Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Thursday, November 29, 2007

The Great Debate

I believe the CNN hosted youtube debate was a remarkable success. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate. The voter-fueled forum, and the absence of that pompous ass Wolf Blitzer, made for a night that was watchable and intriguing.

In the post-debate analysis, there are a few things we, as American citizens and voters, should have noticed:

1. Fred Thompson is a joke. Senator Thompson's answers were every bit as memorable as the Tancredo and Hunter forgettables. He should drop out right now.

2. Mitt Romney eloquently side-stepped every question, and avoided committal sound-bites if he could. He only directly answered the question about the abortion bill. He is the textbook definition of a politician, and is not presidential in the least. Romney: The Republican John Kerry.

3. Ron Paul's momentum is remarkable. Whether you agree with his ideals or not, you have an opinion on him, and that's the first key to being a serious candidate. Dr. Paul garnered strong reaction from his answers, and was able to smack McCain around on his ridiculous comparison of Iraq to pre-war Nazi Germany.

A note of interest, dear friends: Ron's war chest and poll numbers are screaming relevancy in this election.

4. Rudy Giuliani is hemorrhaging points, but his lead is growing. Every question Rudy answers begins with, "What I did in New York....," thus alienating every non-New Yorker with every one of his answers. I have some bad news for the Giuliani communications director: New York City is not a fair model metropolis for the rest of America.

It is pure New York arrogance that is crafting Rudy's message, and it will ultimately lose him the primary. He also took a hard torpedo in the side yesterday after a story was released alleging inappropriate billing of expenses for trips that were likely made while carrying on one of his extra-marital affairs.

4. Why is the aforementioned lead widening for Rudy while losing points? Because of the surging Huckabee and Paul campaigns' push into the scrum for the loose votes of the declining Romney, McCain, and Thompson candidacies. After Iowa, Giuliani is going to have his hands full in New Hampshire (where the free state model will swing surprisingly for a legitimate Paul candidacy) and South Carolina (A state ripe for Huckabee's picking) will have Rudy in an all out fist fight for the nomination having lost two of the first three primaries.

Who is your new front runner? Mike Huckabee.

If you weren't impressed with ole' Mike's direct responses and charm, you weren't paying attention, or your bias for another candidate is blinding you to Huckabee's success in last night's debate.

The communication director for the Huckabee campaign must be having the former Arkansas Governor watching old films of Ronald Reagan. Mike's delivery, timing, and zingers are as Reaganesque as we have seen from a candidate since Ronnie himself was campaigning in 1979.

I don't like many of Huckabee's neo-conervative stances on the issues, but his charm and message are making him legitimate enough for the Republican base to buy-in to. Mike's viability will get the GOP base whipped-up into a Bible-bangin', door-knockin' freenzy that will end up propelling Huckabee to the nomination.

I didn't say I was voting for him, but if you think I'm wrong about my predictions, I'd like to know why. Just in case you didn't know, he's got Churck Norris' endorsement. That internet video is seriously garnering more attention than you'd think.



Your new GOP Front-runner, Folks: "Iron" Mike Huckabee

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Personal Politics

American politics intrigues me. The idea that this government was established to pursue liberty and individual freedoms is something sacred, and was an original idea (in practical application) at the time of its establishment.

Individual freedoms and liberty are pursuant to the fundamental truth of "free will" around which God shaped the entire human condition. I have tried to craft a political philosophy that adheres to liberty, human truths, and the fundamentals of free will. I do not believe an extensive discussion on this philosophy is necessary if I can enumerate my conclusions on the current issues facing the United States today.

Below I will name the issue, and give a short philosophy of why I subscribe to that particular path of liberty. If you wish to discuss my position on certain subjects, I'm all for it. Just do so respectfully, and try the point-counter point style of dialog to avoid lectureship.

1. Gay Marriage- I do not believe Governments should be in the business of regulating or defining marriage on any level at all, whatsoever. The current method of "marriage licensing" is an authoritarian policy that is in strong opposition to the pursuit of liberty.

I believe this practice to be unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." One man and one woman is a modern Judeo-Christian form of the institution of marriage.

Furthermore, as Christians, we should not seek the power of the state to protect the sanctity of marriage, or any other Christian value. This mindset is closely linked to the same argument that led to the vanity exercise of The Crusades. Believers should have no use for that policy.

As far as adoption goes with the same issue, governments should not discriminate based on these grounds. Do I believe that homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Though not any more of a sin than gossiping, lying, greed, and gluttony.

As a sinner myself, I know I need grace and help to conquer my flaws and inequities. Banning a practice is meant to curb the behavior or shows a fear of the practice. I do not fear homosexuals, and it is absurd to believe outlawing homosexuality will rid the country of those who subscribe to it. Grace and love should abound from the church toward everyone, and laws should be neutral in their crafting.

2. Health Care & Entitlement Programs- No matter the great oratory for the masses espousing health care as a right, it is NOT one. Liberty is the freedom from governments acting as Robin Hood. When people are paid to do nothing, it is "majoritarian plunder." It's not good for a society to base a system of taxes and welfare on providing every meal, roof, and doctor's visit cradle to grave for every citizen. It is not practical, and it is not healthy.

It is true that not all people can simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This is where the Church should come in to provide support and show pure and undefiled religion. It is the failing of the Church that has given leftist and communist the practicality edge on socialist agendas.

3. Public Education- Although it is not a Constitutionally enumerated right, it was universally understood by the founders of our nation that Republics and Democracies must have a well-educated electorate in order to survive. American education should be the world leader in this arena. The cause of education's awful state is the method by which it is funded: property taxes. (San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez, 1973 found that the right to education does not live anywhere in the Constitution)

Poor areas will have little money to contribute to their district schools. Rich areas have the best schools. It's cyclical, and it's a mess. Without a change, it will continue to be one. Truth be told, this government has the ability to fund education if we scaled back in foreign aid and entitlement programs.

4. Environment- I love the environment. Regulation on emissions and industrial waste are good. Just remember this for another conversation: Pure and unchecked capitalism tramples on the rights of individuals as much as an authoritarian state could.

5. Economics- Low taxes equals more money for consumers to put into the economy. The more money out there to be spent, the more competitive the market place becomes. I believe that liberties and low taxes are almost synonymous with one another, but that is open to discussion.

6. Nation Building & Foreign Aid- Shouldn't do it, not ever. The purpose of taxes is to provide services for citizens that live within that nation's borders. I'm not saying these practices are "unconstitutional" as the congress to authorize the expenditures.

I believe when there is a need here at home, we don't send any of our cash overseas, despite the positive ramifications it could have because of the strengthening force of globalization. It's a recipe for disaster.

7. Immigration and National Security- Controlling and documenting the flow of immigration in this country is closely tied to national security. How President Bush can claim a strong national defense agenda and want an open and unsecured border with Mexico or Canada is beyond absurd.

I don't want to deny work and fair wages to immigrants here in America. I want them to enjoy the opportunities and freedoms that America offers. I also want them to operate within the laws of America. That's all I ask. Documentation and tracking systems for immigrants are viable, it can be practical, and it can be paid for without raising taxes.

8. Abortion & Death Penalty- The right to life is so fundamental to the pursuit of liberty that I cannot ever afford, even begrudgingly, the right of personal choice to supersede the superior right of life.

Unequivocally, outside the womb, the right to life is the superior right. Only when equal liberties bump up against each other does a choice need to be made. The mother should have a choice when her life is in danger, but she may choose to sacrifice her life for her child. That is the only time an abortion should be optional, and those circumstances are few and far between.

Even though many disagree with this position, I contend that life and person-hood begin at conception. Just because the child is dependent on the mother's body for nine months, I do not find her choice to control what goes on in her own body justification for ending a life. She is destroying another body that is inside hers. "Choice" is not the superior right, although I understand those who disagree with me may be trying to pursue personal liberties as well, and we have reached a different conclusion.

Insofar as the death penalty goes, I do not believe governments should be in the business of putting people to death. It is vengeful. Depriving one of their freedoms for crimes that trample on the rights of others, especially the right of others to live, is a fitting and appropriate punishment. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a far more just and harsh punishment than death. Just ask a death row inmate; They can't wait to die to end the hopelessness.

I know the families of victims may feel the need to have a death sentence carried out, and that is certainly how I would feel if something happened to a loved one of mine, but I understand the pursuit of liberty must have consistency. No abortion, no death penalty: It is the unimpeachable right to life. I have enumerated this stance before. Let me know what you think.

-I know many of you will disagree with several portions or the entirety of my reasoning, but this is where my pursuit of liberty has led me on the issues. If anyone wants to debate, I'm all ears.

If there is an issue did not address, please bring it up, and I'll discuss it under the comments section.

To borrow from my brother, Live Free Today.