July 14

lessons on eugenics, part 1 (don’t drink the water)

a study was done 3 years ago stating that 1/3 of male fish in English rivers are turning female due to estrogen-heavy chemicals in the water (similar to drugs given to transgender men). there was concern that it could “even be affecting the fertility of men” who drink any water from these sources. “British men’s sperm counts dropped by almost a third between 1989 and 2002”, the article states, leaving little doubt as to the correlation.

flash forward to today, where “concerns about the “carbon footprint” of filtering machines means that the poisons will remain in the vast majority of the British water supply.” so the decision has been made, folks. the AlGoreWarming hoax is the cited reason for letting the peoples’ water supply remain poisoned, and the people go along with it because we have to save the polar bears’ icecaps from melting in the summer (the fact that they re-freeze in the winter is irrelevant and has nothing to do with reality). Gordon Brown’s “green adviser” surely likes that reproduction will be hindered, since he wants a 50% population decrease.

at least this is only happening to the Brits, oy? not so fast. Obama’s “science czar” would not only be okay with it, he advocated water sterilization as well as other eugenics methods such as compulsory abortions, forced sterilization, and implanted birth control, in his 1977 book Ecoscience. you see, some of the world’s “top minds” think the world is overpopulated, and (at least) 90% of humans need to die. of course, they are not included in the doomed percentage, because they are enlightened and have to carry out the plan.

do you think we all need to be sterilized? do you think we all need to be poisoned? do you think we all need to die? I should hope not. but one of our President’s top advisors certainly does. does that scare you?

conspiracy? if that’s still what you’re thinking by this point in my post, open your eyes.

June 17

why I fight

there’s an episode of my favorite miniseries of all time, Band of Brothers, called “Why We Fight”. well, this is why I fight.

one question I’ve pondered and heard from others is: there’s no use – why should we try? the Bible says there will be an end time, and if this is it, why should we try to resist the inevitable? some people will even mention Romans 13, which talks of submitting to the authorities. well, this is true when the government is just. but when it is not, the Bible teaches us always to fight evil; to simplify, if a police officer ordered you to kill your own family, I hope you would not comply. I feel that, even if we are currently set on the path to the end, if we change our ways God will forgive us. “The LORD is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous” (Proverbs 15:29).

but what effect do I have? true, my voice probably has little effect or impact on the occupiers of DC as they currently are; most of them are corrupt, power hungry, and set in their ways. but when the whole of the People are armed with knowledge, they will no longer be silent. they cannot, it’s against our human nature not to crave freedom. so I will keep ringing the bell until either everyone joins, or there is no one left to hear me. like the protagonist of the 1976 movie Network, “I want people to be mad as hell! I want you to stand up, open your windows, and yell ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”

our government has openly declared war upon We the People. every day their actions confirm this, they just haven’t verbalized it. every disregard of the Constitution, the charter of the very government that ignores it, is an act of war. they are taking our liberty, and it is going further than legislation, stepping into the world of physical violence. I am personally being attacked by the very institution which is sworn to defend me; this is why I fight.

“I swear upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
– Thomas Jefferson

UPDATE 7/15: Chuck Baldwin wrote an article “Romans Chapter 13 Revisited” on the same topics discussed here. I’m sure he read my post! ;)

June 10

preemptive, prolonged, “indefinite detention”

in case you are unaware of the topic, this link should provide the appropriate background: Rachel Maddow: Indefinite detention? Shame on you.

now for starters, for Rachel Maddow to come out against Obama on this policy was both surprising and energizing. but whether or not you care what Ms. Maddow had to say on the issue, let’s delve into my thoughts. most of the following is put together from a topic I started at my Facebook app, Take A Stand, entitled Obama: preemptive “Prolonged Detention”? yikes…:

the Constitution just got torn in half again. the Fifth Amendment contains the verbiage “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger“. it seems that clause was written about POWs specifically. POWs, to me, are “enemy combatants” captured on the battlefield – basically, caught red-handed. however, my problem with this detention policy is that the detainees essentially cannot be proven to be terrorists, but the government insists that they are, so they will “indefinitely” remain locked up. this is just a basic human rights violation. under this policy the military could go into any country, grab someone off the streets, and throw them in jail forever, without any due process. all because we declare we are “at war”.

now, I do not have a problem with the idea of POWs. I think it is a necessary action during wartime. I do have a problem with just “grabbing someone off the streets” because they seem like a terrorist. and while you may think that doesn’t happen, it does. for example, see the case of Abdullah Kamel Abudallah Kamel.

this man was nabbed and detained for over 5 years because he was carrying $15k and wearing a Casio wristwatch. given, the third reason cites that “One of the detainee’s known aliases was on a list of captured hard drives (sic) associated with a senior al Qaeda member.”; however, this allegation goes largely unconfirmed, and the president of the tribunal which tried him didn’t even know what the alleged alias was. yet the tribunal ruled that Kandari was an enemy combatant.

he was not the only man detained for wearing a Casio, there were a few others. these men lost years of their life, time with their family, watching their children grow up, because they had money and a watch, so we deemed them terrorists. I’m not okay with that.

I used to align with the utilitarian school of thought – that is, that the very small minority should sometimes suffer for the good of the majority. I now find myself on the opposite end of that spectrum, I suppose we would call it deontology – that is to say, that every minute action we take, we better be sure it’s the right one. because destroying an innocent man’s liberty is against the most basic roots of this country, and I am not okay with that.

last note: if we suspect someone of terrorism, fine. detain them, but afford them due process, one of the least of all human rights, not just an American right. 5 years is too long; 5 months, or WEEKS, even. there is an international standard of holding someone for no longer than 30 days before trying them; I see no reason why we can’t follow this example, since we are following global policy in almost every other area these days.

please add your two cents in the comments, or in the original thread here!

October 13

thoughts on a conservative education

so, it’s Columbus Day, which means I have the day off. I wanted to spend today doing something “fun” or “useful” – but instead, I’m convicted and compelled to write a political commentary. please hear me out.

I grew up in a strongly Republican household. even though I considered myself very independent and free-thinking before college, it wasn’t until I went off to Virginia Tech that my views were really challenged. I saw things, and they changed me. there’s a laundry list of issues on which my stance differs from the “traditional” Republican view: gay rights, drug legalization, stem cell research (as long as abortion is legal, which it probably will always be), drinking age, censorship… to name a few. I think Pakistan was justified in shooting at U.S. troops when we conducted raids across their borders without their permission. I have even been pondering the idea that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear technology for energy use (preemption is a toughie – see Minority Report!). these are two sovereign countries, with borders and rights.

basically, I have a universal belief in universal freedom. this puts me squarely in the political realm of libertarianism – fiscal conservative and social liberal (to an extent). but, this post is not about libertarianism – sadly, my boy Ron Paul has dropped out of the running, Bob Barr doesn’t have a realistic chance at winning, and so as to not waste our vote, we are once again left with two choices – red and blue.

most of my friends say they will be voting for Obama in three weeks. to that, my first response is “I’m glad you’re voting! And I’m glad America is finally getting involved in politics!”. my second response is “Why?”.

for many of them, the answer is simple: “Because we don’t need another George Bush in the White House.” fair enough. you’re voting against someone you disagree with. I disagree with both Bush and McCain on some key issues. by now we have all heard the opposition to the alternative. have we actually listened? why do these things not bother us?

Barack Obama is a smart, well-spoken man. I am proud of my country for finally choosing a black man (and a white woman, for that matter) to run for our nation’s highest offices. I am ashamed of all those who have made an issue out of his middle name, to the point where he refuses to use it himself. the same goes for those who have called him a “Muslim” when he in fact calls himself a Christian. even worse, I find it appalling that he has been called a terrorist – he is none of these things, and these opinions don’t represent the majority of the Republican party, and I hope the few bad apples don’t spoil the bunch. still, there are a number of problems with Obama which, for some reason, are non-issues to many of us.

Obama is friends with a known terrorist. he had his political coming-out party at Ayers’ house. Obama has done what he can to distance himself from this fact, but the point remains. this is not fearmongering, this is the truth.

Obama’s preacher of 20 years is a self-proclaimed hater of America. this is a man who thinks the 9/11 attacks against 3,000 of our own men, women, and children were justified, and Obama passively endorsed this kind of rhetoric for 20 years. Obama has done what he can to distance himself from this fact, but the point remains. this is not fearmongering, this is the truth.

Obama has almost no political experience. he is in many ways less experienced even than the VP candidate from the opposing party. he’s a name. and yet, we are in the midst of voting this man into the White House, on his promises of “change”, and does anyone even know what he’s about? I guess he really is a magician. here is my response:

it’s like those SGA elections in middle school, where the candidates always said they would get new vending machines, and make breaks and lunch twice as long, and all the nerds would be able to hook up with the hot chicks now. that was change, too!

Obama wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Utopia is nice in theory, but not in practice. just today, I saw this clip: Obama Tells Tax-Burdened Plumber the Plan is to ‘Spread the Wealth Around’. here is my response:

would any Obama supporters care to either
a) defend the idea that he is not a full-blown socialist, or
b) go ahead and admit he’s a full-blown socialist, and explain why you think socialism will suddenly work after thousands of years of proof that it won’t?

I realize we already practice some socialist ideals as a country, but when you admit that you want to be a modern-day Robin Hood, you have to call a spade a spade. it might work in Disney movies but not in the real world.

right now 30% don’t pay taxes, and under his plan will get money back anyways. when that number gets to 51%, we’re in big trouble.

my confidence in either candidate to fix our nation’s problems is close to zero. my hope is that, by the next election, America will take the blinders off and think outside the box for a minute, and realize that neither Republicans or Democrats are changing anything for the better. we must decide for ourselves whether we want to be more like Cuba, or more like the United States of America that the Constitution was drafted to govern, the visions of our founding fathers. until then, here is where McCain and Obama stand on the issues, straight from the horses’ mouths.

I’ll leave you with a quote that will sadly remain my greatest consolation if Obama is elected, in the hopes that our Congress would continue to flounder, as it has done so well for many years:

“An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.” – Eugene J. McCarthy

comments welcome. my mind is open.

Category: politics | Comments Off on thoughts on a conservative education