's not very nice to lie to or deceive someone. A parishioner can, though, stop donating money to that particular parish. They can attend another parish. Or they could cease attendance of Catholic churches altogether. No one is required to donate money to their church, nor are they required to attend a particular church. The government, however, does require people to donate their money, and what recourse does an unhappy citizen have when they feel their money is being mishandled?"

It is entirely unconstitutional. It removes the balance and puts the state at the heart of society. They can use the church as a puppet as they always do when the state takes over.

Connecticut moving to regulate the Catholic Church

"According to the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, the government has no business dictating to religious organizations how they should structure themselves. In Connecticut, though, some lawmakers seem to have skipped over the Constitution. "(cont.)

"In other words, bishops would no longer have power over the actions of the parishes. That’s the Connecticut legislature’s vision of Roman Catholicism, but in America, government doesn’t get to structure religious organizations to suit itself. That, in fact, is a form of fascism that we routinely decry in other countries. The State Department objects to China’s insistence on picking Catholic bishops itself to suit their political oppression of religion, and Lawlor’s motion would find a welcome in Beijing as another means to the same end: state control of Catholicism."

Currently there is a rally planed. The actions of the state is unclear after all the press.

Via Gateway Pundit

"UPDATE: Canceled: Following the biggest political firestorm of the 2009 legislative session, a public hearing scheduled for Wednesday on the financial and administrative management of the Catholic Church has been canceled."

It is direct and easily demonized. It is just the idealism with the best intention. It gives cover to other action that can results in the same ends. Money begun coming to faith based programs under Bush and was expanded under Obama and included other not for profits. The so called community development funds. Shouldn't communities develop on their own? The end result is that churches are getting funding from Washington in increasing amounts. The scope of the purse strings has yet to be decided. If a church decides that it is not in their best interest to follow the rules that are set forward they just don't take money. Pretty harmless in the long run.

Obama have also decided to cut the amount that can be deducted in taxes for charitable giving. It has not happened yet. Of course that doesn't mean that all giving stops and I don't have the number on how much of that goes to churches. Churches will get less money how much is an open question. That by it self is not the end of the world.

Put the two together and it opens a path for a massive and direct control of the church by the state. Take away money coming from the people and replace it with money from Washington. The Church has to "play ball" or lose their money and influence. I hate conspiracies. Unfortunately just because your paranoid does not mean they aren't watching you.

The clear structure of both programs is yet to be worked out. The results will not be clear for years. That is the problem. It can all not only be spun away but there is not enough evidence to prove it is a state take over. Obama or the ones pulling the string are very bright politicians and manipulators. It all points to a deliberate take over buy the state, but there is no hard evidence and there will not be until it is to late.

I Am Done with the Stimulus Bill

Final thoughts on the stimulus package.
First i just didn't get to this: Economic incest

"Government doesn’t make wealth. To the extent the government has wealth, it’s because it uses its police power to demand that we give it our wealth in the form of taxes. The government hasn’t created anything. In today’s America, as in all modern economies, only the people create wealth."

"Keep in mind that, in terms of a biological population, incest occurs when there is no new genetic material. If the same gene pool keeps recycling itself, it replicates errors, useful genes vanish, bad genes multiply, and you rather quickly end up with the Hapsburgs: ugly and insane.

The same thing occurs within the closed circle of a completely government run economy. It’s the same money cycling endlessly around. No new money, no new ideas. Instead, everyone constantly siphons off a little, government bureaucrats make mistakes that result in gold vanishing permanently, and corruption becomes the only way for those in the power seat to generate a little private wealth."

It goes on that this is socialism and is dangerous.

Second, this package is out of line with the traditional arguments. On the conservative side more econimic freedom (creates wealth and innovation) and less social freedom (responsibility) The liberal side less econimic freedom (hurts people less) and more social freedom (feels good do it).

It can go to far in both directions. The excessive restriction side is what we are playing with here. If you have restrict social freedom to much you stifle innovation that leads to economic stagnation and eventual a totalitarian state( the Middle Ages). On the other hand less economic freedom means less wealth creation and innovation. That leads to shrinking economy and more people get hurt. Then the state has to steps in and keep the people from hurting. As those costs rise there are more restrictions to keep the cost down. Again a totalitarian state (U.S.S.R.).

So the bill is seeking to limit the hurt caused by so call "too much economic freedom". In reality it was too much economic restriction in the first place(pushing housing, tax law, less transparency, wealth transfer to government for welfare, ect.). They restrict the economy further so fewer people get hurt and then give them help. Then the strings and restrictions on those that get the help. When everyone gets the help, everyone gets the strings. They "for the social good" make everyone take the help. Some banks where forced to take TARP money and everyone gets a tax cuts. It is going quickly off the rail. The over restriction of economic freedom will feed on it self. Give people more, take more from the economy. Costs go up, restrictions go up.

It all make sense in my head? hopefully it makes some sense.

Finally I am not going to cover the little drips of pork coming to light. I am concerned about the pork but hiding behind it are policy changes. Changes made in the middle of the night that where not debated or opened to the light of day. I will try to bundle them together and post a few at a time. The bill is done. The direction is set. Time is better spent now trying to change the path of we travel. America Is not dead but is on life support with the paper work to pull the plug coming from Congress.

Finally, really this is it. I will however happily hammer away at those, as the election comes around again, that say this fixed any thing. There are a very small but growing signs of recovery now and before Congress passed this bill. The stimulus bill may help for the short term but has a good chance of pushing us into a depression after. It is going to be about timing. If at the height of the little recovery the liberals convince us that its over. It is OVER. If we are just pass it and the fiscal conservatives can convince us the stimulus didn't do much. We might have a chance. So hammer away I will.

Health Care Rationing for the United States In the Stimulus Bill

This is one of those Bad Little Things tucked away in the stimulus bill. It is Now gaining traction. Again the web seems to be ahead of everyone else Fox was just talking about it. It appears when this good enough light of day it set off a whole new round of out rage against this. What set it off?

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan

"But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.” "

The mistake is that they cleared up the language. From the How the Stimulus Bill Could Kill You

'Section 9201 of the stimulus package establishes the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research." This body, which would be made up of federal bureaucrats will "coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research."'

I talked about it here some days ago. SCHIP and A Heath Care Nanny Board, We Will Be Boxed In

"It sounds exactly like the last part of socialized heath care, just before the socialized society kicks in. Pass the little expansions of heath care like SCHIP til every one covered. Then start with the food taxes, weight checks and screens in all rooms waking you up and watching to make sure you do your exercise"

This is exactly how you get 1984 in modern times. I am glad this is getting attention. Lets all hope this will push the "what else is buried in this" storyline. This should give the politicians in the senate the cover to kill this bill hear and now. If they want Socialized society(Marxist? Communist?) they should put it in the light of day. Be very aware that they are taking us in a very different direction and playing like its just a little different.

Our basic Bush problem and the long term fallout.

The man can't make solid decisions. That doesn't mean that they are always wrong. I agree with going into Iraq and some of the philosophy behind it, that is however it on Iraq. Why can't he? Its a mixed bag, exactly what mix, who knows. He isn't the sharpest knife in the shed. Yes, i know. It is hard separate that from management style or political calculation.

Organization, there are all these appointments that have to be made. He put in the person that fit, giving no thought to how those appointments fit together or how they fit into his administration. Factions proliferated much more than had been seen before. And as rarely seen before a mass of rampant activism kept the political divide wide open cutting off most ideas in the middle. One hopes a president has some grace under fire. In this case i suspect it had a much bigger role than it should.

The worst sin is having a leadership style of an absentee father. Delegation is a mark of a good leader, but waking away and not taking at least a passing glance back is not. Appointment of Bremer comes to mind. A leader must listen, build consensus and on a rare occasion take someone out to the wood shed. His leadership is often marked by " this faction is right you are wrong , now go away and get it done". This isn't rare wood shed use.

Our basic problem is his leadership of us, not the administration. We could recover if he just could not run the administration. The president and congress for that matter is meant to lead the people . You make decisions, explain why, listen to concerns and address them. Really the decisions should be made last, I'll take what i can get. Oh there is the wood shed to. Currently it is let someone else make the decisions, give a half explanation if any one has questions. If there are any more questions, restate and take them to the wood shed and beat them with the rolled up statement. Weak, Very Weak.

The US attorneys is one of those issues. Did he really make the decision, or did trust what others told him? Very little competent explanation has been given. Let the beating of rolled up paper begin. Just before the beginning of the war he did better with the people, internally it was an unholy nightmare. They explained, made a decision(rightly in my book), listen to some concerns and tried to address them. Concerns over troop numbers might have been pushed aside if latter mistakes had been avoided. The WMD stuff was a mistake. The rolled up paper was irrelevant. First it was wrong and leaning on the wall, several very nice bats. UN resolutions. Shootings in the no-fly zones. Oil for food. torture. There were even some around the corner we haven't talked about. Mainly Pressing our win in the cold war to stabilize the world and fix past mistakes.

It is idiotic to continue to dodge an issue in the light of facts, stand up, accept them and make a strong argument for your position. The decision may be right but you can't defend an idiot using his arguments. Conservatives tried for far to long not realizing that in this case no one listens to anyone except the idiot. Liberals have, i think, unbeknown to them created a useful idiot. Ask him a question and he starts waving increasingly useless rolled up papers around. Que the rest of the idiots and the power hungry from both sides and all levels. On the left idiots calling for war crimes and the power hungry calling for impeachment and promising the moon. On the right the idiots blaming our problems on gays and defending Bush and the power hungry over playing the fear card, gay marriage and oh some of that moon looks good. What?

In the chaos the argument finally shifted. Is been shifting for some time due to public apathy, continued pointless bickering, less transparency and an increasingly complex government and world. Pointing at the useful idiot in the White House and supposed helpless people being hurt by him the left was able to move the argument. Up until recently they just wanted to help a little more. A little has grown to a lot and is going from helping to taking care of. What do we call that, socialism. Call it what it is. It may not technically be but if the government is signing all the check, close enough. What happened to individualism and some personal responsibility. Massive hand outs didn't get us through WWII, Great Depression, Revolutionary War, the westward expansion and the cold war. Liberalism is fine but socialism is not well American.

Long term. Those that have become at lest somewhat politically aware after the 91 gulf war really started to pay attention after 9/11. What did they see. The idiot on one side the other promising the moon. This is were the last parts of an article from David Frum picks up. Just because he was part of the administration doesn't make him wrong. I will confess it got me thinking about all this. There was a time not that long ago that i could agree with parts of both sides, hopefully i won't be calling it the good old days. What really scares me is most in this group may not know any different and no one is talking core philosophy any more. Their idea of American politics are being set now, it can be changed down the road but it won't be easy. I am sicken by the though of a liberal vs leftist far far more than liberal vs conservative for the next 30 or 50 yrs or longer.