When it comes to North Korea I believe I should detail specifically the military alliance forming. Iran purchases the Hwasong-5 (Shahab-1), Hwasong-6 (Shahab-2) and the Rodong-1 (Shahab-3) from North Korea. Also has purchased 18 land-based BM25 missiles. (Source 1). "Libya has been known to receive technological assistance, blueprints and missile parts from North Korea". (Wikipedia quote based on an ISS report). Syria purchases the Hwasong-6 and Rodong-1. Most of North Korea's military weapons are made in Russia, China, or North Korea. This ties in Russia and China deeply to my point of their enabling the capability of North Korea. Tomorrow I will detail further connections (Iran's military connections with the alliance that is forming) and continue my work transcripting the Bruce Poliquin interview.
Sources:
1: Dore Gold, Publisher; Yaakov Amidror, ICA Program Director; Mark Ami-El, Managing Editor. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Registered Amuta), 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972-2-5619281, Fax. 972-2-5619112, Email: jcpa@netvision.net.il. In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Studies, 5800 Park Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215 USA, Tel. (410) 664-5222; Fax. (410) 664-1228. Website: www.jcpa.org. © Copyright. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Alliances Show Growth
I reported first in 2006 that I saw an alliance of nations forming against the United States to form a new world conflict. This world war is showing signs every day of getting worse. North Korea, one of the three principle states that I list as pawns of Russia, is getting uranium for its nuclear program from Venezuela. It is also scrapping the ceasefire agreement signed roughly half a century ago that has held full scale conflict at bay. No doubt in my mind the U.S., Korean, Japanese led assault, should war occur, win beyond compare to the devastation that would be brought to North Korea's military.
However, with Iranian observers at the testing sights of missiles and nuclear bombs in North Korea, and with Iranian enriched uranium powering these weapons, the intent of peaceful power should be beyond any doubt lost. They are for weapons. Iran wants those weapons. Since Iran can not afford to fund the research and lose political leverage by having a weapons program of their own they are using their ties with North Korea in order to get away from the critics who are too narrow minded to put the connection that I've been outlaying for years into place. The puzzle is not limited by age, only, it seems, by IQ and vision.
The negotiations have failed. Clinton, Bush, and Obama - no matter what level of diplomacy is tried- have failed to stop North Korea. This is because it isn't a policy that is the problem. It is Kim Jung Il. He is a nutcase. He has been all along. No policy is the reason for this, it is the lunatic in North Korea. Proven, however, is that the nutcase does not respond to diplomacy. It simply has not and will not work.
Russia is who I look to for the key response, not China, in North Korea's tests. China is an ally and if they shift it is only a logical movement due to international pressure. Russia, however, has very little it seems involved. The test was another condemnation, but sanctions for punishment are opposed by Russia and they continue to say only the six-party talks, in place for over a decade that have failed, are the solution. They sound more entrenched to a policy than George Bush or Obama ever thought of being. Why, when the evidence is so clear, would not just Obama, (which is an analysis for action in and of itself) but Russia continue to support the status qou for the international community while North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, and Ecuador work together, with Russia's aid (500 nuclear scientists are operating in Iran) continue to move forward in developing weapons with only the slight nudges from Russia?
With Russia obviously having benefit from these things, (a jab at the U.S. or any other reason which I will go into later) I believe they should, like an affiliated judge in a case, not be allowed to vote in the Security Council on this issue. I truly believe the general assembly should be the body to vote in a resolution with teeth, and the Security Council be the one to give the final go ahead but alas, the U.N. refuses to change. Seventy years and the U.N. still sucks at stopping genocide. Ahem, back to the topic.
The reason I think Russia supports stalling for these nations is that it would love nothing less than to see the United States and its allies get involved in a worldwide war against Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Hondorus, Nicaragua, North Korea, Lebanon, Libya, and others with limited nuclear capability. The logic I have is this: if we know North Korea only has one or two nukes, if they use one, they don't have anymore. If they use their only supply, using ours in relaliation, instead of a measure for the utmost essence of survival, would not be approved. Using a nuclear weapon would not stop the conflict, as the areas of battle would still be numerous beyond compare. So, nuking them all would stop the war but create devastation and moral compromise in the world that a win would become an eternal loss for generations with genocide accusations flying almost forever. Russia, all it would have to do is claim neutrality and sit back and build itself to watch the new lower alliance it built fight a direct-to proxy conflict against the United States.
I may be raving like a madman but every week more information adds to the picture that is getting clearer and clearer: I am right.
If I am right the end of American dominance, if we continue our blind path towards the poisonous well, is at hand. Without our clear dominance, our destiny to exist as a free society forever will fade. Our culture is the world's culture. If America loses freedom, the world loses freedom. Russia will get Europe and reform itself. Communism may no longer be the mantle of conquest: revenge for Russians, "benevolent dictatorship" for Europe, and brutalization of the other nations it conquests will be the approach for Russia. A new plundering of the world will take place if Russia is allowed to rival the United States in power. It is frightening and I hope I am wrong.
However, with Iranian observers at the testing sights of missiles and nuclear bombs in North Korea, and with Iranian enriched uranium powering these weapons, the intent of peaceful power should be beyond any doubt lost. They are for weapons. Iran wants those weapons. Since Iran can not afford to fund the research and lose political leverage by having a weapons program of their own they are using their ties with North Korea in order to get away from the critics who are too narrow minded to put the connection that I've been outlaying for years into place. The puzzle is not limited by age, only, it seems, by IQ and vision.
The negotiations have failed. Clinton, Bush, and Obama - no matter what level of diplomacy is tried- have failed to stop North Korea. This is because it isn't a policy that is the problem. It is Kim Jung Il. He is a nutcase. He has been all along. No policy is the reason for this, it is the lunatic in North Korea. Proven, however, is that the nutcase does not respond to diplomacy. It simply has not and will not work.
Russia is who I look to for the key response, not China, in North Korea's tests. China is an ally and if they shift it is only a logical movement due to international pressure. Russia, however, has very little it seems involved. The test was another condemnation, but sanctions for punishment are opposed by Russia and they continue to say only the six-party talks, in place for over a decade that have failed, are the solution. They sound more entrenched to a policy than George Bush or Obama ever thought of being. Why, when the evidence is so clear, would not just Obama, (which is an analysis for action in and of itself) but Russia continue to support the status qou for the international community while North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Bolivia, and Ecuador work together, with Russia's aid (500 nuclear scientists are operating in Iran) continue to move forward in developing weapons with only the slight nudges from Russia?
With Russia obviously having benefit from these things, (a jab at the U.S. or any other reason which I will go into later) I believe they should, like an affiliated judge in a case, not be allowed to vote in the Security Council on this issue. I truly believe the general assembly should be the body to vote in a resolution with teeth, and the Security Council be the one to give the final go ahead but alas, the U.N. refuses to change. Seventy years and the U.N. still sucks at stopping genocide. Ahem, back to the topic.
The reason I think Russia supports stalling for these nations is that it would love nothing less than to see the United States and its allies get involved in a worldwide war against Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Hondorus, Nicaragua, North Korea, Lebanon, Libya, and others with limited nuclear capability. The logic I have is this: if we know North Korea only has one or two nukes, if they use one, they don't have anymore. If they use their only supply, using ours in relaliation, instead of a measure for the utmost essence of survival, would not be approved. Using a nuclear weapon would not stop the conflict, as the areas of battle would still be numerous beyond compare. So, nuking them all would stop the war but create devastation and moral compromise in the world that a win would become an eternal loss for generations with genocide accusations flying almost forever. Russia, all it would have to do is claim neutrality and sit back and build itself to watch the new lower alliance it built fight a direct-to proxy conflict against the United States.
I may be raving like a madman but every week more information adds to the picture that is getting clearer and clearer: I am right.
If I am right the end of American dominance, if we continue our blind path towards the poisonous well, is at hand. Without our clear dominance, our destiny to exist as a free society forever will fade. Our culture is the world's culture. If America loses freedom, the world loses freedom. Russia will get Europe and reform itself. Communism may no longer be the mantle of conquest: revenge for Russians, "benevolent dictatorship" for Europe, and brutalization of the other nations it conquests will be the approach for Russia. A new plundering of the world will take place if Russia is allowed to rival the United States in power. It is frightening and I hope I am wrong.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
This Evening's Entertainment
I attended the Bangor GOP Committee meeting and I came away with several very enlightening experiences. I will start by explaining my growing but now more complete understanding of what a politician thinks they should tell a group of people. Sometimes they try the personal story approach, which is what both Charlie Webster and Bruce Poliquin did this evening. This is not a bad thing. It is just a tactic that forms to get favorable opinions of people. It creates a personal connection and explains their viewpoint on a topic, which helps if the topic and story are related.
Often with Charlie Webster he appeared passionate about what he was talking about. This is a good quality because it shows he is not only connecting with us and the issue, but means what he says.
He had the speech mostly memorized or it was done very spontaneously as he only had guiding note cards. His is very aware and knew facts by heart on most occassions in his speeches. He asserted "Maine is not liberal" many times.
He discussed the reasons the Republican Party has lost elections. One of the major reasons was that Democratic candidates could focus on being men of the people and target previous voting records of Republican candidates. In connecting with the people the discussion left the issues. When discussing the Republican voting record, one person in the attending group commented (I believe he was John Frary but I cannot be certain at this moment), Republicans did not question the Democratic candidate's voting record. The new approach was to make elections issue debate and discussion oriented to bring awareness to the electorate to where Republican's stood on the issues the common working person had to deal with.
This is where another point was made in that the Republican Party is the party of the working people. In Maine there are not many very wealthy people. So in order to continue the often mentioned "welfare state" that Maine has become the taxes fall on everyone in order to support the spending programs. Republican's oppose the loose entry programs and the high taxes but support a continued necessary safety net for those who do need it.
Bruce Poliquin, one of the gubernatorial candidates for Maine, also gave a speech. It was pre-written and a standard political speech. His heritage in Maine, life story, and the other personal connection stories that rarely connect to a political issue were discussed. This too is not a bad thing. It is standard for the values that guide a person's life decisions such as honesty and hard working nature to be excellent qualities in leadership. These personal stories of their lives give politicians a place to explain those values and Bruce connected them strongly.
Then there was a discussion by the group and a later interview that I had with him and there will be specific items I analyze in a couple days when I get a transcript of our conversation written. However one thing that stood out to me was the pure honesty of his responses to questions. Some of the statements were premade from his website which are good points but can get redundant for those who are so obsessed with politics (like me) who will look at every speech and every statement and see the repetition. Although here early in the running doing that presents a similar point to create awareness among a generally large number of people it should be altered before (in a time I've not figured out yet) new lines or ideas are almost a necessity to talk from in order to keep the eyes of the listeners from glossing over.
His points were well known by himself and it was his honesty when questioned about things he was unaware of. He was willing to admit he didn't know something. Politicians as a rule seem arrogant, know-it-all attitude kinds of people. The examples are astounding due to all the back tracking politicians do as a daily exercise routine these days. This man was honest, open, and if people disagree with him I feel confident that he will not back track. I feel he would accept disagreement with his position but not compromise his values to appease those with dissent. I feel he makes a good candidate for office. I do not know if he is the best choice at this time.
I will explain the specific points of our meeting in a transcript (harder to do than you think) that I am going to make of our conversation and of the evening's discussions as a whole. Disclaimer: I am not going to make profit off these transcripts and anyone who does is doing so against my will but I do allow the comments to be used by news organizations as I feel they (Charlie Webster and Bruce Poliquin) would allow the comments to be public as well since the meeting was open to all. That said, I don't feel (basing this on my memory right now) that they would be ashamed of their comments in any way. It was a very professional evening and my reactions to the people attending are that there is a sense of common purpose among everyone there. It was an experience I rarely have because when I accomplish something I do not always feel like I am doing so with the support of others doing the same thing and that is what this meeting was: accomplishing the same thing with the same people.
Tomorrow I will still be decyphering the transcript so I will address the prospect of war with North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela and their allies. Meanwhile, make yourself aware and check out Bruce Poliquin's website:
http://www.bruceforme.com/index.php
and Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/content/index.php
Often with Charlie Webster he appeared passionate about what he was talking about. This is a good quality because it shows he is not only connecting with us and the issue, but means what he says.
He had the speech mostly memorized or it was done very spontaneously as he only had guiding note cards. His is very aware and knew facts by heart on most occassions in his speeches. He asserted "Maine is not liberal" many times.
He discussed the reasons the Republican Party has lost elections. One of the major reasons was that Democratic candidates could focus on being men of the people and target previous voting records of Republican candidates. In connecting with the people the discussion left the issues. When discussing the Republican voting record, one person in the attending group commented (I believe he was John Frary but I cannot be certain at this moment), Republicans did not question the Democratic candidate's voting record. The new approach was to make elections issue debate and discussion oriented to bring awareness to the electorate to where Republican's stood on the issues the common working person had to deal with.
This is where another point was made in that the Republican Party is the party of the working people. In Maine there are not many very wealthy people. So in order to continue the often mentioned "welfare state" that Maine has become the taxes fall on everyone in order to support the spending programs. Republican's oppose the loose entry programs and the high taxes but support a continued necessary safety net for those who do need it.
Bruce Poliquin, one of the gubernatorial candidates for Maine, also gave a speech. It was pre-written and a standard political speech. His heritage in Maine, life story, and the other personal connection stories that rarely connect to a political issue were discussed. This too is not a bad thing. It is standard for the values that guide a person's life decisions such as honesty and hard working nature to be excellent qualities in leadership. These personal stories of their lives give politicians a place to explain those values and Bruce connected them strongly.
Then there was a discussion by the group and a later interview that I had with him and there will be specific items I analyze in a couple days when I get a transcript of our conversation written. However one thing that stood out to me was the pure honesty of his responses to questions. Some of the statements were premade from his website which are good points but can get redundant for those who are so obsessed with politics (like me) who will look at every speech and every statement and see the repetition. Although here early in the running doing that presents a similar point to create awareness among a generally large number of people it should be altered before (in a time I've not figured out yet) new lines or ideas are almost a necessity to talk from in order to keep the eyes of the listeners from glossing over.
His points were well known by himself and it was his honesty when questioned about things he was unaware of. He was willing to admit he didn't know something. Politicians as a rule seem arrogant, know-it-all attitude kinds of people. The examples are astounding due to all the back tracking politicians do as a daily exercise routine these days. This man was honest, open, and if people disagree with him I feel confident that he will not back track. I feel he would accept disagreement with his position but not compromise his values to appease those with dissent. I feel he makes a good candidate for office. I do not know if he is the best choice at this time.
I will explain the specific points of our meeting in a transcript (harder to do than you think) that I am going to make of our conversation and of the evening's discussions as a whole. Disclaimer: I am not going to make profit off these transcripts and anyone who does is doing so against my will but I do allow the comments to be used by news organizations as I feel they (Charlie Webster and Bruce Poliquin) would allow the comments to be public as well since the meeting was open to all. That said, I don't feel (basing this on my memory right now) that they would be ashamed of their comments in any way. It was a very professional evening and my reactions to the people attending are that there is a sense of common purpose among everyone there. It was an experience I rarely have because when I accomplish something I do not always feel like I am doing so with the support of others doing the same thing and that is what this meeting was: accomplishing the same thing with the same people.
Tomorrow I will still be decyphering the transcript so I will address the prospect of war with North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela and their allies. Meanwhile, make yourself aware and check out Bruce Poliquin's website:
http://www.bruceforme.com/index.php
and Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/content/index.php
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Races
My support has shifted upon finding a new website for Bruce Poliquin's campaign for governor. http://www.bruceforme.com/index.php
Read the issues, they are more in dept, although still slightly generalized (no specific tax to cut) but has some excellent proposals in much detail (East-West Highway, State-funded charter schools) which Matt Jacobson's website (see earlier posts) did not have in such availability. Now, specific plans are not only something to look for, but also to examine and see if the bigger principle is something you agree with. Too often candidates propose the principles and never have a specific plan so even if the principles are good, when they get elected they have very little accomplishments because they had no idea what they were actually going to do. Often it turns out that they learn they can't do what they promised in principle because they didn't have the specifics (Obama and Guantanimo Bay prisoners). Other times I will admit it works in the other direction where the principle was good during the campaign but not only was it bad in practice but in practice something completely different ended up happening which some critics predicted (Obama and the banks and the bringing of Socialism). So, people of the world, look at the specifics and apply them to your principles. If they have no specifics, do not vote for them. There is also another aspect which is to try and talk to the candidate. This may seem impossible for some positions (a presidental campaign rally in New York or California) but should be attemped. This is why this Wednesday I will attempt to get Bruce Poliquin's thoughts and ideas on some of the issues of the day. For whoever is in your district running I recommend you try to do the same. Thank you for reading. Meow.
P.S. I am now legally engaged to the love of my life.
Read the issues, they are more in dept, although still slightly generalized (no specific tax to cut) but has some excellent proposals in much detail (East-West Highway, State-funded charter schools) which Matt Jacobson's website (see earlier posts) did not have in such availability. Now, specific plans are not only something to look for, but also to examine and see if the bigger principle is something you agree with. Too often candidates propose the principles and never have a specific plan so even if the principles are good, when they get elected they have very little accomplishments because they had no idea what they were actually going to do. Often it turns out that they learn they can't do what they promised in principle because they didn't have the specifics (Obama and Guantanimo Bay prisoners). Other times I will admit it works in the other direction where the principle was good during the campaign but not only was it bad in practice but in practice something completely different ended up happening which some critics predicted (Obama and the banks and the bringing of Socialism). So, people of the world, look at the specifics and apply them to your principles. If they have no specifics, do not vote for them. There is also another aspect which is to try and talk to the candidate. This may seem impossible for some positions (a presidental campaign rally in New York or California) but should be attemped. This is why this Wednesday I will attempt to get Bruce Poliquin's thoughts and ideas on some of the issues of the day. For whoever is in your district running I recommend you try to do the same. Thank you for reading. Meow.
P.S. I am now legally engaged to the love of my life.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
An Arguement Against Same-sex Marriage
Some are saying marriage is only to allow for the proper envronment to procreate and that is a right homosexuals inherently cannot have. This is true that homosexuals cannot procreate together. It is not true that marriage is only the right to procreate. Marriage is far more than that. (wikipedia)According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. (end wikipedia). Some of those are as follows:
(wikipedia)
Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
Same-sex marriage is not an attempt to diminish the value of families. It is an attempt to recieve the same legal rights that a man and woman in love with each other have but for man and man and woman and woman sitautions. If polygamy comes up, polygamists can't ask for those rigt because admitting to polygamy is itself a crime. Should they not be arrested we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
(wikipedia)
Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
Same-sex marriage is not an attempt to diminish the value of families. It is an attempt to recieve the same legal rights that a man and woman in love with each other have but for man and man and woman and woman sitautions. If polygamy comes up, polygamists can't ask for those rigt because admitting to polygamy is itself a crime. Should they not be arrested we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Tea Parties, Racism, and Reality
Recently a woman said that the people attending the Tea Parties across the country were all racist. Some may have been, most were not, but she said it anyway. When confronted on it she continued to say "where were they during the Bush spending?" She said since they did not appear during the Bush administration they were there solely out of racist feelings against Barack Obama. Time bring some realistic observations to the table.
Many in the Bush era saw the spending at first to be a legitimate response to the wars. Then towards the end it was unwanted as much as it is now. They felt defeated by the Bush administration. They felt he was unresponsive to complaints, Bush didn't care about those who had an honest concern about the spending. Bush had essentially defeated their will to stand up by allowing himself to be presented as deaf to all opposition.
Then Obama ran for president as a man of the people with a campaign funded from the grassroots America. The people would soon have a voice and his administration would right the wrongs of the Bush administration. This was to be the man speaking from the people, not a greedy special interest group.
Then he failed to do that in their eyes. They saw Obama take the Bush record debt in 2008 and quadruple it for 2009. The line of debt became a virtical line upwards on the chart for the next ten years based on Obama's budget. When the man of the people does not hear the people what are the people supposed to do? They certainly were not going to be defeated in their hopes and dreams promised by Obama. So they decided to shout louder than they have before.
The tea party protests were not an act of racism. They were a call to Obama to do as he promised on the campaign and bring the corruption of spending in Washington to an end. They were and still are a representation of the freedom American's have to voice their opinion. These protests were not racism against a black man, they were frustration against deficit spending. Until the Democrats realize this the anger will continue to rise in America and 2010 will be fast approaching for many of them.
Many in the Bush era saw the spending at first to be a legitimate response to the wars. Then towards the end it was unwanted as much as it is now. They felt defeated by the Bush administration. They felt he was unresponsive to complaints, Bush didn't care about those who had an honest concern about the spending. Bush had essentially defeated their will to stand up by allowing himself to be presented as deaf to all opposition.
Then Obama ran for president as a man of the people with a campaign funded from the grassroots America. The people would soon have a voice and his administration would right the wrongs of the Bush administration. This was to be the man speaking from the people, not a greedy special interest group.
Then he failed to do that in their eyes. They saw Obama take the Bush record debt in 2008 and quadruple it for 2009. The line of debt became a virtical line upwards on the chart for the next ten years based on Obama's budget. When the man of the people does not hear the people what are the people supposed to do? They certainly were not going to be defeated in their hopes and dreams promised by Obama. So they decided to shout louder than they have before.
The tea party protests were not an act of racism. They were a call to Obama to do as he promised on the campaign and bring the corruption of spending in Washington to an end. They were and still are a representation of the freedom American's have to voice their opinion. These protests were not racism against a black man, they were frustration against deficit spending. Until the Democrats realize this the anger will continue to rise in America and 2010 will be fast approaching for many of them.
The Race For Governor Has Begun
No I am not running for governor yet. Although the election is two years away, if they are going to start early so will I. My job is to be observant and make an opition. So, here it goes. I do not believe Bruce Poliquin is the right candidate for the Republican Party at this time. He is certainly a good man, but not an adept one for Maine governor. His business experience does not make him (from what I know from his website at this time) qualified to know what policies will improve the Maine business climate. Thus far (considering the contact information on his website is still limited) what I can find out about him is not promising to his policy proposals or his success in government previously. This opinion may certainly change, but the presentation of Matt Jacobson's website and what it proposes (although still vague and following ideals it has some great specific proposals outlined coherently) covers more than Poliquin's website. Jacobson's businesses have provided Maine more jobs than Poliquin's. Also, the proposal to education laid forth on Jacobson's website is a good start to reforming our schools to excell even more (especially in the seeming-to-falter lower grades). [I have nothing against younger kids, but what used to be an inquisitive population is now seeming to be an uninterested, bored group of kids. I've seen this change occur myself over the past five years.] Beyond that, Jacobson knows the problems we are going to face in the future and that foresight makes him (based on their websites) more qualified than Poliquin.
Poliquin's website:
http://www.sailmaine.us/
Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/
Poliquin's website:
http://www.sailmaine.us/
Matt Jacobson's website:
http://www.jacobsonforgovernor.com/
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Republican Family Values 5
Now as promised the supporting of adoption over abortion. The Republican's who I see speaking publicly, on tv, in the news, oppose abortion. Let us analyze the wording of this core belief: support for policies that encourage "adoption over abortion". Contrary to what I have heard from some of the Republican members, the Republican Party does not want to ban abortion.
Abortion is legal. That is a fact of life. It is not going to become illegal anytime soon. Science says in a mixed way the child is a child in five months or so (give or take a month) or at birth. Religiously it is believed to be at conception.
As a political party proposing candidates to office in a government that rules a land of law, the law says abortion is legal. The Supreme Court has decided that it is against the Consitution to ban abortion. With the Constitution being the highest law of the land, Republicans must follow this basic principle.
There is a moral debate on abortion that is legitimate though. Republicans personally believe abortion to be murder. As Americans, they are entitled to their personal belief. However, as Republicans, we also have to clarify when we are speaking from Republican values and personal beliefs.
As for my personal opinion on abortion, I support it for the situations of: rape, incest, and risk of the mother's health. The other two major reasons are birth control, avoidance of a challenged (mentally) child. I am opposed to more than one abortion for birth control because it shows recklessness for the act of love, the joy of being a mother, and disrespect for life. I am completely opposed to a person having an abortion because the child will have so called "defects" mentally or physically.
The reason I oppose it is because doing so is robbing a person of a life. Being someone with autism, I am immensely grateful that I was not aborted and I would hope that my maternal source would not abort me based on that. I do have the struggles of someone with autism but it does not make me incapable of having a skill or talent. For some it does, but they have other great qualities. Those with autism are some of the most caring people on this earth. They do not know of greed, or hate. With their 'disability' comes the gift of purely positive emotion. Those they are near can be the most inspiring of all, even more than the best athlete in the world, because they overcome adversity just to be considered accepted.
That is what I did. Those who have known me for most of my life would tell you that me explaining this, even speaking to people in any form of conversation is a huge accomplishment for me overcoming my challenges. However, had I been the victim of an abortion I would not have had the chance to overcome and succeed in life as I am. That would have been taken away from me without even being given a chance.
To those who try to defend themselves with not being able to raise a child, for whatever reason, I urge them to place their child up for adoption. This is not cold hearted. What would be cold would be taking that child's life before it could be lived. If you say I do not know how complicated it is then you are wrong. I am also adopted. It was the second miracle of my young life. I was adopted when I was eight, but arrived to my family when I was three. I am told my birth-mother struggled greatly in admitting her inability to raise me safely and in proper care. It is not easy but it is what is right.
I was adopted. I know that much of the process personally. I was exposed to religion and given the choice to believe in my own way. I was taught morals, manners, and respect. I am going to also inform you I was not raised by a man and a woman. However, the same values Republican's know to make a strong family: the respect, manners, and morality were taught to me. It did not fill the mother, father, two and a half kids profile.
Abortion is selfish while adoption, for the mother, requires an act of selflessness. It is a virtue for families in America that shows awareness of ability and it is an act of caring, not of hatred or dislike. That is why Republicans believe adoption is a better choice for women than abortion.
Abortion is legal. That is a fact of life. It is not going to become illegal anytime soon. Science says in a mixed way the child is a child in five months or so (give or take a month) or at birth. Religiously it is believed to be at conception.
As a political party proposing candidates to office in a government that rules a land of law, the law says abortion is legal. The Supreme Court has decided that it is against the Consitution to ban abortion. With the Constitution being the highest law of the land, Republicans must follow this basic principle.
There is a moral debate on abortion that is legitimate though. Republicans personally believe abortion to be murder. As Americans, they are entitled to their personal belief. However, as Republicans, we also have to clarify when we are speaking from Republican values and personal beliefs.
As for my personal opinion on abortion, I support it for the situations of: rape, incest, and risk of the mother's health. The other two major reasons are birth control, avoidance of a challenged (mentally) child. I am opposed to more than one abortion for birth control because it shows recklessness for the act of love, the joy of being a mother, and disrespect for life. I am completely opposed to a person having an abortion because the child will have so called "defects" mentally or physically.
The reason I oppose it is because doing so is robbing a person of a life. Being someone with autism, I am immensely grateful that I was not aborted and I would hope that my maternal source would not abort me based on that. I do have the struggles of someone with autism but it does not make me incapable of having a skill or talent. For some it does, but they have other great qualities. Those with autism are some of the most caring people on this earth. They do not know of greed, or hate. With their 'disability' comes the gift of purely positive emotion. Those they are near can be the most inspiring of all, even more than the best athlete in the world, because they overcome adversity just to be considered accepted.
That is what I did. Those who have known me for most of my life would tell you that me explaining this, even speaking to people in any form of conversation is a huge accomplishment for me overcoming my challenges. However, had I been the victim of an abortion I would not have had the chance to overcome and succeed in life as I am. That would have been taken away from me without even being given a chance.
To those who try to defend themselves with not being able to raise a child, for whatever reason, I urge them to place their child up for adoption. This is not cold hearted. What would be cold would be taking that child's life before it could be lived. If you say I do not know how complicated it is then you are wrong. I am also adopted. It was the second miracle of my young life. I was adopted when I was eight, but arrived to my family when I was three. I am told my birth-mother struggled greatly in admitting her inability to raise me safely and in proper care. It is not easy but it is what is right.
I was adopted. I know that much of the process personally. I was exposed to religion and given the choice to believe in my own way. I was taught morals, manners, and respect. I am going to also inform you I was not raised by a man and a woman. However, the same values Republican's know to make a strong family: the respect, manners, and morality were taught to me. It did not fill the mother, father, two and a half kids profile.
Abortion is selfish while adoption, for the mother, requires an act of selflessness. It is a virtue for families in America that shows awareness of ability and it is an act of caring, not of hatred or dislike. That is why Republicans believe adoption is a better choice for women than abortion.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Republican Family Values 4
The next subject will be about adoption and abortion. However, before I address this issue there is something that I have hinted at earlier that must be as clear as possible.The Republican Party is a political organization. The lower taxes, limited government, national defense, and pro-growth policies are fine. The Republican Party is different from the Democratic Party in that it also has social values stated and defined.
These, to clarify for all, are guidelines for Republicans in leadership to follow in order to be effective and responsible examples of leadership. When individuals follow it in the Republican Party as well they improve their communities and become local leaders as well. The best individual is also the best leader.
Some issues, such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and sex education have become issues where the Republican membership has forgotten Republican values in favor of personal and religious belief. This religious belief has no place in politics. It can have a place in one's personal life. However, using one's religion as a reason to decide an issue without considering the costs, benefits, and basic values of the Republican Party is wrong to do. The Republican Party is not, and will never be, a theocratic organization for Judeo-Christian thought. Leave that to the churches and synagogues.
The Republican Party can have a set of values it can promote for a better society for which the government can serve, because without a civilized society our government becomes a pillager for barbarians instead of a defender of freedom, promoter of freedom, and an example of responsible leadership. The nation has a majority of Christians. That influence is not forgotten or ignored. However the nation is not guided by the ten comandments. It is guided by the Constitution which lays out the rule of law, not faith, as the basis of our nation.
The Republican Party needs to change the ferocity with which the "religious right" intolerantly pushes away homosexuals, single mothers, young minds, and those with perhaps less fervent beliefs in faith than they do. The religious right needs to be informed of the benefit of proper government over the percieved government protection of their religious beliefs. As a political party that wishes to promote government ideas in a nation with laws as the foundation we need to make certain the laws, not the religions, control our policy.
These, to clarify for all, are guidelines for Republicans in leadership to follow in order to be effective and responsible examples of leadership. When individuals follow it in the Republican Party as well they improve their communities and become local leaders as well. The best individual is also the best leader.
Some issues, such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and sex education have become issues where the Republican membership has forgotten Republican values in favor of personal and religious belief. This religious belief has no place in politics. It can have a place in one's personal life. However, using one's religion as a reason to decide an issue without considering the costs, benefits, and basic values of the Republican Party is wrong to do. The Republican Party is not, and will never be, a theocratic organization for Judeo-Christian thought. Leave that to the churches and synagogues.
The Republican Party can have a set of values it can promote for a better society for which the government can serve, because without a civilized society our government becomes a pillager for barbarians instead of a defender of freedom, promoter of freedom, and an example of responsible leadership. The nation has a majority of Christians. That influence is not forgotten or ignored. However the nation is not guided by the ten comandments. It is guided by the Constitution which lays out the rule of law, not faith, as the basis of our nation.
The Republican Party needs to change the ferocity with which the "religious right" intolerantly pushes away homosexuals, single mothers, young minds, and those with perhaps less fervent beliefs in faith than they do. The religious right needs to be informed of the benefit of proper government over the percieved government protection of their religious beliefs. As a political party that wishes to promote government ideas in a nation with laws as the foundation we need to make certain the laws, not the religions, control our policy.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Republican Family Values (Part 3)
Now the traditional education does not mean I support prayer in schools. Having a prayer is an individual choice and should be handled as such and not with a mandate by the education system or government. Traditional education, excluding capital punishment, and any other approach to teaching is an area where I personally do not have enough information (professionally) to make a decision either way. As for parents involvement they are a necessary part of the education process not only for schools but society as well.
This is because it is not the school that teaches hygiene or manners. The school can reinforce hygene, but it is not the school's place to teach how to brush your teeth. That is for the parents to do. Teachers can reinforce by requiring please and thank you, mostly in the younger grades as a part of a child's mental development in sharing and cooperation.
Parents play an equally important role in the classroom. Parents should be aware of what their kids are learning. If a school begins a mandatory course for students in the fourth grade on sex ed, a parent should know about it.
Now I am going to speak for individual education. I speak a lot about what I feel in this, and I apologize for so many personal examples. In high school I have experienced the traditional, or mainstream education along with the individual based, or alternative education. In the mainstream the group learning is centered on the teacher's lectures, notes, and direction. The homework is either collected or corrected in unison as a group. At the Alternative Education the teacher is present, but the learning environment is much different. This program exists as an understanding that some students are unable to learn in a fast paced group learning environment that resembles in many ways an AA meeting.
An example of an AA meeting is necessary to prove this is not just a joke. No offense to the teacher in this class since I have heard this is true of other teachers as well. It is the style of education not the teacher in this example. In my former math class we would take notes in class. We would do homework based on the notes. When we come to class we correct the homework problem by problem as a group with one student answering one question going around the classroom. When a student didn't know the answer we paused, sometimes a student would be brave enough to admit they didn't know the answer, and we would correct it on the board going through the process we followed in the notes. When that was not enough, we would all shrug our shoulders, admit we didn't know what was wrong, and move on to the next one. For every problem that would come up, we would go through the admittance stage of an AA meeting every time. Admit what was not right, admit it was our fault and why, and move on to the next person.
That approach doesn't work for everyone. The Alternative Education program allows for no more than six students to a class. To continue with the math example, in my Alternative Education math I am given an assignment. No notes. The assignment is in the book. I open to the page. I read the book. In my class we do what parts we understand and check with the teacher at every point where we think we may have gone astray. If we have, the teacher writes what would normally be in the notes, then will outline the area where we went off track. The teacher checks our work problem by problem as they arise. When we hand in the assignment, the next day we do another assignment. Sometimes we will get the same assignment again that we handed to the teacher. We will go through what was wrong and correct it. In the traditional classroom, once an assignment is done you take the quiz if you don't get it you fail. At the Alternative Education classroom you correct your mistakes, learn not only the lesson but where you went wrong, and are prepared for the test.
The disagreement will be cost and benefit. Sometimes the Alternative Education program is at a slower pace for some students. It goes at the students pace, which allows for true learning and no child is left behind. This program was around before the No Child Left Behind Act. I personally believe this program is the best learning environment for higher grade level students. This ties into a stronger America because it has educated students and not factory workers coming out of schools. This is not an insult to factory workers, just analyzing the style of work: come in, do the process, go home. Traditional education does that every day. Instead of earning a paycheck like a factory worker, you gain stress. At the Alternative Education you gain an education.
This is because it is not the school that teaches hygiene or manners. The school can reinforce hygene, but it is not the school's place to teach how to brush your teeth. That is for the parents to do. Teachers can reinforce by requiring please and thank you, mostly in the younger grades as a part of a child's mental development in sharing and cooperation.
Parents play an equally important role in the classroom. Parents should be aware of what their kids are learning. If a school begins a mandatory course for students in the fourth grade on sex ed, a parent should know about it.
Now I am going to speak for individual education. I speak a lot about what I feel in this, and I apologize for so many personal examples. In high school I have experienced the traditional, or mainstream education along with the individual based, or alternative education. In the mainstream the group learning is centered on the teacher's lectures, notes, and direction. The homework is either collected or corrected in unison as a group. At the Alternative Education the teacher is present, but the learning environment is much different. This program exists as an understanding that some students are unable to learn in a fast paced group learning environment that resembles in many ways an AA meeting.
An example of an AA meeting is necessary to prove this is not just a joke. No offense to the teacher in this class since I have heard this is true of other teachers as well. It is the style of education not the teacher in this example. In my former math class we would take notes in class. We would do homework based on the notes. When we come to class we correct the homework problem by problem as a group with one student answering one question going around the classroom. When a student didn't know the answer we paused, sometimes a student would be brave enough to admit they didn't know the answer, and we would correct it on the board going through the process we followed in the notes. When that was not enough, we would all shrug our shoulders, admit we didn't know what was wrong, and move on to the next one. For every problem that would come up, we would go through the admittance stage of an AA meeting every time. Admit what was not right, admit it was our fault and why, and move on to the next person.
That approach doesn't work for everyone. The Alternative Education program allows for no more than six students to a class. To continue with the math example, in my Alternative Education math I am given an assignment. No notes. The assignment is in the book. I open to the page. I read the book. In my class we do what parts we understand and check with the teacher at every point where we think we may have gone astray. If we have, the teacher writes what would normally be in the notes, then will outline the area where we went off track. The teacher checks our work problem by problem as they arise. When we hand in the assignment, the next day we do another assignment. Sometimes we will get the same assignment again that we handed to the teacher. We will go through what was wrong and correct it. In the traditional classroom, once an assignment is done you take the quiz if you don't get it you fail. At the Alternative Education classroom you correct your mistakes, learn not only the lesson but where you went wrong, and are prepared for the test.
The disagreement will be cost and benefit. Sometimes the Alternative Education program is at a slower pace for some students. It goes at the students pace, which allows for true learning and no child is left behind. This program was around before the No Child Left Behind Act. I personally believe this program is the best learning environment for higher grade level students. This ties into a stronger America because it has educated students and not factory workers coming out of schools. This is not an insult to factory workers, just analyzing the style of work: come in, do the process, go home. Traditional education does that every day. Instead of earning a paycheck like a factory worker, you gain stress. At the Alternative Education you gain an education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
