Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The Constitution is something special

The U.S. Constitution, and the way it came about, is something of a miracle.  That's how I think of it.  That's how most people think of it  But that's not the way it's taught anymore.  Today it's taught as something that is just there in the way of us passing our selfish agenda, and if we need to we can change it and remake it.  Of course when you do that you water it down so it has no real meaning.

Look at the gay marriage argument.  In order for the judges to rule on gay marriage they had to find some way that it was contained in the Constitution, which it is not.  But they found a way, pulled it out of thin air, and somehow found a way that the 14th amendment says that gays have a constitutional right to marry.

So in order for this to happen, they had to water down the constitution.  They had to water down religious freedom and water down the freedom of speech.  This is the kind of thing people look at when they say they don't want to change tradition.  It's not that people are opposed to gay people.  It's not that they don't want gay people to share their lives.  It's that they don't want the greatest miracle ever written to become watered down so it has no meaning.

You know, words mean things.  But if you are going to adjust here, and tinker there, to make the Constitution say whatever you want it to say so you can get what YOU want, then it means nothing.  It's nothing but a piece of paper with words that mean nothing.

Believe it or not, there are people in this country who care about things larger than themselves.  When I wrote my list of priorities, I put God, Country, then wife and then my kids.  I don't even rate myself, nor what I want, in the top ten.  Somewhere in there I put my job, and my friends, and my parents, but no where do I even rank myself.  It's not that I don't care about myself, it's not that I don't have desires and wants, but I know that there are things larger than myself.

I know that if I change the Constitution to get what I want, then the next generation can change the constitution to get whatever they want -- and it may be far worse than gay marriage.  This is what I mean when I say that the Constitution is etched in stone, that it is effective for all time not to be changed. When it's etched in stone, when interpreted as written, it means something.  Now that you just change it to get your selfish desires, it means less.

The Constitution is one of those things that is larger than we are.  It should be around for many more years to come, but it might not be if we keep watering it down.  I don't look at the political system as a way I can get more stuff for myself.  Yet the left has used it to get gay marriage for itself.  It has abused the system. Justice Kennedy has abused the system.  They used the political system as a game, rather than something that means something.

Neither abortion nor marriage are mentioned in the Constitution.  And yet here you have the Supreme Court ruling on both of them as though they were  The 10th amendment states that what is not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide.

That's what was happening, and 36 states had changed the law so two men could marry.  But now the Supreme Court comes in and makes gay marriage legal in the other states without in any way considering the 10th amendment.  That's wrong.  It's happening because people are no longer taught that the constitution is special.

States lose their sovereignty in the process.  Many of the founders would not have signed the Constitution unless the states were able to hold onto their rights. They certainly wouldn't have signed onto it had they known judges would some day be able to make laws.

So my liberal friends say there will be no slippery slope whereby polygamy will be legalized, or priests will be told they have to marry gays. The point is it's going to happen precisely because the Supreme Court's decision on homosexual cannot say it can't.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Gay marriage is legal, so now what? I't

I'm standing neutral on the Supreme Court decision to make gay marriage legal across the nation.  I'm just enjoying the various discussions going on, and reading and listening to the various comments on the ruling. However, and regardless of how you feel about the ruling, there are a few things that are very concerning about the Court's actions.

1.  Liberties.  I have trouble being upset with any ruling that grants more people more liberties.  The 1% of Americans (that's 50% of the gay population) that yearned to change the Constitution to allow gay marriage across the nation now can get married.  So yay!

2.  How it was done.  The court decided it was a civil rights violation, and they used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Personally, I find this stunning.  If you read the Constitution, it says nothing about gay marriage.  It does, however, recognize the natural right to enter into a contract.  Still, it does not define contract. So, based on the 10th amendment, this decision was left to the states to decide.  Prior to the ruling, 36 states defined marriage as between two people, while the rest defined it as between a man and a woman.  This process was completely constitutional.

Now, enter Amendment XIV Section 1, which essentially states that the laws of a state shall be applied equally to every person in that state.  So, in the states that banned gay marriage, no man could marry any man, and no woman could marry any woman.  This was not a violation of civil rights so long as a state didn't say this man can marry this man, but this man cannot marry that man.

Here the Supreme Court, or five men in robes, decide that if gay marriage is legal in 36 states, then the fact that it is illegal in the rest of the states is a violation of the civil rights of gay people in those states.  This is an absolute violation of Federalism.

So, that gay people can marry is fine, it's just how it was done that I have a problem with.  Which segues us to...

3.  The slippery slope.  Or, in other words, the unintended consequences.  There have been people in this country who have been on an all out onslaught of the second amendment right to bear arms.  Some states have made laws banning people from carrying weapons, while others have laws allowing people to carry weapons.  According to Allen West, "YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE," we all have a civil right to carry guns.

Some believe it will lead to polygamy.  Now that marriage has been redefined by the left, if some man came along and says he wants to marry five women, there is no way we can tell him no.  Before marriage had a specific definition, and now there is no definition.  Marriage is now an open ended word.  It can mean whatever you want it to mean, so long as you have, as Justice Kennedy said, what you need to have "self esteem and dignity."  I mean, that sort of leaves the definition WIDE open. Marriage can now be whatever you want.  Hey, maybe you can even have two robots marry like they did in Japan.

And then there are some who believe liberals are going to come after religion. I discuss that slippery slope below. Still, my liberal friends believe the slippery slope theory is poppycock. I don't know where they get their confidence from. They say we are panicking for no reason. But there is reason. It's right there in the Kennedy ruling: there is no way out now for those who oppose this. It's about fairness. Marriage was something that some people could do and others could not, and that's not fair. This gay marriage debate was not about gays, it was about marriage. So if you have a priest refuse to marry a gay couple, that's not fair. So you bet it will come to that at some point, if it hasn't happened already.  More on this below.

One more thing about slippery slopes.  Some say I'm being paranoid when I speak of slippery slopes.  "Oh, it can't happen," they say.  "I'm not worried about slippery slopes," they say.  Just because your'e paranoid does not mean you are wrong. But I'm not paranoid in this instance.  It's knowledge.  You obtain such knowledge by studying history, keeping up with true events, and through experience.

4.  Unintended Consequences.  Look, folks, happy or not, this ruling is a violation of Federalism. Federalism means that each state can make it's own laws regarding anything not mentioned in the Constitution.  So the ruling essentially makes many other laws null and void.  For instance, if it is unconstitutional for two gay men to get married, then how can it be unconstitutional for two Christian boys to pray in school?

5.  The Power of the Courts.  The purpose of courts is to make sure the law is followed.  They are not supposed to make rulings based on politics, they are supposed to make rulings based on the law. I fear that what they did was make the Constitution irrelevant, which is exactly what the left wants.  As Justice Antonio Scalia said in his dissent, there was a debate going on in this country, and many were deciding in favor of gay marriage.  So they were winning.  Now the debate is shut down.  Many have had something forced on them that they are not ready to accept.  Once again the Supreme Court has made a decision that will divide this nation much the way Rowe -v- Wade did.

6.  Will religion go extinct.  We know that many progressives want to see religion go away, and this ruling may just cause that to happen.  While judges now have to marry people of the same sex, priests and pastors consider doing so a violation of their religious freedom.  I can see a law being passed by some future president that states that a church will lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to marry same sex couples. If this happens, it will mean the end of religion as we know it.  Many churches will go bankrupt.

My liberal friends say it won't come to this.  But even so, Justice Kennedy set the stage for it when he said that if you are a deeply religious person, a priest or a pastor of a church, you're free to dissent, meaning you're free to tell people you disagree. But you are not free to act on it. In other words, "You can't deny the constitutional right we just ordained. You can argue against it, you can say you don't like it, and you'll be okay. But you cannot practice that. You can not!"  In other words, "If two gay Catholics want you to marry them, you cannot deny them that right.  If you do, there might be a lawsuit."  It could be that this has happened already.

When it does, if it does, it will be the end of the Catholic Church, and that will be a bonus to the left.

7.  John Roberts dissenting opinion.  "If you are among the many Americans -- of whatever sexual orientation -- who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."  He also said, "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law."  He's right.

8.  Religious freedom.  There are those who are saying, as George Takei did, that the Christians are going to stand behind "the shroud of religious freedom."  He said, " But they do not have the freedom to impose their religious values on to others. I've heard some of the people, uh, expressing their comments on the, uh, Supreme Court ruling, and they're entitled to that. But they are not entitled to impose their will on everybody."

Christians have never forced their religion on others, as that's not what Christianity is. Christianity is a choice. The Constitution, the First Amendment, the Establishment Clause, protects their right to choose any religion they want.  They can also choose no religion.  So no Christian forced anything on anyone.  Christians just mind their own business and go about praying.   When they wanted to make marriage between a man and a woman, they went through the legal process.  The laws were applied equally to everyone.  Some states chose to make gay marriage legal, while others chose not to.  This is called Federalism.

What's also wrong with statements like Takei's is that, while they say we can't force our beliefs on them (which we are not and never did), it's okay for them to force their beliefs on Christians.  For example, I am minding my own business as a Christian baking cakes.  I am not forcing you to be a Christian in any way. But you come into my store and want me to bake a cake for your wedding.  I say, "I'm sorry, it's against my religious beliefs."  Instead of going someplace else, they sue me.  That's the end of my business.

The baker did not stop the wedding.  Doesn't matter.  The baker did not prevent the couple from being in love. Doesn't matter.  But because the Christian cake maker refused to make a cake for this couple's wedding, they have to close shop.  The gay guys get to choose what cake shop they go to, but the cake shop owner does not get to choose.

Progressives fail to see the hypocrisy here. Why is this not a civil rights violation but laws banning gay marriage are? This sort of thing tramples all over the Constitution, and it's the kind of thing that concerns me. Personally, I would just bake the cake and take the money, but if someone chooses not to that's their business.  They just fought for gay liberties, but now there are some who want to take away religious liberties.  There is something not right about this.  The problem is that those who own businesses have lives and don't have time to be activists, however...

7  Waking up the sleeping giant.  There are 240,000,000 Christians in the United States, and many of them now have their eyes wide open.  Look folks, this is a large lobbying force.  Remember what happened on December 6, 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack, is noted as saying: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."  As it turned out, he was right, and the Japanese did wake up the sleeping giant.


Conclusion.  Go and celebrate the fact that more liberties have been granted.  Go and celebrate if you have an agenda you want to force on the rest of us, because the Supreme Court has just cleared the path.  If what you want is legal in some states, then it must be legal in yours too or you have a civil rights case on your hands.  Good luck!  And, by the way, these are just my observations; these are just things I'm hearing as I peruse Facebook and the blogosphere. I contend here that I am staying neutral on this issue.

Look, this is not my opinion here, it's what I've heard. It's not my opinion that they will come after churches, and maybe even ultimately make it so seven judges can get married. You see, this is not my opinion, it's a fait accompli.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Must the GOP cave on social issues to win in 2016?

So it's 2 a.m. on a Thursday night at work.  I'm sitting with a couple nurses at one of the nurses stations.  This is a time when we are tired enough that we get loose-lipped; this is a time when we start conversations we wouldn't normally start.  But here we are overly tired, and so we get loose-lipped; we get brave.

So we talk about a variety of things, and the conversation, as it often does, segues into politics.  One of the nurses starts to talk about how she is tired of conservatives pushing their social agenda on the rest of us.  She said, "She is just sick of it."

As I so often do, I stay out of the conversation.  Surely sometimes I like to participate, but sometimes I just like to listen so I can get ideas for my blog.  The idea is that if I interject the course of the conversation will be impacted, and if I don't interject I can get a true feel for what other people think.

So I say nothing: I listen.  The conversation goes on to the modern world and the Internet.  The liberal nurse says, "Our parents and grandparents have old fashioned social views because they lived in a bubble; they didn't have access to all the information we do.  If they had access to what we do, they wouldn't be so old fashioned."

"Oh, yeah!" I wanted to say, "I can disprove your theory right here.  I have access to all the same information you do, and it only strengthens my religious believes; my social views.

And I also wanted to say, "Conservatives don't push social issues, that's what liberals do.  Conservatives defend, liberals try to change tradition."

"What do you mean," my liberal friend would have said.

I would have replied, "Conservatives want to conserve culture.  We want marriage to stay in the traditional sense of marriage.  We want to make Detroit better by encouraging men and women to not have premarital sex, and to get married before having children.  Then black children will enjoy the same benefits as the rest of society.  Statistics show that children born of a mother and father are 80% more likely to be productive members of society; they are 80% less likely to end up in prisons, and so on and so forth.  The studies are overwhelming in this regard."

I would have added, if given the chance, "As it is right now, 9 of 10 black children are born to single mothers.  Black teenagers are having sex, and they are having kids out of wedlock.  This means that these kids are growing up with no dads to teach them culture.  They are growing up with mothers who are too busy working to teach them culture.

"So these black kids don't grow up with the same advantages as kids born to a mother and a father.  They end up in poverty, and they end up in jails.  However, as a society, we enable impoverished blacks by giving them foodstamps and welfare and trapping them in their own poverty.  They cannot get out.  They are trapped.  It's a never ending cycle.

"Instead of encouraging marriage and tradition on the poor black communities, we enable them by saying it's okay to have sex before marriage, and it's okay to have kids out of wedlock.  So they never break out of the system.  They never get better.  So call black cities like Detroit go bankrupt."

Of course if I say this the liberal will get mad at me and the conversation would be over.  I would be called radical or old fashioned.  I would be called insensitive to poor black people, even though my actions would give them a better chance of improving their lot in life than anything a liberal would propose.

A similar discussion was started on the blogosphere when Business Insider published a post on June 13, 2015, by Linette Lopez, "Wall Street is getting tired of funding socially conservative Republicans running for president."  The article begins:
"For years, when it came to presidential candidates, Wall Street made huge compromises in order to support the Republican Party. The money men in New York City set aside their socially liberal views in order to support fiscally conservative candidates because that was the only way to get on the same page as the GOP base. The result has been a series of candidates Wall Street's big donors didn't really want.
"It seems those donors are getting tired of that outcome. Hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman recently vented his frustration with this arrangement on an episode of Wall Street Week. 'I tend to be more Republican in my views, but socially very liberal. I'm going to have trouble with any Republican that does not disavow a fixation with social issues,' he said."
This is similar to members of the media claiming that the republican party cannot win in 2016 unless it changes it gives in on social issues, to give up our core principles, in order to win.  This is essentially saying that the republicans need to be the same as democrats on social issues to win.  It's poppycock!

The truth is that republicans must not cave on social issues.  They must continue to convince kids to hold on to traditional principles that are proven to work, as opposed to going with the consensus opinion of the times because that's the best way to avoid controversy.

Many of us on both sides of the aisle would agree that our culture is rotting.  It's not rotting where traditional views are held on to; it's rotting where liberal social views have grown roots.

Further reading:

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Liberalism caused drought in California

So her'es Carlie Fiorina again. You probably think she's my favorite republican candidate for president by now, and she's not.  It's too early to pick favorites.  But she is one smart lady.  Back in April she commented on the drought in California. She said;
"California is a classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people’s lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology. It’s a tragedy. ... That’s the tragedy of California, because of liberal environmentalists’ insistence -- despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled. There is a man-made lack of water in California -- and Washington manages the water for the farmers."
Interesting.   Liberal fail to prevent global warming and cause a drought in California in the process.  So now Governor Moonbeam comes along and places mandatory restrictions on water usage.

Further reading:

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Carly Fiorina supports civil and traditional marriage

I'm not sure she can win, but I certainly like Carly Fiorina's political views.  Here is her answer to a question by Katie Couric what her views were on gay marriage.

COURIC:  Let's talk about gay marriage.  What do you hope the supreme court decides?

FIORINA:  Government should not bestow benefits unequally. I’ve always been a supporter of civil unions. I provided benefits to same-sex couples when I was a CEO at Hewlett-Packard, and I also believe as so many do, that marriage has a spiritual foundation. Because only men and women can create life. I hope that we will come to the point in our country where we can accept those two view and tolerate each other.  That the government shouldn’t bestow benefits in a discriminatory fashion, and that people who believe marriage has a religious foundation, those beliefs should be respected. I hope we can come to that point.

COURIC:  But as you well know gay people think they have a right to actually be joined in marriage just like heterosexual couples

FIORINA:  And they are being in civil unions.  That's what's been going on.  And government bestows in those states where civil unions are legal benefits are being bestowed to those gay couples and I support that.  And the supreme court is now going to decide if that becomes the law of the land. 

COURIC:  So you support civil unions but not gay marriage?

FIORINA:  I believe we need to respect those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual foundation. And I think there are people who believe that, and I'm one of them.  Why can't we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying government cannot bestow benefits unequally.  

COURIC:  But I guess that, because many gay couples think that is tantamount to discrimination

FIORINA:  Well, but it isn't.  

I would have answered that last question this way:  "Isn't it discriminatory against religious people to force them to change the traditions they believe in? No one seems to ask that question.  

Overall, I really like her response here.  I think we can keep both sides of this debate happy by creating civil unions and not messing with traditional marriage.  I truly think that would work.

Watch the full interview

Friday, June 19, 2015

Two-state solution would destroy Israel

I like to write about Israel. They are our number one ally. They face the same threat of Radical Muslims as we do, although to a far greater extent than we do. As they try to create peace through strength, they are often criticized, much like George Bush was criticized when he used force against Iraq for harboring and supporting Muslim terrorists.

So Benjamin Netanyahu wins an election in a landslide. Here we are months later and Obama has yet to congratulate him. Instead, he went to the United Nations to undermine our ally, Israel, in favor of our enemies, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Because Netanyahu has promised not to allow a Palestinian State while he is in office, Obama has threatened to go to the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution recognizing a Palestinian State. He is going to block the Israeli vote opposed to a two state solution.

Why? The only reason I can think of is that Obama, as do many liberals, believes that a Palestinian state is the only road to peace in the Middle East.

In the past the White House has worked with Israel to block such a resolution from passing.

Why? Mainly because past U.S. leaders understood that a Palestinian State would basically mean the end of Israel.

Why? Because the Iranian Caliphate was built on the notion of completely wiping out Israel. Likewise, both Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations with charters calling for the complete anihalation of Israel.

In the past, U.S. policy has been to work with Israel, our biggest ally in the world, and the only strong democracy in the Middle East. Yet Obama is planning to completely change course in such a way that would completely undermine our ally and promote Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In the past the U.S. has opposed the formation of a Palestinian nation, or a two state solution -- Israel and Palestine side by side, because it's leaders understood that such a two-state solution is not a two state solution.

Let me put it this way. Muslims live in Israel today, and they shop and enjoy life like any other person in Israel. If an Israelite left the borders of Israel and entered most Muslim territories, that person would likely be killed for being a Jew. So while the Israeliltes would be happy to live side by side with Muslims, the Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbola would not be happy to live side by side with Jews.

This is a fact that too many people fail to realize, even we hear the voices of radical Muslims all the time saying this stuff.  The leaders of Iran say quite often that they will settle at nothing less than a complete annihilation of Israel; meaning they will settle for nothing short of a one state solution.

The Palestinians do not want a two-state solution. They want a one state solution. They want a Palestine and no Israel. And history proves this as true, as every time Israel has agreed to a two state solution, Palestinian leaders have backed out time and time again. 

Many people fail to realize this, but the Palestinians were offered their own state of Palestine the same time the Jews were offered theirs.  The Jews accepted, and created Israel.  The Muslims rejected it.  So they are not victims.  They are victims, but only to their own rejection of a two state solution because they want a one state solution.  

The Camp David Accords are another perfect example of this. Jimmy Carter had brokered a deal with the Palestinians giving them everything they wanted from Israel, and their leader at the time, Yasser Arafat, refused to sign it.

Why? He did not want a two-state solution: he wanted a one-state solution. He wanted Muslims to live side by side with their brethren in Palestine. The only means to this end is the complete Anihalation of Israel, and the death of all Jews.  The Palestinians don't want part of the land, they don't want to share the land, they want all the land.

So the reason Netanyahu refuses to sign any treaty that would create a Palestinian State is because he does not want to sign a treaty that would result in the destruction of his own nation. The only way that happens if there is a war and Israel loses.

The only other way to peace in the region is an all out war that Israel wins.

Oh, wait, Israel did win an all out war with all the surrounding Muslim nations in 1967. How many people learned about that in history class.  Israel was outnumbered, out equipped, and it looked like it was going to be destroyed.  Israel took quite a few casualties at first, but it drove the Muslim armies out of Israel, and it won the war.  

This is how Israel got the West Bank and the Gaza strip.  They are not occupiers, they won this land in a war they didn't even want to fight. But many nations refused to see this truth, and continued to call the Israelites occupiers and the Palestinians victims.  

But this victory was not recognized by the United Nations. Israel may have been the only nation in the history of the world (besides the Americans, who defeated the Indians) to have won a war and yet were treated as the losers.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Carly Fiorina floors Katie Couric on abortion

Carly Fiorina is at the present time the only female republican presidential candidate. She is former CEO of Hewlet Packard, former republican candidate for the senate, and current chairperson of Good360.  I have now listened to a couple interviews she gave and she appears to me to be a very intelligent conservative candidate. I'm very impressed.  I especially loved the way she schooled Katie Couric on abortion.

COURIC: Let me ask you about the GOP and the trouble it's had among female voters. As you well know, in the last midterms, women were ten points less likely than men to support Republicans. It's the largest gender gap in decades. How do you shore that up for the GOP?

FIORINA: A lot of times, women will come up to me and say, "You know, I'm very uncomfortable with the extreme position the Republican Party takes on abortion." And so, I'll say, "Do you know what the Democratic position is?" Most people don't, by the way. The Democratic policy is any abortion, any time, for any reason at any point in a woman's pregnancy, right up until the last minute, to be paid by taxpayers. Barbara Boxer described this policy as, "It's not a life until it leave the hospital." How do you feel about that? Most women are horrified. If I ask women: How to you feel about the fact that a 13 year old girl needs her mother's permission to go to a tanning Solon, but not to get an abortion.  Most women are horrified by that. How do you feel about the fact that a tattoo parlor is more rigorously regulated and inspected than an abortion clinic. Women are horrified by that. The truth is, most Americans, most women, most young people, most most Americans, have now come to a point of view that an abortion for any reason at all after five months is a problem.  So lets take that common ground. I think our tone matters.  We can't be judgemental.  We can't be angry. But I also think we have to make sure people understand the extremity on the other side. 

COURIC: But you say after five months and you oppose abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. 

FIORINA I'm pro-life.

COURIC: So – But what you're saying is that most Americans support it –

FIORINA: Right. So, let's find common ground.

COURIC: So, what is the common ground?

FIORINA: Well, the common ground, clearly, now, if you look at the polls, the common ground is that people believe abortion after five months for any reason at all is wrong. So, good. Let's take the common ground:

COURIC: But what about – What about – So – So – Where is the common ground?

FIORINA: Let's take that common ground.

COURIC: So, you oppose it, except in the case of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. So, what about those who feel it should be legal for the first five months?

FIORINA: You see, Katie, I think you're just jumping over what I just said. So, what the political class on both sides has done for way too long is argue at the extremes. And in the meantime, there is real common ground. So, we can argue at the extremes here or we can say, you know what –

COURIC: No, I'm curious what is the common ground?

FIORINA: The common ground is if you look at every poll, the majority of Americans, the majority of women and the majority of young people now believe that abortion after five months for any reason is now wrong. So, let's pass – there was a bill in front of the House. Let's pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. That's common ground.

COURIC: So, what is your position on abortion though? Your – as a candidate?

FIORINA: I'm a pro-life candidate because I believe that science is proving us right every day..We've been doing successful surgery in utero on fetuses as young as four months for quite a long time. The DNA in a zygote is precisely as the DNA the day you die. But I understand and respect, Katie, not everyone agrees with me. What I think, is even while we don't agree on everything, let's come together and solve a problem where we have common ground. The truth is there are lots of children being aborted after five months.  That Americans now agree that maybe we should step in and save them.  So let us do that.

COURIC:  So do you believe Roe v Wade should be overturned?

FIORINA:  You know, Roe v Wade right now is the law of the land.  Can we take on common ground right now.  Let's just get that done.

COURIC:  So, is that answer to that question no?

FIORINA:  Let's get common ground done first.  

Transcripts compliments of CNN

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Challenge the theory: 'Think for yourself'

I remember my grandma telling me to think for myself.  That was, like, 30 years ago or maybe even longer ago.  But when you're a kid and your grandma tells you things like that, you really don't understand the true meaning of what she's saying until many years later -- unless you're a genius kid, which I was not.

So you have a consensus that global warming is a fact, and then you have all these people believing global warming is a fact.  Then everybody follows the consensus because that's the path of least resistance, or the path of least destruction. Because everybody else supports a theory, if you oppose it then tension arises.  You are called things like a 'cook' or a 'denier.'

So it's easier just to go with the flow and believe in global warming.

Recently I asked one of my liberal friends during a midnight chat, "Do you believe in global warming?"

He said, "Yes I do."

I said, "Then why has there been no increase in global temperatures in 18 years?"

He said, confidently, "Because the heat is now under the ocean."  He was referring to a study released in the summer of 2014 that showed that the heat has been being sucked into the Atlantic Ocean, and is hiding about a mile down.

Here we are just two guys trying to pass the time; we were walking that fine line of politics, and neither of us wanted to tick off the other (we were both chickens, you might say). So we left this conversation hanging and moved on to something else.

But here is when I started to think about what my grandma said.  I started thinking that with all the information thrown at us about global warming and how it is a fact, it would be so easy to believe it all if I didn't think for myself.

In other words, if you go with the consensus, if you take the path of least resistance, you don't have to think for yourself: all you have to do is believe everything that is said.

If there weren't people who thought for themselves and did their own research, we would probably still be living under the British Monarch, and about 90% of us would be poor.

If people around 1950 didn't start thinking for themselves and begin to challenge the medical consensus that asthma was all in the asthmatic's head, physicians would still be treating asthma as a psychological disease rather than an actual disease.

If you do not think for yourself, then you just become another sheep in the herd. If all you want to do in life is be popular, if all you want to do is be liked, then you might be fine being a sheep.  But if you want to truly make the world better, you best 'think for yourself."

Further Reading:

Monday, June 15, 2015

Childhood depression on the rise, but are smartphones really the cause? Or is it schools teaching them to fear?

So reports of a rise in childhood depression have lead some of the world's leading child psychologists into blaming social media, such as Facebook, and material things such as smartphones.  The telegraph quotes a child psychologist with 25 years of experience named Julie Lynn Evans:
“In the 1990s, I would have had one or two attempted suicides a year – mainly teen aged girls taking overdoses, the things that don’t get reported. Now, I could have as many as four a month.... “f I try to refer people on, everyone else is choc-a-bloc too. We are all saying the same thing. There has been an explosion in numbers in mental health problems amongst youngsters. Something is clearly happening,” she says, “because I am seeing the evidence in the numbers of depressive, anorexic, cutting children who come to see me. And it always has something to do with the computer, the Internet and the smartphone.”
She's basically saying that kids are exposed to too much stuff, to too much information. They get too much access to wisdom too fast, and making more and more of them increasingly depressed.  I understand that kids today have fast access to knowledge we had to go out of our way to find at a library or bookstore when we were kids.

However, rather than jump to conclusions, lets consider some other things that are going on in the world today that might cause kids to become increasingly depressed.
  1. Kids being taught that God, the harbinger of hope and faith, does not exist
  2. Kids being taught that man made global warming is destroying the planet
  3. Kids learning hearing doomsday predictions in schools
  4. High rate of divorce that has kids separated from their families and friends
  5. High rate of single parent households 
  6. High rate of kids growing up in poverty
  7. Kids being taught that they are bad if they respect traditional marriage
  8. Kids being taught to be afraid of eating foods they love based on theories
  9. Kids, many of whom are overweight, taught that being overweight is bad
  10. Government programs taking away the incentive to work, thus leading to families trapped in poverty
  11. Kids not being able to eat the feel good foods they want to eat while in school
  12. Fear that Muslims will try to kill them
  13. Not being able to speak the truth about Muslims
  14. Christian children not being able to pray in school, or being ridiculed for talking about their beliefs
  15. Conservative children being mocked and ridiculed for talking about their beliefs
  16. Children hearing their parents called Nazis, homophobes, idiots, gramma haters, due to their beliefs
  17. Christians being persecuted all over the world, and no one doing anything about it
  18. The country being "fundamentally transformed" from capitalism to socialism. 
  19. A rise in laws that tell people what they can and cannot do; laws that take away liberties
  20. Kids not being told the truth about the founding of this country, and being ridiculed when they do
  21. Kids being told they are idiots for believing in a "fictional, mythological Bible."
  22. An endless parade of hate, fear, and vitriol being taught in schools.
  23. Kids being told they cannot grow up to be better than their parents. 
  24. Parents having to go bankrupt because of the poor economy
  25. Parents losing their jobs because of the poor economy
  26. Parents being forced to work two or three part time jobs because of Obamacare
  27. Fear that they will have less freedom than their parents
  28. Fear of terrorism
  29. Fear that they will be forced to go to war
  30. Fear of a Muslim Caliph
  31. Fear of Russia taking over Europe
  32. Fear of WWIII
I mean, I could go on.  What do you think.  Is too much access to wisdom making kids depressed? Or is it all the exposure to hate, fear and vitriol? 

Friday, June 12, 2015

Theories are just theories, part 3

So you have this theory that the NFL causes brain swelling that can only be diagnosed on autopsy. You have a theory that the NFL causes an increase in suicides. None of this is proven, but you have the NFL accepting the premise and defending itself.

And you have guys like Shannon Sharpe blaming the NFL for intentionally allowing the game to go on while knowing all along that it caused brain damage.

So, based on one theory, all the people who run the NFL are evil and wicked and trying to make a buck at the expense of all the people playing the game.

So then the media buys into the theory. Because that's what the media does: every time a new theory comes out they consider it as fact. Instead of just reporting on it and letting the people decide what is true or not, they treat it as a fact.

So then you have people like Chris Borland reading what the media says. Then Borland gets scared, and he quits the NFL based on his fears. And of course there are other players in the NFL equally scared but don't want to risk giving up all that money.

Surely we should respect theories. Surely we should be careful. But we should not panic and change the game of football based on a couple theories.

I think people tend to over react to theories, and it is this that has lead to the rise in mental disorders in this nation.  Yet, in the meantime, people who believe every new theory postulated think the cause is smart phones

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Theories are just theories, part 2

You may also replace big industry with progressive.
How many theories were postulated that told you that coffee is bad for you. Once it was thought that it would cause Parkinson's. Yet the same people -- who happen to be on a government panel -- who said that are now claiming that drinking four cups of coffee a day prevents parkinsons. They are also claiming it prevents heart disease and liver cancer.

I remember my mom, back in 1977, drank a beer a day while she was pregnant with my younger brother. Then she didnt' breastfeed, because one study came out that showed formula was better for a newborn. Yet that theory was proven to be false, and now the recommendation is that children should be breastfed until the age of three, which was how long most parents throughout history nursed their kids.

My point here is that we need to stop kowtowing to theories.

Another theory postulates that the NFL has lead to an increase in suicides among former players. So the NFL accepts the premise on the scanty evidence available, and defends itself against it. While a more sane solution would be to monitor the situation while waiting for more evidence to come out.

I have seen this (by my own study of medical history) over and over and over throughout history. It goes all the way back to the primitive and ancient worlds. You had people for thousands of years banned from touching a corpse, even for scientific purposes, because dead bodies were considered sacrosanct; that touching them would cause the gods or demons to cause famine and disease.

So what good did this result in. None. It resulted in slowing down of progress. It made it so people would have to wait until the 18th century to actually be able to look at and study a dead body without fearing death. It made it so people had to wait until the 20th century to get results. It made it so asthmatics had to needlessly suffer until the 1950s.

It's all because of senseless, cooky, mythological, feel good theories. It was all based on fear caused by theories that were later proven to be nothing more than theories; nothing more than myths.

Further reading:

Monday, June 8, 2015

Theories are just theories, part 1

As a person who has studied the history of medicine, I have seen over and over again throughout the history of mankind that people tend to overreact to theories. They forget that theories are just ideas that have yet to be proven true or false.

Look at global warming as a good example. You have people who are scared to death that the world is going to be destroyed if we don't do something to stop it, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998. And yet they don't care, they continue to be scared, to champion for more regulations that harm economies.  No wonder kids these days are depressed. The so called experts like to blame it on stuff like iphones, but the real reason is probably that kids are taught to be scared based on "theories."

There once was a theory that asthma was all in your head. All the focus of physicians was aimed at finding medicine to soothe the mind, rather than soothe the bronchial muscles that spasm during an asthma attack. It was for this reason that asthmatics had to wait until the 1950s to get medicine that actually worked. You see, sometimes the most well intentioned theories are wrong.

Another good example is the NFL. Joesph Maroon was the first to discuss a study of the brain that produces Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a brain disease caused by swelling of the brain due to violent head injuries, such as those produced by violent hitting during football.

This "theory" has yet to be proven, however. This was just the result of one study. Many initial studies have later been proven false. 

Another good example here is the hypoxic drive theory. Many COPD patients, for years, have been denied the oxygen they need based on a silly theory. While the theory may prove interesting in theory, real life experience has never corroborated it. Nearly all studies since its inception have proven it false. Yet out of fear of causing their patients to stop breathing, many physicians to this day continue to under oxygenate their patients based on this myth.

So based on one study, Chris Borland, a star defensive player for the San Fransisco 49ers, has decided to quit his million dollar job after only playing one season. He is turning down all sorts of fame and money based on a theory that has never been proven.

Years ago scientists came up with this theory that all cholesterol was bad for you. They believed that all foods high in cholesterol caused heart disease. So, based on this theory, you had many people afraid to eat foods that tasted good.

According to the Washington Post, there is now new scientific evidence that "eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease." The findings are so significant that the U.S. Government is "poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol."

According to National Review, March 9, 2015: "Few areas of science have seen greater advances in recent decades than medicine, but the cholesterol story shows that when dealing with highly complex systems, even the best-informed scientists, using the best available data with the best of intentions, can draw conclusions that turn out to be incorrect. Science deserves all the love we can give it, but that love should not be blind.

My point here is that people need to quit overreacting. Surely we should respect theories, but we must stop treating them as facts. And the last thing we should do is write laws that are nearly impossible to get rid of based on fear caused theories.

Further reading:

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Transabled and Transgender: to debate or not to debate?

So, we are told that, as a society, we must not judge.  If someone feels they are a woman in a man's body, we are told we must not judge this person.  We must allow him to become her.  We must accept transgenderism as normal. Those who don't accept transgenders as normal are now considered old school. Regardless of how you feel about this, I have found an article that will get you to thinking.

The media is using the story of Bruce Jenner not feeling comfortable in his own body and becoming Caitlyn Jenner as an opportunity to push an agenda forward, that we must not judge; that we must accept.  No matter where we go the next few weeks we will see a photoshopped photo of Caitlyn Jenner looking like a young Jessica Lang.  We are told we must accept Caitlyn as just another normal person.  If you don't you are old-school; If you think Caitlyn is weird you are weird.

Now, keep in mind that I'm not arguing whether or not what Bruce Jenner did to himself is right or wrong, I'm merely posing an argument here.  I'm merely going to present ideas that are presented by the so-called experts.  
So, traditionally gay thoughts and transgender thoughts were considered abnormal.  Those who had them were considered abnormal or sick.  Rather than enable them, they were sent to hospitals to get help.  They were fixed.  They were forced to conform.  I'm not saying that's what I think is right, I'm just relaying a truth about history here.  
Generally, the gay population is now accepted.  This is good.  And so too is the transgender population.  Yet the article I found might shed another light on the transgender population.  It won't, because the media won't report it.  But it should. If the media did it's job, it would report all the news, not just the news that advances their political agenda.  A non bias media reports both sides of both stories, and lets the people decide -- but true journalism rarely occurs anymore.
So anyway, Ed Morrissey wrote a column for Hotair called "The next wave of “body diversity”: Disabled by choice."  It discusses a "disease" that is mainly present in Germany and Canada called transabled.  He was basically commenting on an article published on Canada National Post titled "Becoming disabled by choice, not chance: ‘Transabled’ people feel like impostors in their fully working bodies." 
The article begins:  "When he cut off his right arm with a 'very sharp power tool,' a man who now calls himself One Hand Jason let everyone believe it was an accident. But he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn't bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher. ... People like Jason have been classified as 'transabled' -- feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order..."

The article goes on:

People like Jason have been classified as ‘‘transabled’’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order.“We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on “transability” at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa. “The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.” Most of them are men. About half are in Germany and Switzerland, but he knows of a few in Canada. Most crave an amputation or paralysis, though he has interviewed one person who wants his penis removed. Another wants to be blind. Many people, like One Hand Jason, arrange “accidents” to help achieve the goal. One dropped an incredibly heavy concrete block on his legs — an attempt to injure himself so bad an amputation would be necessary. But doctors saved the leg. He limps, but it’s not the disability he wanted.
Then they have experts say this is a neurological problem and not a mental illness.  This expert says it's just another form of "body diversity" such as trangendnerism.  He says that a physician can help these people achieve their goals by planned cosmetic surgery, the same that occurs when a man no longer wants to be a man and wishes to become a female.

Look, I'm not forming an opinion here, I'm just repeating what is said by the experts.  I'm not forming an opinion either way on this.  I'm just sharing this information go get you to thinking, which is the intent of this blog: to articulate ideas.  

So, are we to think that this is normal? Are we to think that a person who is transabled is normal?  Others say this is not normal, and that these people should get the help they need.  Regardless, these people are not going to get help, because we are supposed to accept this as normal.  So, rather than get them the help they need, we are going to have physicians, cosmetic surgeons, help them to obtain their goal.  

So we have some experts who claim we should not judge these people as weird, but accept them as normal. They suggest physicians should help them obtain their goal. And any one who aims to deny them what they need are old school, homophobes, deniers, abnormal, the new weird, etc. They say we need to tolerate everyone, and we must be compassionate and not judge. The media says we should help these people.  The Academia says we should help these people attain their goals.  

Other experts claim that they are sick and need help.  They suggest that helping them obtain their goal is enabling their disease process.  They say that allowing a transabled person to cut off an arm, or allowing a trangender to have a sex change, is no better than allowing an alcoholic to have another beer.  It's no better than being the person who takes another whopper to the 600 pound lady who is so heavy she can't get off her bed.  By enabling them to engage in certain behaviors, they say, we are just as guilty as they are.

Bruce Jenner said he had a panic attack immediately following his surgery, saying to himself, "What have I done."  Studies suggest that the rate of depression doubles after having a transgender surgery to 20 percent. So, in light of these facts, are we, as a society, right to accept transgenderism as normal? Are we supposed to accept transsgenders as normal even though they represent 0.4% of the population? 

I don't know the answer.  I am not an expert in this regard.  I'm just asking you to think about this.  I'm asking you to think about this because we are expected no longer to judge people.  We are expected to accept such "behaviors" or "lifestyles" as normal or we are weird, we are old school.  

Surely we must love people for who they are, regardless of the choices they make.  And in a free society we should be allowed to make whichever choices we want.  But is letting these people change their bodies the right thing to do? Is it going too far? Is one or the other good or bad for society as a whole? 

Should we be celebrating and promoting the Bruce Jenner to Caitlyn Jenner story to show that it is normal?  Or should be not be celebrating and promoting it because it is abnormal? Of course the media is going to do the former and shun the later as old school.  But we are not the media here: We do not just go with the flow and tell people what they want to hear to advance an agenda and to make money.  We have no ads here to sell. 

So, do these people need prayer and help?  Or should we allow them to choose to make changes to their bodies that they can never undo.  Are we being compassionate when we help these people achieve their goal, or should compassion be defined as encouraging them to seek help? Or should we just not go there, and let people decide the course of their own lives?

You decide?  

Further reading:

Friday, June 5, 2015

Be careful with platitudes

Two of the most common platitudes used in the political realm are "I want to make a difference" and "I want to change the world."  The problem with these two "sayings" is this: "Who doesn't?"

I watched a Mrs. U.S.A. pageant a few years ago, perhaps the last time I will ever do this, and nearly half the women on stage said something along the lines of "I want to make a difference."

I watch the Disney Channel every day too, and listen as the children are made to say things like "we need people like x and x to show that together we can make a difference."

Look, both Hitler and Stalin had goals to make a difference, and they created fascist governments with social reforms that forced people to give up personal liberties for the good of the state.  Then they forced people to comply by killing them if they didn't.

But don't worry, because they did it to make a difference.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

What is fascism?

Fascism, commonly known as Marxism, is a form of government whereby the state is worshiped as a religion, and experts in the state make rules that attempt to prevent many of the flaws of men.

The police-state then enforces these laws, and the end result is an ideal world or euphoric world where everyone has a job with equal pay, and everyone has healthcare, and there is world peace.

Fascism is a movement that began around the turn of the 20th century, and it grew roots in nearly every western nation. What forms it took depended on what country it was formed in.

In most nations, there is no constitutional restraint against writing laws, and this empowered powerful men in certain nations to build powerful fascists governments. Examples include Stalin's Communism in Russia, Mussolini's Socialism in Italy, and Hitlers Naziism in Germany.

You also have to understand here that Nazism is National Socialism. Hitler decided who got healthcare and how much. Hitler decided who lived and who died. Hitler decided what programs were going to be formed, and he took money from the people to create them. He mesmerized the people with his Utopian agenda, and that is how he gained the support of the people. He did not tell them that, in the process of giving Hitler what he wanted, that they were signing away their freedom.

Under Hitler's appeal, his promise for a Fascist Utopia, that people lost total sight of reality  This is how they became so obedient. They were doing what they were told by their radical leaders. There was not an individual strain of thought, at a certain point. It was much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. And it was all just another version of fascism.

But that can't happen in the United States.  Or, it couldn't happen, so long as the Constitution was respected. That's right! In the United States, the Constitution stood in the way of fascism, mainly because it was a document that told the state what it could not do.  For this reason, fascism had to take on a more gentle form.  This posed a problem for those who yearned to advance a fascist agenda.

In the U.S., progressives, which is the name they chose for themselves, quickly realized their agenda was unpopular.  So, in order to move their agenda forward, they had to take baby steps: they had to gradually, by way of assimilation, change minds.

One of the best ways of changing minds and inculcating change, so they learned, was by taking advantage of tragedies.  So when people lost their life savings during the Great Depression, they called on progressives to save the day.

Progressive experts in Washington, both republican and democrat, convinced the people that it as okay to surrender some of their personal liberties to the state for the benefit of society.  They convinced them by saying things like, "It's for your own good."

So the progressive movement took off, becoming the original fascist movement in the United States. Of course, power breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds corruption.  The federal government went on an "it's for your own good" rampage, passing bill after bill after bill forcing people to cede their liberties to Uncle Sam.

This is what happened when the progressives managed to get into the White House during the election of 1912.  Woodrow Wilson was their man, although, if he would have lost, Teddy Roosevelt had an even more aggressive progressive agenda than Wilson.

Through Wilson, progressives were able to convince Americans that some laws were necessary to prevent bank failures and create jobs.  They convinced people it was necessary to enforce compliance with the state, and for a police state to arrest and jail anyone who spoke ill of the state cause.

They believed compliance to the state would create a more perfect union, sort of like the euphoria Christians talk about finding in the afterlife.  This euphoria was the ultimate goal of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, and it was also the ultimate goal of Woodrow Wilson as well.

They had all created fascist governments that were unique to their respective states.  Yet they were, in fact, sister governments, all falling under the rubric term fascism.

It is in this way that we can fairly say that fascism gave birth to socialism, communism, Nazism, and progressivism.  We can also fairly say it gave birth to liberalism because liberalism is basically a racemic (watered down) form of progressivism. You might even call progressivism and liberalism neo-communism.

So, in this way, we can fairly say that fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism, progressivism, liberalism, statism, and even totalitarianism, are all sisters and are all one and the same form of government. They all propose to take from those who have and redistribute it to those who have not in an attempt to create a perfect, an ideal, world.