Thursday, December 11, 2008

Scooters, because i love that word.

Poor Pete. ( If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the post before this one first).

I absolutely respect everyone's right to an opinion. That's what makes us great ... a variety of opinions and views. Feel free to disagree. Democracy is furthered by a healthy conversation about differences in beliefs. Please do not just state that you disagree, and then say nothing more. Does the liberal left realize how arrogant that makes them seem? I don't agree, they say. Change what you believe, because I say so, they silently seem to proclaim. A lack of explanation seems to imply a command, instead of a disagreement. Pete, I want more. I want you to explain your views. Not cloaked in liberal platitudes, but statement of your beliefs, and why. I feel that I have done the same to my views, and if you want to have a discussion about why you feel I am wrong, please, feel free.

Somethings been bugging me recently. All in the news is the proposed bailout of the auto industry. Why does the government feel the need for injecting more money into the economy in this way? Throwing money at companies help in the short term, and hurts long term. Kill the goose, just to get at the egg. A French philosopher once said, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." What does that sound like? Bailout this, and economic stimulus package that. Failure is good. Let me explain. Failure doesn't mean that you stop doing everything. It means that you diversify, do something different. Failure drives us forward, ever onward. A man who is afraid to fail is afraid to try, and trying is what brings the most success. The tangled web that is the auto industry and their labor unions have strangled each other, and are now expecting the government ( and thus the people) to pay for it. Let them fail. If we stop trying to fix all the little problems, and let the correction finish off, history will show that America will return to it's former strength. We are a strong, vibrant nation, if the politicians will let us be.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Obama

I know, it's been awhile. I swore to myself I would at least try to updat once every other day, and I've been remiss. Truth be told, I'm only really posting again in this because I had a couple of conversations with some people at work, and it kind of floored me. And, given that i'm much better at posting then arguing, here it goes.

I was told, flat out, the other day, that it was inconceivable to someone that one could be Christian and be Republican. I'm assuming the argument was that because Christ cared for the little people, and Democrats, God bless 'em, care for the people. I disagree, but I see the point. In my opinion though, that tends to be a rather shallow point. Yes, it is, on the surface, GOOD for everyone to have health care. Yes, it is GOOD for everyone to have a home. And at first, you get a nice happy feeling at the GOOD you are doing. But in the long term, it's not for the greater good.

I was asked why I was a Republican, and to be honest, at first growing up I assumed that Christian = Republican. But I've stayed Republican throughout my teens and into my 20s because I feel that Republicans are more far-sighted. Of course, you can point at bad apples and proclaim the terribleness of the Republicans. You can take the MTV inspired view of most of my generation, and point to the "evils" of the gas company, and claim Republicans are at fault. But it's just not true, and you can't paint an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.

I'm a Republican. I stand for spending less money, taxing less, and a less involved central government. I feel that the Constitution's job is to LIMIT government. That's why it was written. Fresh off a victory against the strong government of Britain, the writers realized that the best place for government is to be supporting people be strong in themselves, not to lift people up. It is not the place of the government to be extremely active in people's life. I also think that the best tax is a flat tax, but realize that that will never happen.

There is a good reason that I'm voting for McCain. I don't like Obama's foreign policy. I don't believe that McCain is the best candidate out there, just the better of the two currently available, especially on this topic. Obama, as stated in the presidential debates, stated that he would sit down at the table, unconditionally, with any world leader. This shows a basic misunderstanding of how world politics work. His apparent view of appeasement diplomacy has me very uneasy. Iran has said that a world without America is not only possible, but desirable. This scares me, and it should you. Appeasement policies will not work with Iran ... they desire our destruction. You cannot negotiate with a view that requires you to repudiate both your ally's and your belief's.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."

Both from C. S. Lewis

These quote, which I ran across the other day, represents how I feel about socialism. The government's job is not to take care of you. You take care of you. A government health care takes away the right of you to chose. It gives government contorl over health issues, something it has no business controlling. "Spreading the wealth" just means that instead of being rewarded for hard work and success, you will be punished. It is not more patriotic to pay more taxes; in my opinion, it is less. It is the right of every American to be taxed ... but taxed fairly. Fairly seems to have been redefined recently to mean fair to all. How is that possible? Is it fair for someone to pay more % just because they make more?

I'll end this intellectual throwup (again) I swear. I'll leave you with one(ok a few) last thought(s). I'm a Republican because I'm also a minor historian. History can teach us many things, but it has taught me that we need to have a leader who is capable of taking quick and decisive action. Barack Obama is not that man. We don't know what he will do simply because he hasn't the experience necessary to make smart, immediate decisions. Our country's safety should be our top concern. Why would we trust an unproven man in the most important job in the world? I take America more seriously then that, and so should you. It's merely common sense. If you have one person, experienced and with a proven track record in fighting terror, and the other person has no executive experience ... who do you chose? Friends, this is not a tough decision.
Please, please, please ... vote McCain. I fear for the consequences for both ourself and Israel should Obama get elected.

I'm 25 and a proud Republican ... and I often feel like the one-eyed man in a valley of blind men.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Prop 8 in CA

So I had an interesting conversation with someone today. We were discussing about how my values, strong conservatism, came from my parents, and how I needed to divest myself of some of my more "close-minded" feelings. Prop 8 came up as an example of how I am not being cognizant of a person's choice, and that by voting for Prop 8, I'm taking away a gay or lesbians right to marry. I was accused, in as nicely a way as you can phrase it, of being discriminatory. "They are born that way, and are now having their rights stripped away" because of close minded people (the implication being that I am one of those close minded people). It really made me think, because it came from someone whose opinion I respect.

A history lesson is somewhat in order here. Some time ago (2006), a proposition was passed by the people of CA by 61% defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In a narrow 4-3 decision, the CA Supreme Court said that it was against the CA Constitution to define marriage in such a way. Prop 8 is the response to the action.


So I let the ideas kinda rattle around in my brain tonight, and eventually ended up here. I pulled up the two websites (www.noonprop8.com & www.protectmarriage.com). (Reading both of them has given me yet again a lesson in how propoganda is worded. I accept that people have the right and the obligation to word their arguments in such a fashion so as to be the most impactful. However, I think that sometimes people can go too far in their vehement defense of their ideals, and there is a good possibility that this might have happened in this circumstance. ) The Protect Marriage people would have you believe that this would open the way to teaching about homosexuality and gay marriage in schools, while in defense the No on Prop 8 people claim that regardless of what happens with this Prop parents will have the right to not allow their children to be taught about values and family issues. Being the child of a teacher, and dating another, I have yet to hear a single instance where a parent has done that ... and believe me I would hear about it. The PM people say that this is more about activist judges legislating from the bench, and the NoP8 people claim that this is not about judges, but basic human rights. Now let's stop right there. Anytime someone tries to shift the argument away from my point by claiming that you are violating someone's "basic human rights", I start right away looking for the Liberal bumper sticker. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about rights as they are defined in the US Constitution. But the defense of people's "basic human rights" has gotten us into this financial crisis, so you will forgive me if I find this to be a less then believeable defense. I also happen to agree that judges legislating has gotten way out of hand. (See Roe V Wade discussion below)

Those are merely a few of the arguments made by both parties. With all of those thoughts jumbled around in my head, I sat to both blog this out, and sort it out in my head. On one hand, you have people just like you or I, albeight with different tastes, and on the other, you have 61% of Californians whose vote has been completely disregarded. (Oops, I did it too. It's a little bit of word twisting, but the point is still the same. Who stands up for those CA's whose vote just became invalidated?)

Bleh. How did you like that little intellectual throw up?

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Barack's authenticity

So this clip brings up suspicions that Obama might not be a natural born citizen. Why is this important you ask? Know your Constitution, I respond. The POTUS (President of the United States) MUST be a natural born citizen. If a candidate is not natural born, then he is not eligible to be POTUS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

Time will tell if this will be able to be verified.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Debates

So those debates are going on tonight. It's extremely important that McCain comes out strong in these. A liberal President, backed by a liberal Congress, has the capability of breaking of economy. We can only point to England for support of why that is so. After WWII, their economy became mostly socialized. And for a decade or two, it was a very weak economy. As soon as a majority of the state-owned companies became privatized, England's economy took off, and it is one of the largest today.

Also important is the presidents stand on support of Israel. What with Iran making nuclear weapons (no one can dispute this), supporting Israel right now is paramount to world peace. We cannot allow such a destabilizing force such as a nuclear Iran, and we must fully support what Israel decides to do about it. Now that we are finally making great strides in Iraq, it is time to start withdrawing (which we are now doing), and finish off these conflicts. It is important to note that because of the surge (thank you Republicans!) this is finally possible WITH HONOR. Afghanistan, you are next.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Conservatism

Conservatism: A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order. (According to Dictionary.com)

Conservatism: Group of people comprised mostly of old boy networks, who typically smoke cigars and complain about liberals and their media. Usually an older male, chauvinist, who is generally on the pay roll of some big oil company. (According to the liberal media).

And now for something completely different (Thank you Monty Python).

About 25 years ago, a woman decided, on the advice of her doctor, to not abort her unborn, unwanted child. As the woman had had 4 abortions before, the doctor deemed it would be too hard for her body to take the strain. The woman, being in no place to keep the baby, decided to give up said child. And here i sit today. Ever since I learned that fact, I have been Pro-Life. And I don't think anyone can blame me.

Aside from my obviously biased view, let's think about this logically. According to the law, a person who kills a pregnant woman is charged with killing two people. Also according to the law, a doctor is legally allowed to kill a child, as long as it is within a certain time frame of still being within the mother. Common sense would tell us that this is a double standard. So then change one of them? Well, it would clearly lessen the importance of a child's life to take away the double death charge on someone killing a mother. Therefore, we are left with one decision. Take away the mother and her doctors right to kill the child.

Another interesting fact. Abortion was left up to each individual state until Roe v. Wade. RVW for short. RVW changed that. It took away the rights of the states, and gave those powers to the federal government. Now, if this were for a good reason, I wouldn't complain. But the Judges who were for the decision said, in essence, that the right of privacy, found in the Fourteenth Amendmant, over-ruled the states ability to self govern. That somehow, the right of personal liberty was greater then the right of the states. And I don't disagree with that assertion, EXCEPT when it comes to the right to life. The judges also claimed that the right to life, liberty, and happiness does not apply to an unborn child. Again, I disagree. There can be nothing more sacred then the right to life, especially when it pertains to those who yet born.

Another question that is brought up every time that I talk about my view on abortion is my view of contraceptives and the day after pill. Usually it's brought up by some fired up liberal who is determined to show how I live by a double standard, and how obviously I'm a hypocrit. Contraceptives, yes! Everytime that you don't want a child, use contraceptives. Better yet, don't have sex with everything that walks around. I know, I know, I'm crimping your style. The day after pill is another story. I don't recognize the day after pill as being abortion, and I know that many on my side would disagree. It's a super slippery slope, and I would like to agree, just for the purity of the ideal, that it is abortion, and it is killing a child. The aforementioned slope is this; where does the life become viable? At what point is that mass of tissue a child? As early as 6 weeks, the child is obviously, when viewed, a human being. So it's pretty safe to say that it is one. However, at one day in, it's not quite so cut and dried. Also, when you are taking the day after pill, you don't know if you are pregnant. The intent is not to kill a child, it's to prevent a pregnancy. Shit happens, whether it be a broken condom, or something else happenstance.

(I'm aware that I might, in some people's eyes, distanced myself from the Pro-Life crowd. I care not. It's not about belonging to some crowd ... it's about what I believe to be true and moral.)

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Bringing Down the House

It was lost, but now is found. :-)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

Watch it, rate it. It's an extremely interesting view

Monday, September 29, 2008

Quotes from Biden

Taken from America Second by Anne Bayefsky: Quotes from Biden

An inability to recognize the enemy when it stares them in the face.
“When the Senate votes to designate a large part of Iran's military a “terrorist” organization... the main result is to increase tensions with Iran.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)

The lack of straight talk about American values and the assault which has been launched upon them. “I don’t believe in a clash of civilizations.” (Joe Biden, March 10, 2005) Perhaps he should attend the UN Human Rights Council and watch the battle raging over defamation of religion versus freedom of expression and women’s rights versus cultural particularities?



Prioritizing optics over substance.
“The way we position ourselves, we’re made to look like the bad guys.” (Joe Biden, July 9, 2008) News flash: America is made to look like the bad guy for doing anything at all — that’s the burden of having power and using it.

Treading lightly on Russia. “We need…Russia’s help on Iran… Pushing too hard, too fast on democracy risks alienating governments whose help we need.” (Joe Biden, March 10, 2005) First Georgia. Next?

Naiveté about Russian and Chinese intentions. “Direct U.S. engagement with Iran is something that the European Union, Russia, and China have told me they would welcome. In exchange, we should insist on firm commitments from those governments to impose serious sanctions.” (July 9, 2008) The Russians and the Chinese have made it clear for years that they will not allow serious sanctions against Iran to be adopted by the Security Council.

Showcasing America as weak and unwilling to use force. “The Folly of War: War with Iran is not just a bad option. It would be a disaster …Even talk of war is counter-productive to our interests.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)

Putting the feelings of mobs and despots above the interests of the United States and its democratic allies. “Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but … imagine the consequences beyond Iran …enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us ...” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)

Grossly underestimating the enemy. “My concern is not that a nuclear Iran some day would be moved by messianic fervor to use a nuclear weapon…My worry is that the fear of a nuclear Iran could spark an arms race in the Middle East…” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007)

Turning diplomacy into an instrument of self-destruction, where cheap talk gives the enemy legitimacy and time. “In 2005, while the Bush Administration was shunning Iran's reformist President [Khatami], I held the highest-level meeting in 25 years between any U.S. and Iranian official when I met with Iran's foreign minister.” (Joe Biden, December 6, 2007) Here is what his friend Khatami — the man in charge of nurturing Iran’s nuclear weapons program for eight years until 2005 — had to say in November 2000: “As the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I wish to underline … we take pride in the heroic resistance of the children of the Muslim and Arab Ummah against suppression and bullying of the terrorist racist Zionist regime.”

No pre-conditions for talks with Iran and hand the enemy the tools he needs to run out the clock. “First, let’s end this false argument about “pre-conditions.” Senator Obama is right that the United States should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without insisting that Iran first freeze the program.” (Joe Biden, May 20, 2008)

A long-time love affair with the United Nations. “The United States and other countries should commit military forces to the exclusive use by the United Nations’ Security Council.” (Joe Biden as reported October 29, 1992)

President Obama, and his authority figure on foreign policy, will sit down to chat with genocidal antisemites, shelve the use of force, pander to the rabble-rousers, embrace the United Nations, avoid confrontation with the enemies of Israel and genuine religious pluralism — and permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

That’s America second.

The economy

The newest crisis to come along is the economy. There is no doubt that there is plenty of blame to go around, and as usual, politicians are playing at their political game. Like two kids caught over a bottle of spilled milk, both of the political party's are blaming each other. "Look, it's clearly Bush and the Republicans fault! They've had the White House for 8 years now!" cry the Dems. "But you've had a majority for at least two years!" cry the Republicans. In truth, there is plenty of blame to go around. There was plenty of warning that this was coming down the line, and neither party was properly prepared for it.

I feel that the crisis can be blamed squarely on an ideal. The idea that the government is responsible for the economy, when in fact the government is charged with protecting the economy. It's a minor difference between the two, but big enough that disregarding the latter in favor of the former has taken us to where we are today. The government is not the fount of our economy, it is the protector of it. The interference of the government is taking our idea of capitalism, the cornerstone of our economy, and replacing it with socialism (an ideal near and dear to every liberal heart). A perfect example is Obama's economic plan, as espoused by him in the debate. His idea is to raise taxes on everyone/everything that makes more then 250,000 a year, and lower taxes on the rest of the population. The rich have more money, so it's more fair for us to tax them then those who have less. A noble idea, to be sure. Or at least on the surface. It shows stunning ignorance by someone who claims to be completely prepared to lead this nation. Maybe not ignorance though ... maybe just a belief that is far left of my own. You are wrong, sir. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor sounds noble, but the reality of it is that the greater cost being absorber by the rich is ALWAYS passed down to the little guy. Sure, it looks nice on TV, but upon closer inspection, one realizes that it's a bad apple.

Friday, September 26, 2008

The Debates

Barack Obama: Community activist and recent Senator.

John McCain: Miltary veteran, long time Senator.

It is a difficult time to be a semi-informed Republican existing within the leftist media of today. Being inundated with patently liberal spin, or worse, completely false information, makes it hard to determine what lies or bias to accept, and tonight's debates were no exception. Barack Obama came out a lot stronger then I personally expected, and McCain didn't quite have the fire that I hoped so badly to see. I would say a slight edge went to McCain, but apparently CNN disagreed with me. Personally, I think they are ignoring that later half of that debate, which is what most people remember.

There were several key points that McCain brought up that Obama simply didn't have an answer to. One was about Obama's refusal to admit that he was wrong about the surge. I don't think that anyone disagree's that the troop surge in Iraq has worked, and worked stunningly. It was a brilliant move, and I was glad that McCain brought up his role as an early supporter of the troop surge. Obama came out just as strongly against it, saying that it would fail, and that we would fail in Iraq. I'm glad that the soldier in the field didn't take that to heart. Or rather, I hope that he did, and realizes that when he votes in the upcoming election.

Another thing that so confused me was Obama's insistence that McCain was right, but *insert Obama's view on the subject*. It was a patently political response, and one that was obvious to even the most naive observer. To make matters worse, he had to say it at least 20 times. Gone were the soaring rhetoric that characterized his campaign. I would imagine it was the knowledge that McCain and his "Straight-Talk-Express" would steamroll right through it that kept Obama from expressing his amazingly leftist ideals.

In the end, I strongly believe in the intelligence of the American people. Sadly, like the little boy who cried wolf, if the press insists on blatently spinning what happens in the political proces, people will start to see through the bias, and I believe that is what has happened. God bless America, and God bless our next President. I pray daily that God will give guidance to whomever becomes our next president, for the next 5 years will be a difficult time for us. We will persevere, and we will triumph, because our system and our people are strong.