h1

The Candidates (Republican That Is)

January 15, 2008

Alright, it’s time I finally came out and told you all my thoughts on candidates rather than where I stand on issues.

Rudy Giuliani – While everyone seems to want to put him down for his pro-choice stance on abortion, I don’t think it necessary to be pro-life to be president. After all, there’s nothing the president can do about Roe v. Wade anyway. Even the appointment of judges has nothing to do with making laws for abortion. If you want a law for or against abortion you need to look to your Senator and District Representative. Social issues are such a stupid reason to elect a president over. However, social issues do have some play and Rudy Giuliani seems to be a social moderate. That’s okay with me. He has conservative fiscal policy. His stance on immigration may be the only thing that hurts him (or SHOULD be the ONLY thing that hurts him), but I understand his explanations for his immigration policy. You can’t have a city full of illegal kids running around with no school or education, especially when the state only allows you to deport a fraction of illegals every year. It’s better for the city and the people to put the kids in a public school until there’s something that can be done about deporting more illegals.

Ron Paul – If we were not in war and didn’t need to have troops in South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, among other places I would vote for Ron Paul. He has awesome fiscal policy. While I do view him as an isolationist, by definitiion he’s not. He does support a global market and free trade. He also has the idea that there should be limited government intervention, which is what conservatives are supposed to think right? Well, his view on foreign policy is too idiotic and dangerous to win my support.

Mike Huckabee – …where to start…I can’t even type his name in Word without it being underlined in Red for being mispelled. People say they like him because he’s someone they can relate to. I don’t want someone I can relate to…I want a leader. I want someone BETTER than me. I gave this guy the benefit of the doubt, but no longer am I going to stand by and watch him steal conservative votes by pretending to be something he’s not. So he’s pro-life…who cares? I mean, sure it’s important to social conservatives to have a pro-life president, but you people need to look at the bigger picture here. Can he gain more than 20% of the population’s support? No. Does he stand the slightest chance against any Democrat? No. He’s a pro-life liberal Christian.

Too much government control; I want limited government. Too many taxes; I want cut spending, then lets talk about taxes for a balanced budget. He supports In-State tuition for illegals. Crap. “We can’t punish the children for their parents mistakes.” – Sure we can! But who said not giving them in-state tuition is punishing them? It’s just not pandering to them. I get loans to pay for my education. My parents don’t pay for it (though I’m sure they would if they could) so I have to figure out a way to get my education. If they get into college, they should play by the rules and enroll as a foreign student (tuition is cheaper for them anyway, for some reason).

And don’t get me started on the “God-ticket.” As a Christian, I’m offended that Huckabee is willing to go so far as to justifying every issue with “in the bible it says…” or “under God the government should…” or my personal favorite, “we should ammend the constituion to meet God’s standards…” Okay…You have to think strategically. Who else does this appeal to? What…10% of the population? It’s like he believes no other candidate believes in God. My personal opinion is that he’s doing what people should NEVER do; using God as a tool for gaining attention in politics. Evangelicals should be offended by this monstosity. Sure, this country was founded on moral and religious values, but not to the extent of using God as a political instrument. Oh, and just because he’s a Christian, doesn’t mean he’s a conservative…in the distance I hear “Jimmy Carter…Jimmy CarterJimmy CarterJimmy Carter…”

John McCain – I thought for weeks about voting for McCain. I was willing to look past all of the crap that he’s stood for. I thought he would be important in a time of war. But looking back, I could never forgive myself if I voted for him. Sure, he’s for getting the job done in Iraq, but so are all the candidates. I think ALL of the candidates (except for Ron Paul) would be tough on the war in Iraq. John McCain is a great man. He’s an American hero. He’s done wonders for the war effort, but I can’t vote for him. Here’s a short list why: McCain-Feingold, Illegal Immigration, Taxes, his sellout to Global Warming, and the fact that he always fights AGAINST the Republicans in the Senate. Sure he’s a Republican, but he’s not a Conservative. Do I think he would be a good president? Sure. But I’m not voting for him. I think there are better candidates than him. If you like him, great…I have a lot of respect for the guy, but don’t say he’s a conservative. He’s not.

Obviously, me being a conservative I’d have to lay it down: my ideal choice would be Fred Thompson. He’s a straight-shooter, down-to-earth, conservative leader. He’s not so down-to-earth that you can’t respect his authority though. He comes off as a “regular ol’ guy” whom you can relate to, but shows his leadership skills when he speaks and he makes it clear he won’t give in to idiotic liberal attempts to demean him — ie. the debate when he refused to raise his hand on an issue that required explanation.

Finally, there’s Mitt Romney. Texas votes a little late, so I’ll be able to determine within 2 candidates who will be the nominee. If it comes down to the point of Fred Thompson having NO chance by the time I vote, I’ll vote for Romney. I’ve thought a lot about this now. He is a true Capitalist Pig. That’s why I’m going to vote for him. He is a businessman who can take action in a tough situation and do it with logic and not emotion. In other words, he’s not a hothead. I’ve said before that I have to question Romney’s intellect for believing in the Church of Latter Day Saints, which has NO historical reference (I’ve studied the mormon faith extensively and came to the conclusion that it, along with scientology, is the most inauthentic religion in the world, but I digress). I’ve gotten past this. Obviously the man is intelligent. He governed the most liberal state in the nation as a Republican and he did it very well. People say he’s not a social conservative, but that’s idiotic. Of course he’s socially conservative. But there’s only so much he can do in a liberal state. He gave NO pardons, and supported Tax cuts and the war in Iraq. For some reason, people don’t like businessman, because schools teach us that big business is bad, but unfortunately for them, that’s why this country is successful; business.

We are headed into an economic recession and Romney (or even Giuliani) is the best man to help turn that around. I believe that recessions are cyclical, but there needs to be a president that realizes that recessions are cyclical in order to prevent us from creating a New New Deal. The businessman is the best chance for survival against socialism; it keeps our country the land of equal opportunity and not the land of equal outcome. Like it or not, we are capitalists…and we need to secure that.

In addition, China is a big issue. I predict that in the near future, we will be at a sort of economic war with China. Who’s the man for the job? That’s right: a businessman; Mitt Romney.

These are my thoughts. Take what you will. May conservatism be with you.

Advertisements
h1

Madeline, Are You Serious!?

January 10, 2008

After reading this article about Madeline Albright’s opionion that Bush is the worst president in history, my assumption that Democrats want to destroy the greatness of America has been confirmed.

Albright descriminates Bush for not doing enough about global warming. She said that the next president should embrace the “global view of climate change.”

Ok… As if the president doesn’t have enough on his plate with the confrontation in Iraq. Bush can’t do it all people. Even the Reagan administration didn’t try to solve every problem in America (not to say that there is really a global warming problem). They made priorities, stuck to them, and worked their hardest to solve the problems.

I can play the game of the President possibly not having the right priorities, but when she says that the job of the next president should be to look after the interests of foreign nations I draw the line. NEVER in the history of organized government has a country looked after the interests of others. One way or another a country always does what will benefit themeselves.

The next absurd statement made by Albright was when she said, “the next president […]has to have the capability of dealing with other countries and being interested actually, in what their national intersest is and in listening.” WHAT!? So in other words, if we pander to terrorists and just stay out of the way, but at the same time get involved with helping, but not so much as to make them mad, but just to listen to them, but don’t say or do anything even if it leads to the fall of America, blah blah blah. Hippie talk. Wake up people! That’s like saying if we would have just lifted our oil embargo from Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor we wouldn’t have had to go to war and they would have left us alone. Yeah right.

In addition, Albright says that globalization is inevitable and we should do what we can to decrease the gap between rich and poor. Madeline, are you willing to give up half of your earnings to pay for the poor? If so you’re an imbisile. Of course you can stop globalization! It’s easy, be American. Stop pretending to be “world citizens” and start becoming American citizens! Besides, countries in the middle east don’t want to become part of some global community, they want to control it!

This is the path to the destruction of prosperity. Americans want to better their lives while Democrats want to worsen the lives of those who worked hard by taking their earnings and distributing to the people who are lazy and don’t want to work for it. America is a country of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Remember that.

But wait, Madeline wants global equality. She says, “If we were all rich, that would be nice. If were all poor, it would be too bad, but at least we would be the same.” Ahhhhhh! No prosperity. No opportunity. No individuality. Just COMMUNISM! It’s official; Albright wants to destroy equal opportunity and redistribute for equal outcome. I’m sorry Madeline, but me and many of my fellow conservatives will not let this happen. We will stop you at all costs.

To my fellow conservatives (and Americans for that matter), keep fighting.

 David Cooper

h1

Department of Education…END IT!

January 3, 2008

This may come as a shock seeing as how I’m working to become a teacher, but I feel strongly about this topic. This also may be one issue that Ron Paul supporters would agree with me on (assuming they actually know what Ron Paul believes in).

I understand that education is a big concern in this country. So the best way to make it successful is to not let the Federal Government control it. Every time we put trust in the Federal Government they screw it up. Not to mention, it increases the chances of America becoming a socialist country.

The reason the Federal Government shouldn’t control education is because every city is different! The Federal Government promises money for good test scores and threatens to take it away for bad test scores. This is a problem. You can’t set a national standard for education because then teachers will only teach what is necessary for their students to pass the government mandated tests. Also, having the Federal Government controlling the Education increases the power of teachers’ unions and decreases the power of the students’ parents.

My solution: Abolish the Department of Education and leave the education to the cities. If a city has control of what the schools teach, then the parents have more say about what is taught in schools because it increases the effect of Parent-School Board relations. For example, if a city like San Francisco decides to have a week of teaching homosexual tolerance or sexual education and the parents find that not a problem, that’s OK! Because if a parent doesn’t like it, they can go to a city where the parents decided that homosexual tolerance and sexual education isn’t necessary for the schools (like say…in a Conservative mid-west town). Each city has different priorities.

Also, if a city decides to tax it’s citizens to increase educational funding, then chances are the tax will ACTUALLY FUND the schools. In a federal tax, you don’t know whether that money is going to the schools or not. Besides, if parents don’t like the tax, they can fight against it or they can move. It gives parents more opportunities to better their city and choose where their kids go to school.

In addition, Charter Schools would increase competition for public schools and require public schools to hire better teachers and manage their budget a little better. Increase competition and you’ll increase the quality of the outcome. (By the way, this isn’t my idea. John McCain advocates this same idea).

We should also get rid of teacher tenure. Or at LEAST make it more difficult to achieve tenure. If we can’t get rid of bad teachers then the educational system will never get better (this coming from a future teacher!). Then the teachers’ unions complain: “we’re going to lose our jobs…we’re not protected.” You’re damn right you’re not protected! Just like any other job, you have to perform well to keep your job! If you’re good at your job, then you don’t have to worry do you?

Anyway…my two cents.

David Cooper

h1

Help the Homeless

January 1, 2008

I was on my way to work one day and saw a homeless man standing on the side of the road. As I came up to him I could read a sign he was holding which read “just plain hungry.” I am openly opposed to giving money to the homeless simply because I don’t know what they’ll do with it (like buy drugs or alcohol), but I realized that I had a Sonic gift card for five dollars and decided to give it to him so he could buy food. After doing so I felt that I did a good thing and thus felt good about myself.

I thought a little more about this when I got home and came to realize that I will never do it again. Call me heartless. But first hear my argument.

God gives every person in a life choices. This person, at one point in his life made a bad decision. I am a forgiving person, but only to a certain extent am I a GIVING person. I am however willing to give second chances, but not by handouts. Everyone makes bad decisions but I believe that there is a better way to help this person get out of his “rut.” Do not give them anything! Not even food. Giving them food implies the same thing as giving them money or booze. If you give them money you’re encouraging the fact that this person can get pity money from strangers.

The same applies to food. By giving a homeless person food, he will think that he can live without working or finding a way to better himself. How does that help the homeless? Giving free-rides to people simply because they’re homeless? Do the RIGHT thing. Don’t give them anything. If they get no food or money from people, they are going to have to figure out a way to fill their stomachs. If illegal immigrants can do work to get a few bucks for food, why can’t the homeless? Leave it to the “poor white man” to be too stuck up to work to put food on the table. Do you know why he won’t work to eat? Because our society makes it possible so that he doesn’t have to work to eat!

Sure, giving a homeless man food will help him in the short run, but what about the encouragement that would help the man in the long run; his life? The only way to help the homeless in the long run is for them to realize that they have a God-given choice to make the decisions to better their lives. And the only way they will come to this realization is when they have no other choice than to work to better their lives.

So do the right thing…help the homeless by not giving them anything.

David Cooper

h1

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or Pro-Progress?

December 22, 2007

Abortion is an issue that every American political candidate is asked about at one point or another. I don’t understand this, because abortion is such a minor issue in a post-9/11 world where there are so many other, more important, issues.

Often times Liberals blame Conservatives for being pro-life along with pro-death penalty which would, by definition, contradict the stance of “pro-life.” But you have to think of pro-life, not in literal terms, but in reasonable terms. Let’s look at an example. How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty? Let’s break it down: if an unborn fetus has no choice whether he will be born or not, then the mother must make a decision. Generally, except in the case of the mother’s health, incest or, arguably, rape, the mother should choose to have the baby. Because the fetus, a living organism that would become a human being, has NO say whether he can live or not, makes it murder to kill him. Now lets look at the death penalty. The person to be put to death has lived life. By choice, that person has committed crimes (usually murder) to put himself in that situation. A jury of citizens was presented evidence that proved the crimes of this person and he was seen so evil that he had been sentenced to death to prevent any other murders that would likely happen were he not dead. How are these instances the same? A fetus has NO choice whether to live or not, whereas the person sentenced to death willingly committed crimes against the law and knowing that there is a death penalty. He chose to commit the crimes that would lead him to the position of death. To me, they are two totally different things.

Moving on. When it comes to abortion there is a stalemate. Many people in this country feel that abortion should be outlawed, while many others believe that it should be the mother’s choice. To quote Dinesh D’Souza, whom I’ve quoted before, “hard-liners are fools. Because they want to outlaw ALL abortions, they refuse to settle for stopping SOME abortions; the consequence is that they end up preventing NO abortions.” (Letters to a Young Conservative p.192) This, to me, makes a lot of sense. Why prefer a stalemate over progress? One presidential candidate who stands for this (whom I disagree with on almost ALL issues) is Rudy Giuliani. Unfortunately for him, he hasn’t figured out how to say this correctly and only gives the impression that he is a Liberal pro-choice Republican, which is certainly not true. But the question is why not work hard preventing SOME abortions by encouraging adoption and what not, then push legislation to ban it when abortion is close to nil? Being hard-headed only causes a stalemate and no progress. Not to mention, if you tell people what they can and cannot do, they only want to do the opposite of what they’re told; it’s human nature.

Does this mean that I support abortion? No. Does this make me pro-choice? Absolutely not. I believe that abortion is the wrong thing for a soon-to-be-mother to do. I believe that it is immoral and we should do everything we can to prevent it, but me hard-lining against abortion gets nothing done. We should hard-line for encouraging adoption over abortion, which would make remarkable progress and make another family, that can’t have children, happy.

Some people will say, “Abortion is the number one issue for many religious people, and these people would never vote for a person who thinks that way (about abortion).” My answer: Christians who make abortion the number one issue which determines who they will vote for are idiots. If a candidate came up to me and said, “I will do everything I can to win the war on terror. I will close the border. I will have a tax reform. I will cut government programs. I will encourage Charter schools for competition. I will encourage individual health policies over universal health care. blah blah blah.” then said, “I will NOT try to make a federal ban on abortion (because it can’t be done), but rather try to reduce the amount of abortions that occur.” These hard-line Christians would be fools to overlook that!

I am a Christian. I am a Conservative. I am pro-life for progress. I guess that make me Pro-Progress.

h1

Contemplations over the Draft…

December 19, 2007

I’ve been thinking about the subject of the draft for some time now and I thought I’d share my views with those who would like to read.

I have mixed feelings about the draft. On one hand I think the draft would be a good idea. If instilled in times of peace AND war, it would ensure people that the country isn’t just implementing a draft because they need military personell for a war, but that the country just so happens to be in a war and we’re lucky enough to have the military that we need. Also, (now this is just a thought) what if one had to give military service in order to obtain a special benefit in the future, similar to obtaining a college degree?

In addition, if we had a draft now, the war in Iraq would less likely be the problem that it is. We wouldn’t need to authorize “troop surges,” we would just have the necessary troops needed to fight the fight. Why not…we had a draft throught WWII, Korea, and Vietnam? (Vietnam, arguably, destroyed the likely-hood of having a draft again, but had we kept it through peacetime, it might be acceptable to people).

On the other hand, we are the most powerful nation in the world; we’re able to figure out a way to fill our military with sufficient soldiers without implementing the draft. The United States is smart enough and rich enough to recruit enough people through benefits and incentives. The great thing about this country is that we find ways to be the most powerful nation in the world without having a draft. What other great power in the history of the civilized world pulled this off?

Historically remarkable…

On a side note, I believe that women should not be included in the draft…if they want to be in the military, they should enlist. Femenists would argue otherwise, but…what don’t they argue about?

Anyway, what are your thoughts?

h1

College professors: the new Gnostics…

December 17, 2007

First, let’s define who Gnostics are, or were. Gnostics were a religious sect during early rise of Christianity, who claimed to have a secret knowledge about Jesus. They didn’t consider themselves anything other than Christians, but were looked down upon by the orthodox.

You may have heard of these people and their writings. These are the folks who created the Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel, and Gospel of Peter. These controversial texts contained themes that argued Judas as the hero for betraying Jesus and fulfilling prophesy, showed outrageous accounts of Jesus’ supposed conniving childhood, and random quotes that were said to be from Jesus in Thomas (similar to the Quran’s contents of Muhammad’s sayings).

The Gnostics believed that Jesus gave special knowledge to the disciples and left limited knowledge to the people by using parables. Well, we seemed to have figured out what the parables mean, but I guess that isn’t the “secret knowledge.” But I digress…Gnostics also felt that it didn’t matter what a person did to his body, because it was all about finding his “inner-self.” Consequently, there were Christian martyrs like St. Perpetua, dying for their faith, while Gnostics would sacrifice bulls to Roman gods one minute and go seeking their inner-self through “Christian” beliefs the next.

Obviously Orthodox prevailed and Gnosticism failed (if it didn’t and everyone became Gnostic, would it still be “secret knowledge,” which is the very foundation of Gnosticism to begin with?). Christianity may have been through a lot of problems, but today it’s certainly not the problem in the world. If anything, it helps keep the world a somewhat moral society. Now, I know you don’t have to be a Christian to be a moral person, but religion (Christianity included) certainly contributes to the morality that we see and retain today.

Now to my point: College professors are the new Gnostics. Ironically they call themselves agnostic (which means they have no knowledge and are seeking to figure out religious beliefs), but we all know what they really are – Liberals. These Liberals who call themselves agnostic, believe they contain a secret knowledge about humanity and politics that the rest of society doesn’t know because they’re too stupid. Granted, not all Liberals are secular, but in general they believe religion causes problems; especially for secular driven Liberal agendas. Although society is more secular than ever, Liberal college professors claim to stand up for some great cause for humanity against “right-wing-religious-fanatics.” The worst thing about it is that these Liberals are pretending to “teach” students; attempting to achieve liberalism and secularism worldwide. Luckily, there are some people who see through this, but there needs to be more legitimate instructors.

These professors just think they’re smarter than everyone else, but don’t let these Gnostic professors fool you. There are intelligent college graduates in the world that are Conservative. The thing is they pursue other endeavors like becoming businessmen or medical doctors or scientists. Perhaps I’ll be the exception. I want to be the teacher that teaches history and government from a legitimate angle, but if I have to be a right-wing fanatic in order to level-out the liberal education that students receive, then so be it.

David Cooper (C)