Justice St. Rain Worried About Long List of Liberal Fears

I found this fascinating! Gay Patriot found a guy who parrots the left in a way Dennis Prager says, warps judgment — may I add, profoundly. So, I decided to dissect this post a bit to show how non-issues are conflated to the Left’s mind while important aspects of fighting a war on terror while not allowing a trampling of things like the 4th and 12th Amendments on our own body-politic (en masse).

So lets read and access the post by Justice St Rain

Really, This Is A List of Things NOT to Worry About

Things I’m more worried about than my phone being tapped:

Global warming. The richest 1% controlling more wealth than the bottom 50%. Homelessness. Gutting the food stamp program. The rich hiding several Trillion untaxed dollars. Secretaries paying more in taxes than billionaires. Politicians being bought and sold. Malaria and starvation. More people per capita in prison than any other country. The “war” on drugs. More black men in prison than in college. Rising cost of education and health care. The rise of extremism. The continued oppression of women. The general lack of compassion in the world. The degree to which we all blame our problems on others and close our eyes to our own irrationality. That more people are outraged by a small loss of privacy than any of these other issues.

Lets unpack Global Warming a bit. Almost every point, literally every point, that anthropogenic warming extremists have put forward over the past decade[+] has fallen apart due to evidence.

1. A biologist who claimed that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice has been suspended and is being investigated for scientific misconduct following his “veracity” in emotionalizing a debunked topic.  Get ready for Polarbeargate.

2. Today, new NASA data blows a gaping hole in global warming alarmism: “NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.” [See the paper — it was pulled]

3. CERN physicists conducted a cosmic ray climate experiment that is said to directly contradict the climate change debate in the political arena.  Apparently, so much so that the scientists have been gagged from discussing their findings reportedly proving that cosmic (space-based) energy has a far greater effect on the climate than previously believed.

4.  A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence that coal burning plants may actually be cooling the planet. The findings have been accepted to the point of suggesting using sulfur to combat global warming; “Sulfur’s ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geo-engineering feat to cool the planet.”  If anything, this study proves that the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory is unproven.

(Activist Post, I update a couple of the dead links)

Three posts I highly recommend exemplifying major failures in the predictive powers in the pro-man-caused (AGW) side are here:

✁ CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report;

New Report: ‘Extreme Weather Report 2012′: ‘Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is ‘unprecedented’ or a ‘new normal’;

John Kerry vs. `The Warming[?] World`

From fraud in newspapers, to misunderstandings by reporters (put in their place by scientists), to CO2 not being the driver of warming — but rather a more cosmic driver (as well as a CFC correlation, maybe?), to hockey sticks evaporating and fraught with fraud, to thee most important prediction in the IPCC model failingentirely, to activists going to the Antarctic to make a point but getting frost bite and cancelling the trip, to even “experts” saying that snow will be only a memory with children in this decade, to less tornadoes and hurricanes rather than more, and that “warming” [not man-caused] would decrease them, to even the Economist Magazine changing their position on the matter, as well as other AGW acolytes like Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology saying that the “prognoses confirm model forecasts…” warming postponed “hundreds of years,” or James Lovelock — creator of the GAIA theory — now rejecting man-cased global warming ~ the “consensus” is in free-fall, in other words, to people like Bill Nye being destroyed with facts, Hillary Clinton, as well as Al Gore. All leading to the idea that the Left is more religious in their political endeavors than the most fiery preacher, even having their own eschatology! (I say more, because while a Christian may have beliefs about how the world will end, they are not legislating taxes [confiscating labor] based on it.)

Every point that is parroted in that small statement by St. Rain’s is a bust, and shows how the left uses causes to minimize freedom. They latch onto these things to increase legislative control and thus put in place more progressive control… which leads us into the “rich” and the poor mentioned. With the stupid statement about the 1%, I would be concerned if the bottom 50% payed the lions hare of taxes AND controlled less than the 1%.

So if we were to “even the playing field,” I presume through forced redistribution, all those pet-programs that have put more people, than the entire population of Spain, on some sort of welfare that St. Rain surely supports, would disappear. No more safety net in other words. In fact, the food stamp program is not gutted? It is at an all-time-high? Is St. Rain saying that we cannot cut programs like this at all? We are at our most minimum RIGHT NOW? The rich would bring back this money if our tax system were fair, and not criminal. The Laffer Curve for instance, explained so well by UCLA Economics professor, Tim Groseclose, shows when the government starts to lose money through its tax policy. Which makes me want to show just how bad St. Rain’s thinking is and how he digests and parrots falsehoods in order to embolden his feelings on issues. When he says, “Secretaries paying more in taxes than billionaires”, you know he has sold his soul to the devil.

St Rain’s confusion about capital gains tax and income tax is astounding to me. Buffett’s secretary likely makes about $200,000 a year, and pays a high tax bracket on her INCOME. Buffett and Romeny already payed this high tax bracket on their earnings, invested that taxed money, increased it, and now pay 15% (minus any donations — which Romney did A LOT! getting his tax bracket down to about 13% — damn greedy conservative!). Some of the problem I see here is that St. Rain views wealth as a “zero-sum game,” that is, he thinks that when one person gets richer, another person gets poorer. But when a “Bill Gates” becomes uber rich, he provides jobs, charities, trusts, etc, that lift multiple thousands of lives out of a lower income bracket into a higher. Justice St. Rain’s also — I believe — falsely characterizes “income inequality myth”:

Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton

…But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980…

[….]

As University of Michigan economist Mark Perry notes, while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: “There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently.”

A similar analysis found that income inequality has fallen among individuals since the early 1990s, but risen among households due to factors such as more marriages of people with similar education levels and earnings potential.

Others argue that income mobility matters more than equality.

One study found that more than half of the families who started in the lowest income bracket in 1996 had moved to a higher one by 2005. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 57% of families fell out of the top 1%.

…read more…

He also misunderstands the idea that the Republican party is the party of the rich and greedy. I doubt Rain’s even understands how greed can be good and create the most wealth for everyone.

Some Insights from Prager

In fact, the richest 8-of-10 counties voted for Obama… and consistently when the states are separated by red-and-blue, the most charitable states are red, the most stingy (greedy) are blue states. And the richest Congressmen are typically Democrats.

I don’t have all-day, but another blatantly false statistic Rain’s puts forward when he says, “More black men in prison than in college.” Larry Elder deals with this as one of five mantras/myths on racism and blacks:

5) More blacks are in jail than in college.

Not true. “More blacks (are) in jail than college, in every state,” said Jesse Jackson in 2007. That same year, presidential candidate Sen. Obama, echoed: “More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America.”

If Jackson and Obama refer to black men of the usual college-age years, their claim is not even remotely true. The Washington Post “Fact Checker” wrote: “According to 2005 Census Bureau statistics, the male African-American population of the United States aged between 18 and 24 numbered 1,896,000. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 106,000 African-Americans in this age group were in federal or state prisons at the end of 2005. … If you add the numbers in local jail (measured in mid-2006), you arrive at a grand total of 193,000 incarcerated young black males, or slightly over 10 percent.

“According to the same census data, 530,000 of these African-American males, or 28 percent, were enrolled in colleges or universities … in 2005. That is five times the number of young black men in federal and state prisons and two and a half times the total number incarcerated. If you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to 30 or 35, the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners.”

Racism against blacks exists, but it is no longer a meaningful obstacle to success. People are not angels. Some people are rotten. Humans make mistakes — and always will. But the facts do not show a “racist criminal justice system.”

There may be votes in teaching people to think like victicrats. But the problem of the high rates of black imprisonment will not be solved by falsely screaming racism.

…read more…

While there is a lot to unpack in Justice’s short paragraph, I will end with this look into worldviews, which I doubt is a topic of in-depth study by Justice. When he says, “The general lack of compassion in the world,” I liken this to a decrease in the Christian faith in the West. For instance, when dealing with issues of, say, rape, differing worldviews view this in completely different ways:

theism: evil, wrong at all times and places in the universe — absolutely;
atheism: taboo, it was used in our species in the past for the survival of the fittest, and is thus a vestige of evolutionary progress… and so may once again become a tool for survival — it is in every corner of nature;
pantheism: illusion, all morals and ethical actions and positions are actually an illusion (Hinduism – maya; Buddhism – sunyata). In order to reach some state of Nirvana one must retract from this world in their thinking on moral matters, such as love and hate, good and bad.

So Christian theism produces people like Mother Theresa who goes into a foreign land and sacrifices her whole life to care for people who are rejected by their society. A well funded (rich) church makes this possible. To end I will expand on my thinking from an excerpt from my book:


…That being said, we can begin to understand the “flocking” of children around westerners.  In India and Tibet and other areas that hold to reincarnation as the predominate philosophy, one is in his or her predicament, so-to-speak, because of the choices (actions) made in previous lives.  The Dalai Lama and other “holy men” believe that to help these poor unfortunates is to tamper with their karma,[1] when doing otherwise they are living “outside” their worldview.  These afore-mentioned personalities will literally walk right past the poor, invalid, maimed, un-educated, starving, and mentally ill people completely ignoring their pleas for help and assistance, all because of the effects of their karmic past!  An example is warranted:

Consider my marriage to my wife, now consider that I beat her mercilessly, treating her like the dirt on my shoes, etc.  I would be storing up some pretty bad karma.  When I come around for my next human life I would come back as the woman being beat. 

This is karma’s answer to evil, which is really no answer at all.  In fact, it perpetuates evil.  How so?  It necessitates a beatee, which mandates a beater.  It creates, then, a seemingly never-ending circle of violence or evil.  In addition, it states emphatically that we choose our current destiny (or events) in this life due to past life experiences and choices.  Another illustration with some personal dialogue between some aid workers will help explain this concept some more:

While speaking in Thailand, Ron Carlson was invited to visit some refugee camps along the Cambodian border.  Over 300,000 refugees were caught in a no-man’s-land along the border.  This resulted from the Cambodian massacre under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in the mid-70’s (which is known as the “killing fields”) and then subsequently by the invasion of the Vietnamese at the end of the 70’s.  One of the most fascinating things about these refugee camps was the realization of who was caring for the refugees.  Here, in this Buddhist country of Thailand, with Buddhist refugees coming from Cambodia and Laos, there were no Buddhists taking care of their Buddhist brothers.  There were also no Atheists, Hindus, or Muslims taking care of those people.  The only people there, taking care of these 300,000[+] people, were Christians from Christian mission organizations and Christian relief organizations.  One of the men Ron was with had lived in Thailand for over twenty-years and was heading up a major portion of the relief effort for one of these organizations. Ron asked him: “Why, in a Buddhist country, with Buddhist refugees, are there no Buddhists here taking care of their Buddhist brothers?” Ron will never forget his answer:

“Ron, have you ever seen what Buddhism does to a nation or a people? Buddha taught that each man is an island unto himself. Buddha said, ‘if someone is suffering, that is his karma.’ You are not to interfere with another person’s karma because he is purging himself through suffering and reincarnation! Buddha said, ‘You are to be an island unto yourself.’” –  “Ron, the only people that have a reason to be here today taking care of these 300,000 refugees are Christians. It is only Christianity that people have a basis for human value that people are important enough to educate and to care for.  For Christians, these people are of ultimate value, created in the image of God, so valuable that Jesus Christ died for each and every one of them.  You find that value in no other religion, in no other philosophy, but in Jesus Christ.”[2]

Do you get it now?  It takes a “Mother Teresa” to go into these embattled countries with a Judeo-Christian worldview and bathe, feed, educate, care for these people – who otherwise are ignored due to harmful religious beliefs.  Another example, albeit more poignant, is that of a mock conversation between a Buddhist named Zen, and a Christian named Chris:

Chris:  What if in my reality, my “island,” it is wrong for people to own things, and so when you’re not looking, I elect to play “Robin Hood” by relieving you of your new two-thousand-dollar-crystal and giving it to someone else?

Zen: Well, uh, I guess I’d have to conclude that my Higher Self wanted me to learn a lesson about material things [as Buddhism teaches and New Age thought teaches].

Chris:  Okay, if stealing is not a sin, let’s take it further.  Now let’s pretend I’m a “pedophile” – it’s part of my reality to “love” children in every way possible.  So, while you’re at work I’m going to invite your children into my home to play a “game” that I’ve made up.  Is that all right with you?

Zen:  It most certainly is not!  It would be part of my reality to report you to the police.

Chris:  Why?  After all, it’s the reality I’ve sovereignly chosen to create for myself.  What gives you the right to interfere in the reality of another god? [Which are what Eastern religions teach, coming to the realization that you are one with the Brahmin.]

Zen:  Simple.  Your reality is infringing on my children’s reality.

Chris:  But according to your belief system, before your child incarnated she chose you [by past actions] as her parent and she also chose whatever happens to them, including my act, and you’ve no right to interfere. 

[Ravi Zacharias makes the point that one doesn’t even know ultimately if it was something in your previous life or something in the parents previous life or the child’s previous life (or others involved) that dictated this karmic outcome![3]

Zen:  I do too… in this case.

Chris:  Can you see my point now?  You are naturally and rightly outraged at the very suggestion of such an act.  Something within you knows that it is wrong in and of itself!  This reality is in direct contrast to what you should believe if your Buddhist philosophy holds true.

Zen:  You are right.

Chris:  But that can only be so if there are absolute rights and wrongs independent of our personal reality [which Eastern religions don’t teach].  Yet, try as you may, you will not find a ground for such moral absolutes and human value in your worldview.  Your God is impersonal and amoral, “beyond good and evil,” so you can’t appeal to It [as “It” is impersonal].  In addition, since in your view [Buddhism or Hinduism] we are all equally gods, my truth about any subject is as good as your truth.  So you see, Eastern beliefs fail the test of human experience – it cannot be consistently lived out.[4]


[1] Dean Halverson, The Illustrated Guide to World Religions, 56-57, 98.

[2] Ron Carlson & Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994), 28-29.

[3] Ravi Zacharias, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2001), 23-24.

[4] Elliot Miller, A Crash Course on the New Age Movement, 209-210.

…Read More…

Facebook Comments