Barack Obama is officially the president-elect.
I am disappointed to have a liberal president. But I can honestly say I am very proud of my country to have a black president. This really does show we have come a long way. I do not agree with many of his policies, but he and I both hope for a better America. So I will support his leadership, though it will frequently be with dissenting voice. I pray that he will lead our country in an honorable fashion and we will be better off after his term.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Night
It's 10:00pm CDT on election night and Obama is running away with this thing. He has 207 projected electoral votes compared to McCain's 135 right now. Obama is leading in Florida, worth 27, and will obviously win California, worth 55. With those two he will officially clinch the presidency.
I am now turning my attention to the Senate race. This is the compelling story line now: will the Dems win 60 Senate seats for a filibuster proof Senate? If so, I might just transfer from Mizzou to some international school. At the moment they have 54 seats and Republicans have 38. If the red guys can score three more spots, my nerves will be calmed. Until then I will continue to pray over this country's seemingly bleak and blue future.
I am now turning my attention to the Senate race. This is the compelling story line now: will the Dems win 60 Senate seats for a filibuster proof Senate? If so, I might just transfer from Mizzou to some international school. At the moment they have 54 seats and Republicans have 38. If the red guys can score three more spots, my nerves will be calmed. Until then I will continue to pray over this country's seemingly bleak and blue future.
A Frightening Future
I am writing as if Obama has already won the 2008 presidential election. If my expectations are incorrect, then I will rejoice. If they are correct, then I'll continue in my politically unhopeful attitude.
Looking at the next four years and what might happen could give many conservatives a heart attack. We will have elected a president more liberal than possibly any previous office-holder. He has radical ties, radical ideas, big-government plans, and a far-left voting record. He comes to unite America...under a hyper-liberal banner. He's not moving toward the middle to unify, he's sucking us toward the left.
By tomorrow we will have elected a democrat-majority Senate, possibly even a filibuster-proof Senate. We will also have a vast majority of democrats in the House of Representatives. These are the "leaders" who have done only one thing the past four years. Which is to say they have done everything in their power to not let George W. Bush get anything done with his power.
These leaders began their adult lives during the 1960s. These are the people who belong to possibly the most hippie generation of all. Think about that. Obama + powerful hippies = 4/8 years of enormous government growth.
Obama has the same political leanings as FDR and his New Deal. He has the same social ideologies as LBJ and The Great Society. He has the same economic leanings as Jimmy Carter. Three presidents, three eras of government growth (not all of the things coming out of these presidents was bad, but as a whole...). Now, one president, one massive era of government growth.
Hey Everybody! Jimmy Carter already tried to tax the rich. Remember the years after putting that policy in place? Yeah, our economy tanked. Guess what? Our economy is already hurting and Carterism will hurt it even more. We are told that FDR's New Deal programs were not supposed to last forever. Hey Everybody! Guess what? Government programs never go away.
Americans listen up, we are going to take HUGE steps backwards from our position of freedom. A man named John Coleman once said, "The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away." Remember that! WE are the government. WE give away four months worth of our taxes every year so that brilliant politicians can decide what to do with it. We should keep more of our money and make decisions which WE feel are best for us. If WE make the decisions instead of THEM, WE will be better for it. If we let THEM, make the decisions, THEY will be better for it. That's a fairly simple concept in my opinion. Taxing more of our citizens' money is equivalent to giving up more freedom.
What this all comes down to is the fact that government programs, as a whole, do not benefit society. If taxing more and spending more was the key to social justice and eliminating poverty, then we would have a complete just society lacking poverty. Yet, we still deal with injustice and poverty so we must change our strategy.
I really can not think about this any longer, it is simply too depressing knowing that the people voting for Obama will be the same people that are hurt most by Obama.
Looking at the next four years and what might happen could give many conservatives a heart attack. We will have elected a president more liberal than possibly any previous office-holder. He has radical ties, radical ideas, big-government plans, and a far-left voting record. He comes to unite America...under a hyper-liberal banner. He's not moving toward the middle to unify, he's sucking us toward the left.
By tomorrow we will have elected a democrat-majority Senate, possibly even a filibuster-proof Senate. We will also have a vast majority of democrats in the House of Representatives. These are the "leaders" who have done only one thing the past four years. Which is to say they have done everything in their power to not let George W. Bush get anything done with his power.
These leaders began their adult lives during the 1960s. These are the people who belong to possibly the most hippie generation of all. Think about that. Obama + powerful hippies = 4/8 years of enormous government growth.
Obama has the same political leanings as FDR and his New Deal. He has the same social ideologies as LBJ and The Great Society. He has the same economic leanings as Jimmy Carter. Three presidents, three eras of government growth (not all of the things coming out of these presidents was bad, but as a whole...). Now, one president, one massive era of government growth.
Hey Everybody! Jimmy Carter already tried to tax the rich. Remember the years after putting that policy in place? Yeah, our economy tanked. Guess what? Our economy is already hurting and Carterism will hurt it even more. We are told that FDR's New Deal programs were not supposed to last forever. Hey Everybody! Guess what? Government programs never go away.
Americans listen up, we are going to take HUGE steps backwards from our position of freedom. A man named John Coleman once said, "The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away." Remember that! WE are the government. WE give away four months worth of our taxes every year so that brilliant politicians can decide what to do with it. We should keep more of our money and make decisions which WE feel are best for us. If WE make the decisions instead of THEM, WE will be better for it. If we let THEM, make the decisions, THEY will be better for it. That's a fairly simple concept in my opinion. Taxing more of our citizens' money is equivalent to giving up more freedom.
What this all comes down to is the fact that government programs, as a whole, do not benefit society. If taxing more and spending more was the key to social justice and eliminating poverty, then we would have a complete just society lacking poverty. Yet, we still deal with injustice and poverty so we must change our strategy.
I really can not think about this any longer, it is simply too depressing knowing that the people voting for Obama will be the same people that are hurt most by Obama.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Here We Go
Well, only one day left of obnoxious political commercials. I'm excited to be barraged by commercials for products that I should buy. I can hardly remember a time when I saw product commercials during my television viewing.
On a more important note, our national future is at stake tomorrow. Maybe we could say this at every election, but this one seems like it could be the most influential in the past two decades for the direction our country will take. If you don't want to give the government even more power than it already has...
GET OUT AND VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN!!!
On a more important note, our national future is at stake tomorrow. Maybe we could say this at every election, but this one seems like it could be the most influential in the past two decades for the direction our country will take. If you don't want to give the government even more power than it already has...
GET OUT AND VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN!!!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
If McCain Was Competent...
If McCain was competent his campaign wouldn't be relegated to bringing out past relationships of Obama's during the last leg of the race. He should have known about all of these people - Wright, Phleger, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi, etc. The American people should have heard an extended list of all of these people and why they are frightening associations for a president. McCain should have made this information public at least a month ago. Now he and Sarah Palin look like they are gasping at political straws when they go after one Obama associate one week, and just one other associate this last week of the campaign. This is the time to educate the people on the negative effects Obama's policies would have on America. This is the time to harp on his terrible foreign policy. This is the time to harp on his class warfare speech. This is the time to tie Obama to Marxism and European philosophies that result in higher inflation, higher unemployment, and fewer freedoms. This is the time to harp on Obama's radical voting record-that he's the single most liberal voting senator and he tries to say he can unify our system. This is the time to call Obama out on his egregiously pro-abortion stance. This is the time to remind people Obama has only been a senator four years (two of which he campaigned through). This is the time to point out Obama's radical views of the Constitution and "social justice" for minorities. This is the time to teach the American people that taxing the rich means taxing everyone. This is when McCain should be giving America economics lessons. This is the time to point out that change for change's sake isn't a legitimate policy. This is when he should point out Obama's plan to increase spending by more than our average annual deficit. This is the time McCain should be hammering home reasons for conservatives to get out and vote. This is the time when McCain should point out he's much more of a unifier of Republicans and Democrats than Barack could ever dream to be. This is when he should remind America that his surge strategy worked. This is the time he should remind America that he knows what soldiers are going through. This is the time when he should be giving America hope. Yet, he and Palin are complaining about media bias and another radical friend. He is correct on both issues, but his timing couldn't be worse. If John McCain was competent...
If the Republican party could nominate someone that could give Americans hope. If the Republican party could nominate someone that could communicate. If the Republican party could nominate someone like Ronald Reagan. If the Republican party could nominate someone who excites the conservative half (and some) of America. If the Republican party was competent...
If the Republican party could nominate someone that could give Americans hope. If the Republican party could nominate someone that could communicate. If the Republican party could nominate someone like Ronald Reagan. If the Republican party could nominate someone who excites the conservative half (and some) of America. If the Republican party was competent...
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Poverty Monopoly
I would say it's unbelievable that the Democratic Party has the monopoly on the poverty vote, but it's not unbelievable. It is frustrating though. I think it is fair to say that the demographic below the poverty line is less educated than the middle class and upper class. Thus, it seems logical that the poor would be more easily swayed by election year rhetoric. And there is no greater modern rhetorician than Barack Obama.
The Democrats have a great message for voters: "Vote for us and we'll ease your problems." Obama's message to voters is that he will "spread the wealth around" because that's "good for everyone". He'll then take us out of an "unnecessary" war and spend that money to help the poor pay for medical expenses.
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama's plan involves cutting National Defense and International Relations spending by $72.6 billion dollars. Yet, he wants to spend an increased $139 billion in health care. His total spending plan will increase government spending by $292.9 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US has had an average deficit of $285 billion the past four years. We are talking about spending an increased amount MORE than the current average deficit. And Obama plans on paying for that with increased taxes on the rich. YEEEEAAAH, RIIIIGHT.
According to the Laffer curve, a well-known economics tool, raising the tax RATE does not ensure raising tax REVENUE. The idea is that the higher the RATE is raised, the less incentive workers have to work hard for raises and to invest their earnings. The more of my income that I get to keep, I will work harder, produce more, and invest my money more frequently. So, raising the tax rate on the rich will not necessarily produce more tax revenue for the politicians to spend. In fact, the rich might just quit spending their money on trifles and save more. They will almost certainly hire fewer employees.
While this philosophy might sound like "social justice", it actually hurts the poor more than the rich. Ruppert Murdoch has lost over half of his value over the past few months. He's still a billionaire though. Employees of Murdoch will feel the hurt more than him. On one side, Murdoch's product prices will rise to offset taxes imposed on the supply-side, making our money less valuable. Inflation is a silent killer. On the other side, some will get lower wages, some prospective employees will not be offered jobs, and some employees will be laid off. These are the people that Obama wants you to think he's fighting for. We've seen these policies before with Jimmy Carter. They failed then and they will fail again. Obama may ask voters to overlook history in order that he may be elected. But once the effects of Obama's policies hit America, the poor will once again look to an up-and-coming politician for relief.
Government was never the answer to our problems. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government will never be the answer to our problems. Government IS the problem. If government spending were the solution, poverty would have ceased to exist in America decades ago. We keep throwing money that we don't have at issues that we don't understand and get frustrated when the problems don't go away. I yearn for the day a true conservative runs for office and coherently tells the American people this truth. Maybe then America will turn from its way of blindly following the deceiving ways of Obama and friends.
The Democrats have a great message for voters: "Vote for us and we'll ease your problems." Obama's message to voters is that he will "spread the wealth around" because that's "good for everyone". He'll then take us out of an "unnecessary" war and spend that money to help the poor pay for medical expenses.
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama's plan involves cutting National Defense and International Relations spending by $72.6 billion dollars. Yet, he wants to spend an increased $139 billion in health care. His total spending plan will increase government spending by $292.9 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US has had an average deficit of $285 billion the past four years. We are talking about spending an increased amount MORE than the current average deficit. And Obama plans on paying for that with increased taxes on the rich. YEEEEAAAH, RIIIIGHT.
According to the Laffer curve, a well-known economics tool, raising the tax RATE does not ensure raising tax REVENUE. The idea is that the higher the RATE is raised, the less incentive workers have to work hard for raises and to invest their earnings. The more of my income that I get to keep, I will work harder, produce more, and invest my money more frequently. So, raising the tax rate on the rich will not necessarily produce more tax revenue for the politicians to spend. In fact, the rich might just quit spending their money on trifles and save more. They will almost certainly hire fewer employees.
While this philosophy might sound like "social justice", it actually hurts the poor more than the rich. Ruppert Murdoch has lost over half of his value over the past few months. He's still a billionaire though. Employees of Murdoch will feel the hurt more than him. On one side, Murdoch's product prices will rise to offset taxes imposed on the supply-side, making our money less valuable. Inflation is a silent killer. On the other side, some will get lower wages, some prospective employees will not be offered jobs, and some employees will be laid off. These are the people that Obama wants you to think he's fighting for. We've seen these policies before with Jimmy Carter. They failed then and they will fail again. Obama may ask voters to overlook history in order that he may be elected. But once the effects of Obama's policies hit America, the poor will once again look to an up-and-coming politician for relief.
Government was never the answer to our problems. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government will never be the answer to our problems. Government IS the problem. If government spending were the solution, poverty would have ceased to exist in America decades ago. We keep throwing money that we don't have at issues that we don't understand and get frustrated when the problems don't go away. I yearn for the day a true conservative runs for office and coherently tells the American people this truth. Maybe then America will turn from its way of blindly following the deceiving ways of Obama and friends.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Biden Asked Serious Questions, Can't Handle Heat
FoxNews reports: "Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported."
See the rest of the article here.
Logic Logic Logic
Thanks to Anthony Bradley for posting this on his blog at http://bradley.chattablogs.com/.
Zo makes some pretty good points here. Think a little bit before you vote for Obama. Actually follow the trail to see where his politically correct socialist policies will take America. That would be down.
Zo makes some pretty good points here. Think a little bit before you vote for Obama. Actually follow the trail to see where his politically correct socialist policies will take America. That would be down.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Quest for the Truth
Absolute truths are eluding me.
I don't mean the truth that Yahweh created the universe or that Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again. I trust that those are truths. The truths that elude me are petty facts. Many times they are things that are construed in diametrically opposed directions by different people. Maybe some of the truths that I seek are simply unavailable to be found. Yet I continue the search; it's making me weary.
This political season brings out the worst in the truth-searching sport. McCain and Obama sit on stage at a debate. McCain claims Obama supported "Proposed Fact A". Obama responds by saying "That's just not true." McCain then responds, "It is true." And this happens in the opposite direction as well. How do we know who's telling the truth??? Most of us, I assume, believe the candidate that we are currently supporting. It's a he-said/he-said game. Some issues are verifiable. Did the candidate vote for or against an issue? That can be looked up in the voting records of the Senate.
Sometimes the candidates say the same thing...with completely opposite words and connotations. Obama says that our corporations pay relatively low taxes compared to other countries' corporations. McCain says our corporations are charged higher tax rates than almost any other country's corporations. At first look this looks like someone is lying. Look a bit deeper and they can both be true. The US REVENUE from corporate taxes is relatively low, yet the tax RATE is relatively high. This is an instance where the candidates frustrate us with seemingly different facts, but are both telling the truth.
Many of the claims both of the candidates make are difficult to verify. How is the common citizen supposed to check the validity of a claim that "My tax plan will be able to pay for all of these programs"? Even the candidates are using estimates. The common person is generally not interested in the specifics, but even if they are, it's nearly impossible to follow all of the numbers to a firm conclusion.
In this scenario voters are simply left to trusting candidates, campaign managers, or the media, all three of which have given us little reason to trust them. What we need are candidates, campaigns, and media members that are truly aspiring to tell the truth. Possibly most importantly we need media members who vigilantly report facts with disregard to the good or bad implications of those facts. Our society is over-saturated with "opinion-news" and editorials. Meanwhile we are left with a dearth of simple news reporting.
Until these three demographics (politicians, campaigns, media) show legitimate integrity, the American people will continue in their cynicism toward politics.
I don't mean the truth that Yahweh created the universe or that Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again. I trust that those are truths. The truths that elude me are petty facts. Many times they are things that are construed in diametrically opposed directions by different people. Maybe some of the truths that I seek are simply unavailable to be found. Yet I continue the search; it's making me weary.
This political season brings out the worst in the truth-searching sport. McCain and Obama sit on stage at a debate. McCain claims Obama supported "Proposed Fact A". Obama responds by saying "That's just not true." McCain then responds, "It is true." And this happens in the opposite direction as well. How do we know who's telling the truth??? Most of us, I assume, believe the candidate that we are currently supporting. It's a he-said/he-said game. Some issues are verifiable. Did the candidate vote for or against an issue? That can be looked up in the voting records of the Senate.
Sometimes the candidates say the same thing...with completely opposite words and connotations. Obama says that our corporations pay relatively low taxes compared to other countries' corporations. McCain says our corporations are charged higher tax rates than almost any other country's corporations. At first look this looks like someone is lying. Look a bit deeper and they can both be true. The US REVENUE from corporate taxes is relatively low, yet the tax RATE is relatively high. This is an instance where the candidates frustrate us with seemingly different facts, but are both telling the truth.
Many of the claims both of the candidates make are difficult to verify. How is the common citizen supposed to check the validity of a claim that "My tax plan will be able to pay for all of these programs"? Even the candidates are using estimates. The common person is generally not interested in the specifics, but even if they are, it's nearly impossible to follow all of the numbers to a firm conclusion.
In this scenario voters are simply left to trusting candidates, campaign managers, or the media, all three of which have given us little reason to trust them. What we need are candidates, campaigns, and media members that are truly aspiring to tell the truth. Possibly most importantly we need media members who vigilantly report facts with disregard to the good or bad implications of those facts. Our society is over-saturated with "opinion-news" and editorials. Meanwhile we are left with a dearth of simple news reporting.
Until these three demographics (politicians, campaigns, media) show legitimate integrity, the American people will continue in their cynicism toward politics.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Should there be a comma?
I read this sub-headline from Fox News' website this evening.
"House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt crippling financial system."
I first read it as if there was a comma after "debt". Essentially, 'House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt, crippling financial system.' As in, what they just did with this bailout is crippling our financial system, not the bad debt crippling the system. We'll see in years/decades to come whether a comma belonged there or not.
"House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt crippling financial system."
I first read it as if there was a comma after "debt". Essentially, 'House passes, Bush signs $700B bill allowing Treasury to buy up bad debt, crippling financial system.' As in, what they just did with this bailout is crippling our financial system, not the bad debt crippling the system. We'll see in years/decades to come whether a comma belonged there or not.
How we came to a financial crisis
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I present to you exhibit A. This will show you why we are in a financial mess today. Some of our leaders tried to fix a potential problem years ago. However, many of our other "leaders" stopped any reform from happening to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two huge problems with our economy today. Interesting to see that Barney Frank, one of the most vocal congressman during the past week, was adamantly against reforming Fannie and Freddie. He claimed that there were no "safety and soundness" issues in these companies. You can clearly see today how wrong Rep. Frank was then. You should realize how wrong he just might be today as well. PLEASE don't vote these same democrat "leaders" back into office this November. If you didn't notice, the ones saying Fannie and Freddie were going to cause problems were the REPUBLICANS. The ones opposing the idea that Fannie and Freddie were bad at all were DEMOCRATS. Think about that.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
CNN Headlines Sob Story, Rejects Consequences
CNNs Headline story on its website this morning features an 8th grader who is separated from her mother and older siblings due to immigration laws. The article states around 3 million children are in the same situation as Julie Quiroz. Click here to watch the story.
Quiroz was born in Washington state years ago, after her mother and older brothers illegally came to the US. She has a younger sister who was also born here, thus they are the only two US citizens in their family. One year ago immigration officials found her mother and brothers and deported them back to Mexico. Quiroz went with her family back to Mexico, but, having grown up in Washington, felt out of place.
A man named Joe Kennard, from Texas, heard about this story and offered to have Quiroz live with his family so she could go to school in America. This, of course, would mean splitting up the family. Reluctantly, Quiroz chose to finish school in America. Kennard asks CNN why the children are punished in such a case, knowing well that the illegal parent is being lawfully and rightly punished for breaking the law. This is certainly the side that CNN seems to be taking in this article: How can the big bad United States punish a child citizen for what their parent did wrong?
Knowing that 3 million children are in this precarious situation is heartbreaking. But what the United States chooses to do in these cases is not an issue of emotion. It is a matter of law.
We have laws securing property rights. If someone steals my computer they have broken the law and nearly every American would agree that the thief should be punished. However, if you follow the logic of those (seemingly including CNN) who believe families should not be deported in the case of illegal immigrant status, then you would surely argue that this thief should not receive jail time for stealing my computer. After all, this thief just stole my computer so he could let his child use it to write essays. Without a computer to research and write with, his child might fail out of school. The man only broke the law because he was looking out for his family.
But back here in reality, if this thief is caught with my computer, he would go to jail. To follow the same pattern as Quiroz's case, let's say the thief was a single parent. Now this parent is in jail and his child neither has a computer nor a parent at home. How can the big bad US of A allow such a tragedy?
PEOPLE! Don't blame the US government for enforcing laws. The point at which tragedy begins is not when the government enforces its laws. The point at which tragedy begins is when anyone, in both my hypothetical case and Quiroz's case its the parent, breaks a law. Whether or not they know what the consequences are for their actions, they must take responsibility for those actions. Even though Ana Quiroz had good intentions of a life in a better place for her children, she broke the law and should well know that her choice will greatly impact the people around her.
The fact of life on Earth as we know it is that everything we do or do not do affects the people around us, whether the effects are visible or not. We are interconnected, get used to that and understand that our sins affect the people we love and vice versa. If this world was a perfect place, Ana Quiroz and her family wouldn't have to worry about her immigration status. But it is an imperfect world that we live in that includes too much heartbreak.
Let your heart break for the Quiroz family, but don't think for a second that the US government shouldn't have deported Mrs. Quiroz.
Quiroz was born in Washington state years ago, after her mother and older brothers illegally came to the US. She has a younger sister who was also born here, thus they are the only two US citizens in their family. One year ago immigration officials found her mother and brothers and deported them back to Mexico. Quiroz went with her family back to Mexico, but, having grown up in Washington, felt out of place.
A man named Joe Kennard, from Texas, heard about this story and offered to have Quiroz live with his family so she could go to school in America. This, of course, would mean splitting up the family. Reluctantly, Quiroz chose to finish school in America. Kennard asks CNN why the children are punished in such a case, knowing well that the illegal parent is being lawfully and rightly punished for breaking the law. This is certainly the side that CNN seems to be taking in this article: How can the big bad United States punish a child citizen for what their parent did wrong?
Knowing that 3 million children are in this precarious situation is heartbreaking. But what the United States chooses to do in these cases is not an issue of emotion. It is a matter of law.
We have laws securing property rights. If someone steals my computer they have broken the law and nearly every American would agree that the thief should be punished. However, if you follow the logic of those (seemingly including CNN) who believe families should not be deported in the case of illegal immigrant status, then you would surely argue that this thief should not receive jail time for stealing my computer. After all, this thief just stole my computer so he could let his child use it to write essays. Without a computer to research and write with, his child might fail out of school. The man only broke the law because he was looking out for his family.
But back here in reality, if this thief is caught with my computer, he would go to jail. To follow the same pattern as Quiroz's case, let's say the thief was a single parent. Now this parent is in jail and his child neither has a computer nor a parent at home. How can the big bad US of A allow such a tragedy?
PEOPLE! Don't blame the US government for enforcing laws. The point at which tragedy begins is not when the government enforces its laws. The point at which tragedy begins is when anyone, in both my hypothetical case and Quiroz's case its the parent, breaks a law. Whether or not they know what the consequences are for their actions, they must take responsibility for those actions. Even though Ana Quiroz had good intentions of a life in a better place for her children, she broke the law and should well know that her choice will greatly impact the people around her.
The fact of life on Earth as we know it is that everything we do or do not do affects the people around us, whether the effects are visible or not. We are interconnected, get used to that and understand that our sins affect the people we love and vice versa. If this world was a perfect place, Ana Quiroz and her family wouldn't have to worry about her immigration status. But it is an imperfect world that we live in that includes too much heartbreak.
Let your heart break for the Quiroz family, but don't think for a second that the US government shouldn't have deported Mrs. Quiroz.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Jack Cafferty Has No Place In News
It seems like clockwork. Every time I watch a CNN news report that involves Jack Cafferty, I immediately brace myself for a barrage of negative emails, assuming the topical question involves Bush or McCain. In the case that the question has anything to do with Barack Obama or any of his Democratic buddies or positions I know to prepare for a love-fest. It's disturbing to me that someone who asks a question to the public and publishes its email replies could do so in such an unbalanced manner. Cafferty makes absolutely no attempt to present viewers (or readers on CNNs website) with an even distribution of positive and negative emails, no matter the subject. The latest incident that got under my skin was his online file of responses to this wildly leading and unbalanced question:
"Here’s my question to you: Does John McCain undercut his own message by naming someone even younger and more inexperienced than Barack Obama to be his running mate?"
Only one of the eight emails that he highlights is a positive response to the Palin choice. AGH! Cafferty and so many of his media friends are so blatantly unbalanced that I have difficult time rationalizing turning on CNN or MSNBC (Can one be more brazenly anti-Republican than Keith Olbermann?) and telling anyone that I'm watching the "news". The state of American media is flat out depressing.
The Great Debate
For seemingly forever the Christian Church has been entangled in a great debate about the method of attaining salvation. There are two distinct sides in this debate: 1) God predestines who his followers will be and 2) We have free will to choose if we want to accept salvation from God. My question is: Why can't both be true? God is the God of impossibilities and unlikely happenings. Jesus is considered to have been fully man, yet fully God when he walked the streets of Israel. The Bible has clear scripture stating both positions, yet there is not a debate between Christians who believe he's only man and Christians who believe he's only God. Jesus walked on water. He turned water into wine. He rose from the dead. Um, none of these things are remotely possible. Yet they happened nonetheless. Jesus came to earth as a homeless baby. He claimed that the first is actually last and the last is actually first. He had to die so that when we die we actually become more alive. Um, none of that makes any sense. Yet, that's what the Bible says happened. Is it too difficult to believe that God chose his followers infinity ago yet his followers have a complete choice in the matter? if the Bible seems to clearly express both ideas, then I must come to the conclusion that both ideas are true, no matter how nonsensical that seems.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Incompetent Congress Passes House Resolution 194
The most recent NBC/WSJ Congressional Job Rating poll reports an abysmal Congressional approval rate of 15%. President Bush has twice as good an approval rating from Americans at 30%. Yet, if you read the Washington Post, New York Times, or tune in to a major network's evening news broadcast regularly, you might get the feeling that those ratings are inverted and Bush is less favored. Funny how most of the blame from the media goes to someone accepted twice as much by the American people themselves.
However, today is a good example of just exactly why Americans despise our Congressional "leaders". While the average citizen is thinking about how he's going to pay for the next tank of gas, pay off a credit card bill, or keep his home, Congress members in Washington are apologizing for slavery and the Jim Crow era. APOLOGIZING FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO. NOT approving offshore drilling (which the majority of Americans desire), NOT approving stricter border control, NOT providing supplies to our soldiers, but making a formal apology about slavery. Here is some of the apology:
"Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 after the end of the Civil War, which was fought over the slavery issue;
Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;
Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as `Jim Crow,' which arose in certain parts of the Nation following the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against persons of African descent engendered by slavery;"
I thought that the 13-15th Amendments were an apology. I thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an apology. I thought we enacted Affirmative Action programs as an apology. What makes today so special as to require a new, formal apology from Congress?
Could it be that the Democrat-led Congress is putting forth this guilt-ridden subject for purely political reasons? You know, just before a historic election involving a black man? Could that possibly be the reason behind this? (Gasp!) Are they really just doing this to help their candidate get elected? I'm sorry, but there is NO other reason this issue would come up today if it were not for Barack Obama's candidacy. This Congress is a disgrace to the citizens it represents. When will something PRODUCTIVE ever come out of the National Congress again?
However, today is a good example of just exactly why Americans despise our Congressional "leaders". While the average citizen is thinking about how he's going to pay for the next tank of gas, pay off a credit card bill, or keep his home, Congress members in Washington are apologizing for slavery and the Jim Crow era. APOLOGIZING FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO. NOT approving offshore drilling (which the majority of Americans desire), NOT approving stricter border control, NOT providing supplies to our soldiers, but making a formal apology about slavery. Here is some of the apology:
"Whereas slavery was not officially abolished until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865 after the end of the Civil War, which was fought over the slavery issue;
Whereas after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the fleeting political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction eviscerated by virulent racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement, Black Codes, and racial segregation laws that imposed a rigid system of officially sanctioned racial segregation in virtually all areas of life;
Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as `Jim Crow,' which arose in certain parts of the Nation following the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism against persons of African descent engendered by slavery;"
I thought that the 13-15th Amendments were an apology. I thought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an apology. I thought we enacted Affirmative Action programs as an apology. What makes today so special as to require a new, formal apology from Congress?
Could it be that the Democrat-led Congress is putting forth this guilt-ridden subject for purely political reasons? You know, just before a historic election involving a black man? Could that possibly be the reason behind this? (Gasp!) Are they really just doing this to help their candidate get elected? I'm sorry, but there is NO other reason this issue would come up today if it were not for Barack Obama's candidacy. This Congress is a disgrace to the citizens it represents. When will something PRODUCTIVE ever come out of the National Congress again?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
CNN Commentary
I read Roland Martin's commentary today about the repercussions of the Jeremiah Wright issue for Republicans. I'm not sure how much of this I agree with. Here's a clip:
For [conservatives], Wright's "hate" was a stench. Their "hate" comes up smelling like roses. But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors' oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, "Please, watch what you say. I don't want to have to denounce you on national television."
His main point is that white pastors across the country have said things as crazy as what Jeremiah Wright has said. Thus, Republicans should be scrutinized for their affiliation with radical leaders just as Barack Obama has been over the past months. I would agree with that premise, but in practice I would probably disagree with Martin on which comments should be scrutinized. There are a lot of things publicly said by Christian pastors that get ripped apart by the media elite, like Martin, whereas I agree with many of those things being said. True, there are some instances in which pastors have made absurd comments that should be rebuked, but that is not common. In Obama's case though, Wright has been consistently un-Biblical and has spewed racist words for many years. Since Wright has a long history of the racist ideology of victimhood and refuses to change his tune, he should certainly be scrutinized. Just as importantly, Obama should be scrutinized for keeping such company for twenty years. It is a legitimate question to ask how much a man like Wright can impact a presidential candidate's ideology. Overall, I am split on this article. You can read the full article here.
For [conservatives], Wright's "hate" was a stench. Their "hate" comes up smelling like roses. But to every politician, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican: Beware. The die has been cast. The repeated denunciations of Wright will now lead each and every single one of you to have your pastors' oral and written words examined. If even one thing is said that can be construed as criticizing America or deemed hateful, then expect to see it on YouTube and replayed for millions to see. I suggest you go to your pastor now and say, "Please, watch what you say. I don't want to have to denounce you on national television."
His main point is that white pastors across the country have said things as crazy as what Jeremiah Wright has said. Thus, Republicans should be scrutinized for their affiliation with radical leaders just as Barack Obama has been over the past months. I would agree with that premise, but in practice I would probably disagree with Martin on which comments should be scrutinized. There are a lot of things publicly said by Christian pastors that get ripped apart by the media elite, like Martin, whereas I agree with many of those things being said. True, there are some instances in which pastors have made absurd comments that should be rebuked, but that is not common. In Obama's case though, Wright has been consistently un-Biblical and has spewed racist words for many years. Since Wright has a long history of the racist ideology of victimhood and refuses to change his tune, he should certainly be scrutinized. Just as importantly, Obama should be scrutinized for keeping such company for twenty years. It is a legitimate question to ask how much a man like Wright can impact a presidential candidate's ideology. Overall, I am split on this article. You can read the full article here.
Monday, May 5, 2008
GPA Inequity
I have long thought that the GPA system at Mizzou is unfair to the highest achieving students. I finally decided to do something about it, so I emailed three of my professors and the MU Chancellor. Here was my letter to the Chancellor:
Hi,
I am a sophomore Finance major here at Mizzou. I am writing to you because I believe the GPA system is an inequitable system that hurts the highest achieving university students. My problem with Mizzou's GPA system is that A- grades are given a lower than 4.0 score whereas A+ grades provide no benefit. Any student who receives a B-, C-, or D- can make up those grades with a B+, C+, or D+ because those three "plus" grades are given extra weight in the GPA system. When I was a freshman, I earned an A+ in a five credit hour Spanish course. However, I received only equal weight on my GPA as any student who earned a flat A. Yet, when I earned an A- the next semester in multiple courses, my GPA irrevocably dropped below a 4.0. That simply is not a just representation of my academic success. If I can be docked GPA points for an A-, then I should be given more than a 4.0 for an A+. However, I am sure that the university does not want to inflate scores above a four point scale, so I propose that the university change the weight of an A- to simply 4.0. Essentially, the current system promotes underachieving because students have no incentive to achieve maximum success. After all, reaching great success of an A ultimately provides the same reward as maximum success of an A+. Educational systems should provide incentives to promote academic success instead of inhibiting it. If this is ever changed, it would be great if Mizzou retroactively boosted all current students' GPAs according to the new standard.
I hope you thoughtfully consider this change,
Michael Alexander
My first two replies from professors were, "I already stated in the syllabus how I'm grading. It is not going to change." Hopefully I get a different response from the Chancellor or my other professor. I'll keep you updated on it.
Hi,
I am a sophomore Finance major here at Mizzou. I am writing to you because I believe the GPA system is an inequitable system that hurts the highest achieving university students. My problem with Mizzou's GPA system is that A- grades are given a lower than 4.0 score whereas A+ grades provide no benefit. Any student who receives a B-, C-, or D- can make up those grades with a B+, C+, or D+ because those three "plus" grades are given extra weight in the GPA system. When I was a freshman, I earned an A+ in a five credit hour Spanish course. However, I received only equal weight on my GPA as any student who earned a flat A. Yet, when I earned an A- the next semester in multiple courses, my GPA irrevocably dropped below a 4.0. That simply is not a just representation of my academic success. If I can be docked GPA points for an A-, then I should be given more than a 4.0 for an A+. However, I am sure that the university does not want to inflate scores above a four point scale, so I propose that the university change the weight of an A- to simply 4.0. Essentially, the current system promotes underachieving because students have no incentive to achieve maximum success. After all, reaching great success of an A ultimately provides the same reward as maximum success of an A+. Educational systems should provide incentives to promote academic success instead of inhibiting it. If this is ever changed, it would be great if Mizzou retroactively boosted all current students' GPAs according to the new standard.
I hope you thoughtfully consider this change,
Michael Alexander
My first two replies from professors were, "I already stated in the syllabus how I'm grading. It is not going to change." Hopefully I get a different response from the Chancellor or my other professor. I'll keep you updated on it.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Expelled
I was fortunate last night to be able to see Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". It is exciting that the issue of Intelligent Design in higher education is now in the national spotlight. Granted, as Stein points out in the movie, the media is slanted toward the Darwinist side, so this probably will not get as much coverage as a Michael Moore film. I read some reviews on it already, and almost all of them said the film was poorly made, created poor arguments, and wasn't that funny. This behavior from reviewers is exactly the point that Stein made in "Expelled". There is a wall in the middle of society that is trying to keep people from seeing (just seeing, not believing) the theory of intelligent design. I thought Stein did a great, not perfect, job on this film and applaud him for taking on the establishment of the scientific community that has excommunicated anyone who even mentions that intelligent design is worth discussing.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Salmon Days
My accountancy professor told us about "Salmon Days":
"It's when you swim upstream all day only to get screwed and die."
"It's when you swim upstream all day only to get screwed and die."
Friday, April 11, 2008
I Was Semi-Featured in a Newspaper Article!!!
Last night I was invited to a pro-Affirmative Action forum after I posted a piece supporting the abolition of AA on a pro-AA Facebook page. I really enjoyed the opportunity to speak out against the AA cause, or rather, support Ward Connerly's initiative to get the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) on the ballot this fall. Unfortunately I was one of only two people who said ANYTHING against affirmative action. It would have made for better discussion had more supporters of Connerly been there, but I'm glad I was there to voice a dissenting opinion. You can look at the MoCRI initiative here. Here's a bit of the article from the Columbia Missourian:
The discussion Thursday in the Life Sciences building, organized by the Missing Minority Campaign, was designed to open dialogue between those for and opposed to the initiative. In a crowd of over 50 people, however, only two supporters of the initiative may have been the only ones to attend. Michael Alexander, an MU student, said he didn’t feel overwhelmed about stating his position in a room full of opposition. He said he wants to reach the same goal of equality, but has a different strategy.
Alexander said he doesn’t believe a race-based scholarship can fix some social disadvantages minorities face, such as inadequate schools. Additionally, whites shouldn’t be overlooked because they lack the color to be considered for a certain scholarship.
“It should have nothing to do with the color of your skin,” he said.
Antonio Williams of By Any Means Necessary said he believes minorities need affirmative action for the same reason Alexander opposes it.
Williams said that minorities need additional help because they are often given inferior education. He is a high school student with a 3.5 grade point average, but scored a 15 on the ACT. (The rest of the article is here
I quoted Martin Luther King Jr. to the group to show how twisted their view is on this issue. MLK said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Needless to say, that ticked off quite a few people that I used MLK's words against the AA cause. But, would MLK REALLY want blacks to get preferential treatment because of their skin color? No way! He was opposing the use of skin color to be used for ANY decision, whether it be a cause for discrimination or promotion.
The discussion Thursday in the Life Sciences building, organized by the Missing Minority Campaign, was designed to open dialogue between those for and opposed to the initiative. In a crowd of over 50 people, however, only two supporters of the initiative may have been the only ones to attend. Michael Alexander, an MU student, said he didn’t feel overwhelmed about stating his position in a room full of opposition. He said he wants to reach the same goal of equality, but has a different strategy.
Alexander said he doesn’t believe a race-based scholarship can fix some social disadvantages minorities face, such as inadequate schools. Additionally, whites shouldn’t be overlooked because they lack the color to be considered for a certain scholarship.
“It should have nothing to do with the color of your skin,” he said.
Antonio Williams of By Any Means Necessary said he believes minorities need affirmative action for the same reason Alexander opposes it.
Williams said that minorities need additional help because they are often given inferior education. He is a high school student with a 3.5 grade point average, but scored a 15 on the ACT. (The rest of the article is here
I quoted Martin Luther King Jr. to the group to show how twisted their view is on this issue. MLK said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Needless to say, that ticked off quite a few people that I used MLK's words against the AA cause. But, would MLK REALLY want blacks to get preferential treatment because of their skin color? No way! He was opposing the use of skin color to be used for ANY decision, whether it be a cause for discrimination or promotion.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
In Response to Missing Minority Campaign Rallies
I'm pretty sure that the reason everyone likes the idea of affirmative action is that it "creates equality" among races. This is an honorable goal. However, how do we best get "equality" among races? The only way this happens is if we become metaphorically colorblind and DO NOT take into consideration skin tone.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
In Response to Missing Minority Campaign Rallies
I'm pretty sure that the reason everyone likes the idea of affirmative action is that it "creates equality" among races. This is an honorable goal. However, how do we best get "equality" among races? The only way this happens is if we become metaphorically colorblind and DO NOT take into consideration skin tone.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
Thus, by affirmatively acting in favor of one person over another only because of skin color is only furthering the problem. Racial utopia will exist the day that whoever is MOST QUALIFIED for any position/scholarship/etc receives that position/scholarship/etc...REGARDLESS of race.
But, it is true that there is a disproportionate amount of unqualified minorities compared to qualified whites (the American majority). To fix this problem, it would be silly to put unqualified minorities in a position to fail, when someone qualified (regardless of race) could succeed. What needs to happen is that we need to fix the ROOT of the problem. Affirmative action is simply a temporary solution to a permanent problem.
The permanent solution would be to fix the K-12 education of minorities. One of the most fundamental rules of economics is that people respond to incentives; this is how America got where it is. If you tell someone that if they work hard, they can reap rewards, they will work much harder. Thus, if minority schools were offered greater funding in reward for higher standardized test grades, then I guarantee that the education and well-being of minorities would rise drastically. If we took this approach, affirmative action would be unnecessary because minorities would be just as prepared as whites for positions that they are applying for.
So, Ward Connerly (who is trying to eliminate affirmative action in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Missouri) might just be on your side and you don’t even know it. His intention is probably to HELP minorities by eliminating affirmative action. It’s not just to beat minorities down. I just think everyone needs to think this through before they decide affirmative action is the way to fix racial issues.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
An Argument Against Abortion
When I hear anyone (especially Christians) defend the legality of abortions in America (or anywhere else) I want to puke. We have this idea in America that even though the vast majority of us don't think abortion is right, it's not really our place to tell someone else they can't have one (and by "have one" I really mean kill their baby). This is a ridiculously weak argument though. The vast majority of Americans believe raping their neighbor is wrong and the state should act by throwing rapists in jail. We all made a moral judgement about rape and realize rape deserves jail time. Abortion is no different. If we shouldn't make abortion illegal because other people might not think it's wrong, then murder, rape, theft, etc should not be illegal. We should have no moral laws.
I also hear the argument that making abortions illegal would cause many women to die in "back-alley" abortions done by non-professionals. Sure, that would happen. But since abortion was legalized in 1973 over 50 million American citizens have been slaughtered before they were even allowed to leave their mothers' wombs. That's over 5 times the amount of people killed in the Holocaust. As I recall, we don't take the Holocaust lightly. Neither should we take abortion lightly.
Another argument is that abortions don't kill living human beings; humans aren't alive and viable until they exit the womb. The problem with this is that children have been born exceedingly early and have not immediately died. There is no particular date that scientists can set as the ALIVE moment. We know that beginning at conception new cells are created and compounded. Thus, life begins at conception.
The idea that children in the womb are not viable is also a terrible argument. By viable I mean that they could live without help from the womb. In that case, yes, unbirthed babies are not viable. But then again, neither are birthed babies. Leave any baby alone without supervision for a few days and it will starve to death (or freeze, etc). A two year old cannot take care of itself. It is certainly not "viable". Beyond the spectrum of babies, some severely disabled people are not "viable". Some mentally and physically handicapped people are unable to feed themselves, clothe themselves, or find shelter. Without outside help, these disabled people would certainly die quickly. Yet, do we consider these people to not be alive because they are not "viable".
Anyway you look at it, abortion is cruel, immoral, and disgusting. And anyone who supports killing babies should be ashamed and change their ways. Just 150 years ago slavery was widely accepted as a normal practice. Most in the South enjoyed the use of it and many in the North didn't think it was their place to stop the practice. Yet looking back on it, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't think slavery was despicable. Hopefully it won't take 150 years and hundreds of millions of babies to come to the same conclusion about abortion.
I also hear the argument that making abortions illegal would cause many women to die in "back-alley" abortions done by non-professionals. Sure, that would happen. But since abortion was legalized in 1973 over 50 million American citizens have been slaughtered before they were even allowed to leave their mothers' wombs. That's over 5 times the amount of people killed in the Holocaust. As I recall, we don't take the Holocaust lightly. Neither should we take abortion lightly.
Another argument is that abortions don't kill living human beings; humans aren't alive and viable until they exit the womb. The problem with this is that children have been born exceedingly early and have not immediately died. There is no particular date that scientists can set as the ALIVE moment. We know that beginning at conception new cells are created and compounded. Thus, life begins at conception.
The idea that children in the womb are not viable is also a terrible argument. By viable I mean that they could live without help from the womb. In that case, yes, unbirthed babies are not viable. But then again, neither are birthed babies. Leave any baby alone without supervision for a few days and it will starve to death (or freeze, etc). A two year old cannot take care of itself. It is certainly not "viable". Beyond the spectrum of babies, some severely disabled people are not "viable". Some mentally and physically handicapped people are unable to feed themselves, clothe themselves, or find shelter. Without outside help, these disabled people would certainly die quickly. Yet, do we consider these people to not be alive because they are not "viable".
Anyway you look at it, abortion is cruel, immoral, and disgusting. And anyone who supports killing babies should be ashamed and change their ways. Just 150 years ago slavery was widely accepted as a normal practice. Most in the South enjoyed the use of it and many in the North didn't think it was their place to stop the practice. Yet looking back on it, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't think slavery was despicable. Hopefully it won't take 150 years and hundreds of millions of babies to come to the same conclusion about abortion.
Friday, January 18, 2008
An Audacious Take on Barack Obama
It’s difficult to sit back and listen to Big Media laud Barack Obama for his campaign of “change”. If an alien from outer space turned on a TV today, it could legitimately come to the conclusion that Obama is an American messiah. Few critiques of Senator Obama can be heard or seen on major “news” networks or national newspapers. He is promoted by Oprah and others as an “agent of change;” a fresh perspective for Washington. As many accolades as he receives, you might assume he really can change the way Washington runs. Then again, if you look at his record and his positions, you might see that he is the same as every other Democratic candidate in recent history.
Obama’s views are not new. They are not fresh. They are not Washington-changers. And they are surely not views that will facilitate bipartisanship between 1600 Pennsylvania and democrats and republicans on Capitol Hill.
Here’s a quick list of Obama’s views, see if you think these are issues republicans will work with after bipartisan talks. He supports socialized health care (which will cost trillions to overhaul the current system and get everyone covered), he supports killing innocent unborn babies (liberals call this aborting a “pregnancy”), he will lower taxes on the middle class and then raise taxes on the wealthy (Robin Hood was a good movie, but that doesn’t work in actual government), he wants to increase the role of FDR’s outdated New Deal programs, he wants to raise the minimum wage (subsequently raising unemployment), he is pro-Big Labor, he’s anti-corporations, and he has voted to make it easier for individuals to file for bankruptcy.
Honestly, is that a list of stances that would facilitate success in bipartisan talks? Obama is not going to change the face of Washington. When we get through all the political muck, it is absolutely obvious that Obama is only going to further the strife between the two parties. He is certainly no messiah.
Obama’s views are not new. They are not fresh. They are not Washington-changers. And they are surely not views that will facilitate bipartisanship between 1600 Pennsylvania and democrats and republicans on Capitol Hill.
Here’s a quick list of Obama’s views, see if you think these are issues republicans will work with after bipartisan talks. He supports socialized health care (which will cost trillions to overhaul the current system and get everyone covered), he supports killing innocent unborn babies (liberals call this aborting a “pregnancy”), he will lower taxes on the middle class and then raise taxes on the wealthy (Robin Hood was a good movie, but that doesn’t work in actual government), he wants to increase the role of FDR’s outdated New Deal programs, he wants to raise the minimum wage (subsequently raising unemployment), he is pro-Big Labor, he’s anti-corporations, and he has voted to make it easier for individuals to file for bankruptcy.
Honestly, is that a list of stances that would facilitate success in bipartisan talks? Obama is not going to change the face of Washington. When we get through all the political muck, it is absolutely obvious that Obama is only going to further the strife between the two parties. He is certainly no messiah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
