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.)