ApacheAngel’s Ramblings from Georgia

Not another one…

February 26, 2009 · Leave a Comment

This is just becoming ridiculous. When will these huge corporations realize that their endorsement of homosexuality is going to hurt their business? Pepsi Co. has joined the ranks of the politically active ignorant. I was never a huge fan of Pepsi anyway, but I did like their other products, such as Tropicana. I would like to encourage you to join the boycott (you can get more info here). Please sign the petition as well. It takes effort to stop evil (I went without McDoanld’s sweet tea for months, but it worked), but if we don’t band together to send a message, then we will be forced to live with evil being forced into our lives.

Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.

http://www.boycottpepsico.com/

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Roe vs. Wade

February 15, 2009 · 1 Comment

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision it never should have speculated. The majority opinion was that only an expert (doctor, scientist) could determine when life begins, and since no one on the court was an expert, they weren’t going to make a decision about it. However, they did make a decision about it. By saying they didn’t know, they said “let’s assume that life doesn’t start until after birth.” Now, of course they didn’t use those words, but by legalizing abortion in the U.S., that is what they said.

Now let’s examine the constitutionality of this decision. After all, the constitution is the law that governs our land and controls our government. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. All powers not granted to the federal government shall be retained by the states.”

If you will notice, there is only one federal crime: treason. Murder, theft, rape, child abuse, and anything else are criminal offenses in each individual state. Read the constitution, no outlawing of murder there. Does this mean the authors thought murder was acceptable? Of course not. They intended for the states to individually determine permissible actions and punishment for disobeying the laws. With this in mind, the state of Texas had the right to make abortion illegal within the state.

Since the State of Texas had the right to make laws, and it made the law stating that abortion was illegal, the Supreme Court had no business touching the case. They operated outside of their authority, outside of the law, and usurped the powers of the states. (It should be here noted, to eliminate the illogical comments that always arise in such a discussion, that the Texas law prohibiting abortion provided for the legality of an abortion in the instance of saving the life of the mother)

The 1973 Supreme Court didn’t just stop at breaking the law, they decided to operate outside of logic as well. The court said that they could not determine when human life starts. I have to wonder how stupid the members of the court were. Common sense tells us several things about an unborn child:

Firstly, that it is human. The argument has been made that it is not human yet. Like begets like. There is nothing else that it could be.

Secondly, it is alive. Our modern terminology almost completely eliminates any reference to life, death, or humanity. It is not a baby, it is a “fetus.” It is not “killing” we moved to “abortion.” To abort means to stop. What are we stopping? The pregnancy, you say? If the pregnancy were not “stopped” then what would happen? The “fetus” would grow to its most advanced stage and finally exit the womb. In cases of failed abortions in the later stages of pregnancy, the baby is born and left to die. If it must die, was it not then alive? Things that are not living do not die.

The case of Roe vs. Wade defied logic and the constitution. Unfortunately, the decision still stands and has yet to be successfully challenged. I hold out very little hope that this will change under the current administration, but it is our duty as Christians and as American citizens to pray for the leaders of our country, and we should pray that we may have the opportunity to save the millions of innocent lives that are ended every day.

The entire decision with its companion cases can be read here.

Justice Anthiny Scalia’s dissent on Lawrence vs. Texas can be read here.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Uncategorized

George W. Bush: Paving the way?

February 8, 2009 · Leave a Comment

If there had never been a President George W. Bush, would there have ever been a President Barack Obama?

Let me explain. Republicans have an extreme tendency to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” They may not like the GOP candidate, but, hey! he’s better than the Democrat, right? If you continuously vote for the lesser of two evils, the greater of two evils doesn’t seem that bad. I know a lot of people who normally vote Republican who voted for Obama this year because they didn’t like John McCain and/or were fed up with the GOP. They didn’t like Obama either, but hey! Hope and Change…

The former President promised to stay true to free-market principles and to stay true to his Christian faith and the conservative base. I know you don’t remember it after the bailout bill, the No-Child-Left-Behind act, the Department of Homeland Security, the cease-fire on Ramadan, and his infinite praise of our new President.

It is always best to vote your conscience and not vote for party, because party loyalties lead to a party that ignores its base and focuses on swing voters. Plus, if you just check every name with an (R) beside it, just because it has an (R) beside it, you surrender your thinking capabilities.

My advice to you faithful GOP voters that strayed this election: the next time you want to make your vote make a statement to the GOP, vote libertarian. All that happens when you vote a Democrat into office is you get a candidate you don’t like, and the GOP continues its ridiculous strategy of courting the swing voters. More votes for the Dems than the GOP just says to the GOP “We didn’t reach out to the swing voters enough. Be more moderate!” Well, that told ‘em. If suddenly the libertarian candidate gets more than 2% of the vote, I believe the GOP will take notice. No, the libertarian probably won’t get in office, but wouldn’t you rather cast a statement vote for someone you agree more with who won’t be elected than someone you don’t agree with who has a good chance of being elected?

My best friend made an excellent point about the Bush presidency and a great note at the end about ethical journalism. http://kellytalks.blogspot.com/2008/11/truth.html

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , , , , ,

Create-A-Greeting-Card

January 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment

happy-4thI have just entered the Create-A-Greeting-Card Scholarship contest. The website encouraged posting your entry on your blog or social networking site profile, so I was obliged to do so. This is my entry, and if anyone is in need of funds for higher education, the award is $10,000. The entry form is found here: http://www.gallerycollection.com/scholarship.htm

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Merry Christmas

December 25, 2008 · Leave a Comment

I would like to wish everyone a very merry Christmas, and hope you are able to enjoy it with your family.

A very special Christmas wish is sent out to all our brave troops overseas. You are always in my thoughts and prayers. Merry Christmas!

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Uncategorized

Campaign Excitement – A Generational Gap

December 14, 2008 · 1 Comment

This is an extra-credit essay I wrote for my American Government class. I hope you enjoy it.

Both Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama raised excitement as iconic revolutionaries, though on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Ronald Reagan came when the country was nervous about an oil crisis and after a president who did little to confront this threat. Americans were afraid of a failing economy and a president who apparently made it worse. Barack Obama came when the country was afraid of rising fuel prices and after a president who was blamed for the problem. Americans, like those in Reagan’s time, were afraid of a failing economy, a president who seemingly made it worse, and (this time) a presidential candidate who had many of the same policies as his predecessor. The candidates were treated very differently by the press. Age and experience were issues of their campaigns, though not raised by the candidates, but rather by their opponents.

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign was revolutionary. Reagan came into the White House after a one-term Democratic president – James “Jimmy” Carter. Many were unhappy  with Carter’s policies on the economy, oil, and foreign relations, and were ready for a real change. Reagan offered a renewed sense of patriotism, lower taxes, and, frankly, a change from politics as usual. Reagan loved America , and was ready to fight to keep its freedoms. After watching Carter embarrass the nation in Iran, this was a refreshing change.
Many said that Reagan was too old and too inexperienced to lead the country. Reagan served eight years in U.S. Army Air Force from April 29, 1937 to December 9, 1945, ranking Captain when he left. He was governor of California from 1967 to 1975. His opponents felt that this was not enough; having only served as governor of a state, and never holding a national office made some people nervous.

Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was historical. He was the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Obama came in after a two-term Republican president – George W. Bush, who was largely unpopular with the American public in his second term. Obama was almost the anti-Bush. Bush was a rich, white American born into wealth and privilege. Obama was of mixed-race, raised in a single-parent home, and, seemingly most important to voters, he was not a Republican. Obama, like Reagan, made a point of contrasting himself to his predecessor though Reagan ran against his predecessor. Obama equated his opponent with the current president, and contrasted himself to the two of them.
One of the main criticisms of Obama during his campaign was that he had insufficient experience to lead the country. Obama served as a state senator for Illinois from 1997-2004, except from 2000-2002, when he lost the election. He served as a U.S. senator starting in 2005, and resigned his seat in November 2008 after winning the presidential election. He was criticized for his record of voting “present” over 100 times.

Criticism arose from the fact that he was a less than one-term junior senator.
Both candidates had a huge following of excited Americans who believed in their policies, and in the candidates themselves. What caused all this excitement behind these candidates? Was it just their policies? Was it their campaign tactics?

Reagan was the breakthrough candidate for using television to campaign. He began this revolution when he campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964 , delivering his “A Time for Choosing/Rendezvous with Destiny” speech during a purchased time slot.

If Reagan was the pioneer of television campaigning, then Obama was the first president of television campaigning. Like never before, a presidential candidate monopolized television for his campaign. He even had an entire channel on Dish Network that covered his plan for America. Campaign advertisements on nearly every channel, an entire channel devoted to his policy, appearances on talk shows, morning shows, and evening news shows put Obama in the spotlight like no presidential candidate before.
Obama set unprecedented records for campaign finance. He raised more money for his campaign than anyone preceding him.

The campaign platforms of both Reagan and Obama were basically the anti to what their predecessors had practiced, and that seemed to be the appeal for both of them. Reagan ran on lowering taxes to stimulate the economy, and less government control, regulation, and involvement. He also embodied and advocated a renewed sense of patriotism, and returning to the “God, Family, Country” mentality. Obama ran on energy independence, saying that we need to look for alternative sources of energy. He advocated universal health care; he said it should be the right of every American to have access to affordable health care. Both of the candidates’ platforms were opposite of the way the country was being run at the time and very appealing to the American people. Their ideas and policies were what the American people wanted at the time.

Both candidates had interesting choices for their running mates. Reagan picked George H. W. Bush his closest competitor in primaries. Obama picked Joe Biden a long-time U.S. senator. Biden ran for president in 1988, and even 2008, but was almost ignored in primaries and caucuses in the 2008 election. Neither of the candidates’ choices for vice president generated much more excitement for them; however it may be reasonably thought that Reagan may have gained more votes by picking George H. W. Bush, because Bush had received such a large percentage of the votes in the primaries.  The vice-presidential nominees were clearly support figures. They did not generate more excitement or many more votes, which, in 2008, stood in stark contrast to the opposition.

Reagan received just over 50 percent of the popular vote nationally , but carried almost every state in the Union. Exceptions were Minnesota, Georgia, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Maryland, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. He lost these states by less than 5 percent, excepting D.C., Rhode Island, and Georgia.  However, his narrow victory with the popular vote paled in comparison to the 489-49 Electoral College vote victory. Like Reagan, Obama received about half of the popular vote (though Obama’s percentage was about 52 percent, slightly higher than Reagan’s) and the majority (365-162) of the votes from the Electoral College. Geographically, however, Obama only won half the country. A post-election map shows that Obama won 28 of the states. The youth vote is always coveted by every candidate, and though usually a minority of votes, often ends up deciding the election. Among 18-29 year olds in 1980 43 percent voted for Reagan. Ironically, Carter received almost the same percentage. In 2008 66 percent of 18-29 years olds voted for Obama . McCain received only 32 percent of votes from this demographic.

Reagan’s acceptance speech after he won the election was largely a “thank you” speech.  He thanked those who voted for him, his family, and those who had prayed for him. He requested the prayers of the American people as he prepared to take office. He told the American people that they had achieved a great victory, and perhaps would achieve another soon, making reference to the houses of Congress. Reagan’s speech was somewhat informal, he had his family, George H. W. and Barbara Bush on stage with him. At one point during his speech two men came behind him onto the stage carrying what looked like a large cake shaped like the United States, interrupted him, and told him that they “just wanted to show [him] what the map of the United States looked like at 8 o’clock tonight.”

Obama’s acceptance speech was basically a victory speech.  Some compared it to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech , saying that it was a “We Have Achieved the Dream” speech. He thanked his family, the voters, and his campaign staff. In contrast to Reagan’s speech, Obama’s was more formal. His family came on stage with him, but then left, and there were no interruptions by cake or anything else.

Obama was the first man ever to create not only an office, but a website for the president-elect. He came under a lot of fire for this seemingly presumptuous move. Many were skeptical about this new Office of the President-Elect, especially since he made a sign for his first press conference that not only said “Office of the President-Elect,” but also bore the presidential seal.

Obama and Reagan ran on very different platforms, but during similar situations. The main reason for the excitement that they generated seems to be that they were a change from the politics that were coming from the White House when they ran. They had policies that answered the cries of the American people, and their opponents did not. Reagan called for a return to American idealism. Obama called for a sense of internationalism, an advocacy of leaving American individualism, and looking to other countries for precedents, policies and support. Reagan’s policies were proved, and he went on to win the next election by outstanding margins. Only time will tell if the same will happen for Obama.

→ 1 CommentCategories: College · Elections/Campaigns · History
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conservatives vs. Republicans

November 16, 2008 · 2 Comments

Lately I’ve been encountering a lot of people who think that conservative equals Republican and vice versa. I would like to explore the differences and similarities between the conservative movement and the Republican Party. I want to look at what they are today, and not get into the history of either one in any depth.

Conservatism is about ideas into actions. We have the idea that a free market works, and works best under limited government, so to put it into action we oppose any legislation that grows government, or moves the country toward a socialist state. Republicans as a general rule (mavericks excepted) are about party. They support anyone with the GOP brand. They don’t have to agree, they just need to be elephants. Nearly every Republican running for office will proudly declare that he (or she) is a conservative! More often than not, this is an empty campaign promise that doesn’t hold water. George Bush said he was conservative. Yet he grew government and the national debt. Not the actions of a conservative.

Conservatives are not loyal to Republicans, and Republicans are certainly not loyal to conservatives. Any GOP candidate knows that they need to win the conservative base to win, so they play along until they get in office. However, as soon as they have the power they spend taxpayers’ money like a high-roller in Vegas. Conservatives tend to vote conscience rather than party. Many conservatives have more Libertarian leanings.

Conservatives, for the most part, are not willing to compromise. They won’t take “the lesser of two evils,” they won’t accept a “half-and-half” legislation. Republicans, on the other hand, constantly want to “reach across the aisle.” John McCain in his presidential campaign made a huge issue of how he had done this. Look at Saxby Chambliss and the Gang of 10.

Looking at the battles each side picks, the GOP chooses to fight Democrats 100% of the time. They don’t fight other Republicans; they don’t fight Libertarians, they fight the Democrats. Conservatives fight for principles. They fight against liberals, Democrats, Republicans, even Libertarians; whoever is opposed to the ideas they believe are right, that is who they fight.

I have recently discovered the true differences between the right and left, and Democrats and Republicans. In one of my textbooks, a chart was made that looked something like this:

Left (=> CommunistSocialistLiberal    (Center) Conservative - MonarchistFascist   <=) Right

The difference between the left and right of today, is that nearly all liberals embrace the extremist point of view: communism or socialism. Those on the right do not believe fascism (Nazi Germany, or Sharia Law is a good example of fascism) is the correct path. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that most Democrats admit to being either “liberal” or “progressive” and they are. Most Republicans say that they are “conservative,” and most aren’t. So Republicans have dethroned the Democrats as the party of liars.

 

→ 2 CommentsCategories: Conservatism · Socialism
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

Oh, the horror!

November 7, 2008 · Leave a Comment

America has spoken. The citizens of these great United States have all collectively said “duuuoooh….?” Americans have what they asked for. “Not me,” you say “I voted McCain-Palin!” Bully for you. You probably voted Bush-Cheney in the past two elections. Thanks for being part of the problem.

The problem is not that there are too many liberal democrats. The problem is not ACORN. The problem is not that too many members of the Electoral College are idiots. The problem is that those in the right did nothing. They have done nothing for too many years.

You asked for another Reagan, but is that what you wanted? Reagan’s driving power was that he turned that nation to look beyond themselves, and not just to other people, but to God. Reagan was never shy about proclaiming his faith. Yet you, yes, you, elected a president, no, RE-elected a president who said that all religions are equal; A president who, after telling the American people what a religious man he was, ordered a cease-fire during Ramadan; A man who proclaimed himself a conservative, and then took away our freedoms, and grew the size of government. Stop getting behind Bush, Christian Conservative! He has no respect for the laws of God or the laws of this country.

How did McCain get the nomination? There were an awful lot of conservatives who talked about sitting out the election or even voting for a third-party or a write-in candidate because McCain was so far off base from what they believed! So, how did he end up with the nomination? Ron Paul was the most conservative. Mike Huckabee was the most unashamed of proclaiming his faith. Pick any of the other GOP candidates (with the possible exception of Rudy Giuliani) and you can find in them a candidate more appealing to the conservative base than John McCain. So, how did he get it? Did everyone say “he’s more likely to win,” or did all the Bush lovers just look at him and say “the democrats are right! He IS four more years of Bush!” We may never know why John McCain got the nomination when there was such opposition to him after he did, but one thing is certain, that the democratic voters and the republican voters did the same thing, out of all the candidates, they picked the one who would eliminate their freedoms the most, and keep their minds off of thinking about the moral issues facing this country.

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Conservatism · Elections/Campaigns
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

NextGenGOP

November 2, 2008 · 1 Comment

Finally, a GOP group that realizes the Republican Party does not have the answer to everything, is not the answer to everything, and, frankly, is in dire need of a makeover.

http://www.nextgengop.com/

→ 1 CommentCategories: Uncategorized
Tagged: ,

Entitlement Attitude

October 19, 2008 · Leave a Comment

I recently had the pleasure of hearing Nathan Deal, Congressman for the 9th district of Georgia. He spoke about the financial crisis, its cause, and what could be done to fix it. He was not a supporter of the infamous bailout bill, and voted against it both times. He began to speak about an entitlement attitude that Americans have developed, and he blamed it for the financial crisis. Everyone thinks that fundamental human rights have been extended. That owning a home, health care, retirement, education, higher education, and so much more, are not privileges but rights!

When did this entitlement attitude start? Some might say during the great depression, after all that was when some of our first and largest socialist programs were started, thanks to FDR’s New Deal. I am of the opinion that it goes further back, to the most egregious loss of liberty and freedom this country had experienced up to that time. I am speaking, of course, of the time period of the inaptly named Civil War, and the Reconstruction.

At the beginning of the Civil War, as my American Government professor so wisely pointed out, for the first time America had a president acting as king. He passed laws, declared war, and generally ran the country without congress, usurping congress’s authority, superseding separation of powers, and taking freedom from the states and the citizens of the United States. I believe that this was the beginning of the “don’t worry, the government will fix it” attitude.

Reconstruction, according to historians, actually started before the war ended, in 1863. They claim the Emancipation Proclamation was the beginning of Reconstruction, which I think to be a fair claim, and we will accept this date for this discussion.

Acts, amendments, and bills were flying around Washington during Reconstruction, trying to make right the consequences of an unjust and illegal war. However, what was right, and what the omniscient government saw as right, were two different things. In addition, there was so much fighting going on that no one could agree on much of anything. In spite of the bickering, they managed to pass three amendments, and several acts and bills. I will not go into a deep discussion of everything that was passed and the details and consequences of the bill or act, for the present, I would just like to focus on the 15th amendment.

Up until that time, voting was a privilege, and your privilege was determined by the state. Some states required that you own property or a business, some required a poll tax, there were different standards depending on your state. The 15th amendment took away the privilege and said that anyone could vote. I do find it interesting that women were excluded from this, but they gained that right with the 19th amendment 50 years later. This was the beginning. The government took a privilege, and rather than letting the states handle it, insisted that everyone have the right.

I was recently given rough statistics on voting. About 35%-40% of citizens eligible to vote are registered to vote. About 50% of eligible, registered voters actually vote. So, only about 20% of eligible citizens actually vote. Before voting was declared to be a fundamental right the percentage of those who could vote and did was 75%+. How far we have come by giving the privilege to everyone.

This was a very slippery slope. Once government decided they could usurp states’ rights, once they determined that they knew best, once they began to act on these decisions and determinations, there was no turning back, and it has only gotten worse. It has become so bad, that the government has deemed itself a national charity who can give out food, housing, and money to the poor and underprivileged, and help businesses that are in trouble, and in danger of bankruptcy and closure. What advancements we have made, what liberties we have surrendered!

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Economy · History · Rights and Privileges · Socialism