Argumentum Ad Hominem

Some time ago, I posted part of a "dialogue" I was having with someone who does not share my fiscally conservative views. This person and I continued our conversation through private messages. The conversation ranged from the merits or lack thereof of government funding for Planned Parenthood to gay marriage to whether education should be privatized.

 

This person, whom I considered to be a lifelong friend, began to get more and more personal in the attacks made against me. This person told me I was ignorant, angry, brought in the race element by pointing out that I'm white, and therefore couldn't possibly understand the plight of minorities, and said that I was intolerant because I have strongly held religious beliefs (none of which I demanded this person to accept). Our conversation finally concluded with this person saying I am a hypocrite because I have committed sins in my past. This person told me I was "absolutely ignorant" and that I simply would not understand the real issues at stake, and that there was nothing this person could do to help me because I refused to see the truth.

 

I pointed out that the personal attacks this person made against me had nothing to do with the topics at hand. I told the person that there was something this person could do, which was to prove my positions wrong. I asked the person either to offer facts, statistics, or logically sound arguments to prove my positions were wrong and to refrain from the personal attacks against me, or to end the conversation. This person ended not only the conversation, but our friendship, telling me that this person could not be friends with someone as ignorant, angry, and intolerant as I appeared to be to that person.

 

I bring this up, because I recently had another experience of someone with whom I was having a conversation about a political hot button. The person had posted a meme on facebook with the words, "If you are pro-life, why are you against universal healthcare?" I responded first by asking whether the person actually wanted an answer, or if he was just expressing himself. He said he would indeed welcome my thoughts on the matter. I responded (a summary) that I am both pro-life and against universal healthcare because there are other ways to make sure that people, and in particular pregnant women, receive healthcare other than universal healthcare, and that I feel those ways may be better. I pointed out that the debate about universal healthcare really isn't about whether people who are in need should receive healthcare, but about the best way to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it themselves. I'm copying and pasting his response to me here:

 

"Healthcare should be paid for by middle class and wealthy and anyone who can afford it. White people dont' want to pay for the insurance of anyone brown colored. Ironically, since most Americans claimed to be Christians, we aren't very Christian at all. It's all about discrimination, hate, and its passed on through the generations of families, a lot of the Christian families. The white person says, I'm not paying for a brown persons healthcare, but I sure will make it to church on Sunday. Even though my life is much better than most brown people. Even though my opportunities are far better than most brown people. My education, my family, my upbringing.......and thank you lord for all your blessings. But I'm not giving a damn dollar to that Mexican or that African."

So basically, his response is that any white Christian who opposes universal healthcare does so because the white Christian is racist.

 

In philosophy in the study of logic, this is called an ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, or an ad hominem attack. An argumentum ad hominem is a response in a debate in which a person does not respond to the actual point of the opponent, but responds instead with a personal attack against the opponent. It is recognized as a logical fallacy in the practice of debate, because the personal attack is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

 

In logic, the person promoting a point of view is irrelevant to whether the facts back up the point of view being expounded. In other words, if you were debating a mass murderer about the year that Christopher Columbus first sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, it is irrelevant that the person is a mass murderer. That doesn't change the fact that "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." If the mass murderer stated that it was actually in 1495, and you responded, "Well, you’re a mass murderer, so what do you know?" Your response doesn't make him more wrong. If he correctly reports the year, pointing out that he is a mass murderer wouldn't change the fact that he is right. The personal attack is irrelevant to the argument.

 

This is important to remember in today's political discourse. The reason is because these types of attacks have become so commonplace that they are overlooked by nearly everyone. I remember finally getting fed up with being called racist during the 2008 election cycle. I have never supported Barack Obama. That's obvious to anyone who consistently reads this blog. It is not because I am racist. It is because I believe that the government is bound by the constitution, and therefore the powers of government are strictly limited, and therefore the government has way overreached its authority under both main political parties. It has nothing to do with race. I believe George W. Bush and his Republican cronies in their 8 years of office were just as guilty of this as Barack Obama and his Democrat cronies have been.

 

In 2008, I was a student at Lincoln University in the counseling graduate program, and the professor of one of my classes stated quite boldly, "If Barack Obama doesn't win the election, it's because of all the racists out there opposing him." I couldn't help myself. I pointed out that I oppose Obama, and I was fed up with being called a racist because I have a different philosophy of government. I also pointed out that those who oppose abortion based on the scientific fact that the embryo and fetus are human beings from the moment of conception are called mysogynists; those who oppose gay marriage due to deeply held religious beliefs about the nature of the human person and the role of gender in relationships are called homophobes; those who disagree with the "tolerant" are called ignorant and unenlightened.

 

This logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, has become so commonplace in our political discourse that we don't even realize when we've bought into it. It's sad really.

 

It's coming out now in the gun control debate. People in the liberal left media are making statements that those of us who believe in less gun regulation are paranoid and unhinged. This is an ad hominem attack. It is irrelevant that the FBI statistics and studies conducted by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security demonstrate that increased gun regulation has no effect on gun violence. The impression from the liberal left is that I'm just a paranoid, backwoods redneck for wanting to own a gun for personal defense. I might be a paranoid, backwoods redneck, but that is irrelevant to the facts of gun violence and its relationship to gun control laws.

 

The conservative side of the aisle is by no means innocent. You've got people like Anne Coulter out there writing books that characterize the liberals as "Demonic" and akin to terrorists. You've got people out there still casting stones at Obama by promoting the idea that he is a Muslim. Anne Coulter's name calling nad Obama's religious beliefs are irrelevant to the problems that face our nation right now. 

 

Getting past the rhetoric of the ad hominem attacks is hard, because they are so many and so deeply ingrained into the political discourse. It takes a high level of critical thinking to separate the two. For example, in the facebook response I quoted above, that person truly believes that the reason “white Christians” don't support universal healthcare is because white Christians are racist. For him, these two are so intimately intertwined as to be indistinguishable. It takes a high level of critical thinking skill to see that the means by which healthcare should be funded is a separate topic from racism. It also takes a high level of critical thinking skill to see that even if a person is racist, the person’s own prejudices are irrelevant to the facts of what universal healthcare does to a national healthcare system, whether or not our government is financially able to sustain a universal healthcare system, and what effect a universal healthcare system would have on the quality of health service an individual would receive.

 

Until we all stop attacking each other, and start focusing on the actual issues, there won't be any progress made in the problems that face our nation today. We have been too busy slinging mud to do anything really constructive.

 

How sad if this is all we have left.

My Thoughts on Gun Control

In August, 2010, a man holding a gun went into Sullivan Central High School in Blountville, TN. He was confronted by the school resource officer, Carolyn Gudger, who pulled her weapon and held him at bay. Other Sullivan County Sheriff Deputies arrived. When the gunman was cornered, he made an aggressive move with his weapon toward Officer Gudger, and was promptly shot to death by the officers at hand. Other than the shooter, no one was killed.

In December, 2012 (2 days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary), a man went into a restaurant in San Antonio, TX with a gun. He began shooting. People fled into the movie theater adjacent to the restaurant, followed by the shooter. The shooter ran into the bathroom. An off duty Buxar County sheriff deputy was working security at the movie theater. She followed the man into the bathroom, where she shot him. Two people were shot (including the shooter), but no one was killed.

On January 4, 2013, a woman in Loganville, GA was at home with her 9 year old twins when she noticed from an upstairs window a man trying to get into her home. She took her children and hid in a crawl space. The man broke into her home with a crow bar, and eventually found her and her children in the crawl space. She shot him with the .38 caliber handgun she was holding. She fired 5 rounds before escaping with her children. Her husband, with whom she had been on the phone during the entire incident, called 9-1-1 from his office, and heard his wife shoot the man. Police arrived, and took the man to the hospital. No one was killed.

Gun control has been in the news a lot lately. It was sparked by the Sandy Hook School shooting in Connecticut, in which a young man went into Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children. This story has a very strong emotional impact on us. I remember the day it happened. I was working at home when I heard there had been another school shooting. I was in my car later that afternoon listening to the news when I learned the full scope. I was on my way to pick up my kindergartner from his school, and I wept thinking of my own son.

Incidents like Sandy Hook, Columbine, the shootings at Virginia Tech, the theatre shooting in Aurora, CO, and the attempt on Representative Gabby Giffords’s life are highly emotionally charged. The conversation about gun control, however, cannot be one that is based on emotions. All of these incidents are anecdotal. They can neither be used to provide support for stricter gun control nor as reasons why less gun control would be advantageous, because not one of these single incidents tells the whole story. If we’re going to have a legitimate conversation about gun control, we need to be aware of the facts.

Factcheck.org did a great piece reporting statistics and taking on the exaggerated claims made by both sides of the argument. According to Factcheck’s valid research, the number of gun murders was down in 2010 (2011 statistics were not yet available). As a matter fact the number of gun murders, 3.59 people per 100,000 people, was at its lowest since 1981. Likewise, gun aggravated assault was at its lowest rate since 2004 at 50.8 people suffering a gun aggravated assault out of every 100,000 people. Robberies that involved a gun were also down at their lowest rate since 2004, at 45.8 per 100,000 people.  At the same time, gun ownership and gun manufacturing have both increased in recent history. That means there are more people owning guns in the United States than ever before, but fewer guns being used for murder, assault and robbery.

These statistics support those who say that low levels of gun control is a more reasonable stance.

Nonfatal gun injuries during assault have increased in the United States, being at their highest rate since 2008. 17.8 people per 100,000 were nonfatally wounded in an assault involving a gun in 2011. What this means is that while it is less likely due to the decrease in gun aggravated assaults reported above that you will be involved in an assault in which a gun is used, if you are, it is more likely that you will be injured in the event. The total number of events has decreased, but the incidents are becoming more violent. In 2010, there was an increase in suicides involving the use of a gun, reaching its highest rate since 1998. In 2010, 6.28 people per 100,000 killed themselves using guns.

It’s definitely a mixed bag.

There’s two important points in Factcheck’s article that I think bear repeating.

1.       The argument that concealed-carry laws reduce crime is dubious. The fact is that in states and counties where concealed carry is allowed, crime has gone down. The problem is that crime is down universally, even in states and counties that do not allow concealed carry. There is insufficient evidence to make the causal claim that concealed carry causes crime to decrease. In other words, allowing concealed carry may have an effect, but it is too difficult given the fact that crime is down universally to show that concealed carry causes the decrease. Statistically, you can say that places that have allowed concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime. Statistically, you can also say that places that do not allow concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime.

2.       The second point is that the claim that increased access to guns would cause an increase in crime is simply wrong. In places where gun access has been further deregulated (guns are more accessible), there has still been the reduction in crime that we discuss in point number 1. Allowing greater access to guns does not increase gun crime.

I think there is an important question to ask when considering a gun law that limits a person’s 2^nd amendment right to own and bear arms: Will this law have the effect that is intended?

The shooter in Sandy Hook had a history of hospitalizations and mental health problems. There is currently legislation that precludes those who have a similar history from owning or using guns. He didn’t own the guns. He stole them. The existing gun law preventing him from having guns did not deter the crime.

Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the United States. The so called “assault weapon” that the shooter had in his possession at the time of the shooting was actually illegal to buy, sell or own in Connecticut. His mother possessed that gun illegally. Again, he stole it from her. The existing gun law did not prevent his mother from buying and owning the gun. The existing gun law did not deter him from using it. The existing gun law had no effect on the crime.

The shooter in New York who set his house on fire to lure authorities to his home and then shot two firemen was not allowed to own guns due to his criminal history. He manipulated his neighbor’s daughter into buying the guns for him. It was illegal for him to have the guns he used. The existing gun laws did not deter him from obtaining and using the weapons.

In Columbine, it was illegal for those teenage boys to have the guns they used in the shooting. The existing gun laws (again, Colorado has some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S., and this event occurred while the so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect), did not deter this tragedy.

The shooter at Virginia Tech had a history of disruptive and bizarre behavior. He had a history of mental illness, but under Virginia law at the time, it was not reportable to the information bureau that would have alerted those who performed background checks during the purchase of guns. The sellers were not alerted to his possible mental health problems. Since then, the laws have been tightened in Virginia concerning this.

Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Gifford and 18 others, killing 6, bought his firearm legally from a business, not an independent, private dealer. That means he had to have submitted to a background check that failed to recognize his prior legal problems, including misdemeanor drug use charges. Loughner had never submitted to a mental health evaluation, although anyone familiar with his history can easily recognize the symptoms of the onset of schizophrenia in his history. He had no history of violence, only bizarre and occasionally disruptive behavior. Arizona has some of the most liberal gun laws in the U.S., but it was illegal for him to carry the weapon into that mall. The existing gun laws, such as they were, did not deter his actions.

James Holmes, the shooter in the Aurora, CO theater owned his guns legally and handled them legally, until he took them into the theatre, where he was not allowed to have them. He had no prior history of mental health treatment and no prior history of violent crime. Do we discriminate on who can own a weapon and who can’t based on the possibility that the person might do something illegal with the guns? How do we make that determination?

Instead, we have 2 primary types of legislation that people want to introduce. The first is legislation that will make it more difficult for people to obtain guns, for example, by tightening the process of background checks. That doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked. It didn’t work for the shooter in Connecticut. It didn’t work for the shooter in New York. It didn’t work for the teenagers at Columbine High School. The laws would also create greater restrictions on the purchase of guns at gun shows from private vendors, a method which does not require background checks. Notice that none of the guns used in any of these crimes were purchased from private vendors. They were all originally purchased through sellers who would have had to run a background check on the buyer. Laws don’t matter to criminals, or those intent on doing evil. They will get around those laws. Making it harder for people to get guns isn’t effective in deterring gun crime.

The second type of gun control legislation proposed is based on the type of gun, making it illegal to own certain types of guns. For example, some say we should ban “assault weapons.” I would like to know, from someone who believes this, what their definition of an “assault weapon” is. It’s obvious to me that many people who are proposing to ban certain types of weapons don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to guns.

To get really, really, REALLY basic, you have 3 types of guns: revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons. I’m sorry for all my gun expert friends out there, because I know that’s not all there is.

Owning a fully automatic weapon is illegal in the United States. What that means is that if you legally purchase a gun in the U.S., it is either going to be a revolver or a semi-automatic. You can have a semi-automatic handgun, more commonly known as a pistol, or a semi-automatic rifle. Functionally speaking, no matter what the gun looks like, there is no difference in the mechanism of operation between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle. What does it mean that the gun, handgun or rifle, is a semi-automatic? Basically that means that when you pull the trigger one time, one bullet is fired, and the next bullet is fed into the chamber. Semi-automatics do not fire several rounds with 1 trigger pull. You have to pull the trigger each time you fire the weapon. 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet.

Banning so-called “assault weapons” is to ban a gun, not on its functionality (it works through the same mechanism as every other gun), nor on its lethality (I don’t think it would matter if you got shot in the head with a handgun or a rifle), but on its looks. That’s it. This gun looks scary, so let’s call it an assault weapon.

The argument that a person can fire with a high capacity clip 30 rounds in less than a minute is ridiculous to anyone who owns a gun. I own semi-automatic pistols. With normal capacity clips of 7 rounds, I can fire a full clip, pop it, replace it, and be ready to fire in 15 seconds or less. My normal clips hold 7 rounds, but with the first clip I usually hold 7 rounds and 1 in the chamber (for a total of 8 in the first clip). That means in 60 seconds, with normal capacity clips, I can fire at least 29 rounds, probably more if I didn’t care about aim. High capacity clips do not make a gun more dangerous. A gun is only as dangerous as the person who is holding it.

And that’s the crux of the matter. Gun control isn’t about controlling guns; it’s about controlling people. Nobody, including gun owners, wants guns in the hands of bad guys. The fact is that guns are going to be in the hands of bad guys no matter what laws are passed. That’s what makes them bad guys. They don’t follow the laws. So by making gun ownership harder, impinging on the right of the people to bear arms, we take the guns out of the hands of people who are responsible, law abiding citizens, like me, who keeps his guns under lock and key when I’m not carrying or using them at the firing range.

One can see that the issue is not as simple as creating more gun laws that will be disregarded by those intent on doing harm. It’s also not as simple as creating more databases that people can get around, or that are ineffective against those who would not meet the criteria for a red flag. A better conversation to have is about mental illness.

How these shooters got their guns is not the common denominator.

What types of guns these shooters had is not the common denominator.

That all of these shooters had mental illness in varying types and degrees is the common denominator.

So why aren’t we talking more about mental illness, since that’s what really linked all of these shooters?

When I was thinking about getting a gun for protection, I talked to a retired police officer about it. He told me something I’ll never forget. He said, “The question you need to ask yourself before you buy a gun is whether or not you would be able to kill another human being. The time to decide that you can’t do that is not when you are standing in front of a person who has broken into your home and you have the gun pointed at him. If you decide at that moment that you can’t pull the trigger, then you’ve just given that guy your gun, and he’ll use it on you. Before you buy the gun, decide whether or not you will be able to use it.”

I made that decision. If someone threatens the safety of Lesley and my children, I’ll shoot him. I have no doubt in my mind. Not everyone can say the same. Those who don’t make the same decision as me, that’s fine. I have no problem with you deciding that you do not want to own a gun. You take your chances on the situation. I will use my gun to defend my family.

I will keep my gun to defend my family no matter what laws are passed. Bottom line. It’s used so often that it’s become cliché, but I can’t get around it: “If you outlaw guns, you will make law-abiding gun owners outlaws.” I don’t want to be an outlaw, but I will be. If I have to make the choice between defending my family and letting them be victims of a crime, I will always choose defending my family.

There is so much more that can be said, and I’m willing to have the conversation with anyone who wants to have it, but this is my stance.

I have the right to defend myself with a gun. It’s guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment. I will not give up that right. I hope and literally pray that I will never have to use my gun. I will not hesitate to do so if I have to protect my family.

A Call to the Church: Reflecting on This Sunday's Readings

“Rise up in splendor, Jerusalem!”

This weekend’s readings are a wakeup call to the Church. The Solemnity of the Epiphany is when we celebrate the revelation of Jesus Christ to the world.

The 3 Magi in the readings of today represent the world. The Magi weren’t Jewish; they were foreigners from the east. For the readers millennia ago, the Magi would have been exotic, unknown, coming from the parts of the world that were barely known.  They, though, were the ones who first recognized the full significance of the coming of Jesus. They brought him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Only rulers were rich enough to own gold. The gift of gold is recognition that Jesus would be king. The frankincense was used in the practice of sacrifice of animals in the ancient religions, a very practical way to cover up the smell of burning flesh in the altar fires. Giving Jesus frankincense was a recognition that Jesus would be priest. Myrrh is a balm, a perfumed oil that was often used in the preparation of bodies for burial. Just as the incense reveals that Jesus would be the priest offering the sacrifice, the myrrh reveals that Jesus would be the sacrificial victim that is offered. In his life, he is King, Priest, and Sacrifice.

The Magi came from worlds away to this little nowhere town, not really knowing that it was Jesus they were seeking, but knowing what it was they were hoping to find: a king who would give them piece, a priest who would advocate for them to the Almighty God, and a victim that would be sacrificed for the forgiveness of their sins.

Why is this a wakeup call to the Church? The last command that Jesus gave to this disciples was to go out into the all the world and make disciples of all nations. How do we do that?

We “rise up in splendor!” Whenever we hear the Old Testament readings, and we hear references to Israel or Jerusalem or God’s Holy People, these are foreshadowings of the Church. The prophets are calling us to “rise up in splendor.”

Here’s the Truth, Church: we have Jesus. Jesus is the Light of the World. When we live in Him, He radiates from us, and draws people to himself. By shining in the splendor of Jesus, we draw people to him, people who will come, not really knowing that it is Jesus they are seeking. They come looking for something that will bring peace to their lives. They come looking for someone who they feel like is on their side. They come looking for forgiveness, even if they don’t realize yet that it is forgiveness that they seek.

So how are we to shine? First, and above all else, by being the beautiful Christian that God has recreated in the new life we find in Jesus. In Christ, you are a new creation. In Christ, you are beautiful. In Christ, you have the strength to meet the challenges of life. In Christ, you have the knowledge that the sufferings of this life are not the end of the world. In Christ, you have the peace that surpasses understanding. In Christ, you are beautiful. Be beautiful, and your beauty of heart and soul will draw people, just as surely as the star drew the Magi. When they come to you, and they will, drawn by your other-worldly beauty, you will show them Jesus.

We also shine by our sincerity of worship. I think sometimes our Sunday celebrations do more to drive people away from the Church than lead people to worship. What message is heard on Sundays? Not just the words that are prayed or preached. There is message and there is meta-message. The message is what is prayed and preached. The meta-message is what is actually communicated. Do people come and experience a community centered on Christ, and truly lifting their hearts up to him? Or do people come and experience a community that is there because that’s just what we do on Sunday mornings? Do visitors experience a people fully participating in worship and offering sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving? Or do visitors experience a people who are wondering why they go to Church because they just don’t get anything out of it anymore? This extends to our priests and leaders in worship, too. Does the congregation gathered experience a leader in worship who is sincere in his prayers, or someone who is just mindlessly reading words or reciting the same things over and over?

Our Sunday worship is a wonderful opportunity to be beautiful together, to experience the Lord shining upon us, the Lord’s glory appearing over us. It doesn’t have to be anything fancy. Jesus was a baby in Bethlehem and Nazareth. These two towns were dumps. The Magi weren’t drawn to the palaces of the king or to the wonder of the temple. They were drawn to Jesus.

This weekend’s readings are a call to the Church. We have Jesus. Are we drawing the world, or our neighbors, to him?

We Went Over the Cliff A Long Time Ago

I haven't written anything highly political in a long time, but I feel compelled to write something about the so-called "fiscal cliff" our government just drove over last night, taking us with them like the proverbial Thelma and Louise.

The problem that I think most people don't understand is that we went over the fiscal cliff a long time ago, but we just didn't realize it. We didn't realize it for a couple of reasons. The first is that the amounts of money we are talking about simply are unimaginable to us. One Trillion dollars...what is that really? $1,000,000,000,000.00. Can you really imagine that? Multiply it by 16, nearly 17 now since that is our national debt. What does that number mean to you? It's too big to be concrete.

The second reason is that we haven't felt it the size of this national debt yet, really. I mean, as long as credit is available, then we can keep spending what we as a nation are currently spending, and no one feels the pinch. But this is unsustainable. The problem is, we really don't understand that it is unsustainable until we can no longer obtain the things for which we are paying.

The third is that the dollar has been divorced from its value. A long time ago, the dollar was separated from "the gold standard." The gold standard was when this amount of gold was worth this amount of dollars. The government only printed as much paper money as there was gold to back it up. This is no longer the case. Now the government prints paper money without reference to any other object of value. The dollar has itself become the object value against which we measure the dollar.

I think it is important to put these ideas into concrete, understandable terms.

Let's say that a married couple's income is approximately $5,000 per month. That would give this couple an annual income of $60,000.00. This would make them a middle class family. Let's say they are spending, on average, $7,500 per month. So they are spending what they take in plus another 50% of their earnings. In order to sustain this, they are borrowing $0.50 of every dollar they earn. They get this through multiple credit cards. They are making payments on the credit cards, but they are only paying the credit card payments, but only the expected minimum payment, so they continue to borrow from their credit cards more each month than they are paying.

The couple realize this is unsustainable, so they start discussing means to address the budgeting issue. They decide they need to increase their income, so they get extra jobs. This increases their income from $5,000 per month to $5,800 per month. But with the extra revenue, they decide they can increase their spending to $8,000 per month. They've increased their revenue by $800 per month, and their spending by only $500 per month, and so they decide to call this a spending cut.

You might say, "Well, that's just insane!" Yes, it is. But that's the way our government has been operating for decades. When you hear the phrase "spending cut" come out of politician's mouth, their not talking about spending less money. They're saying the increase in spending was not as much as the last increase in spending. In other words 2 years ago, they spent 100 billion dollars on something. Last year, they spent 150 billion dollars on the same thing. This year, they will spend 175 billion dollars on it, and that's a spending cut, because the price increased by only 25 billion, instead of 50 billion like the year before.

George Orwell, in his landmark and prescient novel 1984 called this double think and double speak. It's insane, but that's what's been happening, and people don't realize it.

Anyone with any sense whatsoever can see that this is absolutely insane and unsustainable. It doesn't make any difference to our married couple, though, because with the extra income they realize they are eligible for increased credit limits on those credit cards. It won't affect the couple until they can no longer afford everything they are buying. When the credit dries up, and the only money they have is the money they are earning, that's when they will realize that their scheme isn't working. But by then, they will have racked up so much debt that they will need to pay back. Out of their incomes of $5,800, they will have to make credit payments of $3,000 per month, leaving them with only $2,800.00 per month to spend on necessities.

For some reason, people don't see that this is exactly what the government of the United States is doing. Eventually, the credit will run dry. When will that happen? Who knows? When we are 20 trillion dollars in debt? 25 Trillion? Right now, the national debt is so high that if we taxed everyone in the United States for every penny that they earn, we could not pay off the national debt. Our debt has now reached a level that is higher than our national income.

This won't affect us, though, until the credit dries up. When that happens, all of those people who are dependent on government for income and health care will be the ones left out on the streets. The rich will take their money and flee the country, because they can. And the middle class will be caught paying the bill for the uncontrolled spending of the government. It could be my children. It could be my grandchildren, but eventually, someone will have to pay it back, or the country we live in withour freedoms and opportunities will no longer exist. That makes scared for my children. Terrified, actually. That's why this is so important to me.

The finances of our government is not a revenue problem. Our government, through taxes, is one of the highest ranking revenue generators on earth. President Obama's plan to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year is a joke. That would raise enough money to fund our government for an extra 8 to 9 days. The problem is a spending a problem. Until we do real budget cuts, and stop spending more than we take in, the problem will not get better.

I'm desparate. I'll admit it. The direction of our nation's fiscal management has been wrong for decades. My children will not live in the America that I grew up in, and that fills me with a grief that can't be spoken.

Terrorists in far away lands are dangerous. No doubt. The greatest risk to the American way of life, though, is not from terrorists who want to kill us. The greatest risk to the American way of life is an uncontrolled government. What makes me more sad than anything, though, is that we have allowed this to happen. Our government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

That means, through the ballot box, we have given the politicians permission to destroy us from within.

It also means, through the ballot box, we can take that permission back.

I just hope that it's not too late.