Random Political Thoughts

Occasionally I go to a website known as 411mania.com. They used to be all wrestling and then transferred over to all parts of pop culture and then finally added politics in the last two years or so. Unfortunately they are extremely biased to the left. I used to like to post comments on their boards but I don't think any of mine made it because its clear I am a independent conservative christian. But a few things got to me today that I saw on their site and I feel the need to respond.

1. The Gay Community Needs More Milk Posted by Jeff Clarke on 12.18.2008
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/92719/The-Gay-Community-Needs-More-Milk.htm#commenthere
The opening paragraph of this whole diatribe against people for Prop. 8 just as hate filled and bigoted as he claims I am since I do not support homosexual marriage. Here it is:

"Now, let's get something, pardon the pun, straight: If you voted for Prop 8, or supported it in any way, you are a bigoted homophobe, next case please. You can spout non-truths about protecting the children or defending church beliefs, but all your doing is dusting off the same tired arguments that opponents of interracial marriage and civil rights used before you, and you're the same class of small-minded racist that those people were. I'm sorry you have so little confidence in your heterosexual relationships that just seeing two married dudes will immediately make you join the pink mafia, but keep your personal failings out of my State Constitution, okay?"

I take extreme offense to the comments because it puts me in a class of people that I do not belong. Yes I don't think homosexuals have the right to marry but I am not a bigot or a homophobic. I think it would be really clear. I have lived in the same dorm room with a gay man. I have plenty of friends and colleagues who are gay and I am just fine with them.

Here is the bone of contention with on homosexual marriage. Marriage never has been in the scope of human history a right. It has always been controlled the state and the people. The state determines who is allowed to marry and who is not. They set requirements for what it means to be married in the marriage license. A right is something the government cannot take away but the state can take away the marriage relationship. They do it all the time; its called divorce.

Also the idea of our democracy is the rule of the majority through the philosophy of popular sovereignty. Homosexual marriage was voted down TWICE in California. If we allow a 2% minority to make the laws that affect the majority then we might as well be ruled by a fascist dictator that can kill us for thinking contrary to him. That is what it is that a lot of these extreme homosexual sound like: "If you don't believe we are right then you are a homophone and deserved to die." I support your right to protest and convince people to your side, but be a good winner and loser. You lost the election. It should be over and done. People with these extreme views try and say their side is right and when they lose through legal and proper elections they bitch and moan until they get it their way instead of bowing to the will of the majority.

Homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of the people in the U.S., if they didn't they would have been arrested for protesting or presenting petitions for the furthering of their privileges in our society. Please don't compare yourselves to the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Blacks did not have the right to vote, speak out, public or protest without being beat in the street or dogs attack them or hoses turned on them. It's not the same. Don't begrudge that they didn't support you in the your vote against Prop. 8. Blacks are very conservative when it comes to these things. That is their right to believe so.

I am sure I will speak on this again but issue #2.

2. The 10 Dumbest Political Moves of the Year Posted by Joe Rivett on 12.18.2008
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/92750/The-10-Dumbest-Political-Moves-of-the-Year.htm

This list is so biased its not even funny. Nothing about Democratic governor Rod Blagoiavich, nothing about Obama or Biden's gaffe's during the election. Eight of the ten on the list are Republicans. Some of them I would agree with others I wouldn't. I guess that is the point of Top Ten Lists. What gets me is how the liberals seem to think Palin was one the worst mistake of the campaign. They fail to see how she energized a political party not excited about its moderate centrist candidate. She is a true republican in all sense of the word and the only reason I voted for McCain. I thought she was and is the future of the Republican Party. She is able to excite the young and bring together the social, fiscal and religious conservatives. It was because of her that McCain won 48% of the vote. If he hadn't picked her I believe it would have been close to an electoral sweep.

But my real belief of the biggest political mistake in the campaign was Barak Obama not choosing Hilary Clinton as his running mate. Let's be honest that decision almost cost him the election. The media doesn't like to admit it but the election was closer than it should have been with Obama, but if he had picked Clinton he would have won in a landslide. His own pride and his wife seemed to be the big reasons why he did not pick her. Just plain dumb to not pick the person just as popular than you in the primaries. Just dumb.

One more point before I go: Obama's cabinet. People have been calling it a team of rivals. That's exactly what it is. That is his plan. He wants his rivals in the Cabinet and them to have ownership of his Presidency so they cannot challenge him in four years. Most of his major picks (Clinton, Richards, etc) would have a decent shot of challenging him in 2012 if his Presidency goes down the shitter. But he picked them so that they could not challenge him. Plus he talked about "Change" in his campaign but this cabinet shows more of the same than change. He has recycled most of Clinton's Cabinet.

Anyway, that's it for me. I think this is where I will do my political bitching from now it. It feels good.

Election 08

For everyone who is curious here is my stance so far on the election. Although I did caucus for Barak Obama in January, but after further review I found that he is not the candidate that I would vote for. I am proudly voting for the electors of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Here are the reasons why I am voting for McCain/Palin:

1. John McCain is the best choice for commander-in-chief of our country. He served years in the military during one of the most controversial military actions of this century. He was a POW and knows the true horrors of war. Because he knows those horrors he is the best man to know if and when to send our boys and girls into combat. While he was a POW he put other people and his nation first. He willing allowed the lower ranked soldiers to leave the POW camp before he would.
2. As much as people want to call him more of the same or Bush's third term, they don't know McCain. Yes he has voted 90% of the time with Bush, but if there was a democrat in the Oval Office would we begrudge a democrat who voted with that president. He is a Maverick of sorts because Bush and traditional has been angered at McCain when he took stances against him.
3. Sarah Palin is a proven reformer. She took on her own Republican Party in the state of Alaska and cleaned it up. I know she has only has limited executive experience, but she has more executive experience than any other person on the ticket. I also feel that she is the future of the conservative movement that will challenge John McCain if and when he needs to be kicked in the butt.
4. He understands the true threat of Islamo-facism.

I do not think that I should vote to vote against someone, like voting for the lesser of two evils, but here are the reasons I am voting against Barak Obama.

1. Experience: I agree a person should have some experience before going into the highest office of the country, but if your trying change the nation, why do you want someone with a lot of experience. Beside what experience does Obama have that would help him lead in the roles the president serves under. Commander-in-chief: Never served a day in the military. Chief Diplomat: He would meet with the president of Iran. A man that has said many times "Death to America." He cannot be negotiated with. Chief of State: He represents us to the world. While he is friends with people who seem to hate America (William Ayers, Rev. Wright). Chief Legislator: How can a man who has not made a solid stance on any legislative issue in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate. He has voted present on almost every single vote. Chief Executive: What executive experience does he have? Community organizer does not mean he knows how to run a company or even the largest economy and powerful nation in the earth. Judicial Roles: This is chiefly for appointing judges. There is not much experience you can show with this, but he has been against Bush's appointments mostly for political reasons.
2. Judgement: The experience argument really does not mean much of anything. It is better to judge a candidate based on his/her judgement. Look at Barrak Obama's. He stayed 20 years in a church with an Anti-American pastor that follows unbiblical theology and preaches anti-Americanism. He is friends with a man who bombed the Pentagon as part of the Weather Underground, a terrorist organization (He only got off on a technicality). He is self-professed friends with blatant Marxist and socialist.
3. Socialism: He is a socialist and a Marxist. He believes in bigger government and I don't. With universal health care and other programs he would expand the size of our government.
4. Taxes: He says he is against taxes but would raise taxes in almost every single area of our country, hurting our all ready ailing economy.
5. Reaching across the aisle: He claims to be a person who can and will reach across the aisle to come up with common solutions but has no proven record of doing so. In fact he is THE most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate. and he picked the 3rd most liberal senator to be his running mate. He has no intent to reach across the aisle. he can't agree with the right and no one on the right will agree with him.

And that is my arguments. Take it or leave it, biotches! A few months ago I came up with a political platform that I would run on if I was running for national office. I will post that in a few days. God bless and good luck.

"Yes we can!"

Ok, so another political posting. There is a speech by Barak Obama that was made either today or in the last few days that I am looking for. If I can find it in the next few minutes I will quote him word for word. Ok, here it is the quote:

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.
(http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w)

To that I answer, "YES WE CAN!" That is the key tenant of our capitalist economy and our great democracy that maybe Mr. Obama does not get. We have the choice to drive our SUVs or other cars as much as we want. The choice to keep our house as cool or hot as we want. We can make that choice because we choose to pay the price for those choices. We get to choose the 42' plasma over the 19' tube TV. You cannot make that choice for my Mr. Obama, no government has that right or power. To quote Jefferson, "that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Liberty is that choice. The pursuit of happiness and property (the original idea of Locke and Jefferson) is that choice.

Yes, I run my apartment warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter: Why? The cost of power is expensive and because own warm clothes and can endure the 120+ degrees of the Las Vegas summers (Sorry Katie, I will make sure I turn on the air for you this summer). But that is my choice. I choose to drive my car less because gas is expensive, not because the rest of the world says I have to. It is a matter of choice. That is the big idea that guides conservatives: choice and freedom.

I have the choice to discipline my kids the way I want to without the government getting involved (Unless, of course, there is genuine abuse, but spanking or slapping a child because they swear is not abuse). I have the choice to be successful and expand and get rich (High taxes will take away my choices to be more successful and keep me from striving higher). I have the choice to do bad and fail. It's my choice and I will not infringe on your choices or freedoms by asking you to bail me out when I fail because of MY CHOICES! When I fail and the government bails me out, I have taken your choices and freedoms because I have taken your tax dollars because of my choice. I have the choice to believe what I want about any topic and not get called a racist, homophobe or intolerant because I CHOOSE to believe something contrary to the minority. I give you the choice to believe what you want even if I disagree. I am an American and I don't like when my choices or freedom are taken away from me.

Same Sex Marriage Ruling in California

I know I have not posted in forever and that will probably change soon. I like topical rants, raves or just answering an interesting question. So I will probably start doing that soon, but since this showed up in the news today I can't stay quiet about it. I know this is going to get me grief from a lot of people if they decide to actually read my blog (I don't think there are tha many), but I really don't care. This news just broke today. Go ahead and read if you didn't know.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,2982265.story

I am against homosexual marriage. Part of this is because of my religious faith, part of it comes from a logical view point. This post will deal with it more from the logical perspective, since my faith is my own. If you want to talk to me about the religious view point feel free to contact me through here. Let me start with a brief addendum though about my personal thoughts on homosexuality.

I know quite a few people who are gay and while I do not support the lifestyle, I am NOT a bigot. I DO NOT discriminate against them or treat them any different than my straight friends. I DO NOT think that they should be dragged out into the street and shoot for making this lifestyle choice. I DO NOT think they are second class citizens or that their rights should be taken away in any way, shape or form. (I do not believe marriage is a right, more on that later). I DO NOT think that they should be discriminated against in their professional or personal life because of their lifestyle choice.

I support civil unions and shared benefits for homosexual couples. I think a partner in a homosexual relationship has the right to make all legal and medical choices over the blood family, even if they don't have the legal power of attorney. They have the right to live their lifestyle as long as it does not interfere with mine. Unfortunately, some of the actions of the GLBT community consistently interfere with the lifestyles of others. I would say more on this but its not the point of my post. On with the arguments! Please keep and open mind.

1. It goes against natural law. Someone show me a homosexual animals in nature. You won't find any because they don't exist. One big reason if animals are gay they can't procreate and therefore die out. Nature has made sure they can't exist through that very through natural selection. It is an unnatural lifestyle.

2. It's a personal choice. Some people will make the argument that they have no choice to be gay; that they are born that way. While science has been able to prove that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, that does not mean genetics is fate. If that were the case, I would be an alcoholic with cancer, since there is genetic predisposition to both of those problems. Plus, when people start talking about homosexuality as a lifestyle, your making a choice to live that way, just like I choose to lifestyle to be Christian.

3. The will of the majority vs. the rights of the minority. In California they passed a law several years ago to stop Gay marriage (prop. 22). The majority of the people in CA decided that they agreed with it. The will of the people has been spoken and must be respected. Gays are not discriminated against. The rights given to them in the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions are valid and enforcible. But there are people who will say marriage is a right... wrong! Next point. (Check out #7. separation of church and state for another aspect of the will of the majority, but from the religious side.)

4. The right to marry. There is no right to marry. It is found no where in the U.S. Constitution or in almost any state Constitution. Marriage is a privilege granted by the state to those people who fulfill the requirements set by that state in its law; just like driving. Those who do not meet the requirements set up by the state cannot marry. No one is above the law, not even homosexuals.

5. Cross Culture agreement. Looking at anthropology and sociology shows that homosexuality is something that is not accepted in almost ALL modern and ancient societies. There may have been allowance for people who lived like that, but they were not allowed to marry. Why? Because they cannot help continue the society and culture, because they can't procreate. Almost all culture have a homosexuality taboo just like the incest taboo. Redefining marriage from between and a man and woman to allowing same sex marriages go against every major culture and society. Even if those societies allowed polygamy, it was still between men and women, not women and women or men and men. There was no sexual access between the people of the same sex in those polygamous relationship. That is even the case in the Mormon church when they practiced polygamy (even though I guess the fundamentalists still do)

6. What's next? If we allow same sex marriages, what would be next? How do we redefine marriage then? This is the first step off a slippery slope that can lead to the entire destruction of marriage in general. What's next? Marriage between a man and two women or four? Marriage between a woman and her dog since she loves him (or her). Marriage between a man and his dead wife. You start here, where does it stop?

7. Separation of Church & State. Some people argue that by forcing a Judeo-Christian attitude on marriage is having the state endorsing or establishing a religion. The problem with that argument is that every single major religion has a ban or restriction on homosexuality, sometimes for the reasons up above. Its not just Jews and Christians, its Muslims, Hindu and the like; they disagree too. So ruling against Gay Marriage is not endorsing or establishing any religion, it is supporting the logical beliefs of them all. (The will of the majority yet again.) Oh and gay marriage is not a religion so don't say it's not allowing them the free exercise of religion. Besides, the government can regulate religious action, it did it with the Mormon polygamist years ago.


So that is my posting for today. I hope you all enjoyed. Have a great weekend.

AJBulava