Blind Man's News

June 15, 2011

Ann Coulter, Ron Paul, and the Government’s Role in Marriage

Ron Paul taking questions in Manchester, NH

Image via Wikipedia

Today on the O’Reilly Factor Ann Coulter made a mistake that shows her bias and lack of concern for the rule of law and the intent of our founding fathers. I have a lot of admiration for Ms. Coulter, but like most conservatives, she is biased, and that blinds her to understanding a simple concept. The Democrats exposed a similar flaw in thinking by passing a law which forces Americans to buy health insurance.

When asked about his position on gay marriage, Ron Paul stated that the government should stay out of the business of marriage. I agree. Ann Coulter does not. I find it interesting that Republicans and conservatives preach limited government, but only when it goes against their beliefs. Isn’t that the same thing they accuse liberals and Democrats of doing? Does a freedom loving people pass laws that deny others the same freedoms they themselves enjoy? Conservatives believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They refuse to allow any other arrangements. This is foremost a Christian concept. Many religions allow men to have multiple wives, but even these religions deny same-sex marriage. In the case of Ann Coulter, she says that marriage leads to all sorts of consequences which government should be involved in. Really?

She mentioned divorce and custody. Excuse me, but please explain how these have anything to do with marriage. From my perspective, divorce is a civil matter handled in civil court by attorneys representing individuals trying to settle the property and custody matters. How, Ms. Coulter, is the government involved in this process? Answer: the government has nothing to do with divorce and custody. These matters are handled locally by courts and litigants, and the government should stay out of it. Why would any person, regardless of belief, think that the government should pass laws that establish what a marriage is or is not? Shouldn’t people be “free” to live in whatever kind of relationship the individuals desire without our government telling them what they can and can’t do? My answer: Absolutely.

Ann Coulter is a conservative. She sees the world through conservative eyes, which puts her bias onto all her views. She is quick to condemn liberals for doing the same thing. Ron Paul on the other hand is a libertarian. His philosophy is that the government has little responsibility according to the constitution and that the people retain all the power. This does not mean that Ann Coulter has the right to assemble her conservative base and pass laws to define what marriage is any more than the liberals have the right to pass laws giving gays special rights. In Ron Paul’s view, gays have the same rights as heterosexual people. Why do we need a law passed by the government to grant or deny freedom?

The conservative argument against gay marriage is based on Christian doctrine. Our founding fathers had the common sense to amend the constitution to prohibit our government from passing laws that favor one religion over another. People will argue that marriage has nothing to do with religion. I disagree. The First Agreement clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..” We can get into all sorts of arguments here, but exactly what does “respecting” mean? It simply means that our government cannot impose religious doctrine onto the people. We all have the constitutional right to live free from religious doctrine or submit to the doctrine of our choosing. Don’t you agree , Ms. Coulter?

Now we have to draw the line when the exercise of religion interferes with the rights of others. For example, we can’t have one religion burning the churches of their rivals. These rights are already legislated into our criminal laws. So how does gay marriage fit into this argument? It doesn’t. In no way does a gay marriage interfere with a Christian’s right to exercise the freedom of religion. Unfortunately, denying gays the right to exercise their rights to marry the partner of their choosing is interfering their freedom of religion as well as basic human rights. No religious doctrine should be forced upon Americans by government legislation. This is exactly what happens when our government denies gays the right to marry. As currently defined by conservatives, a marriage is the union between one man and one woman and is a Christian concept which cannot, therefore, be written into any law according to the First Amendment. A marriage is a partnership agreement. It gives each individual certain rights just as any other partnership would. To give some sort of sacred significance to a marriage is imposing religious significance to the union. This is not allowed by our constitution.

Wise up Ms. Coulter. You preach limited government, but only limited by your views, or your conservative bias. Rep. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who truly understands what freedom and the US Constitution mean. Your definition of marriage is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Even a blind man can see bias in both political parties. Why can’t everyone else?

Advertisements

June 8, 2011

Solar Flares Send Earth to the Dark Ages

Artist's rendition of Earth's magnetosphere.

Image via Wikipedia

This headline has not been released before, but many scientists are worried that it may be the news of the day in December 2012. The recent enormous explosion on the sun is a reminder that a horrible storm could erupt that will utterly destroy everything electronic on the earth. Prophets have been saying that Dec. 21, 2012 is the day that will happen. Naysayers keep telling us not to worry. My concern is that most people will listen to the naysayers and dismiss these warnings as nothing

If it weren’t for the fact that the sun has caused many problems in the past, I would be right there with the naysayers. Unfortunately, the facts point to a great increase in solar activity next year. This will be bad news for the earth, or more accurately, our modern way of life.

I do not expect the earth to suddenly end as some are saying. That is inconsistent with reality. The real situation suggests that the sun will dramatically increase its eruptions which will result in extremely high levels of magnetic radiation hitting the earth. Since all of our modern equipment is operated by electromagnetic power, high intensity bursts from the sun will cause the destruction of most of our infrastructure. Our power grid can fail. Our cars can quit working. Our satellites can be destroyed. Everything may just quit working. Do you have any idea what that will do to our world? We won’t be able to get to work. Food suppliers can’t get us food. The water system will stop supplying water. No electricity. No water. No food.

What will we do? All I can say is,” I wish I had been born Amish.”  They never embraced our modern way of life. They will survive. So will the people in the lowest level undeveloped countries. Maybe, if you live on a small farm, you can survive. The rest of us will most likely starve to death, if we don’t die in the riots.

I think that I will plant a garden next spring. Oh yeah, and devise a way to protect myself from the thieves. Even a blind man can see we need to prepare, just in case.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/06/110608-solar-flare-sun-science-space/

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/159340/20110608/solar-flare-auroras-coronal-mass-ejection-carrington-event.htm

April 11, 2011

Blind Man Sees Radiation Trouble in America

Filed under: Editorials — oslm @ 4:45 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

There is a lot of misinformation, lack of information, and outright cover-up about the radiation problems in Japanand how that might impact AmericansIn America some people are concerned about the long-term effects of the Japanese disaster. Our officials keep telling us not to worry because radiation levels are too low. Really? Didn’t it occur to them that the time to worry is now, while the levels are low? It is overly obvious that the Japanese have a serious problem. Radiation is polluting their land, their food, and the ocean. Any product shipped from Japan is likely contaminated.

There are plenty of news stories downplaying the danger of Japanese radiation in America.  I have selected a few articles, and listed them at the bottom of this article to illustrate my point. Right now, we probably aren’t in much danger. The real concern should be the long-term effects. This situation is far from over. The effects will last for years.

Airport radiation detectors are picking up radiation on tourists coming to America from Japan. I suppose we shouldn’t worry about that, at least ourgovernment officials tell us that. Would you want to be riding in an Airplane with contaminated people?

Drinking water in America is being contaminated by Japanese radiation. Cow’s milk is also contaminated. Sure, the levels are really low and aren’t much of a problem, not yet. So how long before it becomes a problem, and then what? Shouldn’t we be considering what to do once our officials decide that the contamination is significant? Radiation is still leaking in Japan. This will only get worse.

Japan is concerned about radiation in their food supply, and for good reason. They have placed bans on growing crops in contaminated soil. Duh! Concerns are also rising about the contaminated water leaking into the ocean getting into the fish, which Japan desperately needs to feed its people. Duh, again!

American companies realize that products coming from Japan can be contaminated, so some of them are screening imports for contamination. Shouldn’t that be done before they get here? Why wait till the poison is here? What then, we ship it back to Japan? Nope, this is pure publicity to quell American fears. You can bet that even if they find contaminated products in America, they will still sell them. The other option is to shut down all Japanese imports, and that will never happen.

What we need to consider is how prepared we are for a disaster. Also, do we really care what is happening in our world and our food supply? Does it concern you personally that your food could be contaminated? I’m not just talking about radiation either. Our food supply is filled with all types of chemicals and contaminates. People get sick and die every day from bad food. Then there are the GMO’s, which are genetically engineered food. Seriously, do you really trust big corporations with your food? They are profit driven. Of course they will tell you everything is fine. Sit back and relax, we got it under control. Even a blind man can see something is wrong here.

Here is one story about radiation in America:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20043313-10391704.html

Read more on radiation on tourists:

http://rt.com/usa/news/japan-radiation-usa-ariports-detectors/

Radiation in the water:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/05/trace-amounts-radiation-japan-drinking-water/

More on crop bans:

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2011/04/japan-bans-planting-rice-in-radioactive.html?spref=tw

More on fish contamination:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110405/ap_on_re_as/as_japan_earthquake

Contaminated Cars:

http://www.autospies.com/news/Nissan-America-To-Screen-Japan-Imported-Cars-For-Radiation-62526/

December 25, 2010

Unemployment At Least 15.1 Million

The unemployment numbers around the United States are not getting better. Businesses are not creating jobs, and unemployment benefits are running out for many. How do we maintain an economy when the 15.1 million run out of unemployment and still can’t find jobs? That will mean billions of dollars no longer circulating in the economy.

Unemployment is a trap just like the old welfare system. Our government is not creating jobs. It should be obvious that the controlling forces in Washington have no idea how to create jobs. History has examples of how to get the jobs moving. Unfortunately, that means the Democrats will have to utilize Republican tactics to make any significant improvements. This will not happen because the Democratic leadership won’t allow it. Their idea of by-partisanship is having the Republicans support their agenda.

What I don’t understand is why the Democratic leadership hasn’t resorted to “New Deal” techniques to create jobs. As much as I hate big government, I had much rather see people working on government sponsored jobs than sitting at home drawing unemployment. Unemployment is a dead-end money pit. If all that money was funneled into government jobs that accomplished actual work, our country would be getting something for the investment. Roosevelt had the foresight to see this. I know, conservatives attack the New Deal as a bad deal. In many ways, it was,but I think we can all agree that paying someone to sit at home is much worse than paying someone to build and improve our nation’s infrastructure.

Of course, the better option is to give private companies incentaves to hire new employees. Give them a tax credit for every job they create which lasts more then a year. Also, loosen the regulations, and make it easier to hire and keep employees. Number one should be suspending that “scary” healthcare overhaul for 2 more years. Companies are very reluctant to hire employees when their tax and benefits burdens are unknown.

OK Washington. Let’s see some real job creation.

December 11, 2010

More Spending No Jobs

President Obama gave in to Republican pressure to extend the tax cuts, but he put into the new bill an extension of 13 weeks onto unemployment benefits. For people on unemployment, this may seem like a good thing, but is it really? Wouldn’t these same people rather be working? Would they trade a government check for a paycheck? Most people would. So why don’t the Democrats in Washington start putting money into job creation instead of dead-ended government handouts?

Apparently, our elected morons are hearing our cries, but they are not smart enough to solve a simple problem. Extending the tax cuts does give some relief to companies which hire employees, but the effect is minimal. If economic stimulus is the objective, then all incentives need to be tied in some way to job creation. The best way to do that is a tax break for employers who hire workers for one year instead of a tax cut across the board. Large companies could save significantly more in taxes by hiring more employees. Since people would be getting back to work, money would be available to spend again, so the economy starts rolling again.

We have a government that seems to be lost and clueless as to how to motivate people and companies. Bailouts are not the answer. People need some incentive to get going; then clear the way of obstacles (unnecessary regulations); and watch how fast things can bounce back.

December 9, 2010

Bush Tax Cuts and Jobs

President Obama has sided with  the Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts for all Americans. I am not surprised, but I really expected more from both parties. This was a perfect opportunity for the Democrats to score big with the American people by denying the tax cuts for wealthier Americans and tying tax breaks to job creation instead.

The Republicans keep ranting that rich investors and wealthy Americans are the job creators. This is true, so why not give these people tax credits for creating jobs instead of a built-in break. By taking away the tax break and replacing it with a more lucrative tax credit, there would be great incentive to create jobs by investing money to keep the government from taking it.

I would like to see this plan worked into the tax laws for 2011. It is too late for 2010. The President missed an opportunity to win points with the middle class and poor while freeing the wealthy to get back to the business of making money and jobs. I am not surprised. The President has been great at playing politics, but pathetic at leadership. We need the job building incentives that are directly tied to creating jobs. Does anyone in Washington get that? Apparently not.

December 8, 2010

Freedom of Speech or Piracy?

Julian Assange at New Media Days 09 in Copenhagen.

Image via Wikipedia

The buzz around Wikileaks and Julian Assange is unnerving.  How do we deal with a man who takes stolen government documents and then publishes them without conscience? The range of suggestions begin with the death penalty and end with sainthood. Can we see through the fog and decide what is going on, or will we simply fight this out until our ship of fools crashes on the rocks?

The question that needs to be answered first is, “Does he have the right to publish stolen documents?” Does the United States government, and all the involved nations of the world, have the right to privacy and ownership of the stolen information? I believe that stolen documents are “stolen documents,” and the recipients of the stolen documents are accessories after the fact. Theft is a crime in every nation on earth. Receiving stolen property is a crime in most nations (possibly all.) Selling stolen property or profiting from the theft in some way is piracy. Mr. Assange has profited immensely from his illegal activities. He is no different from the hacker who steals books, music, or videos and publishes them without permission.

Every person who supports Mr. Assange would cry for justice if it were their lives he was ruining. If he was publishing personal secrets of his supporters they would call for his execution too.

A blind man should see that Mr. Assange is a criminal, publishing stolen material for profit, and at what cost to the world? Secrets or not, no one has the right to publish stolen information.

Now, if he had taken the documents and condensed them into his own words, maybe he could publish that. It would still be a crime in my eyes, but then it would be his version of what the documents contained. That would leave an out for anyone questioning the facts. The US and other nations could still deny the information as fabricated lies.

As is, Mr. Assange is a criminal, and he should be dealt with appropriately. Spies can still be executed by firing squad. Unfortunately, our leaders are too politically correct to ever do that. Hopefully, he ends up in prison for his crimes.

If he were publishing my personal secrets, I would want him locked up. Wouldn’t you?

Blog at WordPress.com.