The Dishonorable Liberal Order of Regulatory Scientists

I got an email from a reader yesterday that went something like this: "Hey, the American Cancer Society says you're full of it on the link between breast cancer and abortion. Trust me I'm an expert and a scientist, and you're being less than honest. So do us all a favor and shut up and stick to finance."

To which I reply: "Hey, if you're an expert and scientist why are you citing a lobbying orginization like the American Cancer Society? Thanks for proving one of the points in the email/hate mail column."

And the point was:  People, especially conservatives, are distrustful of experts. As they should be.  

"Regulatory science directly connects to policy management and, therefore, has become entangled in policy debates that are unavoidably ideological," says the American Sociological Review. "The shift toward regulatory science that began in the 1970s could account for conservatives' growing distrust in science, given this group's general opposition to government regulation."

Ya think?

Regulatory science is a specialty of the mainstream press. Regulatory science is term Orwellian in construction, where up is down, rich is poor, right is wrong and anything is possible if we pass more laws and spend more money.

Here's how it worked on our recent tax increases.

So I’m reading this email teaser from National Journal’s Influence Alley called Spending Cuts Added to Plan B that was written during last year's tax increase surrender: “In a bid to win more support for Republican House Speaker John Boehner's Plan B to cut taxes for everyone but millionaires, GOP leaders are adding a second bill that would reduce the deficit and avoid the sequester, a GOP leadership aide told the Alley.”

Recommended

Does Kamala Know This Isn't an Executive Action? Matt Vespa

Advertisement

So first I’m thinking “What tax cut?” Doesn’t a tax cut necessitate some sort of tax “cutting” action? The net result of the proposal is to increase taxes for some. If these guys worked on Wall Street and were this sloppy about language they’d go to jail.

And then I’m thinking “What spending cuts?” Don't spending cuts require government spending to actually go down?

Only with DC’s dishonest budget math- thank you Dan Mitchell- can politicians, journalists and other "experts" claim that spending that will rise year-over-year for forever, is somehow a spending cut.      

And so lastly I’m thinking “Thank God I have a gun.”

My gun makes me the expert on so much.

“No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by experience of life” Lord Salisbury told us “as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe soldiers, nothing is safe.”

For close to a century experts have told us to put our trust in government. We have a host of them in our life everyday: Federal Reserve bankers, Education Department officials, Union economists, scientists on the government dime, Energy Department officials-- all here for our own good.

Yet, government doesn’t even pretend to try to solve the very problems they claim to care about. The “experts” at the EPA designed a tax on carbon to combat so-called global warming and even they won’t claim that the tax will bring down the earth’s temperature.

Still, a failed result won’t stop the experts from insisting on more taxes for "our own good."

As a consequence of the care of so many government experts who insist on doing stuff for our own good, we are now at a point where nothing is true. 

Men marry men and we call it marriage. Doctors kill babies and we call it choice. We practice targeted discrimination against certain classes of people, under the law, and we call it justice.

We ban the religion of some in the public square as a matter of taste and call it a moral good.

In the name of safety, the government, which will not enforce common sense safety laws, which we all agree should be enforced, takes away guns for self-defense.

We “improve” public education by lowering standards rather than raising them; and we design a medical and retirement safety net that threatens not just life, but everything our country was built on: liberty, opportunity, property.    

My religion tells me to fear not. That’s why I cling to it. Other have done the same for 2,000 years

My gun tells me to fear not, although its ammunition isn’t as refined as the word of God. Good men have armed themselves for the 400 years since Europeans first lived in North America.    

So, I cling to the gun as well.

Expert, government opinion? It’s been king for 70 years and it has a very spotty record.

It’s created wars and rumors of wars and real-life tragedies like communism and fascism and vegans.

Thanks for the guns, stupid.

I don't care for government opinion, or the opinion of “journalists,” experts, scientists and faddists.   

You see, truth always resides wherever brave men still have ammunition.

I pick truth.