Friday, December 31, 2004

Happy New Year

Happy New Year Everyone!

I think I've finally found a holiday that people can say on the air without the ACLU suing them to death. Or perhaps I'm being offensive to non-Christians because our calender is based off of Jesus' birth? Or maybe I'm being offensive to Chinese because I don't celebrate their New Year on a different day?

Happy Christmahanakwanzika! I guess. But that still excludes African religions!

It's quite impossible for someone to not get offended these days.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs

Atheism

There is a large anti-religious movement in America. I see it every day, arguing for the removal of "In God we Trust" on the dollar bill, taking down the ten commandments in the judge's court, and trying to remove "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. It sickens me how they are doing all this under the guise of "Separation of Church and State". There is a difference between religion and the Church. These people are not advocating for a seperation of Church and State, they are advocating for a removal of all religion, in other words, they are advocating their own beliefs, atheism.

When you classify different religions, Atheism is a religion. Much like Black is a color, coldness can be felt, and darkness can be seen, atheism is a religion, or rather an absence of, which is in of itself a belief. Therefore, if you choose not to mention any religion at all, it's simply removing religion and replacing it with atheism, which is just as much of a "Church" as having religion is. It is no better, and therefore we should leave it up to individuals' choice. The people chose to put "In God we Trust" on the dollar bill, the judge chose to put the 10 commandments up (although that was specifically Judeo/Christian), and people choose to be religious. Atheism is no more government friendly than Christianity is, because that would also be in violation of the Constitution as well, punishing those with Christian beliefs. While religion itself is in the majority and Atheists need to learn to accept it.

The other thing I can't stand is the betterness felt by Atheists. All of the ones I've talked to seem to think that religion is evil, morrally irreprehensible, and just plain wrong. They cite examples of the various Church's who have incited wars such as the Crusades or Louis XIV. However, they fail to mention the people helped all over the world in the name of religion: the slaves given the day to rest (Sunday) instead of a seven day work week, the missions providing relief to people across the globe, not to mention the individual acts that were inspired by people's religious beliefs. Finally, it's scientifically proven that religious people commit less crimes and do less wrong than nonbelievers.

I'd also like to make the point that, with all the finger pointing at religion, I don't believe truly religous people do acts that they consider to be evil. That is, as Bush says, the terrorists are not very religious people, they just do it under the guise of religion. Similarly, many other executions and attacks were justified by, but not executed for, religion. Truly religious people are almost always kind hearted and caring for other people. This is not to say that all atheists are evil people who wish to cause harm, I'm just claiming that religion is generally a beneficial thing for mankind.

So Atheists, as you expect others to accept your beliefs, please accept theirs.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.

Abortion

Murder.

That’s what I think of when I hear pro-choice. How come death in the news is so tragic, but when it comes to killing babies, it’s the choice of the mother? I guess the liberal argument is that a baby in a woman’s womb is not a life yet. In my opinion, that just seems like rationalizing an immoral act. Even if it isn’t fully developed, it is still a human. A toddler is a human, and it’s not fully developed.

One argument I’ve heard that supports this is that a baby in the womb cannot survive on without the mother. Babies outside of the womb can’t survive alone either. Even some old people can’t survive on their own, occasionally, they need tubes going into their bodies to feed them and keep them alive. Are they not humans too?

One of the only good things about having the Scott Peterson trail on TV 24-7 is that the verdict accepts the fact that an unborn child is a human. You can't convict him of murdering his son if it really isn't a son.

Whether you agree or disagree with me, I would like comments on this post, it would be nice to see where other people are coming from, especially on this topic.

Fighting for truth, justice, and the capitalistic way

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Social Security Reform

I kind of have mixed feelings about Social Security, but I do know one thing, the current system does not work. There are many who would say that it will only go bankrupt by 2042, so we can still keep the same system, but it is just not going to work if we are forced to put other amounts of our money into such a project.

The major reason for the decline of Social Security is it is based on an expanding population scenario. In other words it's based on more people paying than are receiving. This problem will not correct itself over time, it is only going to get worse. There are several reasons why it is going to get worse, 1) that population increases in other similar countries have declined or started to go negative and 2) increases in medicine have lengthened the age of recibients so that they are receiving such a bonus for a long time. This means that a fix is needed, however, there are only 2 solutions that I believe are Satisfactory.

The first is what Bush is proposing, everyone donates money to a private Social Security fund that will then give them money back, their own money back, when they reach a certain age. This means that each person pays for their own Social Security, and what they put in is what they get out, also each person, just by working, will receive payments that will aid them in their senior years. The biggest arguments I against this are twofold, 1) that for poor people who don't receive much money anyway they will also not have any retirement funds, and 2) that stock market crashes will destroy some people's retirment funds.

The 1st point is very legit and I believe the best answer to it is to have a hybrid system where people pay a very small amount of taxes to ensure a minimum annuities payment on their investments, provided they are already receiving a good amount from their own pocket. And on the 2nd point it doesn't really matter because the stock market always increases over time and because people will be cashing their investments over time it will not adversly effect them very much.

The other option is to eliminate Social Security entirely and just tell people they should invest their own money for when they get older. The only reasons against this are that some people are dumb and won't save their money, which is a nonsensical argument because people could throw away all kinds of money, and that again, poor people will have a lot of trouble getting enough money to retire. Again, their are only two solutions to the less fortunate, and only one of which would ever be accepted. The one that would be extremely unpopular would leave them to their own devices and tell them that they shouldn't do things that they can't afford because there are almost always jobs that will support a single or double person household. Also these people would then advance through their jobs at a reasonable rate and will be able to retire provided they don't do anything they can't afford. This is seen as quite heartless, however, and will always be rejected. The other option is to open more money from the government for supporting these people in their later years, which I can see the need for, but also detest greatly.

After looking at all of these effects, I believe that privitizing Social Security is the best option with the best solvency, and I am sure that it will lead to a working system where people can support themselves rather than relying on several younger people's taxes to do it.

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.

Charlie Daniels

I love Charlie Daniels. I found this today thanks to 2 Slick

"We have two fights on our hands, the war against terror and the one against the loudmouthed lawyers and left wing media who would sap the strength from the American public by making us believe that we’re losing the war or doing something wrong in fighting it."

That's becoming a more common opinion everyday.

Fighting for truth, justice, and the capitalistic way

Soldiers on Rumsfeld

Do you think that Donald Rumsfeld has done a horrible job with this war? The soldiers apperently don't, they love him. If you don't believe me, read this e-mail from a First Sergent in Iraq:

"There are over 12,000 troops on our base. Only 2,000 or so had the opportunity to attend the gathering (Donald Rumsfeld coming to their base) and I can tell you, those were hotly contested seats.
Not as the media would have you believe, so we could voice our displeasure, but rather to have the opportunity to see and hearthe man we admire."

Pretty amazing, considering all of the negative reporting he gets.

Fighting for truth, justice and the capitalistic way

Saturday, December 25, 2004

Merry Christmas!

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Washington Governors Race

Finally the governors election in Washington is "over". Sadly, the democrat, Christine Gregoire, has won. But, to me, it seems a bit fishy that they just keep "finding" new ballots. Maybe that is just because I would rather have the Republican, Dino Rossi, win. Apparently, the newly discovered ballots had some problem with the voters' signatures, so the were rejected and forgotten. Why are they now being accepted without being thouroughly investigated. The Republicans are calling for additional investigation on these suspicious ballots. They say the race isn't over yet.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Straight From Iraq

Read this moving post from a Army Chaplain in Iraq.

If you're not with us, you're against us

We Are In A War

We are in a war.

When I hear some Elite utter a despairing comment about the war, I cringe. We need to show hope about this war. Even if it looks bleak with all of the increased attacks, we need to ride this out with optimism. If, for you, the only way you can think this is by doing it for all the brave soldiers that have given their life for yours and so many others, so be it. By saying that there is no hope, that person is only denigrating all of the precious work that the troops do. Abraham Lincoln even said this way back on November 19, 1863 when he gave the Gettysburg Address:

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain."

Next time you think of denigrating our troop's efforts think of what it does to their moral every time they hear these negative remarks. Remember, we are in a war.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Monday, December 20, 2004

Annan or the U.N.

One of these has to go, Annan or the U.N. Not only is it a failed organization, but it's leader has failed the world. In this post I will make the case against Kofi Annan, without mentioning the Oil for Food scandal.

10 years ago, there was a genocide taking place in Rwanda. At that time, Kofi Annan was in charge of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations and he did nothing to stop this genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus. The U.N. Peacekeeping troops were already in Rwanda, but instead of ordering the troops to protect Tutsis from mass murder, Annan decided to remove many of the troops that were there. The U.N.'s force commander in Rwanda, Gen. Romeo Dallaire, sent Annan faxes that described the horrible situation. Once, he said, "could kill up to 1,000 Tutsis in 20 minutes" talking about the Hutu militia.

Annan did almost the same thing in Bosnia where the men were taken from the women and were never seen again.

This isn't something you can just look over, this is a serious act that aided the slaughter of many men and women. In one column, published in today's Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, the author, Kenneth Cain, writes of his first hand account with a Rwandan Genocide Survivor:

Rwandans still seethe. Last month I went to a tiny, remote village, deep in the central Rwandan hills to meet Charles Kagenza, a famous Tutsi survivor who hid in the bell tower of a church full of Tutsis that was bulldozed to the ground, burying victims alive. When I told him I worked for the U.N. 10 years ago, just after the war, he looked me straight in the eye, with his one remaining good eye, and shot back, "What are you doing here? You had the capacity to save us but you abandoned us."

Kofi must go.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Sunday, December 19, 2004

The Next Election

The media is already getting antsy for the next Presidential Election. They have been ever since Bush won. They are so disapointed that Bush won; the front page of the MSNBC website has a link titled, "Who’s next: the names you’ll be hearing in 2005". And guess all of the names it covers: Barack Obama, Barak Obama and, oh, Barak Obama. The entire article was very positive, it contained nothing negative relating to him, all this was doing was promoting somone who just happened to be a Democrat. The title is, "'The Audacity of Hope' Barack Obama: The Dems' freshest face has a new challenge: to help his party relocate its moral core. Meet him—and nine others who will shape our world." This article reeks of Bias, and it never covers the "nine others" (or maybe it did, I just might have zoned out while reading this very long and boring article).

The media refuses to cover anything positive about The Bush Administration, and don't say that's because there isn't any, cause there is, but they will write a HUGE article on how great Barack Obama is. The left wing media cannot believe that Bush retook the white house, so they have to look to the next election for "Hope."

If you're not with us, you're against us

Friday, December 17, 2004

What Iraq Was Really Like

Do you think that Iraq is worse off now that we liberated them? Think again; this article on Townhall by Jeff Jacoby tells of what it was really like.

"a young Kurdish mother tells her daughter, who is wielding the camcorder, how she would burn herself with cigarettes to prepare for the torture she knew was coming."..."One man explains that Saddam's son Uday "'used to come often to Ravad Street -- every Thursday for the market -- to choose a girl to rape.'"

He also explains some of the other frequent tortures that Saddam instigated. This is an informative article that should be read if you think the U.S. isn't looking out for Humanitarian aid.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Monday, December 13, 2004

Scissors

Apperently, not being able to teach the Declaration of Independence isn't ridiculous enough for the public education system anymore: now a having a pair of scissors in school can get you sent to jail.

A ten year old girl was handcuffed and brought to the Police Department in Philidelphia. No other henious act than taking a pair of the teachers 8 inch scissors would have a ten year old girl cuffed and sent to a Philly Police Department. That's just absurd, she didn't threaten anyone and didn't show any signs to do so. The scissors were considered a potential weapon, that was the school districts reasoning for calling the police. As Michael Reagan asserted today on his Radio Show, almost anything can be classified as a potential weapon, next time you're teacher hands you a pencil, realize they are handing you a "potential weapon."

"'My daughter cried and cried,' Rose Jackson earlier told a Philadelphia newspaper. 'She had no idea what she did was wrong. I think that was way too harsh.'" The article I have linked above explains has this and the whole story

Usually I'm on the side of the police, but they should have refused to take this innocent young girl. There was no basis for her arrest; I have a sharp pen or pencil all the time in school.

"It also was 'a waste of vital law enforcement resources,' the statement said."

This is all very silly.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Why Liberals are wrong about Iraq: Part 2

Now I will be addressing some lesser heard reasons on why it was wrong to go to Iraq. Let's begin with:

"1000 American Soldiers have been killed." - Despite popular opinion, having casualties does not necessarily mean you're doing a bad thing. I believe that these brave Americans sacrificed their lives to save other future ones, as well as millions of innocent Iraqi and Israeli citizens whom could've been attacked by the terrorists that are now killing our soldiers. Furthermore, 1000 deaths is not that many when you compare it to the amount of good that will come to Iraq should a future democracy arise and become stable.

"Saudi Arabia was the country most responsible for 9/11." - This argument is bullshit for many reasons. 1) Saudi Arabia, as in the state itself, was not supporting terrorism. 2) Attacking would've massively destabilized the US econonmy. 3) The terrorists were trained in Afghanistan, not in Saudi Arabia. 4) They've been one of the most cooperative governments. 5) They hunt down on terrorists in their country. 6) Just because the terrorists are from there, does not mean that it was because of Saudi Arabia that 9/11 occurred.

"It increased the deficit by 200 billion dollars or more." - I really hate people who seem to think that deficit spending is inherently very bad. Deficit spending has never empirically caused the economy to lower, although the large deficit is having one bad problem which is the lower value of the dollar, I believe that eventually Iraq will lead to a stabler Middle East. Furthermore, if we cut our spending on special interest groups, which, I admit, will probably never happen, it would allow us to bring the deficit to par. Finally, a lower dollar will have positive effects until it gets too extreme or our economy has stabilized by making foreign investors come to America.

Next post I will mainly cover the reasons for going to war.

What is going on in Jimmy Carter's head?

I have no idea what is going on in his head. When he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews he was talking about the "parallels" of the Iraq War to the Revolutionary War.

"Well one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war, up until recently, has been the most bloody war we've fought."

And that's a parallel? In Iraq, we've just passed the 1200 mark of U.S. soldiers killed. I wouldn't call that one of our most bloody wars in history. Either way, I don't think that the Revolutionary War was our most bloody war: wasn't the Civil war our most bloody war, because we were fighting ourselves.

"I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided, it was an unnecessary war."... "And of course now we would have been a free country now as Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way."

That is absurd! Here are the facts listed against this claim as cited in News Max Magazine:

"Canada did not begin to gain independence until 1867. Australia did not receive partial independence as a commonwealth until 1901. India did not gain independence until 1947, and all those Indians who were killed by the British would hardly describe there deaths as 'nonviolent.'"

I'm going to have to stop writing to avoid calling Jimmy Carter some explicit names.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Thursday, December 09, 2004

The Red Cross

I don't understand this citizen of the world junk. Yes, I live in the world, but I am a citizen of the United States of America, not a citizen of the world. This all has to do with the Red Cross accusing the U.S. of torturing prisoners in Guantanamo. Apparently the Red Cross can no longer decipher the good guys from the bad guys.

"...an explosive charge by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that the United States has employed interrogation methods that are "tantamount to torture" against foreign enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The weaseling use of tantamount to is no accident. It is meant to blur significant definitional lines — all the easier to force on the United States the ICRC's utopian vision of "binding" international law, and end-run the actually binding laws that the American people, through their own constitution, have enacted in pursuit of their own security."

This is a great article from National Review Online that explains the whole Red Cross BS.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Communist News Network (CNN)

On the CNN's website, they have an anti-U.S. Military article as the first link on their homepage. It is a horribly biased article and it really depresses me.

First of all the title is, "Report: CIA chief paints bleak picture in Iraq." Now when you read that, doesn't it sound like the head of the CIA says the situation in Iraq is bad? But later in the article, they go on to say that this "Chief" is just a small "Station Chief" in Iraq. Then they say, "The station chief cannot be identified because he is still working undercover," This is suicide for the credibility of the article. Never, ever rely on an article whose source "cannot be identified," no matter what the article is on.

Toward the end of the article, they revealed that "U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte dissented on one point and argued that coalition forces have made greater progress against insurgents than the station chief conveyed." I would definitely take this guy's word over the word of some unidentified weirdo.

Why doesn't the Communist News Network ever comment on how well it is going, because it isn't going that badly. All the soldiers that have written or said anything about Iraq convey that it's going rather well. At least all of the soldiers that I have seen or heard.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Monday, December 06, 2004

Clarification

I have to apologize. I wrote that pork bill post when I was in a state of incredible flabergastation. I didn't understand why anyone would want to pass that bill. The truth is, I have no idea what is in that bill other than what that article said, there could be some really great things in there that I haven't even heard about. But I still stand strong with my conviction that we don't need any more unnecessary spending.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Why Liberals are wrong about Iraq Part: 1

I think I've found several good examples with which to compare the war in Iraq to. These are great arguing points for the attack into Iraq, which, although not for National Security, was justified by every means possible.

I would like to make an addressment of arguments against going to Iraq, so that I can prove my train of thought point by point.

"Bush is just going there because he's an oil texan fiend." - This is the most common one I hear from liberals whom I'm discussing the war in Iraq. There are about a million reasons this is not correct. 1) We would've just lifted the sanctions off of Iraq, France and Russia were already doing the same 2) We would not be planning on handing the nation back to the Iraqi's 3) We just would've encouraged private companies to go to Iraq and again lift the embargo. 4) If we really wanted oil, Saudi Arabia is a much better target. 5) We know that attacking a country will only have destabilizing effects on the oil production. 6) There are many better areas for better oil, such as Nigeria or the Alaskan oil wells.

"Bush wants to follow his father and complete his job." - This one is hardly worth addressing. 1) Bush is not a dumbass, he did go to Yale. 2) His father chose to stop before taking over Iraq. 3) Bush would not undermine an election just to follow his father.

"Killed innocent Iraqi's/it's destabilizing the country." - This is the argument with the most merit. I will not list points but it is useful to point out how many millions of Iraqis, Iranis, and Kurds were killed by Sudam Hussein. Also, we're only saving lives caused by possible attacks and WMD use in the future. He also loved to torture people, as did his sons, who presumably would've taken control of Iraq should their father fall to age. Uday in particular was pretty nasty, his favorite torture involved holding people's feet up and hitting them with bats for long periods of time, not fun. The fact is no matter how unstable it is now, it is eventually, and most likely in the next decade or so, going to be a very good democracy that will prosper.

"Building a democracy is impossible in an area like Iraq." - This is another compelling, yet flawed, argument. For instance, that's like saying we should not have instituted a democracy in Japan, which had NEVER had one, Russia, which again never had one and was a Communist Totalitarian government for 80 years, and Germany, where a democratic nation had just turned into an angry dictatorship. The fact is, even a flawed democracy, much like modern day Russia, will be 100 times better than the previous rule by fear doctrine. It's worth noting the Sudam Hussein studied a lot about Stalin and liked him quite a bit, and was willing to kill millions of his own people as Stalin did in order to keep power.

These are the most common areas from which I hear arguments against the Iraqi war. Soon I will write a follow up post with more analysis of other arguments against it and explaining the arguments in favor of the war. There are other good points against it like 1000 Americans killed, a large 140 Billion dollar flood into our deficit, and the fact that it almost got Kerry elected (the worst one of all!).

Take it or leave it, these are my beliefs.


Saturday, December 04, 2004

President Bush

If you have read some of my posts, you will notice that I am of the mindset that Ronald Wilson Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of all time.

I also think that President Bush is a determined, strong-willed President. I respect him very much, and I don't respect too many politicians. I think that he has the potential of becoming the next Ronald Reagan. He has the right beliefs, the right congress, and the right dilemma.

In his first term, he waged a confident War on Terror, and he continues to fight it. Terrorism could be a much harder war to fight than the Cold War. My reasoning is that terrorist don't come from one country, and they don't follow any rules. If The President ends his second term strong he will be remembered as a successful president.

The U.S. military has done a stupendous job in Fallujah, and now is doing a great job with Operation Plymouth Rock. President Bush needs to use his "Political Capital" to crack down on taxes, spending, the borders and terrorism.

Sadly, I don't think that he will reach the level of Ronald Reagan, but the potential is there. Keep him in your minds and prayers; we can only hope he does as good of a job as Reagan did on everything including domestic situations.

If you're not with us, you're against us

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Pork Bill

So how about this pork Bill? From what I see, it sounds like one of the stupidest Bills ever created. An article from Fox News writes,

"Among the special projects taxpayers paid for this year are a $25,000 study of Mariachi music in Las Vegas and an $80,000 hangout in San Diego for gays, lesbian, bisexuals and transgenders. Another $100,000 went to a Punxatawney Phil museum in Pennsylvania and $175,000 was assigned for a therapeutic center for horses. Alaska fishermen were given $3 million to help them sell seafood."

I don't understand why someone would want this Bill even if we weren't in a time of war and major deficit. It will probably pass because it is a bipartisan Bill, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ted Stevens, said, "This is a bipartisan bill. I don't think there is a senator in this chamber who cannot or has not claimed credit for at least one bill,"

I really hope that President Bush vetoes this bill if it gets to him.

If you're not with us, you're against us

My Ecosystem Details