Is “Progressive” Economics Based on Sound Science?

Very minor editing for punctuation and clarity of an article by Gary DeMar, with [my comments inserted in context]

---

For about a decade Liberals have described Conservatives as “anti-science.” If you question global warning theorists, you are anti-science. If you question the evolutionary religion that argues for [inexplicable, mysterious] spontaneous generation, you are anti-science. Start with nothing . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long, dead silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up our world popped into existence. To doubt this theory (not empirical science) makes you anti-science. [ … Actually, it makes you a heretic against an undefined, but infallible, “Progressive” religion – a proper target for “Progressive” Jihad (IOW, intellectual terrorism).]

Even some atheists find the view incredible. Consider the latest book by Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.”

Former Newsweek editor Howard Fineman said that the Republican Party has become

“... a ‘faith-based,’ ‘Bible-based’ political organization. Fineman also derided Paul Ryan as untrustworthy when it comes to considering science: [Ryan] starts every consideration of public policy, not from the standpoint of science, but from the standpoint of faith.’”

[LOL! And yet, virtually ALL “Progressive” assertions about “the right thing to do” are demonstrably gratuitous. That makes them based on faith – and an undisciplined faith at that!]

There is no human dignity in the evolutionary worldview. It’s dog-eat-dog, “nature red in tooth and claw,” survival of the fittest. The further political regimes get away from a “faith-based” worldview that has the personal God at its core, the closer they get to tyranny and dehumanization. A materialistic, science-based worldview is like setting the sails of a ship “for the island of nihilism. This is the darkest continent of the darkened mind — the ultimate paradise of the fool.”[1]

Science as it’s taught today cannot make moral judgments. [Indeed!  Authentic science comes from honest people, disciplined by the Empirical method.  When done correctly, it is based on objective facts.  By their very nature, real facts are morally neutral.] Science can only conclude how atoms line up, how hot or cold something is, or how fast something travels. Science can’t say if genocide is morally right or wrong or whether taxing the rich is good or bad for the economy. Science can only publish the body count of the dead and the amount of money that’s collected from tax payers. [ ... assuming the books are not being cooked -- another huge leap of faith!]

The only thing keeping America from going over the cliff is a faith-based, Bible-based worldview. Our founders understood this, even those who had strong objections to some of the Bible’s doctrines. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that “rights” were an endowment from the Creator and not a gift from the State.

[Indeed!  If government is the source of Rights, then they are not Rights, they are privileges.  A privilege can be withheld.  The harmless exercise of a Right, cannot be justly denied or unduly encumbered.  Furthermore, the Bill of Rights merely acknowledges a short list of particularly critical rights that are commonly trampled by government and that existed eons before government of any kind.  In reality, adults were born with the immutable right to do any harmless thing.  This means that we all possess literally billions of rights!]

The Declaration states that “the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,” appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions.” This was a faith-based worldview. Science doesn’t know a thing about rights.

Where is the science in the economic policies of the Democrats? [Hint:  there is none.  All "Progressive" economic ideas are based entirely on adolescent emotion.]  How does taking money from some people and passing [some of] it along to other people, pass for moral rectitude and sound public policy? How does Mr. Fineman imagine that science can make this determination? He can’t.

[However, science can objectively identify sound methods for accounting and economic analysis.  That's called rational, non-political accounting.  Such science is the only way to manage finances for world's largest government.  THIS is the kind of responsible accounting that "Progressives have made all but impossible!]

---

Notes:
R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171.

The Obama’s dictatorial ambitions revealed as it unleashes HHS thugs!

Even if the Church decides to stop accepting federal funds (which should not have been offered in the first place, or accepted for that matter), The Obama’s dictatorial ambitions probably won’t be quashed. After all, ambitions to dictatorship reveal a pathological illness. Such mental flaws are rarely reversed in such a morally dysfunctional creature.

More than a few loud-mouthed Leftmedia “Progressives” are alarmed by Obama’s contempt for the Catholic Church. They get a creepy feeling that what it has done to the Catholic hospitals (a huge public asset) can just as easily be applied to them.  History proves they are correct.

We were warned that detail devils in The Obama's health care "reform law" (which is objectively lawless) would be evident once HHS started handing down the accompanying regulations. The new rules forbidding all employers – including Catholic hospitals and schools – from denying insurance benefits for contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization are both shocking and oppressive.

In spearheading this effort to force employers to violate their religious conscience, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (Satan’s latest minion) has leaped ahead of Van Jones as leading contender for a "most-radical-present-or-former-Obama-Administration official" contest. The White House Occupier thinks it can minimize any political fall-out among US Catholics – after all, a solid majority use contraception and foolishly voted for it in 2008.   But they are still Catholics, even if they disagree with some Church policies.

Big mistake – because even cafeteria Catholics are uncomfortable with a President that seems to side with the group building a mosque near Ground Zero but glibly tramples the religious liberty of their church. When media gangs as viciously "Progressive" as USA Today and Morning Joe are speaking out against this brazen HHS move  (which reveals insolent contempt for the Constitution) , you know it's only a matter of time before we read about an Obama about-face on the issue (or so we hope). Even if it changes its dictate to HHS on this issue, the real Obama has again been revealed. No way to un-ring that bell.

Decent people can only pray that this action by The Obama forewarns the shameful demise of the Obama debacle.

Disagree? Please have the courage to say why here by posting a comment, because this is the stuff of critical public discourse!

A Poll ...

Do you agree with any part of this statement? …

“President Obama held a YouTube/Google+ town hall yesterday and was shocked to find out that a woman's husband was unemployed even though he was an engineer. Considering that we are currently in the worst "recovery" of the post-war era why is Obama surprised? His policies have led to an America that treads water while China inches closer every day.”

Please leave your answer via comment.

Thanks for taking our poll.

Welcome to YOUR future: "Soft Law" as defined by "Agenda 21"!

For the record, I’m not a member, nor do I particularly care to promote membership in the organization that produced the video report you can see at link below.

Even if you don’t like the organization, that’s fine, because the facts reported in the video are either true or they are not true regardless of who says them!

Fortunately, independent verification is possible from a site that FAVORS the ideas defined in "Agenda 21"!     To see what they are up to, go here, but ...

FIRST, I urge you to summon the courage I believe you have and ...

 ... consider the message in this video,
that was ...
produced by first hand witnesses!

IMHO, the true gravity of “Agenda 21” is hinted in this statement:

Real or alleged Wall Street malfeasance is an
insignificant symptom of a much larger problem!

Your comments on the subject of the video are most welcome.  Please post them here so we can help as many as possible choose how best to cope with these world changing forces.

Kind Regards.

Just 39 questions

In view of past and current events, I humbly urge you to read each of the questions below, then ask yourself if you feel, believe or know that any of them are worth asking. Even if you don’t like the author, each question still stands or falls on its own merit.  It seems to me that squarely facing and attempting to answer these questions requires the type of courage and character that made America possible in the first place. Just because our dear nation is falling onto hard times, should not mean that too few of us possess ancestral courage. In spite of all the unsettling news, I believe America is still home to enough of these brave souls.

If you say none of the questions below are worth asking, that’s fine. You might be correct, and every decent person prays that you are. But if you think even one is valid, … well, that’s a different discussion – one I encourage you to join, because someday soon, your very life might depend on wisdom gained from the group experience, ideas and stories.

---

What if the Constitution Expanded Government?
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
FoxNews.com

1. Does the government work for us or do we work for the government?
2. Is freedom in America a myth or a reality?
3. What if we didn’t live in a free country?
4. What if the Constitution were written not to limit government, but to expand it?
5. What if the Constitution didn't fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, but betrayed it?
6. What if the Constitution actually permitted the government to limit and constrict freedom [to do any harmless thing]?
7. What if the Bill of Rights was just a paper promise, that the government could avoid whenever it claimed the need to do so?
8. What if the same generation--in some cases the same people--that drafted the U.S. Constitution enacted laws that violated it?
9. What if the merchants and bankers who financed the American Revolution bought their way into the new government and got it to enact laws that stifled their competition?
10. What if the civil war that was fought in the name of freedom actually advanced the cause of tyranny?
11. What if the federal government were the product of 150 years of stealing power and liberty and property from the people and the states?
12. What if our political elites spent the 20th century importing the socialist ideas of big government Statism from Europe?
13. What if our political class was adopting the European political culture from which our founding fathers fought so hard to break free?
14. What if our political leaders no longer acknowledged that our rights come from our humanity, but insisted instead that they come from the government?
15. What if you had to produce your papers to get out of or into our once-free country?
16. What if you couldn’t board a plane, a train, or a long-distance bus without providing documentation telling the government who you are and where you’re going, without paying the government, and without risking sexual assault? What if your local police department could shoot down a plane?
17. What if government agents could write their own search warrants, declare their own enemies, and seize whatever property they want?
18. What if the feds could detain you indefinitely, with no visitors, no lawyer, no judge, and no jury?
19. What if they could make you just disappear?
20. What if the government broke its own laws in order to enforce them?
21. What if the government broke down your front door in the middle of the night and shot your dog, and claimed it was a mistake?
22. What if you were required to purchase a product that you didn’t need, didn’t want, and couldn’t afford, from a company you never heard of, just as a condition of living in the United States?
23. What if the government told you what not to put in your body as well as what to put into it; and how much?
24. What if the government claimed that since it will be paying your medical bills, it can tell you what to eat, when to sleep, and how to live?
25. What if the government tried to cajole and coax and compel you into behaviors and attitudes it considered socially acceptable?
26. What if the government spent your tax money to advertise to you how great the services are that it provides?
27. What if the government kept promising to make you safe while it kept stripping you of your liberties and committing crimes in your name that made you a target of more violence?
28. What if you didn’t have a right to every dollar you earned?
29. What if the government decided how much of your earnings it will keep and how much it will permit you to have?
30. What if the government took money from you and gave it away to its rich banking and corporate friends whose businesses were failing?
31. What if the government thought it knew better than you did how to lead your life and had no problem telling you so?
32. What if the government took the credit for every success your own human actions helped you achieve?
33. What if the government told you that only it could build roads, run schools, keep you safe, and collect trash even though it's never been able to do so efficiently before?
34. What if the government spent nearly twice as much as it took in?
35. What if it couldn’t pass a budget on a timely basis and funded itself just weeks at a time? And what if the government kept borrowing money against the wealth of future generations to pay for wasteful programs today?
36. What if you worked for the government and the government didn’t work for you?
37. What if freedom were a myth?
38. What if we don’t live in a free country?
39. What do we do about it?

Here's one thing you can do!