Tag Archives: tyranny

False Dichotomy Tyranny

logical fallacy is a flaw in the structure of an argument so serious that it ultimately renders the conclusion itself invalid.  The SGU team (podcast link here) provides a great list of 20 logical fallacies on their web site.  Many of them are likely recognizable, like the familiar ad hominem and the ever-present non sequitur.  If you give their list a thorough read, thinking about real world examples of each as you go, you will soon be surprised to find yourself identifying logical fallacies everywhere, simultaneously impressing and irritating your loved ones.  [Be forewarned that skeptical thinkers should ultimately be prepared to explain the difference between a skeptic and a cynic to those who improperly label them as the latter.]

Once it becomes automatic to more skeptically analyze the arguments that people make, it becomes quite apparent that there is no shortage of people who stubbornly hold beliefs based on fallacious logic.  Though a seemingly harmless result like believing in ghosts or psychics is often the outcome of such flawed reasoning, it ceases to be entertaining when one absorbs the reality that nation-changing decisions are being made on the basis of what amounts to illogical half-thinking.  American politics and punditry are rife with examples of logical fallacies that are routinely utilized to skew our perspectives.  More often than not the results are unwise, ill-informed decisions with long lasting unintended consequences.

The slick and relentless utilization of one such logical fallacy, the false dichotomy, is a key part of an attempted wholesale destructive change to the historical American philosophical view of the proper relationship between the State and the Individual.  The SGU list referenced above defines a false dichotomy as “arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two”, in other words claiming that there are only two choices in situations where multiple alternatives exist.  An argument can be made that statists long ago perfected an art form implementing this particular logical fallacy, and this flawed logic is regularly on display during our ongoing great debate about the socialization of health care in America.

Continue reading


Why people have Roe v. Wade completely backwards

Row v. Wade gets spun this way: there is some hidden and unwritten right to privacy in the US Constitution that says that a woman has the right to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy.  An entire philosophy has sprung up around the disgusting idea that unfettered abortion rights are the pinnacle of American constitutional rights, the metaphorical canary in the coal mine of individual liberties.  Let me destroy that repugnant myth right now by providing another perspective on what that decision really means.

Anyone who pays attention knows that the majority pretty much reverse engineered that decision: they personally believed in abortion rights and they contorted the constitution as much as it took to ensure that their own agenda got “constitutionalized”.  Since this vacuous “right to privacy” only applies to women vacuuming out inconvenient babies it is pretty obvious that this is not a high minded vindication of individual rights but instead just another case of the statists using the courts to implement their own agenda on the rest of us, having failed to do so via the legitimate process of democracy.

Contrary to claims that Roe v Wade was a breakthrough decision that increased the rights of Americans, I submit that rather than granting rights to Americans this decision is more correctly described as one where the US Supreme Court stepped well over their constitutional powers in usurping states rights and implemented a new tyranny that chooses to dictate rather than allow democracy.  Roe v. Wade represents the Supremes elevating themselves to the status of gods who answer to nothing, not even the constitution, and they handed down a decision with no constitutional basis simply because it fit their agenda.  I like what William Rhenquist said in his dissent:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[

This is why judges who ignore the Constitution, like Sonia Sotomayor, should never be allowed on the highest court in the land.  She thinks that foreign law is relevant – but if her job is to judge laws against the US Constitution then foreign law is as relevant as fictional Klingon laws.  She thinks that race is relevant to her judgement of the constitution and most damningly she thinks that policy should be made in the courts.  She is a dangerous black-robed tyrant set on running every aspect of your life.  They cannot get their statist agenda through the messiness of representative democracy and have turned to the courts to implement their self-congratulatory tyranny.

Comrade Obama Refuses TARP repayment

Writing an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal, Stuart Varney points out that President Obama is refusing TARP repayment from banks that he wishes to continue to control.  UNBELIEVABLE!

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn’t much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street’s black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ’em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

I know that most of the people who look at this site are on the conservative side.  But if there are any followers of our new Dear Leader reading this, perhaps you can enlighten us as you why this is a reasonable action on the part of King Obama.  It seems to make clear the fact that Mr Obama did not go along with the bank bailouts just to “save” the financial sector, planning to get the money back when things recovered.  This was all about his Saul Alinksky playbook: take things over, control them, and secure your collectivist fiefdom

He remains a marxist.  You know, the guy who slipped up while talking to Joe the Plumber.  That is the real Obama.

Here’s a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.

Defend that, Obama voters.  You myrmidons elected a dangerous tyrant-wannabe and the rest of us now get to deal with the government that only you “followers” deserve.  You people screwed your country with this vacuous change crap.  Yeah, we have change, comrades.

We live in dangerous times with a President who is very hostile to the liberties that made this country great.

If this pisses you off, join hundreds of thousands of Americans on Tax Day at a Tea Party near you.  We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it any more.  Go here for a list.