User:Joshua Zambrano/Politics

Pro-Life

I am adamantly Pro-Life. I do not claim to know when a child becomes human, but then I don't think anyone but God does know, and it disturbs me that we are not being cautious when potentially harming another human being. According to 3 Gallup polls taken in 1996, 2000, and 2003, 64-66% of Americans support abortion in the 1st trimester, but only 24-26% in the 2nd trimester, and 8-13% in the 3rd trimester.[1]

And yet according to Guttmacher.org, 11.9% of the approximately 1.21 million yearly abortions occurred after the 1st trimester (12th week of pregnancy).[2] This means even if America is right that abortion is moral in the 1st trimester, the other 11.9% of 1.21 million abortions accounts for 143,990 innocent lives taken every single year. In playing God, the abortion movement and its pro-abortionists are going to inevitably be guilty of murder, and have blood on their hands, and it is something that should be stopped. As the previously mentioned Gallup poll shows, only 21% of Americans say abortion should be legal under all circumstances. As cited in the Gallup poll and at Abortion_in_the_United_States, a 2003 poll found just 32% public support for abortion when the woman does not want the child for any reason, while 3 other polls taken in 1996, 2000, and 2003 showed just 32-35% support when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child (with adoption presumably the preferred alternative). I support abortion only when the life of the mother is at stake, or when rape and incest has occurred - and as one will see from examining the poll results, this is where most Americans stand as well.

This is logical. So many of the buzz word arguments made by the Pro-Choice community fall flat on their face when examined in-depth.

• Choice? No one's choice should include the choice to murder another human being, to infringe upon that person's inalienable right to life. Using this as an argument applies to newborn children as well, should a parent have the right to kill their children whenever they feel like it?
• Women's 'Rights'?I support women's rights, just not the right to kill. With rights should come consequences, commitments, and responsibilities. Abortion, so far as I am concerned, is the irresponsible attempt to pass the consequences of one's lifestyle actions onto your child. You made your choice when you chose to have sex, what about the child's inalienable right to life according to the Declaration of Independence?
• Privacy? As Judge Henry Friendly would point out before Roe v. Wade (and only a stroke of fate prevented his draft from being published as the defining law on abortion instead of Roe v. Wade), "A holding that the privacy of sexual intercourse is protected against governmental intrusion scarcely carries as a corollary that when this has resulted in conception, government may not forbid destruction of the fetus. The type of abortion the plaintiffs particularly wish to protect against governmental sanction is the antithesis of privacy. The woman consents to intervention in the uterus by a physician, with the usual retinue of assistants, nurses, and other paramedical personnel, indeed the condition calling for such intervention may very likely have been established by clinical tests."[3] Women say men should stay out of their bodies, but again, if they want their bodies kept private from men, they should stay away from men so that womb they want kept private remains that way. With actions come consequences, and engaging in an action you know will create another life inside of you hardly seems the most reasonable way to go about keeping your body private - at any step of the process. As Judge Friendly would further state, "While Griswold may well mean that the state cannot compel a woman to submit to an abortion, but see Buck v. Bell ___U.S. ___ (___), it is exceedingly hard to read it as supporting a conclusion that the state may not prohibit other persons from committing one or even her doing so herself." The argument about privacy made could just as easily be made in defense of Nazi Germany or pre-Civil War slaveholders. We should not interrupt the privacy of Germans in killing their Jewish citizens, or stopping slaveholders from owning slaves. Privacy is no excuse for harming someone in the privacy of your own country, your own home, or your own body.

Furthermore, the abortion movement has made rare cases such as rape and incest central in its case for abortion on demand, though it noticeably rejects and utterly opposes Pro-Life legislation that allows for abortion in such cases. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, admitted the abortion movement lied to the media using the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie to make the public accept that illegal, backstreet abortions, and subsequent deaths of women were occurring by as many as 10 times the actual number.[4] If you look at everything the abortion movement does, it is shrouded in lies and dishonesty. As ABC News's Teddy Davis noted in 'Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood', Planned Parenthood led a statewide campaign in Illinois to have legislators vote Present instead of No on controversial abortion 'Born Alive' bills, so the public wouldn't realize they were voting against the bills - since as Pam Sutherland, CEO and President of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council put it,[5]

"What it did, was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. 'A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means.'"

-Pam Sutherland, CEO and President of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council

Often unmentioned is the further little-known fact that before Roe v. Wade, many states did allow abortion in cases of rape/incest or life of the mother. Roe v. Wade was legalized for other reasons - it propelled the abortion industry into a massive money-making business, with abortion doctors who make hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per year.[6]

Anti-Evolution

First, let me emphatically state that while I believe natural selection and adaptation to the environment are utterly scientific, I do not support specifically the belief that all species came from a common ancestor, or that life spontaneously came about from nothing. Natural selection and adaptation are clearly observable in nature, we can reproduce them, observe them, etc. Yet they do not carry the corollary presumed at the time of Darwin based on circumstantial evidence open to interpretation, that all species had a common ancestor, and that life came about from a cosmic collision of particles, which particle's existence we can not explain from a purely naturalistic analysis.

I don't claim to have solid proof Evolution didn't occur, I just don't think there's solid proof that it did occur, and given that, as WhatYouOughtToKnow.com authors point out,[7]

"Lets examine the facts around the Evolution. If it ever did take place, it isn't now - at least not that anyone can demonstrate. And the odds of it happening are really, really, really long. If scientists and educators could own up to that, I'm sure I.D. would've never even come up. But most people who believe in Evolution aren't willing to admit how unlikely it is, because it dramatically weakens their argument. And if you believe that the odds are good, then you're in another pickle, because if the odds are good, then you figure we'd have seen evidence of it by now. Like, concrete evidence of it... The message of Evolution may indeed spell out a message in plain English. 'We've never seen it happen, we can't prove it happened, we can't reproduce it, but it's the best we've got, so we've got to believe it.' Which is a pretty poor qualifier for teaching it as undeniable fact to impressionable young minds. Why don't we just teach the truth? We don't know how life came about. Why is that so threatening?"

-The Brothers Winn, "Darwin's Intelligent Design", WhatYouOughtToKnow.com

The dating methodologies rely on shaky assumptions that our environment in the past was the same as it is now. This concept is known as Uniformitarianism and commonly summarized "the present is the key to the past." The problem with this theory as Berkely University acknowledges, is that despite its originator's "fierce insistence that the processes that alter the Earth are uniform through time... Yet geologists today also know that some of the factors that changed the Earth in the past cannot be seen at work today. For example, the early Earth was pummeled by gigantic hunks of solar debris, some as big as Mars. For the first one or two billion years of Earth's history, plate tectonics didn't even exist as we know it today." As further noted, Lyell, the originator of Uniformitarianism, did so to try and deny the common belief in Catastrophism and the Biblical flood.[8] Nevertheless, recent scientific discoveries have shown that indeed the world's ancient marine life was simultaneously extinguished by a massive eruption near modern-day China.[9][10]

As such, many people are not aware that scientists are simply assuming the decay rate of Carbon-14, for example, was constant then for no other reason than that it is constant now, based on this concept of Uniformitarianism - which is now recognized to fly in the face of the more commonly accepted belief now that mass catastrophes affected the global climate in unprecedented ways; catastrophes such as underwater eruptions,[11][12] a global flood, a meteor shower causing global dust storms and blocking out the sun, or ice ages. And if those circumstances affected the atmosphere or plant life worldwide, then it could very well affect the rate of carbon-14, and thus possibly throw off dating theories by thousands or millions of years.

Unfortunately, while Darwin's book, "On The Origin of Species", is a masterpiece of prose and reason, he is admittedly engaging throughout not only in relating his scientific findings on natural selection and adaption, but also his personal convictions and theorizing:[13]

"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."

-Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"

Thus, I believe while he hit a home run, as it were, with his research on natural selection and adaptation, his personal philosophies and theories on life have been in the process rigidly adopted as conclusive, without the same level of attendant scrutiny.

I believe that all species had parent species, rather than being descended from a common ancestor. Darwin himself acknowledged that showing such parent groupings were not what he believed in, but that strong evidence existed in certain cases to their existence:[14]

"When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural species—for instance, of the many foxes—inhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view."

-"Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"

Furthermore, Darwin himself stated, "Sterility has been said to be the bane of horticulture",[15] which I would consider an evidence that not all species are indeed 'immutable' as he would like to believe. For if they were, then why does crossing between animals one could reasonably consider of different 'parent species' (which Darwin doesn't think exists) result in sterility? I consider this, as it were, God's checks and balances in ensuring mankind does not tamper with his set paths. Though we may indeed breed tigers and lions together, the resulting offspring is inevitably infertile, as occurs with many other examples that could be mentioned, yet when done within an apparent parent species, such combination is commonly allowed.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that, however objective he may seek to be, as a self-proclaimed naturalist, who stated "Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, etc., as the only possible cause of variation",[16] Darwin's theories are engaging in selective, circular reasoning. They seek to prove naturalism through purely naturalistic reasoning, excluding the possibility of a higher power as a part of the naturalistic reasoning process. In other words, everything mentioned is filtered through the belief system that all has come about through purely physiological means, and these findings then used to further support the belief that everything indeed does have a purely physiological basis. And yet, if you have not considered all alternatives from the start, however unlikely your biases may preincline you to believe them, then one has not conducted a truly thorough and objective analysis, and the result shall indeed be flawed.[17][18]

Darwin stated his own confusion about the lack of transitional forms, and considered it "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory". His explanation was that the geological record was not complete, and would be filled in within a few decades... which has not happened, indeed, more discoveries create only more questions and discrepancies.

"Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

-Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"

Nevertheless, recent research has shown the nice orderly 'tree' progression of evolutionary belief disappearing. Increasingly, discoveries are forcing the scientific community to acknowledge the 'tree' has instead become a messy bush with branches everywhere.[19][20]

Furthermore, while many are aware of Java Man and other ancient mistakes by the evolution community (which I won't bother discussing since I'm sure everyone else is sick of hearing about them by now), there have been a number of discoveries just within the past decade that those who don't follow news about scientific discoveries won't be aware of:

• Discovery of Arthipidecus Ramidus walking upright upsets belief that humans were similar to modern apes and suggests that 'Lucy' and Australopithecus were not part of the human evolutionary chain.[21][22][23][24][25]

• Homo Erectus did not evolve from Homo Habilis since they lived at same time.[26] As Newsweek would note,[27]

"The discoverers are sticking by their guns, and even Tattersall agrees that their conclusion—that erectus and habilis overlapped in time and that habilis was not the direct ancestor of erectus—is probably right. Which leads to perhaps the greatest puzzle of all. Throughout human evolution, several species of ancestors lived at the same time. The most recent, of course, were Neanderthals, which made their last stand in the Iberian peninsula about 35,000 years ago. Then why is Homo sapiens the one and only species of human on the planet today?"

-Sharon Begley, "The Human Family Shrub?", Newsweek

• Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', originally heralded as new missing link, proved not part of the human lineage after all. [28][29]

• New fossils Orrorin tugenesis and Sahelanthropus fade quietly into background when dating problems occur with where they should fit.[30]

• Laotian Rock Rat, aka 'Rat Squirrel' still alive.[31]

As noted also at the beginning of Darwin's 'On The Origin of Species',[32] there was another, now commonly-forgotten, co-discoverer of Evolution at the time. Alfred Russell Wallace, a credited co-discoverer of Evolution, was blackballed by the scientific for his beliefs on spiritualism. While certainly no Christian, it has been suggested Wallace's belief that a higher power influenced the creation of spirit in mankind serves as something of a 'missing link' between today's evolutionists and the Intelligent Design Crowd.(Ron Grossman, Chicago Tribune Commentary, "A Missing Link? The Man Everybody Ignored").

Anti-Death Penalty

I generally adhere to the Consistent Life Ethic espoused by the Democrats for Life of America, one of the few political groups I strongly believe in (most are affiliated with the Pro-Life movement, and less so with rigid political parties, e.g. the National Right to Life Committee). I believe one should be consistent in opposing warmongering and the death penalty when seeking to protect unborn life.

However, I have concerns more specific still about the Death Penalty. It is a fact that a large number of people, falsely accused for that which they were convicted, have been pardoned in recent years after being on Death Row.[33] A disproportionate amount are minorities, while a substantial number were accused of rape or sexual crimes.[34] As seen by the Duke University students rape accusation case, such cases are highly charged emotionally, and may be more likely to result in a conviction based on weak or no evidence.

Ultimately, if we cannot determine that we will be putting only guilty people to death, we should not be putting anyone to death. Even if we could put 99 guilty people to death for every innocent one, that would still be 1 too many. It is furthermore abhorrent that negligent Prosecutors and Judges who result in these false convictions are not held properly accountable afterwards.

I additionally take exception to the commonly cited Biblical basis for the Death Penalty. Biblically, the Old Testament did state that certain offenses were guilty of death, and that "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). Nevertheless, many offenses were cited as worthy of death.

The New Testament revealed God's thoughts on this, for Jesus said,

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

-The Bible, Matthew 5:38-39

Additionally, as the Apostle Paul states,

"Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

-The Bible, Romans 12:17-21

In short, the standard is no longer this 'eye for an eye' concept. Does that mean the Old Testament was wrong? Of course not! Paul addresses this:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

-The Bible, Romans 7:7

Ultimately, this is best illustrated through Jesus' famous teaching concerning the adulteress:

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

-The Bible, John 8:3-11

Here we see a remarkable thing. Jesus does not deny that she is guilty. Nor does he deny they are suggesting the right punishment. Rather, he accepts that the Old Testament Law is right, but provides a new standard - mercy. This is the standard set forth in Romans chapter 3, that even though the Old Testament Law does indeed declare us - all of us - guilty, without exception, that God chooses to have mercy on us, and sent his own Son to die on the behalf of "whosoever believeth in Him... [that they] might not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Thus, Jesus applies this standard elsewhere, saying we are to forgive others as God forgives us, and that if we do not do so, God will not be mocked, but refuse to forgive us.

"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."

The Bible, Matthew 18:23-35

Therefore, the Old Testament Law can indeed be just in condemning a person to death, and still not be God's desired result. Furthermore, Jesus illustrated another principle with the adulteress that is commonly overlooked. WE CANNOT JUSTLY ADMINISTER THE LAW UNLESS SINLESS OURSELVES, e.g. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".

This is elsewhere stated by Paul also:

"Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?"

-The Bible, Romans 2:1-4

Thus, the Old Testament Law is indeed just - but it was not intended for our destruction, but rather to show us that we are guilty, that we might repent and turn our hearts to God, just as the Old Testament prophet states:

"Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth. When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal. When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways."

The Bible, Ezekiel 33:10-20

Let it be clear - I serve God because He is right and just.

Middle of the road on Illegal Immigration

I support securing our borders, and indeed have often recommended we bring troops back from the middle east and around the globe, and offer a voluntary re-employment program for returning troops to guard our borders or act as police reserves. Nevertheless, I also favor a roadmap to citizenship for current illegal immigrants. As far as I'm concerned, the true threat to American jobs is the billions of low-paid overseas workers, not the millions of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, while there is a very real crime element associated with illegal immigrants, it is one we have helped to create. Identity theft, for example, is partly due to our forcing them to hide from society to avoid deportation, and the affiliations they must make to survive in such circumstances fosters an underground criminal element in society. Therefore, I would favor a path to citizenship involving deportation or strict sentencing for those found guilty of certain criminal activities (particularly involvement with the drugs and gangs across the border). I also support citizenship for one and one's immediate family via military service.[35] My views stem primarily from a historical view of this issue. We stole 1/3 of the United States from Mexico during the Mexican-American War, and to protect slavery too. Mexico had opened its borders to modern-day Texas, allowing in Americans, some of whom brought their slaves. When Mexico, a few years later, outlawed slavery, it incensed the slaveholders enough to petition the U.S. government, asking to cede. Our government, knowing it was a sham, went along with it, some because of Manifest Destiny, and others because they wanted another slave state to protect slavery at a time when free states were starting to outnumber the slave states. However, after committing what presidents Abraham Lincoln, John Henry Adams, and Ulysses S. Grant all condemned as an atrocious injustice, we, during the Great Depression, would then export many legal Mexican-American citizens across the California border to free up jobs for Caucasian citizens, in what has been known as the Mexican Repatriation. Therefore, ironically, you may have Mexican immigrants just 1 or 2 generations removed, or in rare cases the individuals themselves, from these circumstances, and who should be twice over the owners of the land they are coming to. On top of this, I look to the Statue of Liberty, and its plea to:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I look at those criticizing the illegal immigrants, and how their own parents were allowed into this country because of the generous immigration standards of yesteryear, and wonder what happened to that standard. I can only conclude that, given that we have an excellent land per capita ranking,[36] and plenty of space per citizen compared to other countries, we are being discriminatory rather than logical in approaching this, particularly given past wrongs committed. Whereas African-Americans have sought monetary retribution for past evils, Mexican-Americans have sought only to live on the land that should rightfully be theirs anyway, in some cases several times over. These are in many ways the descendants of the native people who it was first taken from, since unlike with the U.S., the peoples of Canada and Mexico inter-bred and worked with the peoples of the land.

Opposed to Same-sex marriage

It's not that I despise homosexuals. They're just people like anyone else. I may not agree with their lifestyle, but then I don't agree with most people's lifestyles, just as I'm sure many don't agree with mine. And that's fine. As an American, I believe in doing all I can to ensure their rights, like anyone else's, are protected under the Constitution. For that reason, I would love to see repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and better spousal protections for homosexuals - even though again, I don't agree with their lifestyle. However, I do not agree with changing the definition of marriage. I agree with Mike Huckabee, changing the definition for one fringe group for no other reason than they want it to be a right, places responsibility for us to change it for polygamists, bestialists, pedophiliasts, etc.[37] Nor is this a new argument. Famous Judge Henry Friendly, in the previously cited draft,[38] stated that utilizing an argument of privacy to legalize abortion would create precedent to also legalize consensual homosexual marriage, bestiality, drunkenness, and possibly various drug laws also. Mainly though, I object because they seek to change the definition of marriage and what the definition of marriage, as a fundamental right, is, apart from what the American people believe. They have the right to live as they wish in the privacy of their own homes. From what I can see, this appears more for purposes of forcing us, the American people, to acknowledge their unions as right and moral - even though we overwhelmingly oppose doing so. Every time this issue's been put to the ballot, it has been defeated. Without going into it extensively, I agree with these guys,[39] and oppose gay marriage because it impacts the public realm, rather than just themselves. I am disturbed that the same movement, as mentioned in the video, is also using legislation to require students to be taught about homosexual gay role models, and is suing pastors on grounds of hate speech, photographers for not photographing gay weddings, and doctors who in holding to 1st amendment rights, don't want to provide fertility treatments to lesbian couples. As far as I am concerned, this is crossing the line from them seeking fundamental rights, and trying to infringe on the rights of everyone else.

Everything Else

Until I get around to making sections on these, should I choose to do so, here's the rest of my political viewpoints:

• Opposed to Warmongering.

I opposed the Iraq War in 2004 to such an extent that even though I refused to vote for Kerry (he'd said he would appoint only pro-abortion Supreme Court judges), I still refused to vote for George Bush. I would end up voting for Michael Peroutka after researching 3rd parties. I can prove it too.[40] And as seen there, I was criticizing Barack Obama even then in 2004 because of his support for live-birth abortion (I still support his then-opponent, Alan Keyes, who may be controversial but at least says what he believes honestly, unlike Obama). Now, people will accuse you of racism if you criticize Obama, but I guess that wasn't so easy in 2004 when both candidates were African-American. At any rate, I am opposed to American imperialism, not just that in recent years, but towards Native Americans, Mexicans (the Mexican-American War), Filipinos, and Hawaiians. I may be radical, but at least I am consistent.

• Opposed to Embryonic Stem Cell research.

I don't necessarily hold embryos are human, in fact, I'm skeptical. However, given the recent progressions in human-animal cloning, and the limits the international community is unwilling to set, I am concerned such example could set precedent for a future where the engineering of embryos could grant power over human life, per pre-Civil War slavery, and potentially permit the growth of humans as organ factories. Furthermore, given the recent scientific advances in skin cell manipulation, by which they can be genetically made to imitate embryonic stem cells with the same scientific applications,[41], I considered Obama's recent executive order[42] allowing embryonic stem cell research unnecessary, controversial, and potentially harmful to the future of human rights.

• Opposed to Free Trade/Outsourcing.

Free trade may be good for business, since it allows business to outsource work to countries with the cheapest workers (lowest minimum wages), but harms workers worldwide (since it drops average world wages) and countries who provide worker protections (logically, communist countries with low or no minimum wages will attract business). I have for years recommended as an alternative the creation of a tariff to replace free trade agreements that would tax goods proportionally by 90% of the difference in national minimum wages. Therefore, a good would be taxed 90% of how much lower the other country's minimum wage was, times its worth, with the 10% generously left off to cover that country's transport expenses. This simple tariff would not affect countries with higher or equivalent minimum wages (thus most Westernized/European countries, who generally have good minimum wages), and go a long way to equalizing trade so that workers in different countries would be on the same playing field, raising their negotiating abilities.

• Opposed to Deregulation.

I do not support the Invisible Hand theory. The idea that business can govern itself appears foolhardy, for it is assuming that imperfect people acting out of greed will create a perfect market, that chaotic individuals can create order. In that sense, it resembles evolutionary theory... At any rate, the problem is that people don't take a long-term approach when acting out of greed. This was admitted by Simon Greenspan in conceding a 'flaw' in his long-held belief in the power of free markets and deregulation.[43] He found it unpredictable that humans would act so irrationally, placing the entire housing market at risk through their greed, cheating homeowners with predatory lending practices and adjustable rates to the extent that it crashed the whole market. But this is why the Invisible Hand can't work. It's assuming greedy humans will make rational, long-term choices rather than their immediate, short-term self interest.

I look at regulation as simply rules, and like comparing it to a classroom. Too many rules, and nobody wants to follow them. You get few people participating, and many discouraged at trying to meet them all. But too few, and it's chaos. The proper solution is neither, but to provide only absolutely crucial rules that address as best possible the underlying issues.

• Support Universal Health Care.

I would love to see a universal health care system. However, ultimately, while we did indeed need a health care reform bill, just as we needed a stimulus bill for creating jobs, the bill that came out of the liberal democrat congregation was not at all what was needed. It did not confront the underlying issues like tort reform, the nursing shortage, or ownership of medical companies by the tobacco/alcohol industry, and abandoned the public option for no reason whatsoever. Democrats risked the whole health care reform process in December. They could've passed the House bill then, but made a whole new bill in the Senate because they refused to pass the House bill now that the pro-life Democrats had attached the Stupak amendment and removed the bill's abortion agenda. They then went to all that trouble, dragging the process out for months, and removed the public option for who knows what reason when making the Senate bill, because they wanted publicly funded abortion on demand. The health care stuff was never about health care reform, but legislating abortion funds to Planned Parenthood, just like Obama promised them he would do back in 2007, as seen from this video.[44] Obama had promised the bill would be written transparently and broadcast on C-Span, but it was compiled in back rooms. Some wonder why Obama's approval rating dropped so much. Given his blatant and repeated dishonesty, I can only assume the only ones who do still trust him are either those who approve of his dishonesty, just take him blindly at his word rather than examining his actions and voting record, or else are not paying attention.