Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, February 3, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Some new Tunes
I told you this would be a random blog at times and this is one of them. Apparently this guy hasn't been around all that long but he has some great talent. Enjoy.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Abortion
I'd like to write out my musings on an extremely volatile subject tonight.
I have been been internally debating a question that has been externally debated for decades with no clear picture or answers and mostly rhetoric on both sides of the issue. Its one that as a male I absolutely cannot resolutely give an answer or guidance or really any substance to. That topic is abortion. As a male I will never physically have to decide on this issue nor will it ever affect me as much as it would a female faced with the predicament but I still feel that I can entertain the idea as a concept and argument with as much honestly as I possibly can.
Abortion, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, cannot so simply be broken down into 3 different political spectrum's, liberal, conservative and undecided. To do so is to relegate the act to basic human circumstances which it absolutely is not. It's not simply about woman's rights as much as human rights.
To start off with, you have those who subscribe to abortion legality under the premise of woman's rights. Now this concept is very clear cut to me as I am very firmly for human liberty above all else. A woman should have complete control over her body and the decisions that she makes and no government or state deserves the power to amend that. A strong foundation in human liberty is the framework for a liberating and truly free society.
But there-in lies the true issue. Yes, a woman absolutely should have full power over her body. But what about the baby? Does that baby not deserve the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? As the power of liberty has been given to the woman, why would it be absent to an unborn baby?
Now there really is no question as to when life begins. As an athiest I can fully declare that the argument that life begins at birth is simply ridiculous and I don't feel like wasting a page to describe why. Those of religious leanings tend to agree that life begins with conception so that's fairly clean cut. To me, life begins at the immediate physical opportunity for life. The beginning at which, if uninterrupted, a baby will be born.
How can we possibly give one individual a right to life but then never grant it to another?
Woman's right at the cost of a baby's life and the baby's same right.
Now all that tends to lean towards the right to life side but it's also very important to recognize a woman's right. As stated above a woman's right to liberty should never be limited by a government.
The concept of liberty though should not be mistaken with the concept of anarchy. Anarchy, sure, can have liberty but liberty does not mean anarchy. The very idea of liberty also means that it protects the liberty rights of others. One such instance is murder, defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
One important argument for abortion is that is stops a child being born into a world where the mother cannot safely or intelligently care for the infant. Another important figure is that abortion has actually lead to reduced crimes because the number of children who would have otherwise been brought up by unloving and uncaring mothers in a delinquent environment has dropped thus their are less people born into an environment that tends to create criminals. The idea gets deeper though because it cannot be answered by the ending of human life otherwise one could argue that we should emplace strict population controls and that crime could be dealt with by mass murder. Obviously that is thankfully not an option although it historically has been attempted. So reduced crime is a benefit but is abortion the only option?
Is providing abortion alternatives part of a State's job? Under the 10th Amendment, a state could provide funds and a state constitutional interpretation to allow for intelligent allocation and implementation of abortion alternatives. And no, I do not mean business as usual with typical foster home dumps and an extremely hands off approach to alternatives as this has absolutely not worked in the past and has created significant troubles besides being extremely inhumane.
So you have two sides effectively. Woman's rights or Baby's rights. Only the one side can choose.
I will never fully appreciate the complexities or the emotional aspects of such a decision nor do I relish the opportunity but the preservation of human life and liberty are at the core of my being and I can at the least try to understand what I can. I will personally choose life always but I acknowledge that it is so much more deep than that or any simple answer.
I have been been internally debating a question that has been externally debated for decades with no clear picture or answers and mostly rhetoric on both sides of the issue. Its one that as a male I absolutely cannot resolutely give an answer or guidance or really any substance to. That topic is abortion. As a male I will never physically have to decide on this issue nor will it ever affect me as much as it would a female faced with the predicament but I still feel that I can entertain the idea as a concept and argument with as much honestly as I possibly can.
Abortion, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, cannot so simply be broken down into 3 different political spectrum's, liberal, conservative and undecided. To do so is to relegate the act to basic human circumstances which it absolutely is not. It's not simply about woman's rights as much as human rights.
To start off with, you have those who subscribe to abortion legality under the premise of woman's rights. Now this concept is very clear cut to me as I am very firmly for human liberty above all else. A woman should have complete control over her body and the decisions that she makes and no government or state deserves the power to amend that. A strong foundation in human liberty is the framework for a liberating and truly free society.
But there-in lies the true issue. Yes, a woman absolutely should have full power over her body. But what about the baby? Does that baby not deserve the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? As the power of liberty has been given to the woman, why would it be absent to an unborn baby?
Now there really is no question as to when life begins. As an athiest I can fully declare that the argument that life begins at birth is simply ridiculous and I don't feel like wasting a page to describe why. Those of religious leanings tend to agree that life begins with conception so that's fairly clean cut. To me, life begins at the immediate physical opportunity for life. The beginning at which, if uninterrupted, a baby will be born.
How can we possibly give one individual a right to life but then never grant it to another?
Woman's right at the cost of a baby's life and the baby's same right.
Now all that tends to lean towards the right to life side but it's also very important to recognize a woman's right. As stated above a woman's right to liberty should never be limited by a government.
The concept of liberty though should not be mistaken with the concept of anarchy. Anarchy, sure, can have liberty but liberty does not mean anarchy. The very idea of liberty also means that it protects the liberty rights of others. One such instance is murder, defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
One important argument for abortion is that is stops a child being born into a world where the mother cannot safely or intelligently care for the infant. Another important figure is that abortion has actually lead to reduced crimes because the number of children who would have otherwise been brought up by unloving and uncaring mothers in a delinquent environment has dropped thus their are less people born into an environment that tends to create criminals. The idea gets deeper though because it cannot be answered by the ending of human life otherwise one could argue that we should emplace strict population controls and that crime could be dealt with by mass murder. Obviously that is thankfully not an option although it historically has been attempted. So reduced crime is a benefit but is abortion the only option?
Is providing abortion alternatives part of a State's job? Under the 10th Amendment, a state could provide funds and a state constitutional interpretation to allow for intelligent allocation and implementation of abortion alternatives. And no, I do not mean business as usual with typical foster home dumps and an extremely hands off approach to alternatives as this has absolutely not worked in the past and has created significant troubles besides being extremely inhumane.
So you have two sides effectively. Woman's rights or Baby's rights. Only the one side can choose.
I will never fully appreciate the complexities or the emotional aspects of such a decision nor do I relish the opportunity but the preservation of human life and liberty are at the core of my being and I can at the least try to understand what I can. I will personally choose life always but I acknowledge that it is so much more deep than that or any simple answer.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The 2nd Amendment and its Relevancy Today
There is one reason that, currently, there is no country on earth that could successfully invade the United States. Ignoring our active duty military and National Guard elements, the United States has a very important amendment to our Constitution, one which, to my research, is not shared anywhere else in the developed world.
The 2nd Amendment.
A healthy appreciation for what our 2nd Amendment means to us ensures that not only do we have 192,000,000 reasons why our government can never eradicate our liberty or our Constitution but it also presents a nightmare scenario to any foreign country that would hope to invade our land. Yes, its highly unlikely and no real threat exists at this moment but it is worth noting that the very idea of occupation will not pass through foreign nations heads.
Those who choose to ignore the importance of the 2nd Amendment also fail to realize that they are offered that very concession because of the 2nd Amendment.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
I'd like to comment on those saying that Ron Paul is more of a movement and less of a candidate.
They are absolutely right.
Now that's not to say that he is less qualified or less electable, not by a long shot. Instead, Ron Paul has awakened, not created a movement. His supporters, his embrace of ideas and his ability to accurately layout whats to come will not disappear regardless of if he wins the presidency or not. His supporters are more fervent than what have been seen in a presidential process because they, we, know that we have the most at stake and the most to lose.
Our opponents like to cast us as having such a negative outlook on the state of the United States and its future but its really quite the opposite. An awareness of whats threatening to what it means to be an American is not a negative state. To be aware of the faults means to be knowledgable of those faults opposites and to appreciate what we have and could have.
The liberalism and neo-conservatism experiment has failed at great cost to our economic prospects and personal liberties. For too long, we have been lied to and our politicians bought and our government turned against us. What ever happened to the concept of the government fearing the people, not the people fearing the government? Fear and lack of personal accountability have caused people to give up their rights to a government that has and will abuse them.
Not too long ago in the course of human history, the U.S was subjected to overtaxation, a massively overreaching and intrusive government, a strong internal occupational military presence, lack of basic human rights and privacy and corruption. It all started small but little by little grew to where it became simply unbearable. A group of men knew that the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were worth fighting for. Out of this powder keg grew the United States.
Today we see a great complacency amongst a large percentage of our people who would not blink to see a constitutional right simply abandoned, a president who is incompetent and a top republican candidate who would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves.
The only question is, in 20 years, will you look back and ask yourself why?
When your children no longer enjoy the constitutional rights granted to them? When the opportunities we once enjoyed are gone? When the American Dream is just that, a dream?
Optimism in the United States has plunged, even in the short 21 years that I have spent here. I have been on ALL sides of the political spectrum and I understand where people come from. But paramount to all political ideals are the core fundamentals that were created in the depths of tyranny that should never be eroded.
Yes, Ron Paul represents a far greater movement than a simple candidacy, one that will not be going away for my generation is becoming more and more aware of exactly what the problems are and what the solutions are.
“An idea whose time has come, cannot be stopped by any army or any government.”
They are absolutely right.
Now that's not to say that he is less qualified or less electable, not by a long shot. Instead, Ron Paul has awakened, not created a movement. His supporters, his embrace of ideas and his ability to accurately layout whats to come will not disappear regardless of if he wins the presidency or not. His supporters are more fervent than what have been seen in a presidential process because they, we, know that we have the most at stake and the most to lose.
Our opponents like to cast us as having such a negative outlook on the state of the United States and its future but its really quite the opposite. An awareness of whats threatening to what it means to be an American is not a negative state. To be aware of the faults means to be knowledgable of those faults opposites and to appreciate what we have and could have.
The liberalism and neo-conservatism experiment has failed at great cost to our economic prospects and personal liberties. For too long, we have been lied to and our politicians bought and our government turned against us. What ever happened to the concept of the government fearing the people, not the people fearing the government? Fear and lack of personal accountability have caused people to give up their rights to a government that has and will abuse them.
Not too long ago in the course of human history, the U.S was subjected to overtaxation, a massively overreaching and intrusive government, a strong internal occupational military presence, lack of basic human rights and privacy and corruption. It all started small but little by little grew to where it became simply unbearable. A group of men knew that the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were worth fighting for. Out of this powder keg grew the United States.
Today we see a great complacency amongst a large percentage of our people who would not blink to see a constitutional right simply abandoned, a president who is incompetent and a top republican candidate who would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves.
The only question is, in 20 years, will you look back and ask yourself why?
When your children no longer enjoy the constitutional rights granted to them? When the opportunities we once enjoyed are gone? When the American Dream is just that, a dream?
Optimism in the United States has plunged, even in the short 21 years that I have spent here. I have been on ALL sides of the political spectrum and I understand where people come from. But paramount to all political ideals are the core fundamentals that were created in the depths of tyranny that should never be eroded.
Yes, Ron Paul represents a far greater movement than a simple candidacy, one that will not be going away for my generation is becoming more and more aware of exactly what the problems are and what the solutions are.
“An idea whose time has come, cannot be stopped by any army or any government.”
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Obama and Spending
What do Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Japan and now the United States all have in common? A federal debt that surpasses the total production of the country.
What else do those countries have in common, especially Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal? They have economically collapsed.
The Obama administration projects a 70% increase in current debt to a total of $26 trillion within a decade. Is that the presidents fault? No, its liberalism. And its not too late.
Repeating the same action over and over again expecting different results. Theirs a definition for that.
What else do those countries have in common, especially Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal? They have economically collapsed.
The Obama administration projects a 70% increase in current debt to a total of $26 trillion within a decade. Is that the presidents fault? No, its liberalism. And its not too late.
Repeating the same action over and over again expecting different results. Theirs a definition for that.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Obama and a short list of Impeachable Offenses
I'm going to go ahead and nominate Obama as the most destructive president against the U.S constitution, the very foundation of this country, in the entire history of the presidency.
1. Contempt of U.S Court - Refusal for drilling permits
2. Contempt of U.S Court - Refusal to comply with Judge Roger Vinson on Obamacare
3. Abuse of constitutional Appropriation - Bailouts - No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Article 1 Section 9.
4. Creation of Czars
5. Seizure of private businesses
6. Redistribution of wealth of government seized businesses such as GM.
7. Obamacare
8. Executive control over the interpretation of the U.S Constitution
9. Multiple recess appointments - Article 2 Section 2.
10. Cover up of "Fast and Furious"
11. Unapproved military intervention in Libya
12. Signing of the NDAA with massively unconstitutional provisions
13. December 2009 - Allowing Interpol to operate within the United States without congressional approval or oversight
14. No legal authority for the creation of an escrow fund in regards to the BP oil crisis
15. Any number of Ultra vires crimes
1. Contempt of U.S Court - Refusal for drilling permits
2. Contempt of U.S Court - Refusal to comply with Judge Roger Vinson on Obamacare
3. Abuse of constitutional Appropriation - Bailouts - No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Article 1 Section 9.
4. Creation of Czars
5. Seizure of private businesses
6. Redistribution of wealth of government seized businesses such as GM.
7. Obamacare
8. Executive control over the interpretation of the U.S Constitution
9. Multiple recess appointments - Article 2 Section 2.
10. Cover up of "Fast and Furious"
11. Unapproved military intervention in Libya
12. Signing of the NDAA with massively unconstitutional provisions
13. December 2009 - Allowing Interpol to operate within the United States without congressional approval or oversight
14. No legal authority for the creation of an escrow fund in regards to the BP oil crisis
15. Any number of Ultra vires crimes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)