License to Kill

Well, as if President Obama needed to give voters more reasons not to reelect him, word has just come out that he has ordered the unlawful killing of two American citizens.  This is not the first such scandal, however.  In particular the DOJ has been carrying out especially effective measures to ensure that we see Obama as the worst attack on America since 9/11.  Cases in point, the DOJ refuses to prosecute blacks for voter intimidation and has decided to attempt to tarnish the reputation of gun shops around the US in operation fast and furious.  And now, two American citizens have been divested  of their very lives without due process of law.  Basically, the President ordered them to be killed.  Although I do not claim to be an expert on the methods of distortion used by Liberals to justify their actions and claim that they are constitutional, I will say that I can not see anything in the constitution that gives the President the authority to kill citizens of his choice.  After all,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. --- US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1

Now granted, that was in reference to the states, but you get the idea.  According to original intent the President isn't allowed to do anything he isn't specifically given the authority to do anyhow.  If this sounds like something that one would expect to find in Nazi Germany rather than the United States that's because it is.  (But let the record show that I never compared Obama to Hitler and that I'm not a member of the Tea Party [not that I wouldn't mind associating myself with them].)

Now don't get me wrong.  I don't like the things that Samir Khan and Anwar Awlaki were doing either, but that doesn't justify Obama killing them.  As far as I can tell they didn't pose any immediate threat to anyone and the only reason I've heard that attempts to justify their killing is that they were utilizing their freedom of speech (and even if they did they should have been arrested for it and tried in court, not killed on the spot by Obama).  The point is that even though they were obviously encouraging terrorism, giving the President the power to order the death of anyone he deems a threat is rather unnerving.  Giving the President a license to kill is essentially demolishing every freedom that Americans now enjoy.  It is to annihilate every freedom that Americans have been fighting and dying for for the past 3 centuries.  I don't know about you, but I'd rather opt for the slower, more traditional methods that liberals have been using to steel our freedom rather than this fast track to Tyranny.  I guess I'm just another one of those crazy radicals.

The Facts on France

It is not uncommon to hear politicians say that France and the US are based on the same values when politicians from either country want to encourage unity and get either country to do what the other wants.  However, I think that this is untrue, and that in reality they were based on quite different values from the very first.

As I see it, the values that modern france is based off of can be summarized in it's motto, "liberté, égalité, fraternité" which means liberty, equality, and fraternity (think like world peace, brotherly love, etc).  The values that the US was formed off of can be summarized in a similar fassion the belief that all people have the God given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", or perhaps in an even more condensed form, "that all men are created equal".  Now, although these values may sound similar, they are based off of completely different schools of thought.  While France's motto describes a naive vision of every person being equal and living in peace and harmony, the US values are more realistic, taking into account that all people are evil and describing them as CREATED equal and outlining their God-given freedoms that will give everyone a shot at being the best person they can be.  This is a huge difference.  While France was based on the socialist idea of toppling the monuments so that everyone can be equal, which was conveniently displayed by the vast amount of destruction that occurred during the French Revolution, The US was based off of the idea that everyone should be allowed to do their best the elevate themselves, which is also demonstrated by the fact that the US went from being an oppressed colony of Great Britain to being one of the most prosperous nations on earth.  Not that I have anything against getting along with the French, I just don't like it when people confuse humanitarian naivety with Christian values.  (Tisk, tisk, josh, always focusing on differences and never finding areas of agreement.)

With Liberty and Justice for All. . . Sometimes

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  --- The US Constitution

So much for that.   Apparently keeping and bearing arms can still get you jailed, according to this article.

Go back and read the article.  Now that you've read the article you can read this.

Well, if we can trust Mr. Andrews then it appears that not only were his second and possibly fourth amendment rights violated, but he was also held in deplorable conditions more like one would expect to find in a third would dictatorship.  Of course, am I surprised?  No.  Not in the least.  DC is on the cutting edge the progressive movement and the thought of violating multiple constitutional rights would only be concerning if the victim is a minority or a loyal democrat.  After all, the constitution is a living and breathing document, which means that it can be interpreted however one wants it to be.  What the constitution really means is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless the cops feel like doing so.  When the Constitution said unalienable rights it didn't mean that they shouldn't be stomped over whenever the government sees fit, they just thought that they might make a good place to start from and certainly didn't intend for them to be used to stop progress.  And even if they did, who are they to tell us that we can't live in a nation where people exist to serve the government and where we have no real freedom whatsoever.

Their Fair Share

It's that time again.  Time to talk about what exactly "fair share" is for the rich.  First, allow me to clarify something I thought was obviously true but has been somehow confused by the Obama administration.  Although there are some rich people who, through loopholes created by the government to try to meddle with the economy, end up paying a lower percent of taxes than those of the middle class, It's hard to imagine that this is really that prevalent when you consider that in 2008 the top 1% of tax payers payed 38.02% of all income taxes, that the top 5% payed 58.72%, that the top 10% payed 69.94%, and that the bottom 50% payed a mere 2.70% of income taxes.  (Courtesy of The Tax Foundation.)  Furthermore, the idea that these numbers are merely because the Americans in the upper tax brackets just make so much more that they can pay that much of income taxes while still paying a lower percentage.  While that's absurd anyway because there would have to be an immense difference between the rich and the poor more along the lines of medieval Europe than 21st century US, but if you still don't believe me you can go look at this chart of the tax brackets and their accompanying tax rates.

Of course, if you ask a liberal what "fair share" means for the rich (as Chris Wallace did on Fox last sunday at the 4:25 minute mark)  they'll most likely just scream something about how the rich "make a ton of money".  It's pretty obvious that their idea of fair is for everyone to be equally wealthy, since they don't think it's fair for the wealthy to have more money than they do.  I suppose this makes sense if your a socialist, but if you have American values and not greedy redistributionist opinions, it's painfully clear that the rich already pay more than they're fair share (unless you're also gullible and believe everything that David Plouffe says).  Although there isn't necessarily anything wrong with going against the principles that the US was based off of, they ought to be open about it and start calling themselves the socialist party or the anti-American party, etc.

The Cruelest Animals

I know it's unfair to pick on some poor woman by analyzing an out-of-context snippet of something she said after having a microphone pushed in front of her, I know I would say all kinds of stupid stuff, but I just couldn't help it this time.  I was listening to a BBC podcast in which a woman said that she thought that "humans are just the cruelest animals" in response to a zoo exhibit that described the gory facts of the shark fin trade and decided I just couldn't help looking at it in the form of a blog post.  After all, there are so many ways to look at it.  NOTE: this post got just a tad gory.  If you have a romantic idea about nature formed by watching Bambi and wish to maintain it you might just want to go find some other blog to read.  Try Viewpoint, that may still be a little too realistic for your liking, but at least it's less gory.

First of all, there's the part about calling humans animals.  After all, the idea that she believes that there is such a thing as cruelty and presumably also believes that it is wrong suggests that she believes in a god.  After all, we've already established that atheists have no basis for right and wrong (at least you didn't post a dissenting comment) and if she does believe in a God it would strike me as pretty odd to think that humans are just animals.  After all, must religions elevate humans above the status of animals.  

Secondly, one could look at her statement from the pragmatic side and not that there are many examples of animals being cruel to other animals.  Cases in point, cats playing with mice, killer wales bleeding and harrying female wales and their calves to death, wolves killing sheep, eating out their tongues, and leaving the rest of the carcass, deer eating off the heads of baby seabirds, etc. . .  Although the shark-fin trade is rather gruesome (including cutting off shark fins and throwing away the rest of the shark to bleed to death) I don't think it's very accurate to say that humans are any crueler than "other animals" that do everything from practicing slavery to killing for the mere fun of it.

On the other hand, you can look at it and say that she's right!  After all, from a christian perspective, humans are the only ones with the souls and the capability of feeling malice and hate and doing evil.  Because of these things, humans are the cruelest or all creation because they can be cruel on a higher level.  If a female animal eats it's own young to survive it is not being as cruel as a mother eating her own child to survive.  Because all that the animal was made to do was to survive, a female animal eating it's own young would not be evil.  Humans, on the other hand, are created to love God and their fellow humans.  Therefore, if a human mother eats her own child it goes against the divine purpose she was intended for and is being evil.  (Please note that I have nothing against my mother or any other mother for that matter and am simply using the first example that came to mind, from my memory of animal behavior that we would call cruel.)   Of course, although it's possible that she did mean it that way, I think the chances are extremely slim since she was in China, where the likelihood of being a christian is extremely small and because I doubt that someone who wanted to convey that message would phrase their statement in that way, especially in the context of an exhibit about the gore behind shark fin soup (a status symbol in China that has been in growing demand due to the growth of the middle class there). 

Finally, I shall conclude by revealing to point behind these wandering thoughts.  Um. . . Well. . . You see. . . AHA!  Yes, as I have been getting to all along (cough) the humanization of animals and the dehumanization of humans has led to some perplexing paradoxes, like the one embodied by the affore-mentioned statement.  After all, it seems strange to me that in china there would be concern over sharks when they seem to care little about they're infamous human rights abuses.  In my opinion, either there is no god and humans and "other animals" are equally unprotected by any moral law or there is a God and only humans are protected.  Instead it seems that in our postmodern world people believe that there is no god and that animals and the animals known as humans are both protected by a moral law, albeit few care to think about what exactly this moral law might be or why it is applicable to any living organism at all, whether human, animal, plant, fungus or bacteria.  Ask PETA.  Maybe they'll explain why their moral law only applies to animals and not to any of the other groups listed.  More likely they'll just rail at you and call you a veal calf slayer or a speciesist or something along those lines.

Gore the Genius

Al Gore, brilliant scientist that he is, has been running a campaign accusing big oil companies of using bad science to misinform the public.  To emphasize his point in an interview with the BBC, he described "lavishly funded" attempts to create incorrect data and compared it to the campaigns of the cigarette companies that "payed actors to dress up as doctors" to misinform.  Although I know nothing about the facts behind his statements about the cigarette company campaigns of yore, but I was somewhat surprised to hear him claim that it was critics of anthropogenic global warming that were performing bad science.  After all, that is a rather hypocritical claim to say the least.  Case in point: a study was done of the weather stations that record temperatures all around the US.  This study found that not only were a large majority of stations located near heat producing areas, like AC units, parkinglots, and buildings, but that there is varience in the materials used to coat the boxes that are used to house the thermometers.  It also found that the supposed amount of warming that the earth has experienced is well within the range of uncertainty of the instruments.  Now don't get me wrong, I definitely believe that the earth has warmed an cooled in the past, I just don't see a strong correlation between warming and fossil fuels.

Furthermore, lets not get to carried away with the lavish funding of global warming skeptics compared to supportive researches.  First of all, if anthropogenic global warming is real, any test of it, whether intended to support or tear down the theory.  That's just how science works, if it's true the tests tend to show that and if it's false they tend not to.  Furthermore, we should also keep in mind that those while the oil companies may support researchers who are skeptical of global warming, the government and other groups have been throwing huge amounts of money at those who support it as well.  If there's something morally wrong with being well funded, as the esteemed philosopher Mr. Gore has implied, then I would say that those who believe in anthropogenic global warming, such as gore, should take the plank out of their own eyes before helping the others side with the speck in their own.

One last little point.  If you don't believe already that the great master of rhetoric, Al Gore was merely stringing lame tidbits of rhetoric together to make an emotional appeal just think about this.  If he's correct and the oil companies are coming up with hokey fake data, why do they need all that lavish funding?  (Speaking of his great rhetorical skills, I've heard he has an excellent vocabulary to get his point across.)

Now I know it's unfair to go after the anthropogenic global warming theory through Al Gore, I know I wouldn't like it if someone attacked me by showing that someone really dumb didn't believe in anthropogenic global warming, but the fact that Al Gore is supposed to be the figure head for the theory makes it very tempting.  (Oh, and the fact that he's always saying stupid stuff and making false claims.)

Possible New Species (But not a bird!)

Although I'm certainly no expert and have not completely satisfied myself on the question, I think it is highly probable that I have seen a new species of squirrel in my back yard this week.  I guess my bird feeder attracts more than birds.  Anyhow, as I glazed angrily out the window at the little thief hanging from my feeder, I noted that it far more colorful than our typical gray squirrels.  After thinking over it later, I recalled that Fox Squirrels have more reddish orange than gray squirrels, especially on their stomachs.  After finishing my research, I determined that I was almost certain that it was a Fox Squirrel (which I had never seen in my yard before, and possibly anywhere else either).  Anyway, here some of the images I took of the little rascal.  Decide for yourself which you think it is and leave a comment to vote.  Since I couldn't get any pictures of the squirrel's stomach, you'll just have to take my word for it that the stomach was rusty red.

Here is a link that outlines the differences between the two species.  The only thing that bothers me about this ID is that the subject squirrel's brush (tail) reminds me much more of a gray squirrel than a fox squirrel.  Whether another one of my hallucinations, individual variance, or hybridization is beyond me.  I also noticed that this individual has black on it's face and "elbows".  Whether this means anything or not is beyond me, but I didn't see it on any other individuals after a prolonged Google image search.  Finally, also note the lack of rusty red in the center of the back, which is present on most gray squirrels.  Maybe this is obviously a fox squirrel and I'm merely experiencing mild paranoia, but I haven't differentiating between these two species before and I always try to be especially careful the first time.

 

If only the Republicans Would Step Aside

I know I've harped on this before, but this really annoys me.  Obama, predictably, has been blaming out sky-rocketing unemployment on the Republicans.  I would probably have a better opposing argument to this view if it was based off of anything, but since it's pure political propaganda without an ounce of truth, I am only capable of responding to it with limited affect.

What the President is saying is that if the republicans would allow him to pass more stimulus and spend our way into poverty that the economy would be much better and everyone would have a job.  After all, he said that everyone was on-board except congressional republicans.  If only we could have more government spending, the problem would be fixed.

Now, please realize that I understand that government spending creates jobs.  It's true.  If the government dishes out more paychecks, those are new jobs.  However, (you could see that word coming, couldn't you?) This doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea.  Wait a minute, why isn't creating jobs a good idea in some cases?  We desperately need more jobs!  Of course we do, but more government jobs also means more government debt.  More government debt means more financial uncertainty, more financial uncertainty means a decrease in business investment and growth, and decreased growth means less jobs.

Of course, that's not the only problem.  Jobs that the government actively creates tend to be unnecessary, inefficient, and temporary.  These kinds of jobs are not what results in a booming economy.  These Keynesian jobs result in a fragile, government dependent economy (AA+ rated government no less).  You can't pay people to do unprofitable things and expect that create a booming economy.  And if the jobs are profitable, then let the private sector do it.  At the very least, the private sector won't use taxpayer dollars to do it with the private sector.

Finally, I would argue that government spending initiatives for the sole purpose of creating jobs are attacks on American's freedom.  First of all, they require either higher taxation or an increase in debt.  The first is an attack on freedom because higher taxes are an attack of on the sovereignty of property.  Although it is just for the government to subject it's citizens to taxation for the purpose of defending it's citizens property from internal or external threats and maintaining order, it is unjust for the government to take from one group of citizens (those who work hard and earn a good living) and give to members of another group (those who do not). This steps outside of the historical, tradition, and constitutional bounds set up for governments and is most often driven by corruption in the form of politicians who buy the votes of lower class citizens at the expense of the others.

The second option is an attack on freedom because it is a risk to national security.  When our nation becomes a debtor to our enemies we become reliant on them, which is obviously detrimental to our security.  Also being severely in debt has proven to to be a source of internal violence (think Greece almost ever other European country).

With this in mind, I think that the President is wrong in saying that the Republicans are standing in the way of decreasing unemployment.  In fact, I would argue that the President and the rest of his party are standing in the way by insisting on increasing the detrimental affects of policies that have already been  tried and proven a failures.  Remember that Keynesian economics are supposed to be fast acting, sort of like injecting medicine into the bloodstream, while the economics favored by the republicans can arguably take a longer time.  If anything, Keynesian economics are expected to cause immediate relief but wear of quickly, even if they work as best as they could be hoped to.  Instead we have seen that they may cause a slight upturn, but quickly cause a downturn that takes us back to where we were before or worse.  I'd say that it's about time we try something else.  Spending our way out of public and private debt hasn't worked so far.  Maybe we could just try reducing spending for a little bit and see if that is  more effective.

Government for Some of the People

As I was reading number 10 of the Federalist Papers, I was struck by the interesting description by James Madison of the intended function of American government.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

The intended purpose of the government, judging by the testimony of then primary leader of the movement to ratify the constitution, is not to make everyone equal.  Rather, it is to treat all equally (or give equal opportunity, to use the more popular phrase).  The goal is not to take from one group, or "faction", and give to another but to respect the property rights of both equally.  After all, The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America asserts that all men are created equal, but it does not claim that they should have no choice but to remain that way.  Instead, it affirms that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  The job of the government is not to make everyone equal, but to protect equally the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Rather than punish those who pursue happiness with the greatest financial success, the government was intended to protect those very people (and every other group, for that matter) from those groups that would capitalize on minority groups for their own gain.  This goes for everyone; the poor, racial minorities, religions, and the rich alike.  Instead, as I see it, the government has become a tool of certain factions who capitalize on the rich by forcing them to pay a much higher percent of taxes and in turn awarding themselves welfare, medicare, social security, and the like.  Granted, there was a time when the rich capitalized on the poor as well, but I do not see that this state of affairs is any better, and the liberals, supported by black communities and (often the same) poor communities.  After all, the current over-taxation of the rich has only led us into an economic failure and ended up causing poverty just like the other did.  And although you may say that it's still better, I see no evidence that it's not going to get worse, especially if the Democrats and unions keep yelling their dumb slogans about having higher paying jobs (with the understand, or course, that they won't have to actually work much).  Judge for yourself whether the constitution has done a good job of controlling the affects of factions (of course, it might help if we actually followed the constitution).  I guess when the nation oscillates between two extremes it at least gets a little time in the middle, which is better than staying on the one extreme.  (The funny thing is that I'm the extremist for wanting to reduce government debt, spending, taxes, and regulation on business at a time when these are at historic national highs.)

Does Objective Morality Require God?

Does objective morality really require God?  Some say yes, others say no.  It has always seemed absurd to me that an atheist would say that there can be objective morality without God, sense there are no possible grounds for truly objective morality other than a supernatural.  If the grounds are natural, after all, they could not be objective because they would rely on nature, which is finite.  Furthermore, it would be impossible to determine which natural basis for morality would be the correct one.

However, there are many perfectly intelligent people who believe otherwise, so to see if I could find a good argument for such a view, I googled "does objective morality require God".  As I expected, all of the arguments I wasted my time reading were founded on a complete misunderstand of what objective means, or at least what I mean by it.  By objective morality, I mean morality that is not reliant on subjective opinions or mere preferences, but that everyone would be unquestionably compelled to obey.  The most popular arguments were that objective morality exists without God because it is actually based on evolving cultural trends, based on the fact that when society benefits, the individual benefits as well.  They claim that the feeling based inside every one of us that certain things are right and others are wrong are there because of human evolution within society.  Although I suppose this might sound great at first, I just don't think it holds any water.

When you think about it, although it seems rational enough, this argument requires the premise that it is obligatory to do what's best for yourself or society.  (I say "or" because I do not think that benefiting society benefits the individual in all cases.)  This premise is completely unfounded.  If there is no God, life is an accident and it has no meaning.  If life has no meaning, there is no reason why anyone should be obliged to benefit anyone, including themselves.  If there is no God, then there is no reason why anyone should do anything in particular.  With no heaven or hell, then there would be nothing wrong with everyone doing what was right in their own eyes.  Just because someone wants to benefit society or themselves doesn't mean that they are any better someone who wants to enjoy themselves recklessly and ruin their own lives and the lives of others.  With this premise disproved, the argument is completely illogical.  After all, although one could certainly have morality of some sort, it would not be objective morality.

Why is objective morality important?  Can't we just all live our lives according to our own moral values?  Some say that it isn't, but if anyone wants pass judgement on any actions then they must have a reason that their morality is better than everyone else's.  The only way to really validate such a claim is if there is objective morality.  Otherwise there is really no reason to be able to say that Hitler's actions were better than Mother Teresa's.  One could say that Mother Teresa benefited society and herself, but one could not say that Hitler was morally obligated to benefit society.  The vast majority of people may agree that Hitler's actions were worse, but without objective morality they would have no reason for their assertion that therefor Hitler's actions were worse.  I won't go as far as to assert that the existence of these human feelings proves that there is objective morality, because I can't really say for sure that evolution wouldn't be able to create such arbitrary feelings, but I think it at least puts the atheist in a rather uncomfortable position, since they can't legitimately say that religion is evil anymore, since they're worldview isn't even compatible with objective good and evil.  (Plus, there are plenty of other good arguments for the existence of a God.)

Just Think

Just think about Al Gore while you watch this.  Not that he would do anything like this, of course.

By the way, don't forget your sun-screen today, I've heard that the ozone hole is depleting rapidly!  Soon we won't be able to go outside because of the scorching ultra-violet radiation!