RU-486: A weapon of mass destruction

Its a big deal, that 429 children were killed in a chemical weapons attack in Syria.  It is a big deal, and it was a big deal. It was a big deal to Obama, who wants to blast Syria for doing this with weapons of our own. It is a big deal; it really is.

The irony of this, according to LifeNews.com, is that "Thousands of Children Die in the US From Another Chemical Weapon: Abortion -- RU 486 is a chemical abortion that restarts the menstrual process in a pregnant woman, shutting down the uterus and starving the baby to death."

So what's the difference?  Obama wants us to be the world's police and bomb Syria because Syria's leader uses chemical weapons and kills kids, yet Obama, while he was a Senator from Chicago, voted over and over again in support of laws that made chemical weapons like RU 486 legal in the United States.  So why does Obama care about children in Syria, and not here in the U.S.?

It shows the hypocrisy of those who are running our nation.

Abortion: Here's my take on it

Today I'm going to tackle an issue most prefer to avoid: abortion.

Abortion:  On the surface I am opposed to abortion and all it stands for.  To me it is murder.  Although, if we go by the U.S. Constitution, the subject is not mentioned, and therefore, by the 10th amendment, abortion is left to the states to decide.  It is for this reason I find the Rowe-V-Wade decision to be unconstitutional and wrong.  Prior to that 1972 ruling, some states allowed abortion and others did not.  This is called Federalism.  If you like abortion, then you can go to a state that allows it.  If you are opposed to it, then you can go to a state that does not supports it.  This is the same as any other topic that is not covered by the Constitution, such as healthcare.  

Abortion/rape/incest:  The ethics of abortion is one most people like to avoid.  So if you get pregnant by a guy who raped you, do you want to spend the rest of your life looking at this guys baby?  Do you want to spend the rest of your life caring for a baby that has no mind and body?  

Surely, if you have other kids, it would't be fair to them if you spend less time with them so you can care for a bed-ridden kid who is a burden on everyone who cares for him.  On the one side, all life is God's life.  The normal kid is just as much God's child as the challenged child.  

So the one argument is that challenged children are God's challenge to you.  On the other side, about 90 percent of aborted children are from impoverished urban areas.  

One argument is that these kids will be a burden on society, so we might as well let their parents decide to abort them.  Believe it or not, this was an actual argument in the early 20th century in Washington, although at that time it was regarding euthanasia.  

Today the same argument is made by those who champion for the right to abort, what they refer to as pro choice.  My problem with this argument is that if you decide it's okay for one person to decide to have an abortion, then you are opting to play God. 

If you are playing God, then you have to decide at what point is that baby a real person.  You will have to draw a line somewhere.  Is that baby a real person at conception (pro-life argument)? Is that baby a human at 1 month? 2 months? 3 months? (where the Supreme Court Drew the line)? When it develops a heart? at birth?  When? 

So by my argument here, both pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates will not like me.  Pro- life people who want to force their view that abortion is murder on others are just as guilty as the Supreme Court was in 1972.  Rowe -v-Wade would be overturned, and the states would be allowed to decide the issue of abortion.  

The only way to truly settle the issue other than that would be to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  At least this is how it is in the Unites States anyway.  

And if you think the Constitution is old and antiquated and therefore holds no merit in this argument, see this post:  The Constitution should be etched in stone. 

Your thoughts are welcome, but you better be nice for crying out loud.  

Gay Marriage: Here's what I think

Today I'm tackling a topic few want to discuss yet we should: gay marriage.

Gay Marriage:  All people are born with natural rights.  One natural right is the right to choose who we spend our time with.  One natural right is the right to choose who we marry.  It is not a natural right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry.  You don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle, yet you have no right to force other people to live the way the majority does.  So while this might surprise many of you, I believe gay people should have a right to marry if they so choose, and have all the benefits that go with marriage.  If the people of a state are adamantly opposed to "scarring" the institution of marriage, then I have no problem with some other method of allowing gay people the right to enter into some kind of union that allows them to share their assets.  

Gay rights:  Gay people have the same natural rights as anyone else.  See Gay Marriage.

My stance on abortion

In my last post I described the pro choice argument, or at least my wife's argument.  She's not necessarily pro choice, although she tends to support some of the arguments.  I usually don't argue with her point of view, because my view on abortion sort of differs even from my own Catholic faith.  When it comes to abortion, I am a Constitutionalist.

By that I mean that when it comes to abortion I believe that no person is God.  None of us has the ability of knowing when life begins.  So my personal view on abortion may simply be that life starts at birth.  Yet who am I to tell you what to do with your body.  If you want to kill your baby, I'm powerless to stop you.  I could, however, make a law.

And that is where my stance on abortion is.  I'm a catholic, and personally I tend to lean more pro choice, although, considering there has never been a law on the subject, and considering abortion is not covered in the Constitution, then it should be left to the states to decide.  That, I believe, should have been the stance of the Rowe - W - Wade decision.

When the 1972 decision came down abortion was legal in some states and illegal in others.  I think the fight should be put up at this level.  And, if it had been, there wouldn't be the public outcry.

My view on abortion

I wrote a great post on this blog a few years back that brilliantly explained my stance on abortion, and now I can't find it.  I know I wrote it because I remember trying to get my wife to read it.  Abortion is one thing I think we don't really see eye to eye on, although it's not something we have any major arguments about.  Once you read my opinion you'll understand why.

My wife is not necessarily pro choice, although she says she doesn't think it's right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion, especially when the dad is a rapist or some other evil, wicked person.  She also doesn't think a person should be stopped from having an abortion when a pregnancy is going wrong, and the kid would be born without a normally functioning body.

She believes, and I truly respect her belief, that if a woman has five healthy kids and now she's pregnant with a sixth kid that would be mentally retarded, or at least severely retarded, for example, that this would put a major strain not just on the mother, but the other children.  This kid would be so demanding for the parents, that it would mean less attention to the other kids.  So my wife believes it might be in the best interest of this woman to get an abortion for the better of her family.

She says that most abortions are performed by people who are too young, inexperienced in life, sometimes even plain stupid, in poverty, and these are people who shouldn't be having kids anyway.  To have the kid you are just going to give birth to another person who will be a burden on the government.  You will just be giving birth to another kid who will be a burden on the parents.  You will be giving birth to another kid with a high risk of being a criminal.  And, my wife says, she personally wouldn't abort any kid, but she doesn't feel she has the right to tell someone else they can't.  Or at least for the reasons listed here.

She had a friend who got pregnant by this guy who came from a family with a criminal background.  The guy was simply an evil person.  She said, "Could you imagine raising that guys kid.  Every time you looked at him you'd see the evil his dad did.  And what are the chances that kid would grow up being just like his dad?  I simply couldn't tell that poor girl that she can't have an abortion."

I don't argue with my wife's argument.  I simply listen to it.  Responding to it is what I do here on this blog.  In real life, I try to just listen.  Well, that's something I'm told I'm not the best at, but I contend its because I'm a thinker.  So now, what are my thoughts on the above argument? What are my thoughts on my wife's stance on abortion?

There was a progressive woman who lived in the early 20th century who was explained well by the book Liberal Fascism.  She was a progressive, and she believed that mentally retarded kids should be euthanized.  She believed women who came from impoverished areas of the United States should be encouraged to be euthanized, and this was her way of controlling the poverty rate. Retarded kids should be euthanized.  Those with mental disorders should be euthanized. 

Planned parenthood has most of their abortion clinics in impoverished areas of the United States, and most of these are in poor black neighborhoods.  Of course these could be so located because these are the high abortion rate areas, but it could also be so located in an attempt by the government to control the poverty rate.  Yet if this is true, it's not been successful.

Regardless, I have one question to people who are pro choice:  At what point does a fetus become a human?

I ask this question and I have never had anyone give me a good answer.  Basically, if you are pro choice the way my wife describes, then you are playing the role of God. So if you are playing God, then you have to decide when it's abortion and when it's killing.  You see, I wouldn't want to be in that position.

Is it abortion until the end of the first trimester, second trimester, or until birth?  Is it abortion until the baby gets a heart beat?  Is is abortion until the kid starts kicking?

The Supreme Court during the Row-V-Wade decision somehow decided on three months.  For the first three months it's okay to have an abortion, and after that it's killing.  It appears the Supreme Court plucked this out of a hat.  They just made it up.  They made it up even though there never was a Federal law made regarding abortion.  Un-elected judges made a law, based on what?

I can understand either argument here.  Personally, I'm thankful that my wife gave birth to four healthy kids.  If we had a child in there that would have been born without a brain, I can't say I would have been against her decision to abort.  I think raising normal, healthy kids is stressful enough.  Yet, then again, life is life. To abort life is to denegrate the sanctity of life. 

Conservatives are not anti-choice

Another fallacy one hears about quite often via liberals in the media is that because Conservatives are pro-life they therefore have no respect for a woman's right to choose.

Truth is, most conservatives are pro-life, but they are NOT against a woman’s right to choose.

Hugh?

That’s right: conservatives are more for a woman’s right to choose than liberals. Liberals believe you have a right to kill your unborn baby or keep it alive, but they are not necessarily pro-choice.

Sean Hannity writes, in his book, “Let Freedom Ring:”

“When it comes to women’s freedom to choose better, safer schools for their children -- they’re anti-choice. The left opposes tuition tax credits, vouchers, K-12 educational savings accounts, and most other forms of parental choice in education.

“The left,” Hannity continues, “does not support a woman’s right to choose a handgun and carry it in her purse in case she might need it to defend her life or the life of her children… The left does not believe in choice when it comes to hardworking folks choosing personal retirement accounts within the context of social security, with the potential of yielding 2-3 times the earning of the Social Security system which gives them less than a poultry 2% return on their money.

“So, while we see the left making a lot of noise about choice, we see that choice itself is not the issue. The left doesn’t champion individual rights in a host of other areas and prefers to cede control over those decisions to government. No, this isn’t about freedom, unless you mean in its narrowest of context.”

The media would never tell you that. They’d simply say, "He’s anti-choice."

A columnist, E.J. Dionne, wrote of conservatives, "If you are for family values, how can you oppose Kennedy's call to give all employees at least seven days of paid leave a year so they don't face 'a cruel choice between losing their job, or neglecting their sick child or sick spouse at home.' Who can disagree that companies should make it easier for parents to 'attend a PTA meeting or a school play or sports contest'? Why, in short, shouldn't liberals challenge the economic marketplace to be more friendly to the needs of families?"

David Limbaugh, in his book "Bankrupt," writes that E.J. Dionne "misses the point. Liberals aren't just challenging the marketplace to be friendlies. They are using the coercive power of government to force employers to comply with these circumstances."

In other words, liberals aren't willing to allow businesses the right to choose, but want to force their hand on this issue. Conservatives believe in the right of businesses to chose.

Conservatives believe parents should have a choice where there children go to school so they don't have to send their children to failing schools, or they can choose to send their children to private schools via vouchers. Conservatives believe every person should have health care, but the best means of doing this is not by forcing all Americans to buy into a universal health care program.

Conservatives also believe if an individual doesn't want to have health care, he should have that choice too. If a person wants to spend all his money on material items and not plan for retirement, that's his choice. However, he might have to suffer the consequences later.

Conservatives believe in choice when it comes to abortion too. They believe, if the Constitution were followed, a woman would have a choice whether she lives in a state where abortion is legal or one where abortion is not legal.

It is not okay for anyone to force his or her views on anybody else. But that’s exactly what happened with Rowe -v- Wade. And that's exactly what would happen if the religious right got its way and abortion were made illegal.

Liberals should not be able to force their views on America any more than conservatives. That goes for the media too.

Despite this, the media continues to toss those conservative onions in the blender. That’s okay, so long as you know they are doing it so you can cover your eyes and plug your nose.

Solving the most important issues of the day

As your new President of these here wonderful United States of America, I would hereby propose that I, together with all Congressmen and all Senators, get together in a civilized manner and solve the most important issues facing our country right at this moment.

We must not toss out words of hatred, or words of blame, or any such words that do nothing but stymie progress. What we must do, in an orderly fashion, is sort out the issues of the day and discuss them one at a time. And, to solve these problems, we must all put forth our solutions, and we must listen to all the solutions and the evidence that is provided, and then we must debate these issues in the arena of ideas.

It will be difficult, but we must put aside our differences and talk. I know we all don't see eye to eye. I know it's a truth when I say that even most members of the same political party don't see eye to eye. Not seeing eye to eye, however, is a fact of humanity. Once we are aware of that, as we are now, we can progress.

Let us simply get together and debate the issues. And, at the end of the day or week or month or year, let us have a solution to each of these problems.

A solution means more than me getting my way or you getting your way. Most solutions do not come by that way. Most solutions come by by compromising. That means that I give a little and you give a little. Now this may not always be possible. I understand that sometimes I have to get my way or you have to get your way. As is the case, sometimes, for the better of the country, one of us has to step aside.

And when it is all said and done, and we have our solutions, we must support the people who enact new policies, and write new procedures, and enforce any new laws that are enacted. We must stand together not as Michiganders, or Texans, or New Yorkers, but as One Nation. We must Never bad mouth one another. We must never accuse one of lying without proof. We must not call each other names. We must be civil.

Yes, we can disagree. We can disagree so much that we hate one another, but that should never proceed into slander, for that type of behavior is not conducive to further progress. Once the nation is set forth in one direction, we must support our leaders regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

However, support is not the same as agreement. When we slander each other, we look frivolous as a nation, and that accomplishes nothing more than to weaken us not only in the eyes of our own Americans, but the eyes of other nations as well.

And if the policies we as a nation choose are not correct, if we make mistakes (as all people do), we must regroup and form new solutions and debate those in the arena of ideas. Most important: we must debate as gentlemen. Many times, that means being patient, and waiting for your time to come.

The most important issues of the day are the following, and in this order:

1. Assuring that all Americans are safe from foreign invasion
2. Providing a sound economic environment
3. Assurance that our judges rule by the Constitution not by their opinion
4. Improving the educational system
5. Continuing to improve race relations within the United States
6. Encouraging the spread of democracy world-wide
7. Deciding how to deal with illegal immigrants, and helping Mexico improve its economy
8. Improving relations with other nations and helping them prosper
9. Continuing the struggle for peace in the Middle East

I prioritized this list according to the issues I think are most important to our nation today. Our politicians have been scratching at each other's throats regarding these issues, and progress has been slow. Well, it's time to speed things up.

As president, I would open my door and encourage anyone to come visit me who has a viable solution to any of these problems. We will meet somewhere in the middle.

Frea for president in 2008

I’m 37, and plenty old enough to run for President. Therefore, I hereby announce my candidacy to become the next President of these United States of America

Keep in mind I make only a humble salary working as an RT, so I'm going to have to rely on your donations for this thing to work.

I’m nothing special really. I wasn’t born in a log cabin, and I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth either. I wouldn’t consider myself rich, but because I went to college and worked hard all my life, I think I have a decent life.

I am just like you in that I have never run for political office before. Sure I might lack that kind of experience, but I do have experience from life. And, as my wife and friends will consest to, I'm constantly studying something because I love to learn.

I also love my country, love history, and love people, which is why I became an RT in the first place. I’ve been a hard working RT since I graduated from respiratory school in 1998, and will continue down that avenue until you succeed in helping me get my message out.

I’m also married with children, and they will attest that I am a great and fun dad. My wife will even tell you that I’ve never had an affair, am a good Christian, and could not tell a lie if my life depended on it.

I don’t know what got into me, actually. A year ago, running for President wasn’t even close to being in the cards. Besides, I didn’t want my hair to turn gray.

I don't care about that anymore. I think it's high time we had an average working class American in the White House, and I'm confident I'm the guy.

In the next few days I'll lay out my agenda.

Conservatives should not run from Guliani/ Liberalism is changing the Constitution

It was hunting camp, we were sitting around the fire on a nice 70 degree night, and my friends decided to talk politics.

“I will not vote for Guliani no matter what,” a friend of mine said, and I rolled my eyes.

“Why not,” I said.

“Because he’s pro-choice.”

“You want Clinton to get into office?”

“Absolutely not!”

“Then you better reconsider.”

A moment of silence ensued. I listened to the crackle of the fire, the gentle rustling of the leaves as a gentle breeze wafted through them. Of all things I did not want to talk about politics, but considering the folly of his statement I couldn’t help myself. I prayed the matter had ended.

“I’m sorry, but I can’t vote for him.” He was looking into the fire.

“Do you want another Ginsberg or Kennedy nominated to the Supreme Court, or a nominee in the mould of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito?” I said this ruefully. I wished I had just kept my mouth shut and allowed the topic to blow away in the breeze.

“Scalia and Thomas of course.”

“If Clinton gets into office you will not get any new Scalia’s or Thomas’s on the bench.”

“I see your point.” I hope we are done then. I slumped back in my chair, unable now to get politics out of my head.

I don’t think you do see my point, I thought. My point is not that I want more pro-life members on the Supreme Court, but members who rule by the Constitution and not his or her personal opinion.

Ginsberg and Kennedy are pro-choice. Clinton is pro-choice. These people will do anything in their power to force their pro-choice views on the rest of us, as they have done with their undying support for Roe-v-Wade.

Scalia, Thomas and Roberts may or may not be pro-life as the debate is still ongoing. They have declared that they will not force their views on the rest of us by their rulings. They are professed Originalists, meaning they will make decisions based on the U.S. Constitution and laws already on the books.

There is only one thing a the President can do to effect the abortion debate, and that is to nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. While Guliani supports abortion, he has assured Americans that he will not force his POV on the people; that he will nominate originalist, constructionist judges who will rule by the Constitution and not by their own personal opinions.

Thus, if judges follow the Constitution, abortion cannot be made illegal. Technically speaking, the opposite holds true too. I thought about telling my friend this, then thought better of it.

Now I couldn’t get the matter out of my head.

"I’m sorry," my friend said, breaking the silence. "I simply cannot support Guliani."

I said nothing. I didn’t want to discuss politics. I was on vacation for crying out loud.

If I had wanted to talk politics, I would have said this:

Most people think they are right. Some people think they are so right that they want to force their views on everyone else. This is why our founding fathers created the U.S. Constitution: to prevent those in power from forcing their views on the rest of us.

This is why it is important not just to support the U.S. Constitution, but to elect officials, like Guliani, who will place this infamous document before his or her own personal opinion. This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, or republican or democrat, but Americanism.

The folly of Roe-v-Wade is the liberal movement is forcing abortion on us all.

There is not one place in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to force any point-of view, including abortion, on the people. If this is the case, the ruling will result in an unconstitutional slippery slope that might ultimately make the entire constitution irrelevant.

Now, I'm not proposing every conservative go out right now and support Guliani for President, what I'm saying is they should not run and hide should he be nominated.