Thursday, July 24, 2014

Someone please legislate morality

By Hayden J. Sparks
The lives, liberty, and property of Americans are undervalued every day. A farmer may be harshly punished by the Environmental Protection Agency for an unintentional violation of a vague law. Why? Well, to preserve the earth, of course! A successful entrepreneur may have to lay off workers or even close because his taxes went up to fund the latest of the government's extravagant programs. Why? Well, to promote economic fairness, of course! An unborn child may be deprived of life. Why? Well, for women's careers, of course! Two people of the same sex may be permitted to enter into a marriage. Why? Well, for equality and tolerance, of course!

The environment, economic welfare, convenience, careers, equality, and tolerance may all sound like plausible goals. If we are honest with ourselves, however, we will acknowledge that all of these goals have one thing in common: we can't hang our hats on any of them. There is one absolute standard that we can use and it will always work: morality.

It would protect the environment to enact a one-child policy in the United States, as China has done. Would that be moral? No, it would not. It would enhance economic welfare if the United States government simply invaded other countries to provide the material needs of our citizens. It would not be moral. I could go on.

Our libertarian friends have proposed the "non-aggression" principle. In other words, "you can do what you want as long as you don't encroach upon someone else or his property." Even this standard has holes - big ones. It would justify assisting someone commit suicide. Under the non-aggression principle, there is no justification for an immigration system with a secure border. In fact, the non-aggression principle, taxation to fund the protection of life, liberty, and property is not justified. A person can't simply hold anything under the scrutiny of an idea that says you cannot make anyone do anything for any reason. There is a list as long as a snake with exceptions to that rule.

So, you may be thinking, what do you we legislate? If we cannot legislate environmental protection, because that standard is not absolute, what do we legislate? If we can't legislate convenience or economic welfare, what can we legislate? The answer is clear: morality. There is no exception to the rule that if what is right is legislated, there will be a positive outcome. "This begs the question, Hayden," you contend, eyebrows furrowed with your worn-out copy of the Constitution turned to the First Amendment, "Besides, the government can't legislate religion." First, to those who say I am begging the question by arguing our lawmakers should simply legislate what is morally right: most of the time I hear: "Well, personally I am against the following, but I don't think it's my place to tell everyone what to do." So, personally you are against rape, but you think it should be allowed for people who believe it is okay? You may say, "But that violates the non-aggression principle." Well, so does imprisoning rapists or electrocuting Ted Bundy. The only firm standard, the only absolute, is morality, which is derived from the character of God Almighty. If it is pleasing to God, it is immoral. If it is not pleasing to Him, it is immoral. Second, the First Amendment actually prohibits the federal government from declaring a state religion, and furthermore prohibits the government from abridging the free exercise of religion, which means I am perfectly free to take my right-wing Bible-thumping extremist views into my statehouse - as a citizen or a lawmaker.

My solution to the woes of our society is to give morality a chance. A standard that cannot make a wrong turn. If we do not, it becomes a matter of choosing which fallible standard to legislate.

Someone please legislate morality.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Lila Rose Vs. Ilyse Hogue

Lila Rose exceptionally defends her Pro-life stance in the Crossfire debate against Ilyse Hogue on CNN. It is unbelievable to watch Lila, 24-year-old, President of Live Action, debate Hogue. Furthermore, it is interesting to watch the moderators of the discussion through the course of the debate.  The moderator on the left, Sally, threw in a few underhanded-degrading comments at the moderator right, Newt Gingrich. How Gingrich responds to Sally and carries himself throughout the debate is surprising. Take a moment to watch the Crossfire debate between Lila Rose and Ilyse Hogue.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Melodramatic media overplays Ted Cruz' Canadian citizenship

This morning I opened the Dallas Morning News to read conservative senator Ted Cruz of Texas is working with attorneys to renounce his Canadian citizenship, which he recently discovered. The Dallas Morning News credits itself with Cruz' realization that he is technically a citizen of Canada. The liberal news media is desperate to distract Americans from Cruz' message.

When you think about this issue logically, it is completely - irrelevant. Ted Cruz is a United States senator. He was the most prominent conservative this year. He was the main opponent of funding President Obama's health care takeover. Cruz has been everything liberal news media dreads in an elected official - a conservative with backbone and a microphone. 

Cruz' Canadian citizenship, which is literally nothing except a technicality, has no bearing on any of the issues he has discussed. It also has no bearing on his American citizenship or his ability to serve as President of the United States. He has said he wants to renounce it, and is working to do so. Why is it all the sudden a key issue? It is often difficult to point out media bias. In this situation, it is rather easy. One type of news media bias is to minimize an important story, or to overplay an irrelevant or unimportant story. Cruz' paperwork citizenship in Canada is unimportant and irrelevant, yet we see it in the news and on the web constantly. My diagnosis is a severe case of left-leaning cognitive dissonance, a desire to talk about anything except the truth, conservative values, and common-sense Cruz has brought to the political table. 

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Governance by brinkmanship

Brinkmanship is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "The practice of causing or allowing a situation to become extremely dangerous in order to get the result that you want." President Obama in a recent press conference urged congressional leaders not to govern using brinkmanship. Pres. Obama also noted that they should not govern by crisis. 

This begs the question of what is a crisis. The idea that a partial shutdown of non-essential government services is a crisis strikes me as humorous. At the same time, Pres. Obama and Congress is comfortable with a $17 Trillion debt, and a deep deficit. I think the time during which we were in a partial shutdown of non-essential government services was actually the only time during this year the crisis was mitigated, because we weren't incurring as much debt. Ironically, as soon as the partial shutdown ended, it was said that the crisis was over, while our debt went up by hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Every penny of debt incurred since January 2011 is unequivocally the fault of Speaker John Boehner and congressional Republicans. Pres. Obama is a liberal, and the Senate is controlled by liberals. Liberals will be liberals. I don't fault them for simply acting on their worldview that the goods of others are dispensable and that it is perfectly okay to heap debt on the backs of future generations. What angers me is one who calls himself a conservative Republican but does not have the backbone to put his foot down. The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans. They should have made a declaration back in 2011 that the deficit will be zero. This is not brinkmanship. Let me explain who is really using brinkmanship. 

I mentioned before that the definition of brinkmanship says "causing or allowing a situation to become extremely dangerous." If the Republicans in the House said with firmness and consistency that there would be no more debt under their leadership, the Democrats would say they are practicing brinkmanship. However, Democrats would be the ones proposing a deficit, not Republicans. Democrats would be the ones that "shutdown" government, because all that would be necessary to reopen government is to pass a budget without debt. 

The true dangerous situation is a $17 Trillion debt, and counting, not a partial shutdown of non-essential governmental services. I will close by saying the budget deal known as Ryan-Murray is a win for liberalism, because it only codifies the dangerous spending habits of the past few years. Having a budget that causes a liberal administration to spend the same as it would without a budget is not a victory for conservatives. There is no reason the Republican-controlled House had to make that concession. We need a balanced budget, and this wasn't even a tip-toe in that direction. 

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Should the United States get involved in Syria's civil war?

The Associated Press recently reported that the United Nations revealed that chemical weapons were used by the government of Syria four times in 2013. The article noted that the United States government believes about 1,400 individuals were slaughtered at the hands of the Syrian government.This is a human rights tragedy. I think we can agree on that across the political spectrum. However, how much more of a tragedy would it be if we intervened in the conflict and made it worse, causing more deaths? 
The United States got involved in Somalia in the early 1990s to provide relief from mass hunger. We also created an optimal environment for tranquility. Essentially it was a nation-building mission – that utterly failed. To our own shock, the people of Somalia did not show gratitude for what we had done for them. As the United States tried to implement steady government in Somalia, the very people we were trying to help became violent toward our military. The factions America was trying to unite proved to be bloodily incompatible. This example shows that intervention by the United States can and has failed in the past. 

The situation with Syria is even worse. Both sides in the Syrian conflict have disdain for the United States. While there are innocent civilians getting caught in the crossfire, there is nothing the United States could do without harming our own security. The American government should not risk our own security for the sake of a foreign nation that will be hostile toward us in the end, regardless of whose side we take. 

I have considered this for a while, and I do not believe involvement in Syria is wise. The first red flag was that Secretary John Kerry wanted to get involved. Then I looked at who would be running such an operation: President Barack Obama, Security Adviser Susan Rise, Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary John Kerry, etc. I would likely be against involvement on a good day, with good leadership. However, the current leadership in Washington, D.C. is a nail in the coffin of my support for intervention in Syria. We need to remain neutral in their civil war.


"Inspectors confirm Syria chemical attack." Tyler Morning Telegraph, 13 December 2013. 8D. Print. 

“The United States Army in Somalia.” U.S. Army Center of Military History, 24 February 2006. Web. 21 October 2013.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

President Obama's policies hurting the Hispanic community

President Obama's policies are not helping the Hispanic population. The message of liberalism is that minority groups are incapable of taking care of themselves and need government to give them hand-outs.

The official unemployment rate as of November among Hispanics is 8.3%, which is above the unemployment rate among all Americans, which is 7.0%. The true solution to a high unemployment rate in the Hispanic community is the free market system and low taxes. If a business owner is uncertain whether he will be able to support new employees, he will not hire them. If a business owner is unable to support new employees because he does not have the funds, he will not hire them.

Another solution to the high unemployment rate among Hispanics is repealing Obamacare. Obamacare requires insurance policies to cover a plethora of health care items that may not be necessary for the person carrying the plan. Business owners will be required to provide maternity coverage to a male worker in his insurance plan. This aside, the financial burden of purchasing health insurance to a business that is relatively small but still has 50 or more employees does not create an optimal environment for any worker.

President Obama's approval rating among Hispanics was 75% in December 2012. Now, it is 52%. At a time when Pres. Obama is touting "comprehensive" immigration reform, his approval rating among Hispanics should be souring if what liberals say is true about Hispanic sentiments on this issue. Liberals are doing everything they think is a formula for success among minorities and young people, but it isn't working.

One argument is that the Republican-controlled House of Representative is preventing true progressive policies from becoming law, and that is the reason Pres. Obama is suffering in the polls. This is interesting, because Pres. Obama was operating under the same situation when he was reelected last year. During that time, however, liberals bragged on Pres. Obama's success among the American people and attributed it to his wonderful parties. Either way, the Republicans in the House don't get credit. On top of that, the Republicans in the House have been weak on most issues, giving Pres. Obama and Democrats in the Senate what they want, such as a blank-check style increase on the debt ceiling. The tone of the federal government isn't exactly conservative at this point, thus to blame the President's approval rating on the Republican Party is flatly absurd.

To conclude, the free market is truly what will benefit Hispanics and other minority groups. Pres. Obama's policies are doing nothing for Hispanics except harming them.


"Economic News Release." Bureau of Labor Statistics, 6 December 2013. Web. 7 December 2013. <>

Jones, Jeffery M. "Obama Approval Down Most Among Hispanics in Past Year." Gallup, Inc., 5 December 2013. Web. 7 December 2013. <>

Friday, November 29, 2013

Democrats scramble over Obamacare

As Obamacare is proving to be a worse disaster than even many Republicans predicted, Democrats are finding creative ways to cover their own behinds. Check out this Associated Press article:

It is interesting that Democrats are now retreating from what they touted as the law that would be one of the best things that happened to the United States. President Obama is now handing out waivers and exemptions, not to mention giving selective reprieves from several key portions of his own law (in violation of Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution I might add.) 

Aside from the more comical portions of the law, such as the provision requiring health insurance policies to cover maternity and obstetrical care even for men, there are numerous frightening provisions as well. The law also gives the Secretary of Health and Human services virtually unlimited power to declare what are "essential health benefits." Current Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is notorious for her edict requiring business owners, even men and women of faith, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their group health insurance policies.This attack on religious liberty, which the Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear, is one of the main reasons to fight this law. 

I believe Democrats are going to retreat from this law over the next year, and it will be interesting to see how unpopular it becomes. President Obama may virtually be the only one left supporting the law by November 2014, and its repeal may become a bipartisan agreement. If that doesn't happen, and Democrats stick with the law, Republicans will keep the House and gain up to thirteen seats in the Senate. A bill that would repeal the law will go to the President's desk in January 2015, and he will veto it. This will cause his popularity to plummet, and give the Republican Party a tsunami of momentum heading into its presidential primaries, which will kick of in 2015. 

This is just my prediction, and I believe the only way it would be avoided is if Obamacare becomes more popular with the American people, which at this point is highly unlikely. The grotesquely misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is virtually all President Obama has to show for his first term in office, may end up be what revives the Republican Party.