To all homosexuals who want to get married, I have an idea on how to make conservative Christians of minimalist government persuasions and homosexuals quite happy.
Let's strike a bargain to suit common needs. We both hate the government telling us what is best for us. The problem is, homosexuals feel the need to embrace the entire progressive thought process over the single issue of gay marriage. Christian conservatives simply do not want the government telling them a lifestyle totally against their religion should be accepted against their will.
Marriage is a religious institution before God going back a very long time. Gays, you got to respect this. However, most of us traditionalist do not care what you do on your off time as long as you do not expect us to change our beliefs to accommodate yours. If you want to start your own church for your religious beliefs, feel free. We'll stick to what we believe about God as well.
As for the government, well we have a common enemy.
Therefore, end government recognition of marital status. Leave recognition and records of marriages up to religious institutions. Couple that with the elimination of the federal income tax, and there is no marital deduction to fight over as there is no income tax in the first place.
The gay marriage debate is a needless and false confrontation between citizens who have the same feelings toward the government from two different viewpoints. The real problem is statist government, per usual. So the invitation is open, I welcome all takers.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Is There a Compassionate Left?
It's an honest question. I mean we all know the stereotype of the general left is to care about the world, show empathy as President Obama put it, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
That is, until you understand the motives.
To know if a person, group, or party genuinely feels for another being is beyond the reach of my knowledge. I have to rely on their actions to pass my judgment as I hope you the dear reader makes a habit of doing as well.
Agreed? Good lets proceed.
Remember how upset the activist were at the most recent Bush administration's inaction over Sudan. It appeared as though Iraq was worth liberating since it had oil and strategic importance for the American Middle East strategy, but poor Sudan had neither the oil or the political value. It just had genocide of Christians. So the heartless Republicans ignored the helpless and only gave freedom to those who would benefit the US financially.
So....where is the outrage over Sudan now? I mean, shouldn't Obama do something about that? It certainly isn't getting any better. Would it not fall in line with his view that America is better off gaining the approval of the world rather than acting in its own self-interest?
Don't hear much from the ONE campaign lately either.
Let's remember who's watch Rwanda happened under. Oh yeah, Clinton who "felt our pain". Except Black Hawk Down made him nervous about sending in troops anymore and political coverage was more important than saving millions from machetes.
Sudan suffers because it is Christians being persecuted by the Muslim government, and it wouldn't be cool for the US to support Christians over Muslims on the world stage. That's why it continues. As for Rwanda, nobody cares about Africa when it counts. Sure the West will throw some aid money at it, but until free, stable capitalist based governments are the norm, it will remain the Dark Continent.
Heck we had the French help us out during our Revolution...oh yeah Britain was their sworn enemy....hmmm strategic value or compassion?
Politicians may say they care about all people, but sometimes it takes more than aid or gestures to solve a problem.
It takes courage.
That is, until you understand the motives.
To know if a person, group, or party genuinely feels for another being is beyond the reach of my knowledge. I have to rely on their actions to pass my judgment as I hope you the dear reader makes a habit of doing as well.
Agreed? Good lets proceed.
Remember how upset the activist were at the most recent Bush administration's inaction over Sudan. It appeared as though Iraq was worth liberating since it had oil and strategic importance for the American Middle East strategy, but poor Sudan had neither the oil or the political value. It just had genocide of Christians. So the heartless Republicans ignored the helpless and only gave freedom to those who would benefit the US financially.
So....where is the outrage over Sudan now? I mean, shouldn't Obama do something about that? It certainly isn't getting any better. Would it not fall in line with his view that America is better off gaining the approval of the world rather than acting in its own self-interest?
Don't hear much from the ONE campaign lately either.
Let's remember who's watch Rwanda happened under. Oh yeah, Clinton who "felt our pain". Except Black Hawk Down made him nervous about sending in troops anymore and political coverage was more important than saving millions from machetes.
Sudan suffers because it is Christians being persecuted by the Muslim government, and it wouldn't be cool for the US to support Christians over Muslims on the world stage. That's why it continues. As for Rwanda, nobody cares about Africa when it counts. Sure the West will throw some aid money at it, but until free, stable capitalist based governments are the norm, it will remain the Dark Continent.
Heck we had the French help us out during our Revolution...oh yeah Britain was their sworn enemy....hmmm strategic value or compassion?
Politicians may say they care about all people, but sometimes it takes more than aid or gestures to solve a problem.
It takes courage.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
There is nothing "good" about Democracy.
Yes,
thats right,
I just killed the sacred cow of Western civilization. Ever since President Wilson's vision of a more moral world order, American and generally Western Civilization has preached the gospel of free and fair elections. American sympathy for democracy movements in general can be found much further back concerning the French Revolution until the frenchies got a little too carried away with rolling heads. Now, it it certainly true concentration of power in the hands of some dictator or top-heavy governmental system is not the way to go unless you always hated the nagging responsibilities of free will does not change the fact that 100 million people can be just as wrong and dangerous as 1 really powerful one. For example, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election to a second glorious term. No doubt, there were probably plenty of voter fraud in one form or another but regardless many millions of Iranians thought he'd done a commendable job since 2005. Or look north to Iran's benefactor Russia, or there's Venezuela and almost all of Central America, western Europe, or even the US the past century or so. All are examples of voters willing to give away some portion of their power in exchange for state sponsored goody bags. It is quite common for humans to freely vote away their freedom when they find no value for it in their daily lives. Material gifts, feelings of national pride, empathy are all much more valuable to many of us to a degree than having absolute control of our lives.
Man is flawed. There is no other explanation. We are not striving towards perfection, we are skipping into oblivion where comfort and ease trumps all. The people are dangerous, as is the state. The founders knew this very well that the danger to society comes from the top and the bottom, thus an elaborate yet simple system of checks and balances was built into USA 1.0. Only a people that practice basic morality like self-sacrifice towards their neighbor(not government cohered wealth redistribution) can operate the levels of power effectively. It cannot be forced by the state upon the people, it must be taught at the family level freely and gladly. Will such notions prevail?
Don't hold your breath.
thats right,
I just killed the sacred cow of Western civilization. Ever since President Wilson's vision of a more moral world order, American and generally Western Civilization has preached the gospel of free and fair elections. American sympathy for democracy movements in general can be found much further back concerning the French Revolution until the frenchies got a little too carried away with rolling heads. Now, it it certainly true concentration of power in the hands of some dictator or top-heavy governmental system is not the way to go unless you always hated the nagging responsibilities of free will does not change the fact that 100 million people can be just as wrong and dangerous as 1 really powerful one. For example, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election to a second glorious term. No doubt, there were probably plenty of voter fraud in one form or another but regardless many millions of Iranians thought he'd done a commendable job since 2005. Or look north to Iran's benefactor Russia, or there's Venezuela and almost all of Central America, western Europe, or even the US the past century or so. All are examples of voters willing to give away some portion of their power in exchange for state sponsored goody bags. It is quite common for humans to freely vote away their freedom when they find no value for it in their daily lives. Material gifts, feelings of national pride, empathy are all much more valuable to many of us to a degree than having absolute control of our lives.
Man is flawed. There is no other explanation. We are not striving towards perfection, we are skipping into oblivion where comfort and ease trumps all. The people are dangerous, as is the state. The founders knew this very well that the danger to society comes from the top and the bottom, thus an elaborate yet simple system of checks and balances was built into USA 1.0. Only a people that practice basic morality like self-sacrifice towards their neighbor(not government cohered wealth redistribution) can operate the levels of power effectively. It cannot be forced by the state upon the people, it must be taught at the family level freely and gladly. Will such notions prevail?
Don't hold your breath.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
While I was away...
First and foremost I do apologize for the silence. As you the reader well knows, I have not posted in several months now due to scholastic distractions, logistical interference, and general laziness.
It ends now.
I will try to write more like a "blogger" than columnist as is my habit and thus have shorter, but more frequent posts in the future to change the scenery. However, do not expect me to dwell on trivial subjects as so often is the content of a "blog". Registered Heresy strives to be aggressive, confrontational, and thought-provoking, not absent minded nothingness.
Instead of dwelling on the dull drums of today's headlines which aren't all that interesting unless your drooling over the prospect of a Fiat/Chrysler compact econo-can, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the best way to at least reduce the influence of federal power in the smallest level of governance, your personal life. First off let us ask why the Federal level is so powerfully(or at least powerfully in debt). I mean, why do states care what the feds say anyway? Minus an invasion from a foreign power or another state sending its guard to fight a neighboring state, the feds should in theory not be that important. However, state governments and then county governments rely heavily on the federal printing press to provide all those pressing social services to their citizenry. How to stop this?
END THE DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL
Now, how to do this? What would make citizens realize the true cost of government in their personal lives? Make them directly pay it. End income tax withdrawals from paychecks so reality burns hot as hell in April. When the true cost is made apparent, the demand will shrink naturally. The invisible hand of Smith's will reveal the invisible fist of statist policy. Once most state legislatures are populated with politicians who are committed to ending federal money flow, they will then be able to cut off state tax revenues to the federal level. Why pay taxes when you have no need for the services? This will destroy the federal level's ability to determine domestic policy from DC, and let it be determined from the kitchen table as intended.
Next, end artificial inflation by reverting back to the gold standard and suspending all federal spending until the national debt is under 1% of GDP. It is fine with me if you wish to increase spending, but only if you balance your checkbook and pay off each generations debt's before the next takes over.
Third, term limits for Congress, and no salary, only provide room and board. If a senator cannot accomplish what he sets out to do in 6 years, he's not much of a senator. Representatives can serve 3 terms as they have more frequent elections, but 6 years is plenty. I'd also consider changing the Presidential term to 6 years with one term, but I am open to debate on that idea.
These are only a starting point, focusing mainly on domestic agenda. I will have to save foreign policy for another post.
Remember, the government needs you more than you need it.
It ends now.
I will try to write more like a "blogger" than columnist as is my habit and thus have shorter, but more frequent posts in the future to change the scenery. However, do not expect me to dwell on trivial subjects as so often is the content of a "blog". Registered Heresy strives to be aggressive, confrontational, and thought-provoking, not absent minded nothingness.
Instead of dwelling on the dull drums of today's headlines which aren't all that interesting unless your drooling over the prospect of a Fiat/Chrysler compact econo-can, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the best way to at least reduce the influence of federal power in the smallest level of governance, your personal life. First off let us ask why the Federal level is so powerfully(or at least powerfully in debt). I mean, why do states care what the feds say anyway? Minus an invasion from a foreign power or another state sending its guard to fight a neighboring state, the feds should in theory not be that important. However, state governments and then county governments rely heavily on the federal printing press to provide all those pressing social services to their citizenry. How to stop this?
END THE DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL
Now, how to do this? What would make citizens realize the true cost of government in their personal lives? Make them directly pay it. End income tax withdrawals from paychecks so reality burns hot as hell in April. When the true cost is made apparent, the demand will shrink naturally. The invisible hand of Smith's will reveal the invisible fist of statist policy. Once most state legislatures are populated with politicians who are committed to ending federal money flow, they will then be able to cut off state tax revenues to the federal level. Why pay taxes when you have no need for the services? This will destroy the federal level's ability to determine domestic policy from DC, and let it be determined from the kitchen table as intended.
Next, end artificial inflation by reverting back to the gold standard and suspending all federal spending until the national debt is under 1% of GDP. It is fine with me if you wish to increase spending, but only if you balance your checkbook and pay off each generations debt's before the next takes over.
Third, term limits for Congress, and no salary, only provide room and board. If a senator cannot accomplish what he sets out to do in 6 years, he's not much of a senator. Representatives can serve 3 terms as they have more frequent elections, but 6 years is plenty. I'd also consider changing the Presidential term to 6 years with one term, but I am open to debate on that idea.
These are only a starting point, focusing mainly on domestic agenda. I will have to save foreign policy for another post.
Remember, the government needs you more than you need it.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Pork: The Other Pandemic Flu?
Admittedly, we've seen this movie before, only with feathers. I only hope this time next month we aren't all under quarantine, but this is a political commentary site so let's toss around what an actual pandemic means in a political sense, especially in a Statist administration and congress.
I certainly can sleep at ease knowing Janet Napolitano is on the job protecting us all from flu-carrying right wing extremist running about in the dark. Perhaps those crazy religious nuts who still believe in the "tired old ideas" like state's rights and balanced budgets created the super bug in their hatred of a black president, or perhaps it was those scary veterans coming back. The very idea of someone actually volunteering to fight for their country is certainly an unsettling thought, such a violent nature could very well want to harm all those they volunteered to protect.
In keeping with their promise to never waste a crisis, perhaps the Obama administration could use a pandemic to gain the needed support for universal healthcare, affordable healthcare, enthusiasia, whatever they're calling it these days. With only so much vaccine to go around, federal healthcare guidelines would help healthcare providers and patients know when they are past their usefulness to society, especially in pandemic crisis where the weak must make patriotic sacrifices for the rest of us.
If the Statist are really feeling giddy they could push for increased global cooperation to stop the pandemic. Sovereignty would only get in the way of handling the crisis. The world of course could not risk independent nations actually acting in their own self-interest ahead of the global community's needs. We would all need to look to a new world system of cooperation and unity and set aside any obstacales such as individual liberty or independence in order to save the collective human race.
The possibilities are endless. We can all only hope such a horrible crisis never comes to past, and I am sure all the Statist completely share my sentiments.
I certainly can sleep at ease knowing Janet Napolitano is on the job protecting us all from flu-carrying right wing extremist running about in the dark. Perhaps those crazy religious nuts who still believe in the "tired old ideas" like state's rights and balanced budgets created the super bug in their hatred of a black president, or perhaps it was those scary veterans coming back. The very idea of someone actually volunteering to fight for their country is certainly an unsettling thought, such a violent nature could very well want to harm all those they volunteered to protect.
In keeping with their promise to never waste a crisis, perhaps the Obama administration could use a pandemic to gain the needed support for universal healthcare, affordable healthcare, enthusiasia, whatever they're calling it these days. With only so much vaccine to go around, federal healthcare guidelines would help healthcare providers and patients know when they are past their usefulness to society, especially in pandemic crisis where the weak must make patriotic sacrifices for the rest of us.
If the Statist are really feeling giddy they could push for increased global cooperation to stop the pandemic. Sovereignty would only get in the way of handling the crisis. The world of course could not risk independent nations actually acting in their own self-interest ahead of the global community's needs. We would all need to look to a new world system of cooperation and unity and set aside any obstacales such as individual liberty or independence in order to save the collective human race.
The possibilities are endless. We can all only hope such a horrible crisis never comes to past, and I am sure all the Statist completely share my sentiments.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Political Pageantry: Dissent only flows in one direction
The ideology of tolerance is showing its impotence when asked to actually allow dissenting opinion. The culture wars leaked that into the Miss USA pageant highlight this fact of life. One has to wonder why ask a question in the first place if there is only one answer that will not deduct points from your score...could it possibly be an attempt to garner buzz for the gay advocacy lobby? To the judge's disgust, what happened instead is a new cultural icon was created for the pro-marriage movement, and a very good looking one at that.
It serves them right. How arrogant and narrow minded to demand only one response to a charged question. And the defense of the judge's actions is well, she should have known what to say since several judges were gay or supportive of that particular viewpoint. So we want the winner not to say what they believe but be politically savvy enough to say what is necessary to get ahead?
I think this issue is deeper than the gay marriage sidetrack. It goes to women's rights. Women are now only allowed to claim achievement and success if they say what their bosses want to hear. There is no women's empowerment, only empowerment of what is politically correct according to our lords of tolerance. Miss California didn't deserve to win because she was a dumb bitch who was naive to say what was in her heart and soul and regurgitate the collectivist dogma the judges and all the vanity of Hollywood demanded.
The lords of tolerance obviously only allow us loyal subjects to hold views in line with their own. The answer to tyrnanny is therefore not tolerance, the death of such intellectual decay is only pure, unbridled liberty. This same attitude was on full display in the formally opposition left's dismay at having anyone demonstrate against their Statist policies for the citizenry's lives. There can only be protest against those deemed intolerant. There can only be freedom when tolerance is cast off, leaving only a free minds and honest hearts on full display.
It serves them right. How arrogant and narrow minded to demand only one response to a charged question. And the defense of the judge's actions is well, she should have known what to say since several judges were gay or supportive of that particular viewpoint. So we want the winner not to say what they believe but be politically savvy enough to say what is necessary to get ahead?
I think this issue is deeper than the gay marriage sidetrack. It goes to women's rights. Women are now only allowed to claim achievement and success if they say what their bosses want to hear. There is no women's empowerment, only empowerment of what is politically correct according to our lords of tolerance. Miss California didn't deserve to win because she was a dumb bitch who was naive to say what was in her heart and soul and regurgitate the collectivist dogma the judges and all the vanity of Hollywood demanded.
The lords of tolerance obviously only allow us loyal subjects to hold views in line with their own. The answer to tyrnanny is therefore not tolerance, the death of such intellectual decay is only pure, unbridled liberty. This same attitude was on full display in the formally opposition left's dismay at having anyone demonstrate against their Statist policies for the citizenry's lives. There can only be protest against those deemed intolerant. There can only be freedom when tolerance is cast off, leaving only a free minds and honest hearts on full display.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
What Iranian threat?
Today the Russian ambassador to the US made the statement that Iran was not a real threat to the United States, at least as far as he could see anytime in the near future. My first reaction upon hearing this was to chuckle and roll my eyes as this sounds like classic, quotable Russian doublespeak. However, after some thought I do believe the ambassador is right. There will be no Iranian troops in Florida anytime soon, and Iran is quite a ways away from being able to launch an ICBM all the way over to the East Coast. It would be quite easy to pass the Iranian situation off to the UN Security(or lack thereof) council. If Israel feels compelled to use military means to stop Iran, let them go for it. Even with a full-blown middle east war, American soil will not be in jeopardy. In fact, Mexican drug cartels pose a much greater threat as far as incursion on American soil goes.
But that's not the point.
Iran is a threat to United State's interests, not actual land. A hot war with Israel and probably other Islamic nations would no doubt draw in American troops in Iraq and even Afghanistan possibly.
The US could possibly lose priceless strategic leverage gained by placing a pro-American democracy right smack dab in the middle of the well, middle east. Even if war does not break out in the aftermath of a nuclear-armed and capable Iran, its power in the region will grow exponentially. Smaller sunshine Arab states that are currently mostly friendly towards the US and the west will be sucked into the new Iranian sphere of influence. Much of the area used to be under Persian control anyway, the changing of the guard could bring a historical sense of deja vu to the locals.
So the question remains, why did the Russian ambassador say such a thing? Why is Russia so reluctant to support the EU and US's clampdown on Iran at the UN? Why is Russia not willing to halt economic and militaristic support to Iran even as its elected (although admittedly puppet) President says anti-semantic things on a regular basis?
Because, my dear reader the only way Russia can grow its own influence is to diminish the United States. That is true in Eastern Europe, that is true in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Korean Peninsula. Russia is surrounded by an invisible fence of American interest and assets. Let us hope the new President choses not to let the bear out of its cage.
But that's not the point.
Iran is a threat to United State's interests, not actual land. A hot war with Israel and probably other Islamic nations would no doubt draw in American troops in Iraq and even Afghanistan possibly.
The US could possibly lose priceless strategic leverage gained by placing a pro-American democracy right smack dab in the middle of the well, middle east. Even if war does not break out in the aftermath of a nuclear-armed and capable Iran, its power in the region will grow exponentially. Smaller sunshine Arab states that are currently mostly friendly towards the US and the west will be sucked into the new Iranian sphere of influence. Much of the area used to be under Persian control anyway, the changing of the guard could bring a historical sense of deja vu to the locals.
So the question remains, why did the Russian ambassador say such a thing? Why is Russia so reluctant to support the EU and US's clampdown on Iran at the UN? Why is Russia not willing to halt economic and militaristic support to Iran even as its elected (although admittedly puppet) President says anti-semantic things on a regular basis?
Because, my dear reader the only way Russia can grow its own influence is to diminish the United States. That is true in Eastern Europe, that is true in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Korean Peninsula. Russia is surrounded by an invisible fence of American interest and assets. Let us hope the new President choses not to let the bear out of its cage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
