Monthly Archives: July 2013

Federal Debt

“Estimates of total federal indebtedness vary according to the time frame one adopts and various assumptions about the future, but whether the actual figure is nearer $75 trillion or $221 trillion (economist Laurence Kotlikoff’s tally) the true federal debt is multiples of our GNP—an incomprehensibly high figure that can never be paid in full.

“The practice of spending today while asking future generations to pay for it was deemed immoral by earlier generations of Americans.  [President] Jefferson spoke for the majority when he described federal debt as ‘swindling futurity’ and a mortal threat to liberty.” Mark Hendrickson

It’s Official: Federal Debt Will Never Be Paid

Mark Hendrickson, FrontPageMagazine, May 16, 2013

A trillion dollars is a LOT of money. Stacking hundred-dollar bills flat on top of each other, a forty-inch stack would be one million, a stack MoneyHole-450x333one-and-one-half times as tall as the Empire State Building would be a million, which a stack 631 miles high (from Pittsburgh to the other side of St. Louis) would be a trillion. That’s just one trillion. The national debt is approaching $17 trillion.

That is the official total. However, that figure greatly understates the problem by not counting unfunded liabilities. During the previous two fiscal years, the government added $2.6 trillion to the nominal national debt, but using GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) the actual tally was over $10 trillion of new debt.

Estimates of total federal indebtedness vary according to the time frame one adopts and various assumptions about the future, but whether the actual figure is nearer $75 trillion of $221 trillion (economist Laurence Kotlikoff’s tally) the true federal debt is multiples of our GNP—an incomprehensibly high figure that can never be paid in full. Continue reading

Advertisements

A Designed Universe

“Last week in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate, along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or a least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life.” Dennis Prager

“Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: ‘The precision [of the universe] is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”

“Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-turned to create life, let alone intelligent life.”  Dennis Prager

Why Some Scientists Embrace the ‘Multiverse’

Dennis Prager, The Washington Times, June 24, 2013, p. 30

Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate, along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on multiverses1the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants — from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley and Columbia among other American and European universities — in­cluded believers in God, agonistics and atheists.

But it was clear that the scien­tific consensus was that, at the very least, the universe js exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for the possibil­ity of life. It appears that we live in a “Goldilocks Universe,” in which both the arrangement of matter at the cosmic beginning and the values of various physical parameters — such as the speed of light, the strength of gravitational attraction and the expansion rate of the uni­verse — are just right. And unless one is frightened of the term, it also appears the universe is desigflqd for biogenesis and human life.

Regarding fine-tuning, one could write a book just citing the argu­ments for it made by some of the most distinguished scientists in the world. Here is just a tiny sample found on the website of physi­cist Gerald Schroeder, holder of bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate i degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he later taught physics.

Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the.University of Chicago and ” Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.” Continue reading

Feminism in the Pentagon

“Yet no women compete against men in individual or team sports.  They are absent from boys’ and men’s teams in high school and college, be it football, basketball, baseball, hockey or lacrosse.

“Even in the non-contact sports of golf, tennis and volleyball, men compete with men, women against women.  In the Olympics, to which nations send their best athletes, women and men compete separately in track and field, swimming and gymnastics.” Patrick J. Buchanan

The Pentagon’s Surrender to Feminism

Patrick J. Buchanan, The Washington Times, July 1, 2013, p. 27

“The Pentagon unveiled plans Tuesday for fully integrating women into front-line and special combat roles, including elite forces such as Pentagon-SCArmy Rangers and Navy SEALs.”

So ran the lead on the CNN story. And why are we doing this?

Did the young officers leading troops in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, returning with casualties, say they needed women to enhance the fighting efficiency of their combat units and the survival rate of their soldiers?

Did men from the 101st and 82nd airborne, the Marines, the SEALs and Delta Force petition the Joint Chiefs to put women alongside them in future engagements to make them an even superior force?

No. This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology.

This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men. Continue reading