2012 Crossfit Open: WOD 1

After completing 91 burpees in seven minutes, I am 19,673rd in the world!  And I'm only tied with a few hundred other people!  And best of all, I tied Katie Hogan!

Apologizing to Karzai

All the groveling from US officials over the inadvertent burning of some Korans that terrorist detainees in Bagram Air Field used to trade written messages with each other is getting tedious.  I don't recall Karzai or any other Afghan official apologizing for the murders of US troops at the hands of their supposed allies - the Afghan troops and policemen the Americans went there to train.

But, if one must apologize, this lady demonstrates how.

2012 Crossfit Open: WOD 1

The 2012 Crossfit Open is on!  Anyone - absolutely anyone - can register to compete at games.crossfit.com and test themselves against some of the best - and some of the not so best (like me) - athletes in the world.  Katie Hogan - 20th in the world in 2011 - demonstrates WOD 1 for us.

"But I don't want to get bulky!"

Iris Kyle: 2011 Arnold Classic Champion

Aimee has another great post about women's health and fitness.

"But I don't want to get bulky!"  Let's be honest; if you're a woman, either you've said it yourself or heard others say it.  If you are a Crossfitter it's only a matter of time before you hear someone say it to you.  I know I get really sick of hearing it.  It's based on myths about beauty, strength, fitness, and even how the human body works. 

One source of these myths is that women tend to think of body builders when they think about "lifting weights".  Women who whine, "I don't want to get bulky", simply don't understand what female body builders have to do to look the way they do. 

 Like I wrote earlier, every woman with whom I've ever spoken about weightlifting - and that includes Aimee before we got into Crossfit - has whined that lifting weights will make them look like Iris Kyle.

Frankly, I find that insulting.  I do a lot of heavy weightlifting and I don't have muscles like Iris Kyle, yet the average woman seems to think that if she just walks too closely by the free weights at the gym she'll suddenly have shoulders like The Hulk.  It's ridiculous.  They obviously don't understand how much work, time, food deprivation and chemical enhancement goes into building a body like Iris Kyle's; especially for a woman.

Sage Burgener: 63Kg-class Olympic Weightlifter

Aimee included lots of photos of elite female Crossfit athletes to demonstrate that weightlifting doesn't result in the kind of physique most women fear, but I'll include one she didn't.

The lady at left is Sage Burgener; a member of the US Olympic Weightlifting Team in the 63Kg (139lb) weight class, which means that - at her weight - she's one of the strongest women on Earth.

Does she look "bulky" to you?

Seriously, ladies; eat meat and lift heavy things often.  You'll be much healthier, stronger and more confident, and who doesn't want that?  Oh, and as a wise man Aimee quoted once said, "Only weak men are intimidated by strong women".

Syrian Password Fail

Bashar Al Assad isn't just an evil, mass murdering Arab dictator, he's also not too bright.

Last week, the shadowy online activist group known as Anonymous penetrated 78 email accounts from Syria’s ministry of presidential affairs and posted their contents online. The hackers found that many of the accounts, including that of the allegedly computer-savvy Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, used one of the world’s weakest passwords: 12345.

The real story in this article is that the same sermonizing, self-righteous, Leftist American "journalists" that quake at the thought of all us radical Right-wing "Christianists" turning the US into a Christian theocracy sent the Assad regime all kinds of boot-licking, butt-kissing emails to gain access to interviews with Assad and project a rosy picture of Assad's brutal regime back to the US.

But I just couldn't stop thinking of this.

Homeschooling for the Zombie Apocalypse

Have you trained your kids in the use of melee weapons and small unit tactics?

Making Things Worse (Continued)

Recently I posted empirical evidence that Pres Obama, far from saving us from economic Armageddon as his worshipers claim, actually made things worse through bad policy.  This time we'll take a look at one of those bad policies and its outcomes (so far).

Before Obamaphiles get in too big a tizzy, let's all acknowledge that then-Senator Obama actually warned us back in January 2008 that his policies would do exactly that.



Everything - absolutely everything - we do in the economy requires energy, so if energy prices "necessarily skyrocket", that would obviously choke off economic growth.  One way to decrease the price of energy is to increase supply.  And that's exactly what Pres Obama prevented by denying the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion from Alberta to Texas.

President Obama, denouncing a “rushed and arbitrary deadline” set by congressional Republicans, announced Wednesday that he was rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate the Keystone XL pipeline, a massive project that would have stretched from Canada’s oil sands to refineries in Texas.

Yeah.  "Rushed and arbitrary".  He only had over two years to make a decision.  In fact, he made the decision over the objections of his own "Jobs Council". 

“Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,” the council reported, “is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.” 

It added that regulatory “and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.”  

 Duh.  Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?  Not if your name is Obama, apparently.

Who gets hurt worst by "skyrocketing" energy prices?  Obviously, poor people do.

“Lower-income families are more vulnerable to energy costs than higher-income families because energy represents a larger portion of their household budgets,” according to the study, which relied on Energy Information Administration data. 

Energy costs this year will represent 24 percent of after- tax income for families earning $10,000 to $30,000, up from 14 percent in 2001. Families with after-tax income from $30,000 to $50,000 will spend 7 percent of their earnings on electricity, according to the study.

Why does Pres Obama  hate poor people? 


But hey, at least Pres Obama's billionaire patron, Warren Buffet, benefited from it.

As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety.

As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.  What a coincidence! 

And now the Chinese will benefit from Pres Obama's decision.

The prospect of Canada entering free-trade talks with China is suddenly being discussed, as Chinese leaders indicated during Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit that they are prepared to head down that path — even though Canadian officials aren't so sure this country is ready for the jump. 

The development came as China and Canada declared Thursday that bilateral relations have reached "a new level" following a series of multibillion-dollar trade and business agreements to ship additional Canadian petroleum, uranium and other products to the Asian superpower

To make matters worse, while Pres Obama dithered for two years, refusing to make a decision on a privately-funded project that would obviously generate tens of thousands of jobs (no big deal, according to Democrats) and help boost the economy, Pres Obama spent billions of tax payer dollars on "green" tech failures like Solyndra and Fisker.

So, Obamaphiles; still insist that The One rescued us from the next Great Depression?  Of course you do!  Your adoration was never based on facts, reason or logic, after all.

Christian-Bashers on Facebook: Stereotypes, Hypocrisy, and Double Standards

This is a guest post by Aimee.  She first planned to write this as a note on Facebook, but since the Blogger format is so much easier to read, we decided she should post here instead.  Enjoy! (or not) ~Oscar

This is a vent about garbage I’ve seen on Facebook lately; specifically about hypocrisy and double standards directed at Christians.  I have friends that are not Christians, and friends that are, but have very different views than mine.  I have never “unfriended” anyone because I disagreed with them, even when they've directly attacked Believers in general, or even me personally.  I also don’t “deny” anyone their opinion.  I ask questions and challenge people’s opinions (which everyone has the right to do), but that is completely unrelated to “allowing” someone to have an opinion.  When I do disagree (politely I might add) I get “unfriended” and attacked; they throw insults at me, twist my words out of context, etc.  I believe what I do and live my life the way I do because it’s logical and makes sense to me.  I have no problem with people asking me questions or disagreeing with me.  I do have problems with people accusing me of things and calling me names without  allowing me to defend myself or even allowing me to respond.

Believe it or not, I never try to offend people by posting my bold views and beliefs.  I  am specifically thoughtful toward my atheist friends and those that I know have different views.  Some may be offended by my beliefs themselves, but I never intentionally set out to hurt people.  Since some do not reciprocate that courtesy and respect (they stereotype me and call me names), I feel free to politely defend myself.

With that said, a “friend” posted a short article about Christians boycotting Starbucks because Starbucks funds political campaigns that seek to legalize gay marriage.  Naturally, this gay “friend” was upset about it.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  She then called the Christian group - Christian Ministries - “f*cking idiots” and all of the people that commented said things like, 

"christians" are stupid for going against a company just because their [sic] pro same sex marriage.

First; what if I called lesbians “f*cking idiots” because they are boycotting something, like, oh let’s just say the Salvation Army?  What if I said gay people were stupid?  I would get verbally attacked and, on Facebook, probably “unfriended” by many people, Christians included.  If I saw or heard someone else say that, I’d confront them about it.  I wouldn’t stereotype a whole demographic and I certainly wouldn’t stoop to name-calling in a childish attempt to make my point.  For example, I’m defending myself against the specific people directly in this post, not the entire Gay and Lesbian Community.  I know several happy, tolerant, reasonable gay people; which by the way, they don’t call people names.   I would also like to point out that I’ve never heard any professing Christian call anybody that is a non-Christian any name, ever.  I’ve been an active Christian for about 12 years, attended 4 different churches in 4 different denominations, and attended at least a dozen small group bible studies where no one was called any name.  So who is being intolerant here?  Who is making stereotypes?  Who is bullying whom?  Why is bigotry and intolerance towards Christians acceptable?  Why is hate speech (yeah, I just said it) acceptable when it’s directed toward Christians?

Secondly, does boycotting a company make you an “idiot” or “stupid”?  One person posted, 

What does coffee have to do with same sex marriage?? If they support it OR not support it, does that affect their ability to make coffee?  

No one is arguing Starbucks' “ability” to make coffee.  “Ability” has nothing to do with it.  People choose to not support companies financially, i.e. boycotting, because when they purchase that overpriced cup of coffee, some of that money goes to support causes they don’t support, such as gay marriage.  So by purchasing their product you are indirectly supporting causes you don’t believe in.  For example, we no longer financially support the Girl Scouts because of their partnerships with Planned Parenthood and other Pro-Choice organizations.  Does that make me a “f*king idiot” or “stupid”?  I think it’s smart.  I think it’s illogical to say you don’t support something, yet give money to organizations that do support those causes, whatever those causes may be.  That would be stupid; saying, for example, that I don’t support Planned Parenthood and then giving the Girls Scouts money that they turn around and give to Planned Parenthood.

Third, what’s with all the anger?  I get it that in this example lesbians and/or liberals are offended that people who don’t support their lifestyle and are voicing their opinion; that happens to Christians all the time.  Christians experience intolerance, hate speech, violence, loss of Constitutional freedoms, and (mostly in other countries) even death for our beliefs daily.  

Again, I understand anger or frustration of a person’s life-style being criticized.  In regards to this facebook post, why is name calling necessary?  One person on this topic did say,

 Either way, it's a nice thing to economically support people who support your community.  

I appreciate and agree with them on that point.  However the next sentence they said was, 

And, ultimately, if I can piss a bunch of fundamentalist christians off with my coffee, then so much the better  

Again, who is being intolerant here?   What would their reaction be if I bragged that I enjoy “pissing off lesbians”?  I would never say that because I don’t believe it, but what a double standard and hypocrisy.  By the way, someone's support of Starbucks, and what day they choose to buy coffee, doesn't faze me in the least.   


Interestingly, the next day another friend of mine on Facebook, who happens to be a Christian, posted that some Anti-Gun Organizations are planning a boycott Starbucks, yet again, on Valentine’s Day.  Did she call them “f*king idiots”, or rant about how “stupid” anti-gun people were?  Nope.  She just said that since she’s pro-gun-ownership, that she would make a point to buy a latte on Valentine’s Day.

 

My point here is that I don’t hate people who boycott things I believe in; it’s a right and freedom we all enjoy in this country.  I think demonstrations and boycotts are very healthy and civil methods to stand up against or for causes and companies.  I don’t begrudge people this freedom or right and I’d really appreciate if others would reciprocate the courtesy. 

Fourthly, the people in this discussion are hypocrites.  I know hypocrisy is the “go-to” argument against Christians, but I’ve actually found the opposite to be closer to the truth.  Liberals tend to be more hypocritical and intolerant of other people’s views.  One commenter posted,

No one should pick up a freaken [sic] torch and march around just cus [sic] you don’t like it. Some people are just so stupid.  

I am not calling the gay and lesbian community “stupid”, but going along with her argument, she is, because the Gay and Lesbian Community often calls for boycotts and demonstrations, such as in October 2010 in San Diego against hotels for financially supporting Prop. 8.  The Gay and Lesbian Community also boycotted A1 Storage in 2008.  They boycotted the Salvation Army in December of 2011.  There are so many more; Target, Best Buy, Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Coors… the list goes on and on.  To take it even further, gay and lesbian couples have sued private businesses, such as this Vermont Inn, for not hosting a lesbian wedding on their private property (Freedom of association, anyone?).  Where were their anti-lesbian posts for these?  Why didn't I see them calling other gay and lesbian people “f*king idiots” and “stupid”?  Why are they criticizing Christians and calling us names for doing far less than what gay and lesbian groups do?  I think it’s pretty obvious that calling Christian groups stupid for boycotting Starbucks, and/or claiming that Christians in general are stupid for doing so, while gay and lesbian groups boycott and even sue private businesses wantonly, is completely hypocritical. 

Lastly, I sincerely hope that I don’t get “unfriended” by anyone, I think that would be drastic and intolerant, but I think it says more about them than it does about me.  After all, I didn’t “unfriend” anyone when they tossed around insults, intolerance and bigotry. 

I have no problem with people commenting or disagreeing with me, however I expect a polite conversation (no name calling) with evidence to support any claims you make.  I expect people to think about what they believe before commenting and not just express pure emotion.  However, if that is impossible, feel free to prove me right with even more stereotypes, hypocrisy and double standards.  I hope we can discuss, question, and challenge each other’s beliefs in a polite manner, that’s how we change or solidify our beliefs. 


Thanks for reading; happy, logical, and polite facebooking!

Iranian Female Ninjas

I can't believe I actually wrote that title.  Check out the video.



I can't decide what's funniest; the seriousness with which the journalist takes this story, the cheesily dramatic music or their ridiculously impractical "fighting style".  Don't get me wrong, I appreciate their athleticism and acrobatics, but watching the video I couldn't stop thinking of this.

Farewell, Bamberg

Aimee and I spent five years stationed at Warner Barracks in Bamberg, Germany.  I was deployed half that time, but the time we spent together in Bamberg is very special to us.  Besides being a beautiful little city with amazing architecture and friendly people, Bamberg was where we spent the first few years of our marriage (not counting the very first year, which we spent apart), it was where we lived when we adopted our first five kids, the home base from which we saw much of Europe and where we met many friends we still love and with whom still keep in touch.

This travel blog photo's source is TravelPod page: Bamberg Germany a beautiful Town

This travel blog photo's source is TravelPod page: Bamberg Bound

So, it's with great sadness that we learn from friends on Facebook that Warner Barracks is likely closing, along with other installations in Germany.




To be fair, rumors of Warner Barracks' demise have circulated for decades, but this time, with the Federal Government running $Trillion+ deficits four years in a row, it's much more likely.

Either way, Aimee and I feel enormously blessed to have lived there for a time.  Farewell, Bamberg.  We hope to visit again some day.

"Liberal" Christians

Earlier I argued that "Liberal" Christians use shoddy theology to justify their love of bloated, morbidly obese government and force their Socialist policies onto the rest of us.  Given their willingness to twist sacred Scripture, it should come as no surprise that they also twist the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson's writings.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's the quote from the Reverend Al Sharpton:

Rev. Al Sharpton: No, I think you have to have the reverse argument, and that is if I want to seek employment and have employment in a church but that I disagree with the dogma and theology of the church, do I have the right to be protected by law? And I think that what the Obama administration is saying that you do not have to follow the tenets of a church organization to be an employee of a church. 

Scarborough: Do you think this is a good decision? 

Sharpton: If we are going to have a separation of church and state, we’re going to have a separation of church and state. Whether I would personally agree with the decision or not, the question is do I have a right to make that law?

So, let me get this straight; in order to separate Church and State, we have to give the State the power to force the Church to violate its religious principles.

Are you serious?

Is Sharpton actually stupid enough to believe this argument, or has he cynically reasoned that MSNBC viewers - and "Liberals" in general - are stupid enough to buy it?

First, the US Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of Church and State".  If you don't believe me, go a head and look for it yourself.  All the Constitution states on the matter is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Do you suppose that forcing religious organizations to violate their religious principles might constitute "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

The phrase "separation between Church & State" originates from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. 

 In other words, the purpose of the "wall of separation between Church & State" is to protect the Church from the State, not to protect the State from the Church.

Think about it; if the State does something the Church doesn't like, what can the Church do about it?  Who holds a monopoly on the police, the military, taxation and every other agent of force in society; the Church or the State?

To be clear, that's the way things should be.  As I stated earlier,

justice is the role of government, charity, grace and mercy are the roles of the Church   

Justice often requires the application of force, which is why government must hold a monopoly on the application of force in society,  but that is also why it's crucial that we limit government, so it doesn't grow too powerful and abuse its power and our rights.

Christians; stop supporting bloated, morbidly obese government.  Support limited government and do your job as the body of Christ on Earth; charity, grace and mercy.

No Religious Liberty for You!

This is why I put the word "Liberal" in quotes.  The root word of "Liberal" is - obviously - liberty.  That implies that a person who calls him or herself a "Liberal" should love and invariably stand on the side of liberty.  But the people in modern American politics who call themselves "Liberals" invariably stand against liberty - whether it's individuals' 5th-Amendment-guaranteed right to property, 9th-Amendment-guaranteed right to economic liberty, or 1st-Amendment-guaranteed right to religious liberty.

Case in point, Pres Obama's sustained attempts deny Christians' religious liberty.  First, Pres Obama attempted to usurp the power to tell churches who they can and cannot hire.  Now, Pres Obama insists he has the power to force religious organizations to provide health coverage that includes contraception and abortifacients, even if that goes completely against their religious beliefs.

White House Press Secretary
Jay Carney

White House press secretary Jay Carney said at Thursday’s afternoon briefing that there was “not a debate” over reversing the decision. “The decision has been made, and it was made after careful consideration,” he said. 

The new rule, released nearly two weeks ago, will make nearly all health plans cover women’s preventive services, including FDA-approved forms of contraception, without co-pays or deductibles. Catholic hospitals, schools and charities had hoped to get an exemption on the grounds that the Catholic Church opposes the use of most forms of birth control.

 See, "the decision has been made".  This is "not a debate".  Is this how representative democracy is supposed to work?  A presidential administration makes a decision independently of anyone else, and the rest of us just shut up and do their bidding?  Oh, but wait, they gave their decision much "careful consideration", so that makes it all better.

See what I mean about "Liberals"?

This is why all Christians should oppose excessive government and support limited government; because bloated government seeks to replace the Church, and ultimately, God.  Unfortunately, there are too many who do the opposite.

On the lighter side, Michael Ramirez captures The One's attitude perfectly.

Lego Movie Sets

Check out these amazing Lego movie sets.

That's the court house from Back to the Future II.  Somebody has a lot of talent... and way too much time on their hands.

Chicken Kabobs

Aimee and I made these totally awesome chicken-and-veggie kabobs Friday night.  Well, she made the marinade (using this recipe) and cut, prepped and skewered the chicken and veggies.  I grilled them.  Which means she did all the hard work.


It's no surprise to me that Aimee's an amazing cook, but I was still surprised at how flavorful they were.  We unintentionally marinated the meat and veggies for two days in the fridge.  We meant to marinade them for one day only, but we had more left-overs than expected from another meal.  Once on the grill they took about eight minutes to cook, and they burst with flavor when I bit into them.  Most importantly, they contain all the nutrition necessary for one meal in one tasty, convenient package.

UPDATE: Aimee informs me that she added a lot more lemon juice than the recipe prescribed.

Brother's Keeper

President Obama said at the National Prayer Breakfast that...

"Living by the principle that we are our brother's keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need," Obama said before an audience of about 3,000 at the Washington Hilton. These values, he said, "They're the ones that have defined my own faith journey."

This isn't the first time Pres Obama used the phrase "brother's keeper" to justify his politics.



But Pres Obama doesn't just have some theoretical brother somewhere in the ether.  He has a literal brother, literally living in Kenya.  How well has he "kept" that brother?

George Hussein Onyango Obama

The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate's half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

"No-one knows who I am," he told the magazine, before claiming: "I live here on less than a dollar a month." 

 As you can tell from the mention of "the presidential candidate", the article quoted above is from 2008.  "I live here on less than a dollar a month".  That means all Pres Obama needed to do to double his literal brother's income, and therefore "keep" him in conditions twice better than they were at the time, was to mail his literal brother $12/year.  So, why hasn't he improved his literal brother's situation?

Part of the reason is shoddy theology, which leads to erroneous beliefs.  Back in 2010, Pres Obama stated that...

“I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead — being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me,” 

In case you're not too familiar with the Bible, Jesus never said anything about being ones brother's keeper.  That phrase only appears in Genesis.

⁸ Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”^[a] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
⁹ Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”    Genesis 4:8-10

Please explain, "liberal" Christians; where in that passage do you read a mandate for bloated, morbidly obese government? 


There are so many examples of Pres Obama's shoddy theology that I can't possibly cover them all, so I'll focus on this latest one from the National Prayer Breakfast.

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’”  

Let's look at the scripture where the phrase, "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required" originates. 

⁴⁷ “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. ⁴⁸ But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Luke 12:47-48

In other words, those who've received the Word of God, but refuse to follow it will receive a much worse punishment than those who haven't received it and therefore didn't know any better.  Also, the text clearly states that it is God, and not anyone else, who does the demanding.

Please explain, "liberal" Christians; by what twisted logic does Luke 12:47-48 give government the right to confiscate greater proportions of wealth from rich people?


Therein lies the problem with "liberal" Christianity.  "Liberal" Christians like Pres Obama twist the scriptures to justify their love of socialism, and absolve themselves of the individual responsibility to care for the poor.


That's why Pres Obama, and other "Liberal" Christians, create a false dichotomy in which one either supports bloated government, or cares nothing for the poor.  It never seems to occur to them that private charity can take care of the poor, and in fact does it far more efficiently and effectively than bloated government bureaucracy.  


Worse, as Mark Steyn states, 

“This version of shared responsibility means the state should be your ‘brother’s keeper,’” he said. “And this is the point for the Catholic Church. Separation of church and state is one thing, but big government means the state as church, the sole legitimate source of moral authority whether it’s on contraception or gay marriage or abortion or any of the rest. And that’s what you see in Europe. Big government drives out other sources of moral authority.”

Thus, "Liberal" Christianity renders onto government the responsibilities of the Church - charity and mercy - making the Church irrelevant and making "Liberal" Christianity suicidal.  To be clear, justice is the role of government, charity, grace and mercy are the roles of the Church, and neither does each other's role remotely well.

Finally, Tina Korbe's comments on Steyn's...

Steyn’s comments are thought-provoking, as they usually are. His last statement, though, could easily be reversed: The decline of other sources of moral authority enables big government. It’s a chicken-egg dilemma: Did we first abandon a belief in the authority of church and family, leaving a hole for government to fill? Or did the government gradually usurp the authority of church and family, leading church and family to abdicate responsibility?

 It's a death spiral.  Shoddy "Liberal" theology leads to big government, which makes the Church superfluous, which leads to more shoddy "Liberal" theology, etc.

The solution?

¹⁴ if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

 In the modern context, "my people" refers to the Church, not the United States of America.  The Church needs to teach Biblical theology, not the "Liberal" garbage - and definitely not the "health wealth and prosperity" "gospel" - that passes for Christianity nowadays. 

Making Things Worse

Back in December 2011, I used data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve to demonstrate how Pres Obama's policies have made this economic recovery much weaker and slower than past ones.

Since World War II, the economy rebounded at a rate generally proportional to the recession that preceded the recovery.  But not this time.  This time, the downturn was steep, but the "recovery" has been shallow and slow.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato institute did something similar a year ago, and revisited the issue more recently.  The difference is that he compared Pres Obama's weak recovery only to Pres Reagan's much, much stronger recovery.

Those two charts showed that the current recovery was very weak compared to the boom of the early 1980s.

But perhaps that was an unfair comparison. Maybe the Reagan recovery started strong and then hit a wall. Or maybe the Obama recovery was the economic equivalent of a late bloomer So let’s look at the same charts, but add an extra year of data. Does it make a difference?  Meh…not so much. 

As you can see, the Reagan recovery didn't just rebound in proportion to the recession, it actually exceeded the trajectory of the recession.  In fact, it was literally off the charts.  Mitchell points to a Wall Street Journal article that expounds on the difference between the two recoveries.

If in this “recovery” our economy had grown and generated jobs at the average rate achieved following the 10 previous postwar recessions, GDP per person would be $4,528 higher and 13.7 million more Americans would be working today. …President Ronald Reagan’s policies ignited a recovery so powerful that if it were being repeated today, real per capita GDP would be $5,694 higher than it is now—an extra $22,776 for a family of four. Some 16.9 million more Americans would have jobs.

Mitchell then points out that Pres Obama didn't cause the recession, but he's continued - and even worsened - the bad policies that did cause it.

• Bush increased government spending. Obama has been increasing government spending.
• Bush adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies. Obama adopted Keynesian “stimulus” policies.
• Bush bailed out politically connected companies. Obama has been bailing out politically connected companies.
• Bush supported the Fed’s easy-money policy. Obama has been supporting the Fed’s easy-money policy.
• Bush created a new healthcare entitlement. Obama created a new healthcare entitlement.
• Bush imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector. Obama imposed costly new regulations on the financial sector.

Is this the Hope'n'Change(TM) you voted for, Obamaphiles?  Face it.  Empirical evidence proves that Pres Obama made things worse by doubling down on the bad policies that caused the recession in the first place.

Finally, Mitchell ends with this very good point.

This is why I always tell people not to pay attention to party labels. Bigger government doesn’t work, regardless of whether a politician is a Republican or Democrat. The problem isn’t Obamanomics, it’s Bushobamanomics. But since that’s a bit awkward, let’s just call it statism.

True, and that's what scares me.  All Democrats are statists, but the vast majority of Republicans are too.

Audi R18 TDI Hybrid

Revisiting the post on fast hybrids, now Audi confirms that their R18 TDI endurance racer will feature a hybrid electric drive system for 2012.

The diesel era at Le Mans may not be over yet, but already we're seeing the emergence of a new propulsion trend: hybrids. Toyota recently announced the TS030 Hybrid LMP1, Peugeot was working on a hybrid version of its 908 prototype before it killed the race program, and now Audi has confirmed a hybrid version of the R18 TDI.

Few details were released, but what we can tell you is that Audi will field four cars at Le Mans this year: two with hybrid assist and two without. One will be headlined by Allan McNish, one by Oliver Jarvis, one by Timo Bernhard and one by André Lotterer, with supplemental drivers to be announced sometime before the 80th running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans kicks off in June.

I wonder why Audi went with two hybrids and two pure Diesels.  Maybe they're not convinced that hybrids are the way to go and want to test their viability against their well-tested, dominant counterparts.  I also wonder which drivers will be driving which cars.  After all, the skill and talent of the driver is still the most important variable in racing, and McNish is Audi's most experienced driver.  The car they give him to drive may indicate which they suspect is the best.

Here's Allan McNish explaining the 24 Hours of Le Mans in the coolest Audi commercial ever.
 

And here's the horrific crash that took him out of contention in 2011.

The Vote Pump

Bill Whittle explains how politicians buy votes using tax payers' money.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power. - Benjamin Franklin

Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. - Thomas Jefferson