An Argument Against the Legality of Abortion

The evolution of my political beliefs, although still evolving due to the fact that my knowledge is and will be growing until my time here is over, have gone from a hard, party-line Republican to a mixture of conservative and libertarian--and if you're not familiar with the parlance of political affiliation, libertarian does not mean the same thing as the contemporary term, liberal. I don't have a liberal bone in my body. My world-view is very traditional. My moral fiber is deeply entrenched in Christian teachings. Because of that, I will say that I am very conservative. But the more I see the federal government encroach into our lives, the more I grit my teeth and say, "Don't tread on me." In that, I am somewhat of a libertarian, and I align myself quite a bit with the libertarian stance on many issues. But there is one issue that separates me from most libertarians entirely. That issue is abortion.

I believe that morality is absolutely absolute and not relative. By that, I mean the notion that a person can make his own morality is absolutely erroneous. If morality was relative, then there would be no morality; there would just be opinions on what should and shouldn't be acceptable. And if you believe this, then just say so, but don't say morality is relative to the individual. But until there is an absolute consensus on what is and is not moral, then there will be dissent on both sides of each issue. Because of that, I believe that the general stance of a large governing body, such as our federal government, concerning issues that do not affect or infringe upon the rights of individuals, should be largely amoral, in the sense that its laws should not be made on the basis of morality. I know what you're about to say.

But Vins,conservatives believe that the government should promote morality. So are you saying that the government shouldn't promote moral Christian behavior?

No. I'm not saying that at all. The Christian aspect of that statement will have to be addressed in another post for another time, but to the general question of whether or not the government should promote morality, I say absolutely. But this does not mean that the federal government should make moral decisions the law of the land. The reach of the federal government is far too over-arching to be making those types of decisions. So, to be clear: yes, the federal government should promote morality, but no, it should not make laws that tell us what we can and can't do on the basis of morality. Why? Because if we give the federal government that power, then we take a very real risk of having it make a law declaring something to be immoral when we might believe that it is moral. For instance, when I have children, I don't want the federal government to have the authority to tell me that I may not spank my children because it is immoral.

I can align myself with some of the core libertarian principles because of this, but as I said earlier, I cannot align myself with the general libertarian stance that abortion should be legal.

But Vins, you just said that the federal government shouldn't make moral decisions into law. So How can you say that the federal government should ban abortion?

Easy. Because the issue of abortion is not an issue of morality when in the sphere of government.

Huh?

Ok. I believe, with every fiber of my being that abortion is immoral. I believe that murdering a born child or an adult is also immoral. But if you believe that we give consent to be governed in order to protect our rights, then you also must understand that we don't have laws against murder because it is immoral, but rather because murder takes away the right of life to an innocent person. Once again, the reason why we allow the government to make laws on our behalf is a topic for another post (and I have written about this already in another post), but simply put, the reason that a society comes out of the state of absolute liberty (anarchy) is so that it will have a common authority that will punish others who try to infringe upon the rights of the individuals in that society. Therefore, understanding this, one can only conclude that the laws that we do have should only be for the protection of liberty, not for moral reasons.

Ok, Vinniemac, you're chasing rabbits again. What does that have to do with abortion and it not being a moral issue?

Well, if abortion was only an issue of morality, then our federal government should have no authority to make a law concerning the issue. But if it can be argued that abortion does in fact infringe upon the inalienable right of an individual, then not only can the government make a law to protect that right, but it also has the undeniable duty to make a law to protect that right. And the inalienable right that I am speaking of is, of course, life.

If the "fetus" in the mother's womb is a life, then our government must protect that individual's right to life. I don't think that anyone can argue with that. As equals, no one person's rights are weighed any more heavily than another's, right? Then neither the mother, nor any other individual, has the right to take the right to take the life from of unborn child.

Aha! Well, Mr. Rocket Scientist, there's where you lose your argument. No one can prove that the fetus is a life, because no one knows exactly when life begins.

Absolutely right. I don't know for a fact when life begins. I believe that life begins at conception, but I have no way to prove it to the "Doubting Thomas". But I don't have to prove that it is a life. All I have to prove is that it may be a life.

Huh?

On what most important factor do we base our legal system? The principle that all are considered innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. AND in order for a suspect to be convicted of a crime, all reasonable doubt of his innocence must be absent. In essence, in order for an individual to be eligible for a life sentence or the death penalty, all of the burden rests upon the shoulders of the prosecutor.

This same principle must be applied to the question of whether or not a fetus is a life. If the possibility exists that it is a life, then all reasonable doubt must be proven false in order for it's termination to be allowed. If it is not proven false, and there is some reasonable doubt to the opinion that it is not a life, then our government has the obligation to protect that entity under the reasonable possibility that it is an innocent life. And let's be honest, if a fetus is a life, then it is, without a doubt, the most innocent form of human life.

The "right" of the mother no longer bears any credence in the decision if the fetus is a human life, and since it cannot be proven that it is not a human life, then it must be treated as one since the possibility exists that it is a human life.

If one understands this, then my core beliefs are not hypocritical, and in fact, the core beliefs of many libertarians would have to be hypocritical, though perhaps not knowingly. The reason being that since individual liberty is the core principle behind both my beliefs and the beliefs of the libertarian philosophy, then abortion bans do not infringe upon the liberty of the mother, but rather protect the liberty of a possible life.

I rest my case.

An End to Welfare as We Know It?

I've been mulling something over in my mind lately, and I decided that I had enough of an outline in my head that I could share it with whoever might periodically read my blog. I constantly hear liberals who support Obama's health care plan, and others like it, say that conservatives have no ground to oppose the democrats' plans because we aren't coming up with a solution that will fix the problem. Now, first of all, this is not true; I have heard lots of conservative plans that would bring down the cost of health insurance. i.e. interstate insurance purchase and tax free health savings accounts. And second of all, I don't think that this is necessarily a problem because of the fact that according to polls, about 85% of Americans are happy with their health insurance. That doesn't exactly sound like an over-bearing problem to me. But I had a thought hit me recently after thinking about government controlled health care, and how some people are pushing for a welfare-like system to provide a means of assisted health care.

Now, to provide a premise for what I am about to suggest, let me say that in no way do I think that it is the government's responsibility to provide anything for anybody other than protection from the infringement of rights. But our federal government is already providing a plethora of social welfare programs for millions of Americans. This is a cancer to our liberty, and our tyrannometer should be blinking a big fat DANGER sign already from the amount of socialism that has been able to sneak into our country in the past several decades.

Problems that arise from poverty are real. Don't get me wrong. No one likes to see the guy on the street pushing a buggy with junk all in it, and not because we don't like the eyesore, but because most people genuinely are compassionate toward people who end up like that for whatever reason. But, in order for a free society to continue to be free, problems like this should be and must be handled by private philanthropy, because the ONLY way that government can give something to someone is to take it away from someone else.

With that thought in mind, let me say that the suggestion that I have could not only help solve that problem with providing insurance to those who can't afford it, but it could also possibly help purge our nation from all federal welfare programs. Keep in mind, though, that I am no expert on economic issues, so I don't know how to crunch the numbers to see what kind of impact this would have on federal revenue. I only know that the more we allow the government to provide for us, the less we are able to do for ourselves, and that means less liberty.

The plan is as follows:

First, the federal government creates tax incentives for the creation of privately owned welfare-like charity organizations. This will make it as easy as possible for private individuals and corporations to build entities that will provide things like assisted housing, food banks, transportations services, and yes assisted or free health care.

Second, the federal government gives incentives to individuals to donate money to any welfare-like charity organization(s) of his/her choice. For each $1 that is donated, $1.25 (or some other amount higher than $1) is deducted from that individual's federal income tax for that year. This would cause a few things to happen. First, most individuals would figure out exactly how much they would need to donate in order to erase any federal income tax that they would be required to pay for that given year, since they would spend less by doing this than they would from paying federal income taxes. Because of this, they would have more money at the end of the year to save or spend. Also, most people would rather know exactly what their money will be used for when they give it away, and since they could choose which charity/charities get their money, they would be in control of what cause it went to.

Third, as I said above, given the assumption that most people would donate just enough money to erase all owed federal income tax, they would end up with more money at the end of the year and would, in effect, see a tax cut. With more money in their bank accounts, they will be more likely to spend more through the year. To help generate some revenue, the federal government could implement a small (less than ten percent) national consumption tax on luxury items.

Since the burden of welfare programs would be lifted from the federal government, the required revenue from taxes would be greatly reduced, therefore the loss of income tax revenue would not hurt the federal government because they would only need enough revenue to pay for essential (Constitutionally endorsed) spending.

Fourth, over the course of a few years, gradually eliminate social programs within the federal government as privately owned welfare-like charities grow and can meet the need for such programs.

Fifth and finally, make it easier to buy health insurance from out-of-state suppliers to help increase competition and drive down cost for companies who offer insurance benefits and individuals who privately buy insurance.

Now, like I said, I am no expert on the economy, so for me to provide any details on the numbers I spoke of would be ill-advised. But I think the premise is sound.

I welcome any comments on this, both positive and negative. Give me a full critique, and let me know what could be changed for the better.

Demotivational Posters

I ran across some very funny "demotivational posters." I know I usually only post political opinion essays, but what's the point of having your own blog if you can't put what you want on it.
A little disclaimer: Some of the captions have adult language, so you've been forewarned. The captions were pre-written on the pictures themselves, so don't get mad at me.

If the captions or the pictures are too small to make everything out, just click on the image and it will enlarge it.

If They Get Free Health Care, Then I Want a Colt.

I was listening to Rush today, and I heard him make a great point that I wish I had thought of myself. Then again, it is hard to compete with a man of his caliber.

He was speaking of the Health Care bill that is being shoved into our faces. Now, I do not believe that this "Obama Care" is in any stretch of the imagination a good piece of legislation, but there is one aspect of universal health care that I haven't thought of before.

Government is not established to ensure that we have all that we need. Government is established to ensure that no one stops us from pursuing what we need. In other words, the government protects (or should protect) our rights from being infringed upon. So looking at this through the proverbial glasses of the health care field, and more specifically health insurance, the government is supposed to ensure that others do not infringe upon our rights to seek health care, if we want it.

Now, under Obama's plan, we will be required (and subject to a $2500 fine per year if we fail) to have some type of health insurance. Putting aside the argument that under this system all privately owned insurance companies will eventually see their own demise due to the inevitability that private companies will cease to offer health insurance to their employees when they can simply sign up for Obama Care, this type of system holds one other very frightening aspect.

You see, when people must sign up for a single payer system of health care, the government can decide who gets treatment, and who doesn't. We already see this happening in Europe and Canada. The elderly, especially, are often considered to be a lost cause by the bureacracy and are denied health care due simply to the fact that they are not worth the money.

Now, stay with me, beause this IS going somewhere.

We have a right to bear arms. If we choose, we can go out and by a pistol or a rifle or a shotgun. As a matter of fact, yesterday, I bought another pistol to add to my collection. That's right, I have a small collection of guns, and by God, I love them. But back to my point. Even though we have a right to buy firearms, that does not mean that the government is responsible for providing us with a means of self-defense, i.e. a firearm. But we do have the right to bear arms.

In the true definition of a "right," we do have a right to health care. If we so choose, we can purchase health insurance. If we do not choose to purchase health care, we still have the right to get care and just pay out of pocket.

But when we enter into a system that decides who gets what kind of health care, when they get it, and who they get it from, and they have the ability to deny pace-makers, cancer treatment, and organ transplants to those that they deem a "lost cause," we, in essence, lose our right to get health care. So those politicians who claim that health care is a right, are absolutely right. But they are the very ones who are pushing to take that right away.

We don't have a right to have health care provided for us for free, but we do have a right to health care in exactly the same way that we have a right to own guns. If these politicians believe that our "right" to health care means that it should be provided for us, why don't they push for the government to provide all of us AK47s. If this is about ensuring that our rights are not infringed, and providing those things that we have rights to is how they plan to protect our rights, then they would view the right to bear arms the same way.

Ah. But that's just it. Universal health care isn't about ensuring that our rights are not infringed upon. It's about power. The more facets of our life that they can get their hands into--health care, the automobile industry, energy--the more ways they can strong arm us into complying with their own agendas. This is exactly what they are trying to do.

And you can see this on both sides of the aisle. I used to consider myself a Republican. But too many Republicans are becoming Big-Government Republicans, and they too, are now trying to step into our lives and advance their own agendas, though not as blatantly and on as grand a scale as the Democrats. This is why I consider myself a Conservative now, and only a Conservative. But that's a post for a different time.

See, the difference between the gun analogy and health care isn't that guns can be dangerous and health care keeps people alive. No, that shouldn't matter. Under their premise, if both are rights, then both should be provided by the government. The difference is that guns in the hands of the people that they oppress scare them. That takes power away from them. Getting their grubby nasty hands into our health care system, however, gives them the ultimate power over us. They decide who lives and who dies.

I guess if they do shove this bull into our faces, I'll just start writing my congressmen and ask that they add to my gun collection on the taxpayer's dime. Because if this kind of health care is Constitutional, so is a government paid 1911 .45 cal. Colt.

Importance of Hegemony

There is a belief in the world of international conflict that states that conflict or war between states is less likely if the world is either bipolar or multipolar rather than unipolar. Now, to understand the logic behind these assertions, one must understand the arguments behind these assertions.

According to the theory that a bipolar world is more stable, if two countries are competing in power with each other, and given the fact that on a strictly economical basis, war is more often than not irrational, states will avoid conflict in order to not provoke the rival power.

According to the theory that a multipolar world is more stable, the powerful states hold each other in check, and this decreases the likelihood that war will break out.

Now, these theories are much more intricate than the humble explanations that I just provided, but for the sake of brevity, they will have to do.

I'm sure no one will doubt that the world is and has been, since the fall of the Soviet Union, a unipolar nation. And to use the parlance of the discipline, we, the United States, are the hegemon.

Now, I believe that we have earned this status. By the grace of God, we are the most powerful and most influential nation on the globe, and only through policies that show the rest of the world that we are the hegemon will we maintain this status.

National might is measured by GDP and military capabilities. We are the world's most powerful nation because we have the world's largest GDP, and we have the most powerful military of any other state.

As I said before, there is a group of political thinkers that believe that the hegemony of the United States should be dissipated in order to create a multipolar world. Here is the big question though. How do they plan to create a more equal power distribution among nations? Judging by the way national power status is measured, there are only three possible methods to achieve this goal.

1. The nations that trail the hegemon increase national GDP and increase military capabilities. Once these criteria are elevated to the hegemon's levels, the hegemonious status of the super power is eliminated and the world becomes a multipolar power balance.

2. The hegemon decreases its GDP and cuts back its military to the levels of the trailing nations. This also creates a multipolar world once the top few nation are relatively equal in these two criteria.

3. A combination of methods 1 and 2 are carried out and an equillibrium is met somewhere in the middle.

Now. What do we see happening around us? Are we implementing policies that increase our GDP? No. Every policy that Congress has passed and President Obama has signed fights the very principles of free market capitalism, and capitalism is the means by which we increase our GDP. What about the military? Are we implementing policies that will help make our military stronger and more able to keep us safe? No. President Obama has already made plans to cut military funding.

Does the name Taepodong-2 ring any bells? It should. North Korea has already been testing these missiles which could supposedly reach Alaska and are able to carry nuclear warheads. President Obama has not shown any backbone opposing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. We've already seen that he is sympathetic to Iran's aspirations for nuclear capabilities.
And by the way, nuclear capabilities are heavily weighted in the grading rubric for military might.

It's becoming obvious to me that the President is in the camp with the "multipolar world is a safer world" thinkers. With his "world community" and "citizen of the world" rhetoric, he fits right in with those guys.

Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist. And I'm not saying that Obama is trying to make the
United States a target to be hit. But what does concern me is the fact that he has already apologized for "America's arrogance" toward the rest of the world. His very rhetoric suggests that this nation, who has bled for the freedom of its own and the freedom of other nations and by doing so has earned its place by the Grace of God at the top of the global totum pole, should back off and dim down its beacon of liberty that shines on other nations around the world. (Though that could be because he wants us to leave a smaller carbon footprint, because I'm sure that beacon uses too much electricity.)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds an awful lot to me like he is trying to decrease the United States' power while encouraging, or at least allowing, other nations, including our enemies, to catch us in the global power struggle. And, I don't know about you, but I'm not cool with that. I don't like the idea of Iran, North Korea, or any other revisionist state rivaling us in power. Granted, it's not like Iran and N. Korea are coming up in our rear-view mirrors. They still aren't even remotely close to us in any type of comparison. But with enough time and appeasement, it's not unfeasible.

I hope in 2010 and 2012 enough people will see what is happening and what will continue to happen if we don't use our vote to corral this destructive and irresponsible mindset that too many politicians and political thinkers have.

We are the world's most powerful nation because we cherish human liberty and trust that the governed has more sense than the government. But we are not guaranteed this position in the global pecking order. If we abandon our principles, our status in the world will fall, but we also have to realize that, if we lose our status in the world, we become prone to lose our freedom. This is the most important thing that we have to protect in our society, because, without it, our society fails as well.

What is the Role of Government?

Can any man disagree with me when I say that the world of politics has become so convoluted that it is hard to discern what is and what is not the role of government? We hear things on the news all the time about regulations and laws that the government implements on a weekly basis. Now, when we hear these things, we usually align ourselves in either a positive or negative position regarding these laws. But have we ever stepped back, looked at what the government is doing, and asked ourselves not if the laws and regulations are right or wrong, but whether the government even has the right to make some of the laws it does?

I had a conversation with a co-worker of mine recently. She is liberal, and if you haven't learned by now, I am very conservative. We often have political talks, but in this one, she said something that resonated with me--and not in a particularly positive way.

I made a little joke about global warming, and this little joke triggered a long debate. And to use an old southern term, we began chasing rabbits. Eventually our conversation landed on how government policy is influenced by so many different interest groups, and how government policy can basically coerce us to do what it wants us to do and refrain from doing what it doesn't.

When she asked me to give her an example, I brought up the recent hike in tobacco taxes that are used as back-door control on tobacco use. Now, she thought this was a good thing. She claims that the government has the right to regulate things such as tobacco because smoking is bad for people, and if the government makes it more difficult to buy tobacco, then more people will quit.

Some people see this as noble and might say the government needs to protect people from their own harmful decisions.

Government, however, is not constituted to make laws that protect us from ourselves. I cannot say emphatically enough how true this is. Laws should be made to protect our rights from being infringed upon by others. Any law that is made that does not reach those ends is a law that oversteps its bounds.

Now, admittedly, in the example I used above, there was no law passed that outlawed smoking. Such a thing would never pass in any form of legislation. Not yet anyway. No, that example is a form of coercive lifestyle direction. The government has the ability--notice that I did not say "the right"--to control the populace's actions through taxation and administrative bureaucracy policies and regulations. This is a way for the government to get the desired results without taking the heat of passing a direct law. It also shields the change under the guise of free will. For instance, in this case, a proponent of tougher smoking regulation can make the argument that former smokers still had the liberty to buy cigarettes, but made an educated decision to quit. When in reality, the only reason these people quit, was because the product became too expensive.

No one is arguing that smoking is harmless. On the contrary, I believe that smoking cigarettes is one of the most unhealthy habits that a man can pick up, but that doesn't give the government the right to tell him he can't. We make self-destructive decisions all the time. But we have the freedom to make those decisions like we have the freedom to make healthy decisions. Some of the most important life lessons that we learn come from bad choices that we make. I'm sure this is just as true with your life as it is with mine.

So. If government doesn't have the right to tell us how we should live, for what purpose do we have government? Why forfeit absolute liberty (i.e. the state of nature/anarchy) for ordered liberty (i.e. limited government)?

Have you ever heard of John Locke? No. Not the bald guy from Lost. I'm talking about the man who influenced our founding documents more than any other man. John Locke wrote about this conundrum at great length in his treatises on government.

According to Locke, man comes out of the State of Nature because he finds it beneficial to live in a society with laws. Laws that protect him and his assets from other men. First, man comes out of the State of Nature into a society, then the society forms a government to protect the society and the people that make up that society. In other words, the society comes first and can survive if the government fails, but this is not an inverse relationship. The government cannot survive without the society. The dissolution of the society spells death for the government because society is the lifeblood of the government.

Now, having said that, let me focus on the second statement in that last paragraph. Man forms government to protect himself, his family, his property, and other innocent life from other men. That is the sole purpose of government. To ensure this protection we understand that the government must be allowed to do certain things, such as form and maintain a military, print money, etc.... In order for these functions to be performed, we grant the government the ability to tax us. But here is where the government's authority stops. The government can tax enough to fund its own maintenance, but any further taxation is superfluous and in most cases leads to reckless spending.

Each step the government takes toward us results in it becoming more intrusive in our lives, and those steps are matched with equal steps backward away from liberty.

What does this mean? It means that government has so far overstepped its bounds, that we have forgotten what government is intended to do. When compared to its form at conception, it has mutated into something that is now unrecognizable.

If you would like to see what our government is supposed to look like, look no further than our own Constitution. It has been laid out so simply in such a short document, but has been violated in so many ways.

Good government is simple and easily understood. If you don't believe me, take just a few short minutes and read the documents that our men and women in the military, our legislators, administrators, and judges swear to protect and uphold--the Constitution.

The Earth: One Tough Mother

I just finished watching "The Day the Earth Stood Still." I thought it would be a good thriller about aliens and such. Man was I wrong. I don't think I have ever seen such a tree-hugger, hippie, Sierra Club movie before. I know that Hollywood has been on a kick in the past few years making movies about saving the earth, but this one went above and beyond any effort in memory.

The original movie was an anti-war film about an alien sent to earth to persuade the human race to stop killing each other. That plot could actually be considered right of center compared to the recent version. The 2008 version had similar plot, but instead of an anti-war message, the alien messenger came to convince humans to stop killing the planet, decided that humans could not be persuaded, and resolved himself to wipe out the human population in order to save the planet which, "is not [ours]." It was your typical liberal message of: humans are the enemy to the planet, and the only way we can live in harmony with nature is to live like Thoreau and be hunter/gatherers again.

Yeah. Let's throw away a a few thousand years of technological advancements, clothe ourselves in leaves, and live in mud-huts. I get so frustrated listening to this B.S. Pardon my abbreviations, but there really is no better way to describe it. The "save the earth" cry has evolved from a moderate concern about pollution and excess waste to an all out anti-technological orgy. We are at the fittest creatures on this planet for a reason. Why? You ask. Because we have the ability to reason. This ability to reason gives us the ability to invent things and in turn, make our lives better. Technological advancements have lengthened the life expectancy of humans in many ways, not just in the medical field. Hey, hippie enviro-maniacs, get a freakin' grip on reality. If you want to live in your communes and be merry, go ahead. But leave us that live in modern society, and actually enjoy it, alone.

I keep hearing that we, the United States, are the largest consumers of energy in the world. To an environmentalist, this statistic is embarrasing. To me, this statistic is a badge of honor. This means that we have more "stuff" that sucks up the energy. Yay America! We have become the world's largets consumers because we can buy more things, afford more food, and own more cars. We are the richest nation in the world. Energy consumption is an indicator of national wealth, so I say, the more energy we consume, the better off we are.

The environmentalist will tell you that statistics such as this mean that we are the single largest detremental factor to the planet's welfare, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for killing Mother Earth. Well, in case you haven't noticed, the earth is one tough mother. This giant rock on which we live is not fragile. And Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We breathe it out a few thousand times a day. Plants need it like we need oxygen. Who gives a flying ferret fart if fossil fuels emit CO2 when they are burned. This stuff isn't killing the planet any more than a man with a rock hammer could take down the entire Appalacian Mountain chain.

I can't put up with stupid. Please, people, use your brains. Those of you who have already been fleeced in this sham, think about it with a little bit of logic for a few minutes. Those of you who aren't sure about it, don't let a bunch of pseudo-scientists with agendas tell you what to believe, and especially don't let a bunch of interest groups and legislators convince you to forfeit your own ability to reason for yourself. I promise you, this entire scare is a tool that is being used as grounds for anti-technological legislative change. Don't buy into it.

On Entitlement

From the time we are born into this world up until the time we reach a certain age of reason and self-reliance, we have a sense of entitlement. We feel entitled to the necessities that keep us alive and well, such as food, shelter, clothes, etc. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the author of a book called The Social Contract and a man whose writings had an influence on the founders of this country, a child's entitlement should end when he reaches the age of reason, and any extension of this relationship between parent and child is done so because of agreement, not obligation. In other words, a parent is only required to sustain its offspring until the children reach this age of reason. At that point, the parent's obligation is over, but the parent a child may agree to extend this relationship, as many parents do today when they provide monetary support for their children through college or other circumstances. We have this same mentality with our parents today, as we realize that adulthood begins at the age of eighteen, and any further support from our parents after this age is solely at the discretion of our parents.

The sense of entitlement today, however, seems to be expanding to the government. Many people feel entitled to things, and if they are not able to acquire these things themselves, or if they are not willing to work hard enough to acquire these things, they think that someone should step in and do it for them. We have been guaranteed rights in our Constitution. These rights are considered to be inalienable, meaning they can not be taken away as long as we do not breech the social contract in a severe way. For instance, we have the right to life, but even that right can be taken away under certain circumstances as we see with murderers who are sentenced to death. We also have privileges. These are not rights. A privilege would be a driver's license. We have a privilege to drive, but this is not a right. If an individual can not pass a driver's exam, he will not be awarded a license to drive. Far too often, individuals get these two concepts confused.

In the case of health care, some individuals are given assistance with health care costs. This is a privilege. Our government is not obligated to give health care to anyone, but for some individuals who can not afford health care costs, tax payer money is used to provide assistance. Many people have legitimate reasons why they need assistance, and as long as this assistance does not become cumbersome to the tax payers, and as long as the government can reasonably afford to do it, then this sort of support can continue. Some people, though, have come to feel that they are entitled to such privileges. I can not say this loudly enough, but THEY ARE NOT!

This goes beyond health care, though. A largely growing population of individuals are feeling this sense of entitlement on a large array of issues. The United States of America is not a nanny-state. The government is not required to ensure that all citizens live an equally comfortable life. The government is designed to ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to achieve a comfortable life. The government has taken on the role now to provide comfortable lives for its citizens. This is backwards from how it was intended. Instead of coddling its citizens and providing things for them, it should simply protect their rights to insure that no unnatural impediments are placed upon them. If individuals are unchained from government-reliance, they can be free to enjoy self-reliance. Unbridled human potential is a powerful thing, but anything other than self-reliance can only stifle the amazing human mind and ability and hold it back.

We must realize that our nation has become as great as it is not because our government takes care of its people, but because we have always rewarded hard work. Rewarding hard work breeds harder work. When individuals are allowed to make no contributions to society, yet still reap the benefits of others' hard work, how can we expect them to find their way out of their situation and work themselves into a better situation. Not only does it perpetuate poverty, but it also discourages affluency. The more individuals work to increase wealth, the more they are penalized through taxes. Something is inherently wrong with a system that causes people to refuse advancement in the workplace for fear of jumping into a higher tax bracket.

Along with this gained sense of entitlement is a lost sense of accountability. Far too many people do not think that they should be held accountable for their actions. This has become all too clear with the recent bailouts that we have seen. We have rewarded bad behavior and punished good behavior. The people who have signed on mortgages that they could not afford have been saved from foreclosure while the individuals who make their payments have to suffer by getting stuck with the bill. This concept confuses me.

We have the moral obligation to stop this from spreading any more than it already has. We have the power to do this through our votes. I can't stress enough the importance of these principles and the need to come back to them. I have never liked the term "activist" because there are usually liberal connotations that are associated with that word, but that is what we have to be, activists. We have to actively pursue our cause and let those in Washington know that we want them out of our business, and we want them to take their hands out of our pockets.

Get Your Priorities in Line, Mr. President

I read an article on the Drudge Report tonight that caught my attention fairly quickly. The headline read, "Jesus missing from Obama's Georgetown Speech." This article was posted on the NBC Washington news website. The article reports that a monogram displaying Jesus' name behind a podium at Georgetown university was requested to be covered by the Whitehouse before President Obama gave an economic speech this week.

As I read through the article, I began to think to myself, "Have we really digressed this much in America? Is this the very sight of Christ, the word Jesus so offensive that we can't speak his name at a publicly sponsored function or even have a picture of his name displayed in the background of a presidential speech at a Christian university?" This is utter lunacy. The vast majority of the American population personally claims to be born-again Christians, yet our president is too scared to have Christ's name in view at a speech.

I am a religious man, a young religious man--only 23 years old, and I have religious tolerance instilled into my very conscience because I understand why our nation was founded. Most, not all, but most of the original settlers that colonized this very soil that we walk on everyday came to this place to escape religious persecution. So I have no problem with any man or woman worshipping in the manner that he or she sees as the best way to do so, nor do I have a problem with anyone chosing not to worship. That is your perrogative as an American. But to be ashamed of your belief, to go to such lengths as to hide the Man on whose principles we based our laws and social morals is to begin a path toward societal decay.

I can already predict the arguments from the leftists. "Well our Constitution clearly states that Congress shall pass no law establishing an official religion, so we aren't a Christian nation, and we shouldn't have any mention of God or symbols of religion in government affairs."

I agree. Congress can't pass any legislation to establish a religion in the United States. But who said anything about that? This is a sign with Jesus' name on it. Nobody is asking president Obama to get in front of a crowd and say that the Christian religion is the official religion of the United States and if you don't like it, then go somewhere else. He was speaking at a Christian college for cryin' out loud. What did you expect, oh Great Leader Obama? Would you rather it be your name up there behind you on display at a Christian college? Or maybe you want fine Obamian universities to spring up across this great nation. Maybe that's what this is about. Maybe our wonderful and great leader is jealous that Jesus has a higher approval rating than he does. Apparently he feels subservient to Saudi King Abdullah and bows (I thought he was about to kneel to the ground and kiss his hand), but he can't share the spotlight with Jesus. This is definitely the man I want leading the free world and protecting us from radical Islam.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he is a Christian. But, by God, don't go to another country and bow to a leader like that, in a gesture insinuating that you are inferior to him, then hide the name of Jesus in a religious learning intsitution. Get your priorities in line, Mr. President.

The Introduction

Hello to everyone joining me on this experiment. For me, blogging is a new thing. Yeah, I know. I'm way behind the times. But I've felt for some time that I have so many things that I want to talk about, and not enough people that are willing to listen. I don't claim to have some incredible insight that needs to be heard for the sake of humanity. No. In fact, my opinions are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And the things that I will be writing about are analyzed much more thoroughly--and accurately I'm sure--by conservative radio talk show host and political pundits who will reach a far greater audience than my feeble efforts will be able to procure. I am, nevertheless, compelled to write about these things, if for no other reason than to vent. If I gain some small reader support in the process, then all the better, but I am not holding my breath.

If you find something that interests you, provokes thought, or ignites rage, or if by some chance you agree with me, then feel free to pass the word on to others, make comments (I always welcome a debate), or print my writings out and burn them (or shoot them if you are a fellow gun owner like myself). But either way, thank you for visiting my site, and God bless you.