29. July 2010 by admin.

It’s not uncommon to see a patriot mistreated over the issue of immigration, usually by people who consider themselves part of the human rights/anti-racism movement. But while “global human rights” sound a little bit larger and more glamorous a struggle than “American rights,” both the glamor and resulting anger toward patriots ensue from a major misunderstanding of the importance of citizenship. 

In a proper republic, citizenship extends rights to those who are legally obligated to make sacrifices. We all get the chance to vote, and usually to receive some sort of economic safety net, and be protected by the police and firefighters, and benefit from the infrastructure created through taxation. We have the right to a trial by jury, the right to keep and use weaponry, the right to pursue a job, and the right to reside within our limited territory. But these rights are only inherited by our citizenry because they were paid for with the blood, sweat, and tears of both our ancestors and us.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics, cultural/racial | Print | No Comments »

10. July 2010 by admin.

Editor’s note: this article first appeared on American Thinker, and can be found here

I can still remember, sometime back in my hipster days a couple of years ago, near the dawn of my own conservatism, entering a bar which used to be my favorite and having something tweak my brain in the strangest way.  There I was, with my long hair, a beard, pants tighter than my own girlfriend’s, and a bright blue members only jacket, entering the well-known hipster bar (at the time, anyway) known as The Cha-Cha Lounge and seeing a sign which read something along the lines of “We will not allow any racism, sexism, or bigotry, so stay out if you like these.”  Like I said, not an exact quote, but the sign had been there for years, and it’s probably still there.

The thing that struck me so powerfully about the sign wasn’t that they were specifically prohibiting certain kinds of offensive judgments, however, but the fact that this bar–this bastion of sleazy, Leftist, Seattle hipsterism–was prohibiting racial and cultural judgment, even though it was widely known to house some of the most judgmental Seattleites the city could afford.  I’d find out just how judgmental they were when I returned after getting a cheap “civilian” haircut and some mainstream American Eagle jeans, and suddenly I could hear people whom I didn’t know telling others, right in front of me, how they’d just been to some terrible “bro” bar filled with guys like me.  So thanks for fighting racism, guys.  I’m totally drenched in love. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

15. June 2010 by admin.

Earlier this week, I was surprised to discover that the Mormon church was using its money to buy a billion dollar mall in Salt Lake City.  Shockingly, the New York Times reports “When completed in 2012, it will encompass 900,000 square feet of retailing, including an outdoor pedestrian shopping mall capped by 115 apartments; 1.6 million square feet of office space in eight buildings; a grocery store; and five residential towers with about 600 condominiums.”  Yee-ikes.

My first reaction was one of outrage, my belief being that this project utilizes funds from its parishioners, who should be guaranteed proper stewardship of church property (while Deseret News reports that the funds came from Property Reserve Inc, the church’s real estate arm).  After all, when you pay 10% of your wages for the purpose of helping your particular ministry, you want it to fund something… holy.   But this is beside the point, since I’m not even a Mormon, which means I can’t hold them to Christian administrative standards, although those standards will be questioned later.  While there are certainly moral issues involved here, this massive expenditure raises serious questions about the separation of church, business, and state, the practical nature of philanthropy, and the nature of conservative values. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, Theology, politics | Print | No Comments »

13. June 2010 by admin.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, many people say that drug abuse is a medical problem, which leads them to oppose the criminalization of drug use.  Their stances against criminalization can vary anywhere from fining people for possession (”high” standards), to providing users with needles and giving the addicts places to inject themselves (really really low standards).  Either way, their argument is the same: they say the physical act of taking drugs doesn’t directly harm another person, and drug addicts have a medical problem relating to urges.

To be fair, those supporting de-criminalization are correct: when a person has an overwhelming urge to take a substance, they’re dealing with a set of chemical circumstances and urges that the general public doesn’t, and those urges are caused by the use of drugs. But legalizers forget a few very important things about drug addiction; most notably that once a substance is consumed, the substance alters the user’s set of urges to something very different than what they had before, while at the same time lessening inhibitions. This should lead us to wonder: do we have to excuse those urges, too?  After all, if the urge to take a drug is only a medical problem, then the urges following drug abuse must also be medical, since the only difference between a sober person and a deranged addict is the chemical imbalance resulting from drug use. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

11. June 2010 by admin.

These last few weeks, as Israel has been receiving nearly universal condemnation for searching a potentially terrorist convoy, it may seem that Israel is more trouble than they’re worth.  After all, the entire world is watching their every move, and sometimes it can seem that the United States is placing itself in a perilous position by giving its support to the Jewish nation.

But the purpose of this article isn’t to convince you that Israel is perfect, or that people in Gaza have been living in comfortable conditions, or even that Helen Thomas is a scoundrel for saying the things she said.  This article is to show you what Israel is, why it deserves your respect, why you need to be on its side in terms of national defense, and what blessings the world has received through it.  This is a celebration of the miracle of Israel. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology, politics | Print | No Comments »

6. June 2010 by admin.

Any way you look at it, Americans are overtaxed.  There’s a tax for gasoline, and a tax for buying a car.  There’s taxation when you get paid, and taxation when you spend.  If you own a corporation, you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money for being a corporation, and if you just own a business, you have to pay taxes for unemployment funds.  If you buy a home, there’s a tax, and if you just sit in your home, there’s another tax.  If you’re in Washington State, you have to pay extra taxes for buying liquor and cigarettes, and if you want a carbonated beverage, you have to pay a special tax for that, too.  And the taxes are for one purpose: to ensure that the things our government pays for are paid for.

Now, it’s fairly obvious to everyone that despite our massive amounts of taxation, we’re still not meeting our budgetary demands (Currently, we’re facing a yearly deficit of 1.5 trillion, on top of last year’s 1.4 trillion.  To put this in perspective, our Fortune 500 only has a yearly net income of 391 billion dollars).  And despite the fact that we can’t pay for everything we want, both parties keep promising tax breaks to specific people.  Republicans want to tax everyone less, Democrats claim to want less taxation for the poor (a bizarre statement, since most truly poor people pay nothing in federal income taxes), and both sides use these arguments against their opponents every time an election season comes around.  This is especially ironic, since our progressively mounting deficit is being met with a political demand: that the person receiving the majority’s vote never win on the promise to responsibly raise taxes across the board. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, economy | Print | 3 Comments »

30. May 2010 by admin.

“The LORD abhors dishonest scales,
but accurate weights are his delight.” -Proverbs 11:1

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” -Leviticus 19:15

Americans tend to take a pretty strong stance against cruel and unusual punishment, having been a colony governed by barbaric England.   But it’s interesting to note that while our system of justice prohibits reckless physical revenge, those suffering at the hands of greedy lawyers can be subject to whatever economic penalty an empathetic judge or jury desires.

For instance, a woman filed a discrimination lawsuit against NASCAR, worth $225 million, and she got her money.  Lawyers can also prowl nursing homes looking for clients with vague stories about “abuse.”  Allbusiness.com reports that lawyers in Florida were able to find clients in nursing homes after an active search, and took home half of their clients’ individual $750,000 payouts.  A young woman’s family once sued Honda for $65 million after she drank herself into a stupor, backed her car into a lake, and drowned because she couldn’t unbuckle her seatbelt.  The jury awarded the money, although an appeals court (luckily) threw the case out later. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

29. May 2010 by admin.

I have to admit a bit of bias before getting to the meat of the matter, here: I’ve always gotten along well with Asian students, particularly northern ones.  During my several years in California’s school system, I never once had a problem with a rude Asian student, never had one steal from me, never knew one who broke the law (although I’m sure they exist, somewhere), never was physically threatened by one, and never had one blame me for any of their shortcomings or demand a handout.  In short, I have no history of bad interactions with Asian students, and to be quite frank, it’s left me with a good impression of them.

So it should come as no surprise to my readers that I’m particularly angered by the UC system, as they’re purposely seeking to lower admissions standards to rid themselves of many of their Asian students.  Not only is this institutional envy shameful and socially dysgenic, but also a poor form of business.  Asians didn’t dominate the UC system by whining like other races, after all.  They became a large portion of the student body by having a superior work ethic and a culture geared toward academic success.  If success is a reason to bar anyone from a college system, you must be a Democrat.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, cultural/racial | Print | 4 Comments »

24. May 2010 by admin.

“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:

a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance, Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | 2 Comments »

25. April 2010 by admin.

Almost every American is aware that our prison system needs to be reformed, but it seems that nobody has a viable solution.  To understand the immensity of the problem we’re facing, consider these four major issues:

#1: Prisons are too expensive

In 2009, Reuters reported that imprisonment costs Americans $29,000 per prisoner (more than my wages last year), and 51.7 billion total on corrections (including local jails, probation, parole).

#2: High rates of recidivism

A 2002 Bureau of Justice Statistics study showed that after three years, 67.5% of prisoners were arrested after release, and 51.8% were back in prison.  So our prison system isn’t reforming the overwhelming majority of criminals.

#3: A criminal’s ability to blend in allows them to strike again, or to breed

Without a way to recognize criminals, they can strike again after leaving prison.  And they leave unfathered children all over our states, contributing to neighborhood poverty and crime. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | No Comments »

21. March 2010 by admin.

One of the Seattle’s silly quirks is that if you’re a conservative, people will often think you’re a libertarian, and libertarians oftentimes consider themselves to be conservatives.  From what I can tell, this confusion comes from Seattle’s (and the Left’s) strong record of vicious fighting against social conservatism, which makes conservatives terrified about taking social stances in public, which leads to something similar to libertarianism (as libertarianism is a combination between liberalism’s severely limited control upon sexual/substance morality and conservatism’s supposedly lax business standards).  But even beside differences in social liberalism, it’s easy to see that libertarianism and conservatism are irreconcilably different in too many ways to even consider them similar. 

Because of these differences and the fact that libertarianism seems to be gaining serious ground in the Republican party, our knowledge about the two governmental philosophies is absolutely essential: we must be clear about what we want, and what we mean when we use words like “conservative.”  So for my many wonderful libertarian friends who think they’re conservative, and my other friends who think I’m a libertarian, here is a quick primer on the philosophical differences between the two. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 2 Comments »

26. February 2010 by admin.

When Americans believed in Truth, they used to say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  That is to say, just because a plan of action has a noble purpose doesn’t necessarily guarantee a noble outcome, kinda like the plan to save homeowners from the horrors of foreclosure.  While appearing as a noble goal upon first glance, after a deeper look at the policy is taken, whether due to miscalculation or corruption we find that the only people truly benefiting from his attempts are powerful bankers.

To clarify before making my point, having a banking system is healthy, but investment lending and consumptive lending are two completely different things.  While investment lending lends money for the purpose of potentially increasing the income of the borrower either through business or education, consumptive lending does not potentially increase the wealth of the borrower.  Borrowing money to go to school should result in a higher income for the borrower, after which he or she should be more financially secure than before.  On the other hand, consumptive lending for televisions has no effect upon the borrower’s income, while allowing him to buy something he couldn’t otherwise afford. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, economy | Print | 1 Comment »

5. February 2010 by admin.

No American is actually a constitutionalist.

Although the kind of rights guaranteed by the federal government are hailed by both parties as essential, the truth is that they are absolutely impractical on a local level, almost everyone disagrees on their universal application, and both parties violate the constitution’s broad stance on many issues.  Conservatives, for instance, will say that freedom of speech is intended to protect political and religious speech, while Liberals say that freedom of speech is also intended for dirty language and suggestive themes on daytime television, but not “hate” speech. Both parties prosecute pedophiles for baiting children with words on the internet, you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater or divulge your intent to kill someone, The FCC exists, it is illegal to disclose classified information, and we currently do not allow people to advertise for Christian roommates.  And even though most agree that infringement is absolutely necessary in the first five of these, these cases are all still unconstitutional infringements upon the first amendment. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | 1 Comment »

23. January 2010 by admin.

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the right to constitutional liberties, since they are run by individuals with rights protected by the US constitution (most notably freedom of political speech and the right to organize their candidates for election).  The immediate response by left-wing news stations was one of horror and disgust, with the likes of Keith Olbermann even saying that–now that corporations have constitutional access to their own funding and consciences–every conceivable science-fiction political nightmare is now possible.  Here are fourteen of the horrors Keith described, ranging anywhere from hilarious to beneficial (the latter type being obvious for those who appreciate the laws of God, and at the very least frown upon the injustices of Marxism):

1) In ten years, every politician in the US would be a corporate prostitute

2) the existence of unions (editor’s note: the organizations responsible for both a) changes in the taxation of health care plans which taxed 40% for non-union members, and b) for the collapse of our auto and manufacturing industries) would be threatened

3) taxation would become flat, and government spending will decrease Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | No Comments »

4. January 2010 by admin.

When people want to get something important done in a democratic republic, chances are they’re going to have to find others who feel strongly about the same issue(s) and organize, which empowers them to live freely, happily, and effectively.  An active and moral citizenry is, after all, crucial to the survival of a free state.  But after looking at Western history over the past 50 years, we find that a dangerous trend has been adopted toward the regulation of groups: the civil liberties of the individual, which are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, become severely restricted as soon as those individuals join hands with others to accomplish goals according to their consciences.

For instance, the first amendment–which protects freedom of speech–is strangely absent when people organize in political action committees.  As an individual, you are entitled (for the most part) to speak your mind according to your conscience, but when people who believe in something want to make a political difference in their world, rules suddenly appear for what can be said, when they can say it, and who they can accept money from.   To our government, freedom of speech and the liberty to raise capital matter, but only when you’re alone and don’t want to affect your country. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

3. December 2009 by admin.

Recently, Rachel Maddow exposed what she thought was a very clear connection between Ugandan minister Martin Sempa and American religious conservatives, stating that she believes pastors in the US were indirectly responsible for an anti-gay bill in Uganda.  The bill supposedly presents an absolute ban on homosexual behavior, going so far as to give the death penalty to people involved in homosexual acts, and even punishment for those who harbor or do not disclose the homosexual acts of neighbors.  What Rachel didn’t mention, however, is that the country is suffering so badly from an AIDS crisis that 50% of the population is under the age of 15. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | 4 Comments »

1. December 2009 by admin.

When the electoral season comes around, conservatives can always count on being called “fearful,” and being told that they employ fear tactics to win their arguments.  This is half true, and half ridiculous.

But to understand the absurdity of their statement, we must have a proper perspective on our country.  Liberals are postmodern big-government globalists who want to restructure the family, increase the oversight of government, make the United States of America subject to international forces we don’t really control, and get rid of all religion in the state (except for only when Jesus said to feed the poor and not judge, the only parts of the Bible they enjoy quoting).  As such, legislation they propose tends to threaten to upset our daily way of living, since the United States–up until these last forty years–has been almost unrivaled in its conservatism on the world scene. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 2 Comments »

29. November 2009 by admin.

Americans don’t understand how blessed they are.  We live in a country in which–for the most part–we can make our own decisions about what to say, whom to vote for, and we can make decisions based upon our religious conscience (better than in Europe, anyway).  But another thing ungrateful Americans don’t understand is that all these freedoms came only by vigilance and bloodshed, and can be taken away at the stroke of a pen.

Although a sharp reduction in liberties has been fostered by an increasingly leftist elite these past 60 years, mostly incrementally, the most dangerous restrictions on liberty and the pursuit of happiness are likely to come from major treaties signed  by our president.  This is because Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of our constitution dictates that any of these treaties become law as soon as he signs with a super-majority congressional vote, and article VI of our constitution mandates that international treaties are the supreme law of the land, enforceable through our court system.

As such, here is a list of treaties the entire world has signed and we haven’t.  This is important because each of these treaties has a different focus, but when presented in entirity the goal becomes very clear: the United States and every other country in the entire world is not to have liberty apart from their real masters: a governing body of international unelected officials. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | No Comments »

27. November 2009 by admin.

What kind of monster would reject the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC)?

This question was recently asked by our president and other lefties, as they recognized that Somalia–one of the worst violators of children’s rights in recent history–and the United States were the only countries in the entire world who rejected the treaty.  At first glance this Somali-American union might seem pretty strange, but lumping us both  into the same category isn’t exactly fair.  After all, the “honorable” record of signers includes

-Iran, where people can’t actually vote

-Kenya, a nation in which mobbing neighbors enjoy picking up machetes and hacking children to death

-Saudi Arabia, the place where most of our 9/11 hijackers came from, and are generally supported Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | 1 Comment »

3. November 2009 by admin.

Despite what either side of the political spectrum may say about the other, many Democrats and Republicans claim to be Christians.  Republicans claim to be the Christian party because they (are supposed to) take more conservative–or, Christian–stances on social issues, while Democrats claim that God has a heart for the poor and would be on their side because they engage in state philanthropy.  Actually, this and the Iraq War are the primary reasons Leftist Christians claim they voted for Obama, despite the fact the Obama’s stances on social issues are diametrically opposed to anything portrayed as righteous in the Bible.  So how can anyone tell if their stance is legitimate?

First of all, you can always recognize a legitimate Christian because they claim a couple of things: that the Bible is divine revelation, and that dependence upon Jesus Christ alone grants salvation.  If a claimed Christian won’t agree with this, then drop them like they’re hot: you’re dealing with an illogical heretic.  But if they agree with those statements, we can rest upon God’s divine law as presented in the Old Testament.  The reason we can say this is because Jesus commanded us to love one another, He said that loving interaction is defined by His divine law, and those laws were presented by Yahweh Himself for His covenant people. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

11. October 2009 by admin.

A lot of talk has been given in the last century about non-violence, the Left being particularly enamored with the concept of a peaceful and gentle existence in which violence is far removed from everyday life.  But one thing the Left forgets is that violence and government are intrinsically intertwined.  As the state and its institutions are the Left’s primary tools for social change, it becomes very important for thinkers to question the pacifistic nature of policies that solely rely on the state for their enactment.

It is not difficult to understand that violence (or the threat thereof) is the tool the state uses to achieve all its goals.  For instance, if a person breaks any law, that person is subjected to fines or jail time.  But what if the person refuses?  Since the government cannot enforce such a policy when a person refuses to comply, their only option is to use violent force to subdue those in rebellion.  And this displays a fundamental point: there simply is no such thing as a non-violent government policy.  If you refuse to pay taxes, the government will come for you with force.  If they weren’t able to forcefully subdue you, our government wouldn’t be able to do anything. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

3. October 2009 by admin.

The funny thing about national unity is that both sides of the political spectrum implicitly agree on one thing: that keeping society unified is a good idea, and that the dissolution of political powers is a painful, cumbersome, and oftentimes violent process that’s worth avoiding (this is unless, of course, that radical is an anarchist or a separatist, but both of these groups are minorities of minorities).  The disagreement between Left and Right on social cohesion occurs because, just as with pleasure and peace and wealth, how you pursue unity defines whether or not you reside in the camp of good or evil.  But despite the fact that both sides have completely different approaches to unity, both sides claim the other violates civil liberties in the pursuit thereof, and reality will always attest that no two political stances offend liberty with perfect equality. As such, it is our duty to determine which pathway is more destructive to the cause of freedom.

While true liberalism demands that political unity must be attained through institutionally-based equality, those on the Right maintain that unity under a government should be pursued by a people with sense of cultural and theological belonging.  It is this, conservatives argue, which grants legitimacy to the democratic republic, with the people deciding who they are and why they belong together.  Anything else would be contrary to the very idea of liberty itself: just ask someone from a Soviet satellite republic. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

24. September 2009 by admin.

Editor’s note: before reading this article, it must be made clear this this writer does not believe that the human race arrived at its present state through the process of evolution.  He firmly believes that Yahweh has created the human race, given the law through His prophets, and that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.  As such, caring for those in need is important, and he regards all humans as his equals.  It must also be mentioned that by “Darwinism” and “Evolution,” he is not speaking about natural selection and adaption, which all people agree about, but rather the changing of species and the idea that the human race evolved from goo.

Supposing one were to abandon God altogether, deciding that He had no impact upon the universe and that the human race arrived at our present point through naturalistic, evolutionary, and directionless processes, that person could get a pretty firm idea about the universe.  For instance:

1) There is one goal for all organisms, and it is to survive

2) All organisms must die at some point

3) Evolution is the sole universal morality, and that which provides us with success/environmental domination, and even emotions

4) Any other morality exists because humans exist, and are thus abstract inventions which we accept or deny at whim depending on how we feel Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | 1 Comment »

11. September 2009 by admin.

Earlier this week, Obama addressed the nation’s children as they headed off to school.  While many parents were happy to see the president personally address their children from the television, others refused to allow their children participate in school events where the president was to be broadcasted.

The latter group was portrayed as being insanely protective, almost terrified that “Barama” would get into their youths’ minds and turn them into Godless commies.  But after analyzing Obama’s speech, what we find are not only a series of confusing contradictory statements, but also those supporting an incredibly liberal agenda.  After reading the speech, it is my conclusion that any parent interested in raising their child properly would at least take the time to explain why Barack Obama was flat wrong on several issues.

But first, we must begin by saying that statements aren’t really islands to themselves.  They almost always come in groups, with some statements being necessarily implied by other statements. If a persons says that someone is “good,” they are admitting to a moral standard in which both the speaker and the listener are assumed to believe.  If you say that all men are created equal, you must necessarily be implying that evolution is not the process by which we arrived at our present state, since evolution demands that some portions of the population are always biologically superior and better adapted than the other populations, and that only this evolutionary process would separate us from the animals.  In a logical world, this is the consistent way most statements work.  Acknowledging the truth of a statement thus silently acknowledges other supporting statements as true.

So let us look at several statements made by our President in his speech. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »

31. August 2009 by admin.

When I was a kid, my father told me about his service in the Vietnam War and stories about the Tet Offensive.  To give those without historical knowledge a background, in 1968 the Vietcong had amassed forces to invade free South Vietnam, and US troops suffered casualties larger than normal.  After the offensive was completed, our media had a circus about the massive losses of American soldiers, leading to a demoralization of US citizenry and eventually leading to the abandonment of our allies.  After we left, our friends were slaughtered by the sadistic and communist Vietcong in something no less horrifying than any other massively publicized genocidal tragedy.

The worst part about the Tet Offensive wasn’t that we lost a lot of troops, however, but rather that–in military terms–it was a grand success for our boys, and the American public had no real clue how much we had won.  After that massive success, the self-sacrificing upholders of the free world (I dare the reader to portray the Vietcong in a positive light) were portrayed as failures and spat upon for fighting communism not only successfully, but heroically.

Today we find ourselves in a similar situation, with the media reporting negatively about the number of US casualties in Afghanistan, driving morale into the gutter and making situations seem more hopeless than they really are.  But take hope.  Things aren’t what they seem.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics | Print | No Comments »

29. July 2009 by admin.

Although abortion is a hot-button topic due to the debate over whether a human death is involved or not, the ramifications of abortion or the right-to-life are far more reaching than ever discussed in the mainstream media.  As such, this article is not about why abortion is wrong.  If the reader is interested in a concise and easy read about the moral bankruptcy of child-murder, they can read an article I wrote on the subject a short while back. Rather, this article is about the more dangerous consequences of solely granting the right-to-life.

Of course, when approaching the topic of abortion, the intelligent and learned Left is generally (yet unmentionably) aware of one major problem: that repealing the ability of a woman to kill her children would have the effect of nearly exponentially increasing the number of Black–and mostly illegitimate– children in the West, the fear of which prompted the creation of abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood (who specifically targeted Black communities with access to “choice”).  Even popular liberal books such as Freakonomics have unabashedly stated that the decline in violence levels in the US were predominantly due to the abortions of the 1970’s and 1980’s, but didn’t care to mention that an overwhelming number of abortions involved Black children.  Actually, the Black abortion rate is ridiculously higher than the White abortion rate, and has always been.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics, cultural/racial | Print | No Comments »

29. June 2009 by admin.

Every time liberals want to pass legislation about something, newspapers and television reports fill up with stories about a kind-faced and law-abiding person who just wants to be able to live their life if it only wasn’t for you: the American public, because you’re calloused and won’t extend “human rights” to them (known to sensible people as “extending the right to break legal/moral barriers and then get benefits”).  The reason for your callousness, of course, because you’re selfish and racist and bigoted.  This treatment is especially applied by the media in the argument over illegal immigration.

Before getting started however, it should be known that this writer has personally known and enjoyed the companionship of an illegal alien before. His name was Armando, and he was one of the nicest, most polite, charming young men I’ve known in my lifetime.  He couldn’t speak English worth a damn, but it was clear to me that the kid just wanted to work hard to support the family he’d left back home.  Back then, his friends have me over for carne asada in the rural Californian town of Bonsall, we’d listen to music, and enjoy each other’s company.  He was my buddy.  I’m even willing to assume that–at that particular time and place–he was a better person than I was.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, cultural/racial | Print | 1 Comment »

27. June 2009 by admin.

Earlier this week I had a conversation with an old friend of mine who doesn’t believe in Christianity. The discussion was over the French government possibly banning the burkha, which my friend found to be a gross violation of civil rights, most notably the choice of what to wear, as well as the separation of church and state (kind of an American thing, eh?). His friends–since I must note that this took place on Facebook–all joined the band-wagon, suggesting that the French government was taking an immoral stance against individual liberty, and that France should stay out of religious matters.

But most importantly, we came to a point in which I quoted the Qur’an, which stated that a man could beat his wife if she were acting out of line, and I asked both Eric and his friends if they thought the French government should have any say in practically ritual wife-beating.  His response?  A quote from Deuteronomy, which stated that a woman’s hand should be chopped off if she intervenes in a fight and grabs a man by his genitals. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Theology, politics | Print | No Comments »

24. June 2009 by admin.

A lot of people are being told that Americans are getting screwed by our government’s rescue plan, but most Americans don’t really know how.  To give the reader a good example of why this bailout reeks of “mismanagement,” all we’d have to do is look at banks and their excess reserves.

Now, as a little background information, every US bank dealing with more than $43.9 million is ordered by the Federal Reserve to have roughly 10% of their deposit money as reserves on hand (12).  This means that if people put $100 in the bank, the bank has to have about $10 on hand and can lend the remaining $90 to other people.  Allowing banks to hold only a fraction of their loaned amount on hand is known as fractional reserve banking, and it essentially allows banks to create money (something that you and I would be thrown in jail for.  Check that last link out)(1)(2). Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in politics, economy | Print | No Comments »

16. June 2009 by admin.

Last week I happened to come across a leftist’s link on Facebook, and this link was to an article which argued that the talking heads of the Right were responsible not only for Tiller’s death, but also for the murder of a guard at a Holocaust museum.  It went on to blatantly suggest that Christians and their intolerant worldviews are responsible for the hate we see today, and that these talking heads and other hatemongers should be held accountable for the actions of unrelated assassins. As such, I felt the need to comment.

This conversation is important because it highlights some very common beliefs and “logical” stances of the Left, as well as double-standards and the appropriate responses to them.  It’s highly recommended that the reader take the time to peruse the original article that spawned this conversation, and the reader should know that there was a final reply from the young, bigoted liberal I was talking to, but it was omitted because it basically involved backpeddling about his support for terrorists (!) and plenty of foul language. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »