I admit this country is headed in the wrong direction...

Today's most widely accepted political belief is that because an unprecedentedly high percentage of Americans -- 81 percent -- believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, the Republicans are headed for a major defeat this coming November.

If this is the case, it can only be because the American voter translates "headed in the wrong direction" as "because the Republicans have had their way, so it's time to let the Democrats have theirs."

That should not be the case. I count myself as one of the 81 percent who believes America is headed in the wrong direction, and that is precisely why I am voting Republican. Moreover, I suspect I am not alone among the 81 percent in ascribing the wrong track to the leftist, not the conservative, influence on American life.

But if "headed in the wrong direction" really does mean for most Americans that voting Democrat will put our country on the right track, it is hard not to conclude that America has begun the decline that has ended all great civilizations. For if the Democratic Party -- given how far left it has become -- comes to control Congress and the presidency, America's values will soon stray so far from what they have been since its founding that it is difficult to imagine ever being able to undo the change.

Given that "on the wrong track" is defined as unhappiness with the economy, with President George W. Bush, and with the war in Iraq, let's analyze all this.

First, are the 81 percent unhappy with their own economic status or with the economic direction of the country? They are obviously not the same things. But whichever it is -- and it may well be both -- why do most Americans believe the Democrats' prescriptions are going to help? Why will a huge tax increase on all Americans earning over $250,000, on capital gains for all Americans and on social security (if Barack Obama is elected) help the economy?

When have tax increases ever helped an economy? Why will America, almost alone among the industrialized democracies move in the direction of higher taxes? Are all these other countries that are lowering taxes harming their economies?

Furthermore, the economic plans of the Democrats to have the government take over health care and increase taxes will expand the power and reach of the state more than ever before, and will therefore make more Americans dependent upon the state than ever before. These are earthquakes in the American value system. If there are any values that can meaningfully be called "American," self-reliance and limited government are among them. The movement from self-reliance to reliance on the state is truly "un-American." For those who recoil at the use of this term, it must be noted that it in no way implies less love of America, let alone lack of patriotism. It simply states the obvious truth that self-reliance, individualism and limited government have been basic and distinguishing American values, and the Democrats and the left aim to undo those underpinnings of American civilization.

Second, regarding the unprecedentedly low popularity of President Bush, this, too, needs explaining and may not reflect well on the current state of Americans' values.

George W. Bush has passed legislation -- such as prescription drug benefits for the elderly -- that Democrats would pass; he is a personally decent and honest man who has led perhaps the most scandal-free eight years in modern American history; he has kept America free from terror since 9-11 -- something no one, left or right, expected; pro-American leaders have been elected in European countries most identified with anti-Americanism -- Germany and France; and until the sub-prime loan-induced credit crisis, the economy has been among the most robust in American history.

Now, undoubtedly the left will respond that this man is neither scandal-free nor decent since, in its view, he is a liar. "Bush lied" has been repeated by Democrats and the liberal media so often that they have both come to believe it. But it is the charge that is the lie. President Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was a mistake, not a lie. President Bill Clinton said the same thing when he was president, as did every major Western intelligence agency at the time of America's invasion.

It is hard to believe that "Bush lied" is the primary reason for his low popularity ratings. If it is, we are in deep trouble. It means Americans have been irrationally influenced, almost brainwashed, by the media.

Assuming, then, that "Bush lied" is not a primary reason for the president's unpopularity, the overwhelming explanation is presumably the Iraq War. But if so, that, too, represents an unfortunate decay in Americans' values. Whatever misgivings an American has about invading Iraq and removing Hussein, the facts are that America is winning now; that Iraq is becoming the first free and democratic Arab country; that Islamists are losing what they themselves call their most important war; and that, as a result of their barbaric cruelty in Iraq and their losing the war now, their popularity among Muslims (except Palestinians) is in decline.

Do most Americans really prefer Obama's and the Democrats' pledge to leave Iraq to the Republicans' pledge to win this war? No matter how horrific, even potentially genocidal, the consequences would be to Iraqis? No matter how adversely it would affect potential U.S. allies who will no longer trust our commitments to them? And no matter how much it would weaken America's domestic security, given an Islamist victory in Iraq? If so, we are in deep trouble as a nation.

If the answers to all these questions are that, by "wrong direction," Americans think we are too Republican and conservative and that a radically leftward turn -- the Democrats never had a leftist (as opposed to liberal) candidate win the presidency -- is what the country needs, we really are in decline.

On the other hand, perhaps most of the 81 percent think that "wrong direction" means, among many other things, the following:

-- Forty years of left-wing control of the news media, of Hollywood, of the public schools, of the universities and of nearly every big city government have nearly ruined those institutions.

-- Forty years of a litigation explosion has had terrible social and economic effects.

-- Children are being prematurely sexualized through early sex education.

-- A generation of children is being frightened about too much -- from seesaws to dodgeball to ring-a-levio to secondhand smoke to the destruction of the world caused by global warming.

-- The left's war against Judeo-Christian values as the bases of American values is leaving us morally rudderless.

-- Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex for the first time in history, while compassionate to gays, will be disorienting to young people when forming their sexual identities.

-- Multiculturalism is destroying the concept of an American culture and people. Obama and the Democrats even opposed declaring English as America's national language.

So 81 percent of Americans are right. We are on the wrong track. But the future of America entirely depends on what track it is most Americans think is wrong, and if they really believe that the radical "change" Obama and the Democrats advocate will be the right track. If so, it may mark the beginning of the end of the America that our parents and their parents and their parents back to America's founding lived in. The left, given its demonization of America's history, would welcome that. Would the American people?

If there is no God

We are constantly reminded about the destructive consequences of religion -- intolerance, hatred, division, inquisitions, persecutions of "heretics," holy wars. Though far from the whole story, they are, nevertheless, true. There have been many awful consequences of religion.

What one almost never hears described are the deleterious consequences of secularism -- the terrible developments that have accompanied the breakdown of traditional religion and belief in God. For every thousand students who learn about the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, maybe two learn to associate Gulag, Auschwitz, The Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian genocide with secular regimes and ideologies.

For all the problems associated with belief in God, the death of God leads to far more of them.

So, while it is not possible to prove (or disprove) God's existence, what is provable is what happens when people stop believing in God.

1. Without God there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label "good" and "evil." This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad believers in God. It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, "right" and "wrong" no more objectively exist than do "beautiful" and "ugly."

2. Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.

3. Life is ultimately a tragic fare if there is no God. We live, we suffer, we die -- some horrifically, many prematurely -- and there is only oblivion afterward.

4. Human beings need instruction manuals. This is as true for acting morally and wisely as it is for properly flying an airplane. One's heart is often no better a guide to what is right and wrong than it is to the right and wrong way to fly an airplane. The post-religious secular world claims to need no manual; the heart and reason are sufficient guides to leading a good life and to making a good world.

5. If there is no God, the kindest and most innocent victims of torture and murder have no better a fate after death than do the most cruel torturers and mass murderers. Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates.

6. With the death of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many Westerners believe in little. That is why secular Western Europe has been unwilling and therefore unable to confront evil, whether it was Communism during the Cold War or Islamic totalitarians in its midst today.

7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed that men's and women's natures are basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all socially induced. Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.

8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can humans have free will.

9. If there is no God, humans and "other" animals are of equal value. Only if one posits that humans, not animals, are created in the image of God do humans have any greater intrinsic sanctity than baboons. This explains the movement among the secularized elite to equate humans and animals.

10. Without God, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with "art" that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo's art in the Sistine chapel. The latter elevates the viewer -- because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.

11. Without God nothing is holy. This is definitional. Holiness emanates from a belief in the holy. This explains, for example, the far more widespread acceptance of public cursing in secular society than in religious society. To the religious, there is holy speech and profane speech. In much of secular society the very notion of profane speech is mocked.

12. Without God, humanist hubris is almost inevitable. If there is nothing higher than man, no Supreme Being, man becomes the supreme being.

13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America's Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.

14. "Without God," Dostoevsky famously wrote, "all is permitted." There has been plenty of evil committed by believers in God, but the widespread cruelties and the sheer number of innocents murdered by secular regimes -- specifically Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes -- dwarfs the evil done in the name of religion.

As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God. "Which God?" the secularist will ask. The God of Israel, the God of America's founders, "the Holy God who is made holy by justice" (Isaiah), the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands love of neighbor, the God who endows all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the God who is cited on the Liberty Bell because he is the author of liberty. That is the God being referred to here, without whom we will be vanquished by those who believe in less noble gods, both secular and divine.

I believe...

The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.

Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.

I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.

I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.

I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery.

I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.

I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.

I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.

I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.

I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.

I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.

I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.

I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes.

I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.

I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.

I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary.

I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.

I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.

I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world. I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity. I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career. I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another. I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle. I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated. I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school. I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education. I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory. I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country. Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal." I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.

Currently Listening Bob the Builder: Yes We Can! see related

The future is tomorrow and the past is yesterday

Hope is in the future, and the future is coming. The past has already been here and presently the past is going away and the future is appearing. Change is when things go from one thing to another thing... and hope is like that change that is in the future... and not in the past... because the future and the past are not the same.

Can we say the future is on the way? YES WE CAN!

Can we say the past is not the future? YES WE CAN!

Can we hope that the future is a change from the past and that the hope is change? SI SE PUEDE.... (i mean)... YES WE CAN!

Blowhard Obama

Barack by the Issues

Barack Obama is now the clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's risen high on his inspiring persona and uplifting rhetoric. At a time of prolonged war and economic uncertainty, he appeals to Americans' hope for something better than the bitter partisan infighting that has paralyzed Washington. And Obama offers an opportunity for closing America's racial divide. It is hard not to cheer his success.

Yet, politics is also about issues. And on this score, Sen. Obama represents less hope and change than a wish list for every conceivable liberal special interest group.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. According to the respected and nonpartisan National Journal, Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator, with a voting record actually to the left of Bernie Sanders, Vermont's self-proclaimed socialist. Consider what Obama actually promises to do:

Taxes and spending: There is no doubt an Obama presidency would represent a return to traditional tax-and-spend liberalism. According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has so far proposed at least $287 billion per year in new government spending. And that was before he unveiled his $150 billion "green energy plan" last week. Nor does that include the spending proposals he has supported in the Senate but not discussed on the campaign trail. For example, Obama is co-sponsor of a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion over the next five years to fight global poverty. CNBC economic analyst Larry Kudlow estimates that, when all is said and done, Obama's new spending plans will cost us more than $800 billion per year.

A President Obama would mean a much bigger, more intrusive, and costlier government.

He would pay for all of this with higher - much higher - taxes. He would, of course, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010. But that's just the beginning. Obama also has called for removing the cap on Social Security payroll tax, a $1.3 trillion tax hike over the first five years. And, at a time when the U.S. economy is slowing down, Obama would significantly increase taxes on business, investment and job creation, including nearly doubling taxes on capital gains. Americans would face some of the highest marginal tax rates in the world.

Health care: A President Obama would take America down the road to a government-run health care system. He supports a concept known as "managed competition" under which insurance would remain privately owned, but would operate in an artificial marketplace with strict government regulation, much like a public utility. The government would determine what types of benefits you would be required to purchase and how much insurers could charge. Young and healthy people would have to pay more than they ought to in order to subsidize premiums for older, sicker individuals.

While he would not actually mandate that individuals buy health insurance - a point of contention with Hillary Clinton - Obama would mandate that all employers provide their workers with insurance. That proposal would almost certainly end up hurting workers. An employer is indifferent as to whether compensation comes in the form of wages, taxes, health insurance or other benefits. Employers will therefore have to find ways to offset the added costs. This they can do by raising prices, lowering wages or reducing future wage increases, reducing other benefits such as pensions, or hiring fewer workers. As always, employees will be the net losers, with the low-skilled suffering most.

Regulation: A health care mandate is not the only new regulation that Obama wants to impose. For example, he would require businesses to pay an undefined "living wage." He would require paid "family and medical leave." He would regulate mortgages and credit card interest rates. He would impose a host of environmental and labor restrictions. The net cost of this regulatory burden almost certainly will be higher unemployment and greater poverty.

And it's not just businesses that would feel the regulatory hand of an Obama presidency. Consumers too will have to pay, as he imposes new costs on products ranging from homes to automobiles and appliances. In almost everything we do, Obama sees a need for the government to intervene.

A President Obama would mean a much bigger, more intrusive, and costlier government. Indeed, when considering his policies, one searches in vain for any break with liberal orthodoxy. Personal accounts for Social Security? Entitlement reform? School choice? Obama rejects them all, calling such proposals, "Social Darwinism."

That's a lot less inspiring than Obama the candidate.