Supposedly, people who support "choice" (aka, a woman's right to abort a baby) still do not LIKE abortion. Everyone claims they they do not like abortion. We'll exclude the businesses that make billions of dollars off of abortion procedures and referrals (like abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood). If that is true, and we can give all people the benefit of the doubt for this post, why are there arguments on issues we should all agree on?
A person that disagrees with the abortion procedure on logical, moral, and/or scientific grounds should in NO WAY have to fund it with money they unwillingly give up through taxation. The Hyde Law "prohibits federal Medicaid and Medicare money from being spent on most types of abortion, including pregnancies that threaten the woman’s health or involve fetal anomalies. Federal money can only be used to pay for an abortion when the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman or results from rape or incest". But this has to be renewed every year. Why then is there an debate about making the language concerning abortion in the (horrendous) proposed health care bill abundantly clear? Has clarity every hurt a politician or a lawmaker? Why the desire for ambiguity on this issue? (Especially when these are the people that are constantly demanding more laws and more "clarity" on gun control, registering, ownership, etc etc etc.)
And on another topic, Obama did one thing right (not that he has any credit really for this at all) in a plan to have public schoolers in school longer during the day and longer during the year. Maybe this will bump American students into a better place compared to our national neighbors. Of course, this would only really help if a child was in a safe learning environment (protected from their bullying peers and by teachers flooding students with their personal political beliefs as opposed to not being allowed to play tag or dodgeball) with properly regulated class sizes and materials they need.
Some people are saying we don't have enough money for this...well, maybe cut the cash for clunkers and try some tort reform for medical costs instead of the giant health bill. Beck and Limbaugh say this is more time for teachers to indoctrinate kids, unfortunately, true. That's why the parental influence has to be strong when the kids are HOME! Whoopie Goldberg on The View was against it because parents have so little time with their kids as it is! So NOW you want to argue spending time as a family? The whole public school thing is being socialized without your family influence, we can see the effects of this country-wide.
Hey, when in doubt, put them in a good private school or homeschool. Cheap, small class sizes, education that is molded to accommodate individuals instead of the majority, and learning in a variety of ways, not just sitting at a desk for 9 hours. And if, like most people who know nothing about homeschooling, you are worried about socialization, your child can still take individual classes at the local public school, play sports, be involved in extra-cirricular activities at the school or *GASP* outside of a school.
~Conservative Minority
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Newsweek and the Taliban
Don't ask me why an American news magazine is giving legitimacy to this terrorist indoctrination but here we have it. Latest issue of Newsweek highlights an interview with the head of the Taliban resisting the "American insurgency" in Afghanistan.
"Newsweek hand-delievered a list of questions for Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar to a senior Taliban source." Within days, they asked for an e-mail copy of the questions. A few weeks later, there was an e-mail response, snippets of which Newsweek wrote in an article.
They asked the Taliban hard hitting questions like (paraphrase) "How do you think the American troops are holding up in Afghanistan?" "Are you experiencing a lot of losses?" and other softballs allowing whoever is making their garbage up to respond with variations of "We're strong and Americans are weak" blah blah propaganda. If you can read it for free, pick it up, don't buy Newsweek because it's not worth it. I'd post a link if I could find it online but alas, I cannot. Did find this though: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216235 . "Taliban in their Own Words".
"After eight long years of war in Afghanistan, however, America and its allies can ill afford not to understand who the enemy is and why they fight. To put together this remarkable oral history, told through the words of the Taliban themselves, NEWSWEEK turned to contributing correspondent Sami Yousafzai, who has been covering the conflict for the magazine since 2001. Over that time he has developed and maintained contact with dozens of Afghan insurgents, including the six whose stories are told here." Oh, so it's because Newsweek cares about defeating our enemies!!! Woah, never would have guessed.
~CM
"Newsweek hand-delievered a list of questions for Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar to a senior Taliban source." Within days, they asked for an e-mail copy of the questions. A few weeks later, there was an e-mail response, snippets of which Newsweek wrote in an article.
They asked the Taliban hard hitting questions like (paraphrase) "How do you think the American troops are holding up in Afghanistan?" "Are you experiencing a lot of losses?" and other softballs allowing whoever is making their garbage up to respond with variations of "We're strong and Americans are weak" blah blah propaganda. If you can read it for free, pick it up, don't buy Newsweek because it's not worth it. I'd post a link if I could find it online but alas, I cannot. Did find this though: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216235 . "Taliban in their Own Words".
"After eight long years of war in Afghanistan, however, America and its allies can ill afford not to understand who the enemy is and why they fight. To put together this remarkable oral history, told through the words of the Taliban themselves, NEWSWEEK turned to contributing correspondent Sami Yousafzai, who has been covering the conflict for the magazine since 2001. Over that time he has developed and maintained contact with dozens of Afghan insurgents, including the six whose stories are told here." Oh, so it's because Newsweek cares about defeating our enemies!!! Woah, never would have guessed.
~CM
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Why Liberals are Cool
This is what the Urban Outfitter T-shirts, Seattle bumper stickers, magazines and newspapers, and my friends tell me:
Is it any wonder so many people my age, who aren't informed on any real issues, want to be liberals? Geeze, if I wasn't indoctrinated by CNN and MSNBC and every other news source added together and divided by the number of sources for one particular story, I wouldn't know anything!
I mean: Find one story from every perspective (CNN - yuck, MSNBC - THey admit they love Obama, Fox News (oh my gosh, so like, biased), BBC (YEAH, the BRITISH) and then take the average of information you get from them all. And you're probably somewhere near the truth. Well, here's hoping.
I'm just saying, I'd be a liberal if I didn't know any better.
~CM
- Only liberals want to help the poor. This is obvious. Conservatives, like their Republican parents, are all white, old men who support "big business" and "hate the little guy". Big businesses obviously hate the poor, I mean, look at the tabacco companies! It's their fault people are dying of lung disease from smoking! (Well, no, poor people aren't forced to buy or smoke cigarettes that we've known for YEARS AND YEARS will poison and blacken your lungs but...um...) YA BIG BUSINESS = EVIL! Don't forget that only liberals create any non-profit organizations (not that anyone could think of one) to help the poor and they are the only politicians who want any funding for the homeless or needy...
- Only liberals believe women should be able to do "what they want with their own bodies". As opposed to conservatives, who think women should be chained barefoot in the kitchen, liberals think women should be able to do anything they want. Women have the right to go bra-less, be drafted, and abort babies and no MEN can say anything about it! (Again, painting conservatives as exclusively white, old men.) This ignores the other side of the argument that while going bra-less might--well, we'll leave that discussion to the kitchen tables...ok, abortion is more than a woman's body. It's a second body, half the time another woman's body, involved. It's interesting that women only have rights to their body after they're outside the womb. You can be of an age where you CAN SURVIVE outside the womb (in an incubator or something) and many people still argue that you still do not constitute a life. One of my most extreme liberal friends argues that you need to be ON YOUR OWN completely to be considered alive. Her logic eliminates anyone using a breathing machine or an artificial heart I suppose.
- Only liberals care about the environment. This is demonstrated by bumper stickers, t-shirts, and driving hybrid cars. It also involves throwing rocks at police at G-20 and WTO conferences to punish, again, big business and anyone who is abusing the environment. Liberals don't create any garbage, they recycle everything, and if they could eliminate unnecessary conservatives the polar bears would still be living and global warming wouldn't kill everyone by 2012!
- Only liberals deserve free speech, because only they are completely tolerant of every other view. Like Al Franken "I think some people hold [G.W.Bush] in high esteem because they watch Fox. And they get their news from Rush Limbaugh. And they are fooled." Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don't deserve free speech, we don't agree with them! “The irony upon irony of this lawsuit was great. First, Fox having the trademark 'fair and balanced' -- a network which is anything but fair and balanced. Then there's the irony of a news organization trying to suppress free speech." You'll note that no liberal has any issue with any other news organization but Fox News. Or Michael Moore, "I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a 'deserter.' What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants." Remember, only conservatives are disrespectful of presidents..."These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.” Hey Michael, any intelligent words on any ISSUES?
Is it any wonder so many people my age, who aren't informed on any real issues, want to be liberals? Geeze, if I wasn't indoctrinated by CNN and MSNBC and every other news source added together and divided by the number of sources for one particular story, I wouldn't know anything!
I mean: Find one story from every perspective (CNN - yuck, MSNBC - THey admit they love Obama, Fox News (oh my gosh, so like, biased), BBC (YEAH, the BRITISH) and then take the average of information you get from them all. And you're probably somewhere near the truth. Well, here's hoping.
I'm just saying, I'd be a liberal if I didn't know any better.
~CM
Friday, September 25, 2009
Nuke Free World . . . it's ILLOGICAL.
Obama, I admire your lofty oration and naivety in believing we're all basically good. It's childish, yes, but really a sort of childish faith in the goodness of humanity that probably endears you to the people who already think you can do no wrong.
Granted, that's only if you ACTUALLY believe what you are doing is right. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a heartless, master-mind determined to destroy the country.
I will break it down in simple terms. Honestly, I did this with my (hopelessly uninformed) liberal friend on the issue of gun control/ownership.
Hypothetical: Guns are illegal. People who follow the laws no longer have guns. People who do not follow the laws, HAVE GUNS. This is the failure that is "gun control" and "I would make guns illegal and stop all gun violence" theory. Only GOOD PEOPLE OBEY THE LAWS. In the liberal's ideal world, only criminals would have guns! Why does that actually make sense to them?
Hypothetical: Nukes are bad, all countries will get rid of their nukes. Except, obviously, countries that a) harm, imprison, torture, starve, and murder their own people mindlessly b) hate Israel and deny that the German to Jew Holocaust ever occurred (Seriously? You want to deny it and be taken seriously on a global stage) and c) hate the United States, as spoken again and again in their own media, in our media, in U.N. speeches, in celebrations when thousands of U.S. civilians die in a terrorist attack. Because really, what's the point of NOT keeping your nukes if America, Israel, and any other semi-intelligent and realistic ally gives theirs up?
I would argue that countries who are SANE and lawful should retain their nuclear weapons and deny countries that are INSANE and unlawful (denying basic human rights for example), and threatening toward the SANE countries, nuclear weapons.
~Conservative Minority
Granted, that's only if you ACTUALLY believe what you are doing is right. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a heartless, master-mind determined to destroy the country.
I will break it down in simple terms. Honestly, I did this with my (hopelessly uninformed) liberal friend on the issue of gun control/ownership.
Hypothetical: Guns are illegal. People who follow the laws no longer have guns. People who do not follow the laws, HAVE GUNS. This is the failure that is "gun control" and "I would make guns illegal and stop all gun violence" theory. Only GOOD PEOPLE OBEY THE LAWS. In the liberal's ideal world, only criminals would have guns! Why does that actually make sense to them?
Hypothetical: Nukes are bad, all countries will get rid of their nukes. Except, obviously, countries that a) harm, imprison, torture, starve, and murder their own people mindlessly b) hate Israel and deny that the German to Jew Holocaust ever occurred (Seriously? You want to deny it and be taken seriously on a global stage) and c) hate the United States, as spoken again and again in their own media, in our media, in U.N. speeches, in celebrations when thousands of U.S. civilians die in a terrorist attack. Because really, what's the point of NOT keeping your nukes if America, Israel, and any other semi-intelligent and realistic ally gives theirs up?
I would argue that countries who are SANE and lawful should retain their nuclear weapons and deny countries that are INSANE and unlawful (denying basic human rights for example), and threatening toward the SANE countries, nuclear weapons.
~Conservative Minority
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Obama and I Everyday
We have a standing appointment. Multiple times a day, I type "Obama" into my google search bar at the top of my browser. Then I select the news feed to avoid any edited images of him (for good or for bad) and his "Change We Need" personal website. I'm sure it has a lot of information...how truthful it is is anyone's guess.
Today's news stories include:
~ CM
Today's news stories include:
- Obama and Gov. Paterson's interaction and the confusion of most people on why exactly the President is now exerting his influence over the Governor race of New York.
- Obama is considering a strategy shift in the war in Afghanistan...oh really? It's about time. When our president was a lowly candidate, he seemed to give the impression that he knew exactly what needed to be done in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while criticizing the troop surge that was WORKING under President Bush's administration.
- Oh, ever so important, Obama's appearance on Letterman gave him the edge in the ratings!
- "Obama pushes peace in extraordinary meeting between Israel and Palestine..." Um really? Name a president living or dead who hasn't met with both sides of that eternal issue?
- This looks promising: Wall Street Journal opinion page "Obama and the Politics of Concession: Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574426880110463194.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
~ CM
We're a Lot Like You - A Little Different
Conservatives and Liberals, at the heart of issues are really quite the same. There are decent people and not so decent people. You'll find, as the news shows, the rude, adulterers, molesters, pornography addicts, thieves, and liars in every existing party and within all the offices. You also find the family men and women, the honest, the truthful, the hard working, and the good hearted in all of the parties and in every elected office throughout history.
Our fundamental differences are the way in which the decent people want to help others and improve/protect the United States. Somewhere along the way, the Democrat Party, the donkey with the stars and stripes got credited with being the only part that cares about "African Americans", immigrants, people of Latin decent, the poor, and the environment. This is not because they (politicians in the Democratic Party) actually do anything personally to help or improve life for any of these people or the Earth...it's because they TALK about it the most and come up with the most ways to spend other people's money to "help", often making programs that other people pay for that probably do help a little bit.
Let's look at the people who really help other people . . . well you have the people who believe in a higher power, whose religious text' encourage or expect "Loving Thy Neighbor as Yourself" (including Mormons, Christians, Jews...ironically enough probably because they are rooted in the writing of the Old Testament and Yahweh, or the God of the Jews). These people subscribe to many different political parties, but they don't care for others as a result of that decision, it's faith and love for others.
I personally am a walking contradiction, even hearing "I would have thought you were a Democrat" (to my horror), because I endorse caring for the enviroment and the poor. I think that's insulting. I can want to help the poor and not subscribe to the liberal "Give them fish" mentality. Someone wiser than me said "TEACH them to fish". World Vision, and other non-profit, non-governmental programs are far more successful than government is/could be, and they work hard, and they work. They take donations, they don't take tax dollars whether people agree or not. That's where the difference lies...some people want to help others with their OWN money and time...not their neighbors.
~ Conservative Minority
Our fundamental differences are the way in which the decent people want to help others and improve/protect the United States. Somewhere along the way, the Democrat Party, the donkey with the stars and stripes got credited with being the only part that cares about "African Americans", immigrants, people of Latin decent, the poor, and the environment. This is not because they (politicians in the Democratic Party) actually do anything personally to help or improve life for any of these people or the Earth...it's because they TALK about it the most and come up with the most ways to spend other people's money to "help", often making programs that other people pay for that probably do help a little bit.
Let's look at the people who really help other people . . . well you have the people who believe in a higher power, whose religious text' encourage or expect "Loving Thy Neighbor as Yourself" (including Mormons, Christians, Jews...ironically enough probably because they are rooted in the writing of the Old Testament and Yahweh, or the God of the Jews). These people subscribe to many different political parties, but they don't care for others as a result of that decision, it's faith and love for others.
I personally am a walking contradiction, even hearing "I would have thought you were a Democrat" (to my horror), because I endorse caring for the enviroment and the poor. I think that's insulting. I can want to help the poor and not subscribe to the liberal "Give them fish" mentality. Someone wiser than me said "TEACH them to fish". World Vision, and other non-profit, non-governmental programs are far more successful than government is/could be, and they work hard, and they work. They take donations, they don't take tax dollars whether people agree or not. That's where the difference lies...some people want to help others with their OWN money and time...not their neighbors.
~ Conservative Minority
Monday, September 21, 2009
Twitter...you know you want to.
If you have a Twitter (why in the heck would you do that?) and you so desire, you can follow CM at http://twitter.com/GOPMinority .
What This Is
I would like to write a book, but I'm settling for a blog. As we all know, even the most insane, unskilled, and/or average person can write a blog and you don't have to skip through hoops of publishers and the like. Ideally, this will be my thoughtful take on American Politics. This perspective comes from a 22-year-old, female, Caucasian, and (what makes me a minority) a registered Republican Conservative.
While teenagers and young adults in the U.S. are extremely likely to have sex, get pregnant or an STD, and drop out of public high school, they are unlikely to vote or have any clue what is going on in American politics much less anything else in any other country.
My frustration with my peers was made complete in the most recent election of President Obama. I disagree with a significant portion of his policies and in debating with my friends/peers that supported him unceasingly, I could never get a reason to support him or any policy beyond "Well, he's black" or repeated talking point from one of his "amazing" speeches. Any deeper conversation ended up in frustration on their part or mine, no real talking about any issues and not a lot of actual information being exchanged. I'm not saying that because I have all the answers, I'm saying that at the confession of many I speak to that they have no clue what's going on in the world and frankly "don't care".
I do care. And I have something to say, so this will be my medium, for better or worse. I do hope this isn't recorded/saved and used against me at some future date, for imprisonment or a destruction of an otherwise lucrative political career. Here's hoping!
- Conservative Minority
While teenagers and young adults in the U.S. are extremely likely to have sex, get pregnant or an STD, and drop out of public high school, they are unlikely to vote or have any clue what is going on in American politics much less anything else in any other country.
My frustration with my peers was made complete in the most recent election of President Obama. I disagree with a significant portion of his policies and in debating with my friends/peers that supported him unceasingly, I could never get a reason to support him or any policy beyond "Well, he's black" or repeated talking point from one of his "amazing" speeches. Any deeper conversation ended up in frustration on their part or mine, no real talking about any issues and not a lot of actual information being exchanged. I'm not saying that because I have all the answers, I'm saying that at the confession of many I speak to that they have no clue what's going on in the world and frankly "don't care".
I do care. And I have something to say, so this will be my medium, for better or worse. I do hope this isn't recorded/saved and used against me at some future date, for imprisonment or a destruction of an otherwise lucrative political career. Here's hoping!
- Conservative Minority
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)