About Me

Name:Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

We Can Throw Our Rotting Produce at Mexican Politicians

Illegal aliens are back in the news in a big way, and the racism card gets played yet again.  Let’s see… first up is a man who used to officially oversee the extremely corrupt government of Mexico, Vicente Fox, as reported by Diego A. Santos in the Associated Press.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said Monday that the United States is letting racism dictate its policies, especially when it comes to immigration.

The illegal alien invasion and immigration are to completely different topics.  Fox is talking about illegal aliens.

*The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race ... they are deciding the future of this nation," he said, without naming names, in an interview with The Associated Press.

Here is a guy who was in charge of a country that did everything it could to keep Guatemalans from entering his country illegally, and yet we’re not supposed to be able to control our border with Mexico?  Fox wants to control  the future of the U.S., apparently.  Sorry, Fox… while there may be millions of people living here who voted for you, citizens of the U.S. will control the future of the U.S., and we have every right to set our border control and immigration policies in a way that benefits us, not the illegal alien invaders.

In his first interview to promote his new book, "Revolution of Hope," Fox applauded President Bush's desire to pass an immigration accord that would allow more Mexicans to work legally in the U.S.

But he criticized Bush for failing to pass the promised reform.

See, that’s one of the big differences between the U.S. and Mexico.  Despite what the extremists here say, we are not controlled by a corrupt oligarchy that controls the Presidency.  The people can still exert control.  And we did.  Too bad for you!

"To be so repressive isn't democractic or free ... to be putting up fences, chasing Mexicans, that isn't right," Fox said. "The U.S. needs better answers than repression, weapons and violence."

THEN STOP SENDING YOUR POOR TO LIVE OFF OUR TAX DOLLARS AND STOP SENDING YOUR CRIMINALS, WHO CAN MURDER OUR POLICE OFFICERS AND THEN SCURRY BACK TO MEXICO TO AVOID THE DEATH PENALTY.

Oh, put Fox wasn’t the only one.  The current Mexican President also chimed in.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon criticized the planned U.S. border fence designed to stem illegal immigration, saying countries should be "building bridges, not fences" in an interview broadcast on Monday.

Yeah, that would be ideal, but you see, we have a country to protect and we also are tired of the tens of millions of your poor flooding into our country.

On ABC television's "Good Morning America," Calderon lauded President George W. Bush's failed attempt to get the U.S. Congress to approve comprehensive immigration reform, and said the way to stop illegal immigration is to build economic growth and opportunities in Mexico, not fences.

And that is supposed to be the U.S. government’s job?  NO!  It is your job to clean up the corruption in Mexico and allow your people the chance to make a better life in Mexico.

Asked about estimates that Mexicans in the United States illegally send home $20 billion to their families, Calderon said the exodus is not a boon to the Mexican economy because the country is losing ambitious young people.

Ha!  His people come here and get medical care and education and other taxpayer assistance, all while sending back money to Mexico, and he says it isn’t a boon?  What a crock.

He mentioned complaints by U.S. farmers that the crackdown on migrants meant they did not have enough workers to harvest their crops, and said "capital and labor are like right shoe and left shoe."

Yeah, we’re getting to that next.  A story on NBC11.com tries to scare everyone by saying that protecting our borders is killing the agriculture business.

Farmers in and around Northern California are starting to feel the pinch from tighter border security and visa requirements, NBC11's Daniel Garza reported Monday.

Some farmers told Garza they expect some of their fields to remain unpicked.

Some said they believe their fields will end up filled with rotting produce.

Oh well.  Maybe you should pay more to attract Americans or legal immigrants?

The Bush administration has learned of the possible loss of millions of dollars for thousands of farmers throughout the country, and is attempting to loosen visa requirements for workers.

However, farmers told Garza the attempt is "too little too late."

Somehow, I have failed to notice a decrease in illegal aliens.  The Spanish media is still doing great business, for example.

Experts expect the impact on agribusiness to affect Americans' pocketbooks, Garza said.

I’m willing to pay more for food as long as it means it will be tougher for terrorists to sneak into the country and there will be fewer illegal aliens clogging traffic, filling emergency rooms and schools, and on taxpayer assistance.

Working in the fields is a hard job that few will do, according to Pete Aiello of Uesugi Farms in Gilroy.

They will if you pay them more.

"The supply is going to be down," said Garcia. "Demand is going to be up. It's going to increase. It's going to increase a lot."

I can see prices going up, but how is demand going to be up if there isn’t a steady stream of new mouths to feed?

I’m willing to pay more if it means I’ll have fewer street gangs to deal with, or fewer illegal alien mobs attacking police officers and then suing when the police make them disperse.  How many millions of dollars do we pay out in legal costs to illegal aliens in those cases?  What about illegal aliens who clog our roads and crash into us and then flee, leaving the cost on our insurance companies?

Hmmm, I think higher food prices would be worth it.  Call me silly.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Columbus Day - An Immigration Reminder

I apologize for being so scarce over the last few days.  I decided to celebrate Columbus Day by discovering and appropriating an "Indian Gaming" casino.

If I remember my public school history right, Columbus sailed to the New World under a Spanish flag to spread the Secular Humanism  of which the Spanish Crown was fond ;-)

Let us be reminded of what happens to those who do not have a good immigration policy and decent enforcement.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Even More For the Children

It’s bad enough that Bush wanted to expand socialism in child health care, but the Leftists are accusing him of not caring abut the children due to his SCHIP veto.  Bush just isn’t a big enough spender for them.


Who doesn’t want children to have the health care they need?  Hillary, for example, has proposed giving every child born in America a $5,000 bond.  But children also have other needs, too.  So I propose the following national government programs for children:


Three Balanced Meals a Day

School Supplies

A Complete Wardrobe of Fashionable Clothes

Transportation (transit passes, or a personal car and driver)

Luxury Housing

Allowance and Funded Checking and Savings

Toys

Electronics (computers, home entertainment center, cell phones, etc.)

Media (books, music, DVDs, etc.)

Friends and Big Brothers & Sisters

Bedtime Readers

Pets

Monster Removers


If you oppose taxpayer funding and government administration for any of these, then you are simply a cold-hearted child hater.  These things are too important to be left to parents.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Worst GOP Frontrunner Is Better Than the Best Dem Frontrunner

Mitt.  Rudy. John. Fred.

While none of those is my ideal candidate for President, I would still vote for any of them over any of the major Democrat candidates.  Duncan Hunter probably matches my views most closely out of any of the candidates, and I am likely to vote for him if he is in our primary.  Or maybe Fred.

I have wondered if Hunter had the right experience, not having been a Senator or Governor.  Experience isn’t everything though.  If it was, George H. W. Bush would have been the best President ever.  But he wasn’t.  A lack of experience on the part of the President can be made up by making good selections for running mates and cabinet appointments.

Dubya wasn’t my candidate in the 2000 primaries, and sure enough, we can see that his spending and his softness and border security issues have been a problem.  He also has, at times, poorly defended his actions and poorly promoted conservative principles.

But I’m glad Dubya has been there instead of Gore or Kerry.

I wonder how many GOP voters will stay home in November 2008 because of problems they’ll have with the nominee?

Our voters should remember this: Sitting at home or voting for a third party candidate will allow the Democrat to win.

Our nominee should remember this: You can’t outpromise the Leftists when it comes to bribing the voters.  The Leftists will always promise more – more money for schools, less expensive and better health insurance, higher pay for your job.  It doesn’t matter that they either won’t (or can’t) deliver or will need to take the money from “the rich” and future generations.  Too many voters don’t think that far ahead, or don’t have long enough memories.  So, the “moderates” are more likely to swing the way of the candidate who is going to take from “the rich” and give to them, UNLESS they can see that the GOP candidate is much more competent leader, more solid and consistent, more presentable, and will be a better defender of America.  Moderates admire a true conservative, even when they do not agree with all of his views.  They will vote for a strong man who will defend America and not apologize for doing so.  Even Hillary knows that, which is why she is trying to portray herself that way.

Anyway, if we do nominate and then elect Mitt, Rudy, John, or Fred, we can expect some of the “problems” we already know about to come to the forefront, just like they did with Dubya.  Actually, Fred, if his website is to be believed, may be great.  But can he win?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jobs Going Overseas Can Be a Good Thing

And so can “downsizing”.

To be sure, if you made your living making a CD player that holds 200 discs and is designed for the trunk of a car, you were not happy about the advent of portable MP3 players.  But as a consumer, isn’t the technology more convenient?  Nobody likes to lose their job, but if you find a better job or start up a new business that brings you a better life, aren’t you better off?  If everyone always had it easy, there would be a lot of innovations and advancements and consumer choices that never would have come about.

As communications and transportation (shipping, travel) technologies and industries have advanced, it has made the world a smaller place.  Employers are going to build and keep facilities where they can find the best workforce for their needs; the most freedom to do what they want without interference from the government, organized criminals, or unions; and infrastructure supporting their operations, including transportation of materials.

And where is the best workforce going to be?  The best workforce is going to be where labor with the right qualities is most plentiful.  “Right qualities” may include certain physical abilities, skills, talents, knowledge/experience, creativity, ethics, and ability/willingness to follow directions.  These workers are likely to be found where they can have a decent quality of life, which means they need housing, relative safety from crime, etc.  This is why you don’t see a lot of companies clamoring to move into the gang-infested areas of Los Angeles, for example.  It is hard to get employees who live out of the area to commute in, and there may not be enough locals capable of performing the work needed.

World trade helps, even if we “lose” some jobs.

The more each part of the planet is making the most of its resources, the better it is for more people on the planet.  It does not help us if the rest of the world has no money.  If they have no money, they can’t buy our products and services, nor can they provide capital, nor can they travel here to spend their tourism money.

If they aren’t producing products we can buy, the people who are producing those products have less competition and don’t have as much pressure to keep their prices down.

But if you want your state or county or city from losing businesses, consider what policies are being enforced in that area.  Are they business friendly?  Is there adequate physical and utility infrastructures?  Is there too much regulation?  Are taxes too high?  Is crime too high?  Is there a decent workforce?  Is there access to supplies?  Is there easy access to markets?

If you are so bent on protecting every tree and every gnat and insisting that  having any job should mean that a person will have good health insurance, housing, education form them and their extended family, then you are likely to lose business and lose much of the tax base, and… jobs.

Make yourself desirable as an employee, and if one employer no longer has use for you, you'll have a better chance of landing a better position elsewhere.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Question For PETA

Why is it okay for other animals to hunt and eat each other but it isn’t okay for the animal known as human beings to hunt and eat other animals?

Many of you believe that there really isn't a clear line of distinction between humans and other animals, so why do you ask us to go vegetarian as a moral issue?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why People in LA Don’t Take Mass Transit

The Leftists love the idea of people taking mass public transit.  For one, they figure it is better for the environment.  Secondly, they like the idea of people being dependent on another public or quasi-public agency.  Finally, and perhaps more importantly, it means mingling with others of various backgrounds, thereby seeming to temporarily erase class distinctions.  The upper-middle class office professional is riding right next to the illegal alien who is going to clean someone’s house.  Cars are status symbols – symbols of independence and achievement, and therefore yucky.

I’ve already written about the greater Los Angeles area not having an adequate transportation system.

Matt Welch writes in today’s Los Angeles Times about his experiences in public transit.

Despite all the well-researched data reasonable people keep churning out, I've long been an enthusiast for publicly financed transit, particularly the least-flexible, most-expensive variety: digging billion-dollar tunnels under a famously sprawling and NIMBY-tastic county.
[snip]
So when I got my first L.A. office job in 2006, I leaned enthusiastically into my new daily commute — a 14-minute, 0.7-mile walk to the Red Line's Vermont/Sunset stop, followed by a leisurely and contemplative ride down the Observatory-themed station's bottomless escalators, then (after maybe a three-minute wait) onto the train for the 12-minute jag to Pershing Square, where I'd pip off one stop early so that I could breathe in the bustle of Broadway for half a mile before keeping the world safe for opinion journalism.

Average time, door to desk? A little less than 50 minutes. Which is fine, until you consider how far I actually live from work — five miles (or 10 minutes, according to Mapquest). Still, I got to read on the train ... except when there were no seats, which happened most every day. Also, catching a train back to Hollywood from the Civic Center station after 7 p.m. is a voodoo-inspiring exercise of waiting and hoping, with trains coming as infrequently as every 15 or 20 minutes - an experience made even more painful by the public art installation there, which consists of six humanoids flying overhead and blurting out irregular, eardrum-slicing chirp noises, libelously misdescribed on this website as "an occasional peaceful trill of a bird."

The piece is worth a read.

Automobiles will become more fuel efficient as technology advances, and there will be other changes over the years, but it is very hard to beat the personal automobile for transportation, even with the traffic snarls, the costs of driving, and the risks of driving.  Our personal automobiles can provide us with maximum customized comfort and sanitized conditions, personal security, and most of all – convenience.  It goes where we steer it.  We don’t have to walk to some designated location and wait for it to come to us (unless we've used a valet, but that it still faster).  And we don’t have to sit next to someone who makes us nervous.

The planet will just have to adapt.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If You Voted For Democrats in Congress

Did you vote them into office so that they could pass meaningless resolutions condemning entertainers?  Did you vote them into office to give them a bigger stage to criticize Bush’s Iraq policies but do nothing about them?  Did you vote them into office to pass bills they know will get vetoed?  Did you vote them into office to conduct numerous toothless investigations and politically-motivated hearings?  Did you vote them into office so that Nancy Pelosi could become the first female Speaker of the House and then lower herself to the bawdy and disrespectful sexual harassment by some of the women on “The View”?

How well is the Democrat Congress representing you?

I know what some of you Democrats are thinking.  “Some of these things are necessary to get the public to see why we need a Democrat President.”  Were things really that good when Clinton had a Democrat Congress?  You know, when we have that situation it becomes awfully hard for the Democrats to blame Republicans for problems.  But I guess if we do get a Democrat President and Congress, the partisans will be blaming all problems on past Republican control, talk radio, “special interests”, and Big Business.

In California, we had a Big Labor Democrat-controlled Governor, legislature, County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, City of L.A. Mayor, and City Council, and the union executives in Los Angeles were still claiming that they didn’t have enough control to get their members their “fare share”.  It is never enough.  They need more dues money for political campaigns.  It's like taxes.

Maybe, just maybe, personal success and happiness is something that is a personal responsibility, not something we should be relying on the government or a union (what amounts to an additional layer of government, complete with taxes) to bestow upon us?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prosperity Should Not Make Us Feel Guilty

Leftists and foreign panhandlers try to guilt U.S. citizens by complaining that we have so much of the world’s wealth, and we get the best of what the world grows and manufactures, while there are so many people in the world who don’t even have the basics needed for a healthy life.

Well, rather than just accepting that we should feel guilty for having it so good, let’s ask… how did things get this way?

Did we invade other countries, enslave their people, and take their resources as plunder?

There are three examples where people today say “yes” without getting laughed out of the room.

1. The European colonists invaded the territory of native peoples to form what became the U.S.
2. There was the slave trade that brought Africans to the area as slaves.
3. The U.S. expanded westward, taking over area previously controlled by Spain (and briefly, Mexico),

I’m not going to argue about what evils were perpetrated upon the American natives.  Michael Medved covered that recently.  But there wasn’t much international trading products that we appropriated from the natives, and there wasn’t a formalized structured country.  And yes, people in the U.S. engaged in the deplorable practice of buying people as slaves from African slave traders- and again, Michael Medved wrote about that recently.  Finally, not just wars (settled by treaties), but purchases expanded the U.S. to the west coast.  The last of these were finished up in the mid 1800s.  That is long before the U.S. became an international superpower.

In subsequent wars, our nation had the chance to permanently acquire many other lands, our at least plunder their resources.  But we didn’t.  On the contrary, we assisted in rebuilding the countries.

Our wealth as a nation is not the result of ill-gotten gain.  It is a result of several factors:

1. The brilliance and courage of our founding fathers for setting up nation of laws that promoted free market capitalism, self-reliance and upward mobility, a smooth transfer of power, and the protection of individual liberty.
2. A populace with a strong Judeo-Christian work ethic and morality.
3. These, in turn, attracted the adventurous, motivated, and inventive from around the world, who migrated to the land of the free, where they then sought the best ways to use…
4. Our natural resources (thank you, God!).
5. All of this was protected by a strong military.

We should not feel guilty about our wealth.  We have encouraged success by rewarding it.  We have produced products – especially media, software, and technology – that the world has clamored to buy.  Our companies have also expanded to bring industry, jobs, and a higher standard of living to developing countries.

The guilters would have us believe that we are taking more than our fair share of the pie, when actually we are making the pie bigger for everyone.  As long as the sun is shining, the pie can get bigger.

In addition, the citizens of the U.S. voluntarily send aid all over the world, and a good chunk of our tax money also goes to foreign aid.  We couldn’t send the money if we didn’t make it to begin with.

Should we be helping those kids starving in the muddy roads of distant places?  Yes, definitely.  The best way of helping them for the long term is exporting the best of our worldview to them, sans the undue guilt.  If a population group never moves beyond growing/hunting only enough food for themselves, they can’t contribute to the rest of the world and, at the same time, raise their own standard of living.  Maybe someone in that population group would be a better doctor, engineer, teacher, or composer than farmer or hunter.  Maybe there are natural resources there that can help people in other parts of the world get what they need or want.

Christianity, free market capitalism and limited government in the form or a republic are some of the best gifts we can share.

Enjoy America, and work to preserve what has made us great..

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I’m Wary of Changing California’s Electoral College Procedures

Recently, there has been a move by some Republicans to change the Presidential election system in California so that the Electoral College votes would be split to reflect the popular vote.  For example, if 65% of the voters voted for the Democrat and 35% for the Republican, the Democrat would only get 65% of California’s electoral votes.

The public relations reason for this move would be to “make every vote count”, claiming that all of the people who vote for less popular candidate in the state are voting for naught.

The real reason for this is because California, which as 55 electoral votes, is securely in the Democrat camp, thanks to the heavy population centers of Los Angeles and San Francisco being run by the huge government employee unions who always want bigger government and more money for government schools, reconquistadors who encourage illegal aliens to flood into the area and get public assistance, environmental alarmists who think a bigger government is the way to “protect” the planet, and the GLBT radicals who want bigger government to make sure everyone "agrees" it is normal to pretend to be the opposite sex or have a licensed wedding with either the bride or the groom missing.

It is tempting to want to go this route to assist GOP candidates, but my larger guiding loyalty is to the Constitution.  I believe it should be the states electing the President, as we are a union of states.  If a state, collectively, votes for a candidate, that candidate should get that state’s electoral votes. We have already changed the way we elect Senators to be akin to how we elect Representatives, when originally Senators were sent to D.C. to represent the state, not the people directly.  The checks and balances our founders implemented also kept a check that favored a republic over a brute democracy.

What is interesting, though, is watching the same Democrats who called for an end to the Electoral College after Bush defeated Gore in 2000 now defend it.  Republican and Democrat leaders who are consistent on the issue, as opposed to changing their stance to benefit a political party, are the ones who have my respect in this regard.

Having said all of that, I would be in favor of splitting up California.  Seriously.  San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the coastal counties between them could be one state, and the rest of the state could be a separate state, or be divided between Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona.

I know that will never happen, but that would be a better way for “re-enfranchising” the moderates, conservatives, and libertarians of California than doing something that moves us further towards mob rule.

However, if you have a valid argument for changing the existing California voting system, please let me know.  I have an open mind.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Student Called on the Carpet Loses PDA Case

Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times reports that certain actions that take place in the open in PUBLIC schools are public.  Imagine that!

Garden Grove school officials did not violate the rights of a lesbian high school student when they disciplined her for kissing and groping her girlfriend on campus or when they disclosed her sexual orientation to her mother, a federal judge has ruled.

The ruling, which came almost 10 months after the trial ended, found that Charlene Nguon was treated no differently from straight students.

Charlene Nguon?  Is Charlene Nguon a lesbian?  Shhhh… don’t tell anyone.  She wanted to keep that so private that after she made out in a public place with another girl, she filed a lawsuit.  Shhhhh.

Walsh said the district planned to file a motion with the court this month seeking repayment of nearly $400,000 in legal fees from the plaintiffs.

"The judge sends a pretty clear message: They had their day in court and they couldn't prove any of their claims," he said.

Nguon's attorneys vowed to appeal.

"There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that their despicable treatment of her was totally caused by their dislike of her sexual orientation," attorney Dan Stormer said.

Uh, no – not when any other student would be treated the same.  And since when is stopping a make-out session in a public school and telling the guardian what was going on "despicable"?

In his ruling, Selna wrote that heterosexual couples also were disciplined for inappropriate public displays of affection, and that Nguon was not singled out. He did find that Wolf outed Nguon to her mother, which normally would be prohibited, but ruled it was acceptable because Wolf was explaining why Nguon was being punished, as required by the state's education code.

Nguon and her attorneys said the bright spot in the ruling was that Selna maintained that school officials do not typically have a right to disclose a student's sexual orientation.

"Even though we did lose the case, we all tried our best, and it wasn't all for naught," said Nguon, a second-year student at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa. "Something good did come out of it."

So why are school officials supposed to conspire to hide information from parents who have a legal responsibility for their children?  Parents are not just paychecks.

Despite ruling against Nguon, Selna showed sympathy for her.

"There is no doubt that Charlene's junior and senior years were very difficult times for her, and that dealing with her sexuality and her relationship . . . took a heavy emotional and psychological toll.

"The self-imposed scars on Charlene's arm which she revealed at trial were very real; the fact that she considered suicide her senior year was very real," he wrote.

And why does anyone assume that her self-destructive behaviors are a result of her mother finding out what she was doing in a public place?  Is it possible that her self-destructive behaviors are in line with her public display of sexuality?  Either way, it is sad.  I hope she finds a healthy set of behaviors.

Finally- where is this girl’s father???
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More Reminders of the Paradise Europeans Destroyed

Michael Kahn reports that Inca children may have been fattened up for sacrifice.

Hair samples taken from child mummies suggest the ancient Incas "fattened" up children chosen for ritual sacrifice months before actually killing them, British researchers said on Monday.

A chemical analysis of four mummies found high in the Andes mountains also indicates the Incans took the children on a lengthy pilgrimage prior to the killings, the team said. In the case of the 15-year-old "Llullaillaco Maiden" the road to death started at least 12 months before.

"We are looking at a process that began a considerable amount of time before their death," said Andrew Wilson, an archaeologist at the University of Bradford, who led the study. "The maiden was essentially being fattened up or prepared for her final fate at least 12 months before her killing."

How dare the Spanish Catholic invaders put an end to this sort of thing?  They should have been more tolerant and multicultural, and perhaps conducted child sacrifices back home as a sign of understanding and inclusiveness.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Christians Must Have Sensible Priorities

Does a third party candidate make sense for politically conservative Christians?

Christian conservatives have certain well-known priorities:

Right to Life issues
Protecting marriage from counterfeiting
Religious freedom
Judicial restraint
School choice
Parental authority over minor children

There are plenty of others, but you get the idea.

But what should be the highest priority?

The highest priority should be defending the U.S., because without a strong defense of our country, none of the other debates matter.  That strong defense must include a well-funded, well equipped, motivated, and effectively deployed military; sophisticated intelligence operations; and border control and immigration enforcement.  Terrorists and rogue nations seek to bring us down, and we must defend ourselves from their attacks and disrupt their plans.

The GOP frontrunners in the Presidential campaign may not have stellar positions or track records on all of the Religious Right’s priorities, and a couple have other characteristics that make evangelical Christians queasy (multiple divorces and family strife, active membership in an organizational and theological cult with really good PR and tireless apologists), but what is their position on national defense and homeland security?  Can the person be an effective leader?

Yes, ideally, we’d like a candidate who shares our major political stances and our religion and has demonstrated our moral ideals.  However, we’re not voting for our lead pastor or theologian.  We are voting for President of the United States of America.

A major conservative third party candidacy would likely result in the election of a Democrat.  While it might be tempting to “send the GOP a message”, for at least four years we’d have Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Gore, or someone similar as Commander-In-Chief, appointing judges (including Supreme Court justices), issuing executive orders, and signing or vetoing bills.

We have an entrenched two-party system and we need to work with that, or we’ll lose.  I’d rather have McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson than Edwards, Clinton, Obama or Gore.  Many doubters cite Giuliani and Romney’s less-than-conservative stances, especially from their terms as New York Mayor and Massachusetts Governor, respectively, but c’mon… those are Leftist constituencies, and they had to work with where they were.

Don’t like our top GOP choices?  Then start working now for the 2012 and 2016 cycles to lift up viable, experienced political leaders who are upstanding citizens and evangelical Christians.  We’re more likely to have success in doing that inside the GOP, but if anyone wants to try in the Democrat Party, which is in the grip of the labor (especially public school teachers) unions, trial lawyers, abortionists, radical homosexual Left activists, and pornographers – well, go ahead and try.

Until then, our more effective move will be working within the GOP and getting the GOP candidate elected.  A GOP President is more likely to listen to our pleas than one of the likely Democrats.  Most importantly, however – a GOP President is likely to be more effective at aggressively defending the U.S.  That should be our priority.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Buddhist Monks in Political Protests?

What's the deal with the Buddhist monks protesting in Myanmar?  I thought in Buddhism, desire was to be avoided.  Sounds like these Buddhist monks desire something.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be protesting.

Can someone please help me out with this?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Should I Pay For the Medical Treatment of Drunkards?

One reason why health care should be privately funded is the wide variety of personal habits and lifestyles Americans have chosen.  For example - some people are teetotalers, other people are raging drunkards, and there are a whole lot of people in between.  Why should a teetotaler be forced to pay for a liver transplant for a drunkard?  I'm no teetotaler, but I've never been drunk in my life.  Why should I get the bill for health problems caused from repeated alcohol abuse?

I should have the option of choosing a doctor, hospital, and medical insurance company that will not pass along the costs to me that were incurred by of people I believe to be living unhealthy lifestyles.  I’m a meat eater.  I’m sure there are vegetarians who think I’m killing myself with the meat I eat.  Why should they pay for my health care if a clog my arteries with animal fat?

I do believe in responsible charity, and if I was allowed to keep more of the money I earn because it wasn’t being redistributed by people I don’t know to other people I don’t know, I would gladly pass along some that “extra” money to a medical charity that treats those who can’t otherwise afford treatment…one that would encourage them to live healthy lifestyles.

The more government-controlled funding there is in health care, the more likely we are to have government officials imposing restrictions on our personal lives to get us to be “healthy” in order to keep demand and costs down.

There are many choices we have can affect our health and whether or not we’re more likely to suffer from certain injuries or diseases:

Our exercise routines
Our diets
Whether or not we have eating disorders
Participation in extreme sports
Where we live
Camping/hiking
What kind of vehicle we drive and how much we drive
Where we travel
Whether we smoke, what we smoke, and how much of it we smoke
Whether we drink, what we drink, how much of it we drink
What other kinds of medicines or drugs we use/abuse
Who we have sex with and whether or not we use protection or contraception
Whether or not we have kids
How much we weight and how much of that is fat
Whether or not we accept or have ever received a blood transfusion

Many of these involve religious practices that are deeply ingrained in some people.  Do we really want to give the government/people we don’t know more of an opening to control these things in our own lives?  The more we rely on “someone else” to pay for our health care, the more likely that is.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive