Yesterday I explained that I wanted to lay out what I thought were important priorities for the Presidency 2012-2016. This will be the planks of my platform should I decide to stick with the idea of the run (it will have to be a write-in campaign).
In preparation, I looked back at what I said in 2008. I think the same issues apply, so I'm going to steal heavily from my ideas back then. One difference I notice between 2008 and 2012 is the lack of focus on change. In 2008, almost every candidate was talking change (both the D's and the R's). Well, change happened, we went from a Republican in the White House to a Democrat. Some might say too much changed, some might say too little. But change happened.
My focus will be pretty much the same as last time, with some change thrown in for good measure. Here are the areas I see that need to be addressed for the next four years. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat in priority order, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - Iraq is over. Afghanistan will be soon. The current budget outlook for defense means major cuts. We're relying less on boots-on-the-ground and more on drones-in-the-air and special ops. Where do we go from here?
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration) - My only update to this list is to add the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Israel, Syria, etc) and North/South Korea
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations - it seems one candidate wants us to pull back and focus on US alone, I'll look at my ideas four years ago and update them.
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending. I know you think this should be higher. When I look at the economy, I'll explain why it's ranked #4.
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
6) Points of light - This is an old George H Bush idea. I mentioned it yesterday in a phone conversation with a friend and think it needs to be addressed.
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter and my readers, want me to address?
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Monday, February 08, 2010
Tim Tebow ad - what's all the fuss about?
Ok, I admit I was disappointed. I was expecting more. After all, I was told it was divisive. Instead, all I saw was a mother who worries about her son "Timmy". She called him her "miracle baby" and explained "he almost didn't get into this world." She says she can remember so many times when "she almost lost him" and says "it was so hard."
Then she goes on and says "well, he's all grown up now and I still worry about his health." My initial thought was that this was an ad for Flintstones Chewable Vitamins. Then she says that "with all our family's been through, you have to be tough" and she gets tackled by Tebow. Both pop back up. In the end-of-commercial music, she tells little Timmy that he's "not nearly as tough as I am."
So where's the divisiveness? Where's the anti-choice message? Where does Tebow offend people?
Looking for offensive divisive material, I looked at the website mentioned in the ad http://www.focusonthefamily.com. Once there, I clicked on the "Watch now" button to watch the story. Tim's mom and dad do a sit-down interview where they tell the story. Mrs. Tebow explains her point of view and her choices. You may disagree with them, but they are her choices and her beliefs. You may think (as one other video I watched explained) that a belief like her's is like a belief in Tinkerbell. But she doesn't force or even suggest that anyone else should follow her beliefs.
I know that I have seen the birth of three precious children. There were times during those pregnancies where I wondered if we would see that child, if we would make it through the current illness or the depression or the personal struggles we were going through. We never faced major struggles, but we knew some who did. I felt like I could empathize with Pam Tebow.
Towards the end of the video, the narrator asks the Tebows what they would tell someone facing an unwanted pregnancy. Mrs. Tebow tells them that they have options and choices and mentions pregnancy crisis center.
So here's my suggestion. If you're interested in the Tebow story, go view it online. I will warn you that you will hear a lot about how God influenced their lives. If that scares you or bothers you, don't watch the video.
I also have a special request to Christians that read this. Watch the video. Learn the style and techniques the Tebows use. It's not offensive and will reach many more people. And pray. Pray for the Tebows. They've already been under attack and I'm afraid it will grow worse. There are those out there that would love to jeer at Tim Tebow if he were to fall. He has an important job to do and he can't afford to be distracted.
Then she goes on and says "well, he's all grown up now and I still worry about his health." My initial thought was that this was an ad for Flintstones Chewable Vitamins. Then she says that "with all our family's been through, you have to be tough" and she gets tackled by Tebow. Both pop back up. In the end-of-commercial music, she tells little Timmy that he's "not nearly as tough as I am."
So where's the divisiveness? Where's the anti-choice message? Where does Tebow offend people?
Looking for offensive divisive material, I looked at the website mentioned in the ad http://www.focusonthefamily.com. Once there, I clicked on the "Watch now" button to watch the story. Tim's mom and dad do a sit-down interview where they tell the story. Mrs. Tebow explains her point of view and her choices. You may disagree with them, but they are her choices and her beliefs. You may think (as one other video I watched explained) that a belief like her's is like a belief in Tinkerbell. But she doesn't force or even suggest that anyone else should follow her beliefs.
I know that I have seen the birth of three precious children. There were times during those pregnancies where I wondered if we would see that child, if we would make it through the current illness or the depression or the personal struggles we were going through. We never faced major struggles, but we knew some who did. I felt like I could empathize with Pam Tebow.
Towards the end of the video, the narrator asks the Tebows what they would tell someone facing an unwanted pregnancy. Mrs. Tebow tells them that they have options and choices and mentions pregnancy crisis center.
So here's my suggestion. If you're interested in the Tebow story, go view it online. I will warn you that you will hear a lot about how God influenced their lives. If that scares you or bothers you, don't watch the video.
I also have a special request to Christians that read this. Watch the video. Learn the style and techniques the Tebows use. It's not offensive and will reach many more people. And pray. Pray for the Tebows. They've already been under attack and I'm afraid it will grow worse. There are those out there that would love to jeer at Tim Tebow if he were to fall. He has an important job to do and he can't afford to be distracted.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The push for health care - our economy depends on it
I have to give our current administration the credit, they've certainly learned the way to America's pocketbook. "It's the economy stupid!" is what I've been reading between the lines the last few days.
See, President Obama keeps telling us he inherited this mess, it was worse than anyone thought and the stimulus plan is working exactly as planned (was this Plan B or Plan C?). Then he tells us the we have to have health care reform in order to save the economy.
This way, he wins either way. If health-care gets voted in, obviously he's lived up to his campaign promises (until it doesn't work - then he changes his promises). If it doesn't get voted in, well he tried. If the economy continues to go south, it's not his fault, he tried to pass health-care to fix it. Soon, the economy will be the reason we do everything.
It really bothers me the "change" I've seen in the last six months. During the campaign, abortion issues were above his paygrade. Well, he's gotten a payraise and now we are funding abortion in other countries and he's pushing for funding here. The stimulus plan was needed immediately to fix our economy, the money was going to create jobs immediately and now it's working as designed and will take a few years.
Sadly, none of this surprises me, I expected it all along. Now what's next?
See, President Obama keeps telling us he inherited this mess, it was worse than anyone thought and the stimulus plan is working exactly as planned (was this Plan B or Plan C?). Then he tells us the we have to have health care reform in order to save the economy.
This way, he wins either way. If health-care gets voted in, obviously he's lived up to his campaign promises (until it doesn't work - then he changes his promises). If it doesn't get voted in, well he tried. If the economy continues to go south, it's not his fault, he tried to pass health-care to fix it. Soon, the economy will be the reason we do everything.
It really bothers me the "change" I've seen in the last six months. During the campaign, abortion issues were above his paygrade. Well, he's gotten a payraise and now we are funding abortion in other countries and he's pushing for funding here. The stimulus plan was needed immediately to fix our economy, the money was going to create jobs immediately and now it's working as designed and will take a few years.
Sadly, none of this surprises me, I expected it all along. Now what's next?
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Misc topics and random thoughts
Camping trip was great. I took about three short hikes. The first one was on a trail I hadn't seen before, part of the Palmetto Trails to Jocassee Gorges. It's a 12.5 mile hike, I did a small part of it, but was expecting visitors, so headed back. From what I can see, it's a good hike but not real scenic. The second hike was along the Carrick Creek. On this hike I was accompanied by my three year old grandson. We hiked for about 20 minutes, took a 10 minute break, then hiked another 10 minutes before heading back. The hike is supposed to last about an hour, but with his short stride, I'm sure we didn't go half way in 30 minutes of walking. The last hike was back along the Palmetto Trail, but he was tired so we didn't go far.
All in all the trip was great. Two nights in a tent, far from everything. I'll post more about it later.
While I was gone, GM announced bankruptcy. I haven't blogged about it, but last August I bought some shares of GM on a lark. This was back in early August, before the bottom fell out. My theory was that the government would bail them out and the stock would go up. They did get a bail-out that month and the stock ticked upward for a day or two, then the credit market fell and, well, it was a lark.
I don't mean to imply that I backed the bail-out. I think it was a bad idea. But I really didn't think the government would let them go bankrupt. Who knows what will happen now. Maybe I'll blog more about that later too.
This past weekend, an abortion doctor was shot and killed. Make no mistake, this was murder. The conservative blogs that I read agree. The doctor has been called a killer (and I agree with that), but it doesn't make his murder any less of a murder. His (alleged) killer has been arrested. He deserves a fair trial, but assuming he is found guilty (and I see no reason why not), he should probably face the death penalty. It was simple pre-meditated murder.
All in all the trip was great. Two nights in a tent, far from everything. I'll post more about it later.
While I was gone, GM announced bankruptcy. I haven't blogged about it, but last August I bought some shares of GM on a lark. This was back in early August, before the bottom fell out. My theory was that the government would bail them out and the stock would go up. They did get a bail-out that month and the stock ticked upward for a day or two, then the credit market fell and, well, it was a lark.
I don't mean to imply that I backed the bail-out. I think it was a bad idea. But I really didn't think the government would let them go bankrupt. Who knows what will happen now. Maybe I'll blog more about that later too.
This past weekend, an abortion doctor was shot and killed. Make no mistake, this was murder. The conservative blogs that I read agree. The doctor has been called a killer (and I agree with that), but it doesn't make his murder any less of a murder. His (alleged) killer has been arrested. He deserves a fair trial, but assuming he is found guilty (and I see no reason why not), he should probably face the death penalty. It was simple pre-meditated murder.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
You shall not murder
Last Sunday, our pastor spoke on the sixth commandment. Now most people will think, "well, I haven't murdered anyone lately" and immediately tune out, but he showed how this verse (Exodus 20:13) applies to each of us.
What impressed me the most was the timing. This was right after my friend Neil posted his blog on the subject "Three ways churches get it wrong". I was pretty sure how my church fit into this picture, but not 100%. I think we passed the "Neil test" (thanks Neil!).
I decided that the topic was important, and I decided to post the sermon outline here. This may bore you, but I'd encourage you to read it all. The audio of the sermon isn't up on the web yet, but it should be soon. You can click here for our church website, then click on "Listen to Recent Sermons (this was April 20,2008). It's possible that our pastor said something I didn't approve of, but I can't think what it would be. In general, I approve of everything in the sermon.
The outline of the sermon covered four parts: 1) The big idea, 2) What the commandmend does NOT say, 3) How the commandment applies to families and 4) the bottom line. My outline below is from the outline handed out and my comments during the sermon.
The big idea: The main focus of the sermon is that life and death is up to God. Job 14:5.
What the commandment does NOT say (three points):
1) This does not ban the killing of animals (Genesis 9:3). My pastor (and I) do NOT feel that this justifies Michael Vick. We also feel if you want to be vegetarian, that's fine (you're probably more healthy).
2) It does not ban capital punishment (Leviticus 24:17)
3) It does not ban going to war (Ecclesiastes 3:8)
So what does the commandment say? How does it applies to families (the focus of the current series). There were four points:
1) God stands opposed to suicide. (Job 14:5). Subpoint: suicide is the #1 killer on college campuses and #2 on high school campuses.
2) God stands opposed to euthanasia (Job 12:10)
3) God stands opposed to abortion. (Psalm 139:13-16). On this point, he said he had spoken on abortion recently (I haven't followed up to check, but have no reason to doubt him). He said that 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion. I doubted this figure, but found this website that backs it up. He also said that 30 million abortions have been performed since it was made legal.
4) God stands opposed to contempt. (Matthew 5:21-22) Jesus made this very personal. He said "anyone who says 'You Fool' will be in danger of the fire of hell".
Ok, so now it's clear what the commandment says and what it doesn't say, what does that mean to you? Here's the bottom line (straight from the notes) God planned you and made you. He wants you to know Him (Jeremiah 24:7).
If God cares this much about you, what will your reaction to him be?
What impressed me the most was the timing. This was right after my friend Neil posted his blog on the subject "Three ways churches get it wrong". I was pretty sure how my church fit into this picture, but not 100%. I think we passed the "Neil test" (thanks Neil!).
I decided that the topic was important, and I decided to post the sermon outline here. This may bore you, but I'd encourage you to read it all. The audio of the sermon isn't up on the web yet, but it should be soon. You can click here for our church website, then click on "Listen to Recent Sermons (this was April 20,2008). It's possible that our pastor said something I didn't approve of, but I can't think what it would be. In general, I approve of everything in the sermon.
The outline of the sermon covered four parts: 1) The big idea, 2) What the commandmend does NOT say, 3) How the commandment applies to families and 4) the bottom line. My outline below is from the outline handed out and my comments during the sermon.
The big idea: The main focus of the sermon is that life and death is up to God. Job 14:5.
What the commandment does NOT say (three points):
1) This does not ban the killing of animals (Genesis 9:3). My pastor (and I) do NOT feel that this justifies Michael Vick. We also feel if you want to be vegetarian, that's fine (you're probably more healthy).
2) It does not ban capital punishment (Leviticus 24:17)
3) It does not ban going to war (Ecclesiastes 3:8)
So what does the commandment say? How does it applies to families (the focus of the current series). There were four points:
1) God stands opposed to suicide. (Job 14:5). Subpoint: suicide is the #1 killer on college campuses and #2 on high school campuses.
2) God stands opposed to euthanasia (Job 12:10)
3) God stands opposed to abortion. (Psalm 139:13-16). On this point, he said he had spoken on abortion recently (I haven't followed up to check, but have no reason to doubt him). He said that 25% of all pregnancies ended in abortion. I doubted this figure, but found this website that backs it up. He also said that 30 million abortions have been performed since it was made legal.
4) God stands opposed to contempt. (Matthew 5:21-22) Jesus made this very personal. He said "anyone who says 'You Fool' will be in danger of the fire of hell".
Ok, so now it's clear what the commandment says and what it doesn't say, what does that mean to you? Here's the bottom line (straight from the notes) God planned you and made you. He wants you to know Him (Jeremiah 24:7).
If God cares this much about you, what will your reaction to him be?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I approved this message - Part 5 (Final?)
I'm almost finished explaining the platform I would follow if elected president. This is the last planned message and is intended to address healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits. Previous mssages addressed 1) National Defense, 2) Foreign affairs, 2b)
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.
I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.
However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.
Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.
I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.
Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.
Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.
Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.
Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.
Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.
I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.
However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.
Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.
I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.
Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.
Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.
Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.
Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.
Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.
I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.
Friday, January 18, 2008
I approved this message - Foreign affairs
I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.
My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)
I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).
I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).
Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.
Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.
It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.
I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.
Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.
Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.
South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.
That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
I endorsed this message - Platform building
Last week I announced my candidacy for the president. Then I explained that I was actually just planning to lay out what I thought was important for the candidate I intend to choose.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.
I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.
I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.
In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)
What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?
Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Birth control for 11 year olds
In Portland Maine, a middle school has begun dispensing birth control pills and patches to students. Yep, it's true, look here for the article.
Seems the school board voted 7-2 in favor of the action (at least 2 thought the plan was ridiculous). Of course this shouldn't surprise anyone, condoms have been available at the same school since 2000. There is a requirement that parents allow treatment at the school health center, but who wouldn't sign that (I guess "treatment" includes condoms and birth control).
I guess the next step is to give them the phone number for Planned Parenthood and the nearest abortion clinic. Thinking about that, I wonder who sponsors the pills and patches? Even adults have trouble knowing how to take the pill, don't they think these children will make mistakes while thinking they are "safe"? As for the patch, students will wear it some times, then remove it at others and the patch won't be effective.
Why must schools teach students that pre-marital sex is ok? Why can't they stick to teaching academics and let parents teach morals?
Seems the school board voted 7-2 in favor of the action (at least 2 thought the plan was ridiculous). Of course this shouldn't surprise anyone, condoms have been available at the same school since 2000. There is a requirement that parents allow treatment at the school health center, but who wouldn't sign that (I guess "treatment" includes condoms and birth control).
I guess the next step is to give them the phone number for Planned Parenthood and the nearest abortion clinic. Thinking about that, I wonder who sponsors the pills and patches? Even adults have trouble knowing how to take the pill, don't they think these children will make mistakes while thinking they are "safe"? As for the patch, students will wear it some times, then remove it at others and the patch won't be effective.
Why must schools teach students that pre-marital sex is ok? Why can't they stick to teaching academics and let parents teach morals?
Monday, October 08, 2007
Obama speaks at church - Updated
Last Thursday, I posted a blog showing that Sen. Obama intended to violate the constitutional [sic] requirement for a separation of church and state. Since I'm sure most of my readers don't read the local newspaper or listen to local newsradio, I thought I'd update here.
The article can be found here. Apparently, Sen Obama stuch to his faith-based message and didn't drift into politics. He reported that his late-blooming faith is "what keeps (his) eyes set on the greatest of heights."
A listener to the local Christian talk radio program phoned in with his view. He reported that Obama seemed shocked by what he saw at the racially diverse congregation and probably wondered what role the government might have (none) since this was already diverse. He said Obama was stunned and for 20 minutes didn't even realize the congregation was standing. This listener said he spoke to Obama after the service and told him that "God can not bless you until you drop your pro-abortion stance".
This last comment comes off sounding very negative. When the speaker reported it on the radio, it didn't come off that way. Rather it sounded like he was impressed with Obama and wanted to share his opinion. Reportedly Obama looked down and went to the next person. Again, this wasn't reported as negative, just factual. I did not get the impression that the speaker took it negative. If you infer that either side of this was negative, I did a poor job reporting.
My point here is that Obama did what many conservatives do, and that is to speak in front of the church. Let's not forget this when Bush speaks in a church and is accused of violating this constitutional edict.
Update -
Where is the equal time? Will Fred Thompson or Sen. McCain be allowed to speak? Also, if there is such a push to shut out Rush Limbaugh, why not shut out this church?
The article can be found here. Apparently, Sen Obama stuch to his faith-based message and didn't drift into politics. He reported that his late-blooming faith is "what keeps (his) eyes set on the greatest of heights."
A listener to the local Christian talk radio program phoned in with his view. He reported that Obama seemed shocked by what he saw at the racially diverse congregation and probably wondered what role the government might have (none) since this was already diverse. He said Obama was stunned and for 20 minutes didn't even realize the congregation was standing. This listener said he spoke to Obama after the service and told him that "God can not bless you until you drop your pro-abortion stance".
This last comment comes off sounding very negative. When the speaker reported it on the radio, it didn't come off that way. Rather it sounded like he was impressed with Obama and wanted to share his opinion. Reportedly Obama looked down and went to the next person. Again, this wasn't reported as negative, just factual. I did not get the impression that the speaker took it negative. If you infer that either side of this was negative, I did a poor job reporting.
My point here is that Obama did what many conservatives do, and that is to speak in front of the church. Let's not forget this when Bush speaks in a church and is accused of violating this constitutional edict.
Update -
Where is the equal time? Will Fred Thompson or Sen. McCain be allowed to speak? Also, if there is such a push to shut out Rush Limbaugh, why not shut out this church?
Sunday, August 05, 2007
How many children do you want?
The Duggar family have 17 and aren't sure that they're through yet. This family from Arkansas (they father's real name is "Jim Bob" - actually James Robert, but he goes by Jim Bob) has had two sets of twins and 13 individual births.
I've seen their website, it's sure to meet the approval of my pro-life friends. In fact, you could almost say that it's pro-life to the extreme. But what impressed me was that it's not in-your-face pro-life. I got the impression that if one of their friends wanted to use birth control (they obviously don't) they would not chastise the friend.
I did some searching and found that their are some people who don't agree with the Duggars. While the Duggars won't get in their face, they will get in the Duggars' face. They argue that there are too many children starving (not these children though), that they will push their ideas on their children (isn't that a parent's job?) or that they're just weird. They also argue that it's not natural or healthy.
While I agree that they are different, I'm not sure weird fits. And as for natural, what's not natural? A child is the natural result of a healthy marriage. Sometimes it doesn't work that way, but when it does, it's a beautiful thing. The fact that they don't want to prevent childbirth just makes it completely natural.
I'm sure there's a lot I don't know, but I think this is great for this family. Congratulations to the Duggars.
* Update *
The Duggars were on NBC's Today show this morning. They consider each of their 17 children a gift from God. The background searching I did said that they own DEBT FREE a 7000 square foot home. I forgot to mention that the kids are home schooled, on the Today show was a clip of the school-teacher mom teaching bankruptcy law. All of the family looked normal, healthy and happy. My wife said "if you are really happy, you can't fake that".
Side note. We have half that many children (if you count sons-in-law and daughter-in-law).
I've seen their website, it's sure to meet the approval of my pro-life friends. In fact, you could almost say that it's pro-life to the extreme. But what impressed me was that it's not in-your-face pro-life. I got the impression that if one of their friends wanted to use birth control (they obviously don't) they would not chastise the friend.
I did some searching and found that their are some people who don't agree with the Duggars. While the Duggars won't get in their face, they will get in the Duggars' face. They argue that there are too many children starving (not these children though), that they will push their ideas on their children (isn't that a parent's job?) or that they're just weird. They also argue that it's not natural or healthy.
While I agree that they are different, I'm not sure weird fits. And as for natural, what's not natural? A child is the natural result of a healthy marriage. Sometimes it doesn't work that way, but when it does, it's a beautiful thing. The fact that they don't want to prevent childbirth just makes it completely natural.
I'm sure there's a lot I don't know, but I think this is great for this family. Congratulations to the Duggars.
* Update *
The Duggars were on NBC's Today show this morning. They consider each of their 17 children a gift from God. The background searching I did said that they own DEBT FREE a 7000 square foot home. I forgot to mention that the kids are home schooled, on the Today show was a clip of the school-teacher mom teaching bankruptcy law. All of the family looked normal, healthy and happy. My wife said "if you are really happy, you can't fake that".
Side note. We have half that many children (if you count sons-in-law and daughter-in-law).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)