The Election & Political Quick Takes

The Candidates for the White House in 2016

        Hillary Clinton - She has shown more support for free trade than Donald Trump.  Yeah, outside of that, her acceptance speech trouncing Trump's, and maybe one or two really small issues I find no reason to support her.  Case closed.

       Gary Johnson - I could probably vote for Johnson except for his pro-death position on abortion. There were glimmers of hope during his time as governor of New Mexico, due to his willingness to sign some mildly anti-death legislation (it was not pro-life). I would need to gain some sort of trust for him in regards to protecting life or else I will not be voting for him, and I do not know how it would be possible for him to convince me of his pro-life convictions given that it would seem like political pandering. He appears to support unconstitutional judicial precedent in regards to killing babies, as a result, barring a miracle, he is not a voting option for me.

        Darrell Castle - I do not know very much about Mr. Castle, and will obviously research him further before I vote for him, but currently he and Ted Cruz are the leaders in the clubhouse for whom I will be voting for.  It seems as if he is a pretty Constitutional candidate, which means for me basically a minimum of a 90% agreement level.  One of his main stances is he is the only pro-life candidate running in the general election for president, which, sadly, is pretty accurate (presuming he is pro-life anyways).  Overall, it seems as if he has some very decent political stances and hopefully has specifics to back them up as well.

        Donald Trump - If it wouldn't be for his personal character, his past political history, the 85% chance he is simply running a con game, and his support of a much larger government than I would support, I think I could actually vote for Trump.  So you are saying there is a chance you will vote for him, right?  Because if you do not vote for him, you will actually be voting for Hillary Clinton.  No, actually, barring a miracle, there is no chance that I will be voting for Donald Trump.  In regards to your second point, actually I will not be voting for Donald Trump or for Hillary Clinton, and by not voting for either candidate I will not be supporting either candidate.  I am uncertain as to what brainwashing led you to believe that voting for candidates is limited to the two main party candidates. It would actually be more accurate for you to say that by voting for some other option than Clinton or Trump, I am in fact voting for neither of them (what a thought).
        There are actually alternative candidates, even in the general election, who do not require you to either not participate in the process or to compromise your principles (again, what a thought!).  Why would I choose to vote for Hillary Clinton or one of her largest donors?  It seems like a false choice to me.  If, and when, Trump loses the general election the fault of his loss will not fall upon ideologically driven voters who vote their conscience and principles, it will fall on the man with a very smart brain who simply attacks others.

Results of each Presidential Term
      Hillary Clinton - Another Clinton presidency would likely be more similar to an Obama Administration than to a Bill Clinton Administration, but I think there is hope Clinton could enact legislation that is beneficial to Americans if the Republicans in the House and Senate would get spines.  But since that probably won't happen, I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would result in the furthering of more progressive and Marxist values.  Also, though, I think Clinton is more of a pragmatic individual than Obama, as a result it is possible to send her good legislation and she may sign it if it would improve her political clout and nationwide popularity.

     Gary Johnson - A Johnson presidency would be pretty unparalleled.  I do not believe that a Libertarian has ever been president of the United States and I think the ramifications of a Libertarian would at least be good for making people to think beyond the closed system of the two parties.  I do not believe Mr. Johnson is a good representative of Libertarians and, as a result, he would be a poor standard bearer for the Libertarian movement.

        Darrell Castle - A Castle presidency would also be pretty unparalleled, but it could at least be compared to a few of the first presidents with some similarity.  I am not certain about Castle's persona or modus operendi, but I believe such a presidency would do great things for defending American lives and promoting economic growth.

        Donald Trump - A Trump presidency would likely result in the implosion of the Republican Party (which would largely be a good thing) and the repudiation of Conservatism amongst many individuals.  A Trump presidency probably has the greater opportunity for good for America - as compared to Hillary Clinton - but it also has the greater opportunity for bad for America - and it has no opportunity for great, just in case you were wondering.  It all depends upon whether seeing a man only concerned with himself would lead people to realize that principles should be the foundation of a candidate or if the man with a smart brain is only an embodiment of a political party.  Regardless though, the likelihood of a Trump presidency is currently only at about an 11% chance of happening.

A Few Notes about Ted Cruz's Campaign

1. Cruz spoke too highly of Trump early on in the campaign.  
2. Cruz signed the GOP's endorsement pledge - even when there was an aligning of both the politically expedient thing to do and the morally right thing for Cruz to do to not sign the pledge.
3. Cruz did not attack Carson for his claims after Iowa, instead Cruz simply apologized. Apologizing can often be a good thing, but it is not always the right thing to do, especially when you did effectively nothing wrong.  Additionally, in this cycle of the GOP primary the American people were not looking for an Apologizer and Chief, they were looking for a Commander and Chief.
4. A decent portion of Evangelicals are not truly principled and some Evangelicals are not even Christians.
5. Cruz lost the GOP Primary because Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham partially supported him. Actually, I am just kidding this was a reason why Cruz lost the GOP Primary, but the two halfway endorsing Ted Cruz was quite hilarious.
6. Having Fiorina as a running mate was mainly a rearrangement of the chairs on the Titanic.  Possibly it convinced a few people one way or another, but mostly it was a non-factor.  
7. A somewhat large ending factor of the Cruz Campaign was his seeming alliance with John Kasich. While I think it would have in some ways been tactically intelligent to divide and conquer against Trump, I do not think such a strategy should have been pursued.  The seeming alliance between Cruz and Kasich smelled of GOP elitism, even though Cruz is the antitheses of Republican elitism (there was a lot of irony throughout the GOP Primary process).
8. I do not think that Cruz falling, in some ways, to Trump's level was a problem.  Except that Trump is better at the name-calling game than most people, so Cruz possibly should have kept to the high ground.  Regardless, though, it was good to see some vitriol from Cruz regarding a morally repugnant character and, as far as I know, all of Cruz's attacks were actually accurate, unlike Trump's attacks.

Random Quick Thoughts

1. I find it somewhat incredible the U.S.A. has not suffered more terrorist attacks that it has in the last sixteen years. 
2. Possible names for a new party that could be an alternative to the Republican Party and the Democratic Party: The Values Party.  The Constitution Party.  The Prudent Party.  The Liberty Party.  The Autonomy Party.  The Principles Party.  The Founder's Party.  The Virtuous Party.  The Justice Party.  The Integrity Party.  The Foundational Party.  Currently, I am leaning towards The Constitution (though it's taken), Liberty,  or Principles Party.
3. I find it humorous how Obama's approval rating is going up the longer that Trump and Clinton are dominating the news coverage - to the general public, Obama seems somewhat tepid and sane in comparison to Trump and Clinton. 
4. Did pro-lifers entirely lose the argument of the framing of the word abortion and other terminology, such as right to life, rights of the mother, and right to privacy?
5. I think possibly the best president of the last fifty years is Bill Clinton, thanks to the Republican legislature during his presidency. During Clinton's term he enacted a number of socially prudent and economically strengthening policies. Unlike Reagan, he did not sign amnesty legislation or no-fault divorce legislation. While I think President Regan did some decent things as president, I certainly do not revere his term in office as much as most Republicans revere it.
6. Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential races, soon it will be 6 of the last 7. When will Republicans learn citizens like to have actual differences between the candidates? If there are no differences between the two individuals, then the candidates will be framed by the media, the most likable candidate, and the candidate who connects with peoples' emotions the best. 
7. Donald Trump's "horrible" comment about abortion was not actually all that horrible to me. I think it makes sense for a woman to be punished for murdering her child.  Would it be right for a mother to murder her three-year-old son or daughter?  Of course not.  Why is it legal for a mother to murder her three-month-old son or daughter in her womb?  Also, Trump provided some good gallows-humor (pretty literally) in his attempt to explain "specifics" about his "belief".  (And this is not to say that some mothers do not feel remorse for killing their child, of course some mothers do feel remorse and are punished for their actions in that way. But similarly, some murderers feel remorse for killing their sibling, this does not mean that the murderers should not be punished.)   
8. Currently, the United States has a 3.81 trillion dollar budget and the United States is 18 trillion dollars in debt.  Presently the United States makes a 7% payment on national debt each year. Also, the U.S. spends 46% of its budget on Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP payments. The typical bureaucratic talk in the government usually revolves around the 14% of "other" discretionary spending. Meanwhile, the other 86% of government is completely ignored.  On the other side of the balance sheet, 15% of U.S. revenue came in the form of printing money and selling federal bonds to foreign governments - sounds like a very reasonable method of obtaining money to me (or not). 
9. There is no middle ground with abortion. Either abortion removes a glob of tissue or a life. The child cannot be partially alive. Why do some people, take Donald Trump a decade ago for instance, think abortion is a bad thing, yet they support abortion? Either abortion should be freeing for the women committing it or abortion is a murder of an innocent child, there is no logical position where you can hate abortion, yet accept it - unless you support legalized murder, which, I suppose, is what a fair portion of pro-murder individuals' do indeed support.
10. Stare Decisis and other such judicial precedents have set a new standard which is opposed to Constitutional rulings.  I think this, due to semi-Constitutional judges typically falling back to Stare Decisis in their decisions, while liberal judges pick and choose when they want to follow Stare Decisis and when they desire to follow where their feelings lead them.

Thanks for reading.

Politics 3

Foreign Policy

        I support the United States being involved in affairs that have a direct impact on American lives.  I am somewhat of an isolationist, and would certainly not describe myself as a hawk.  As a Christian, I have a somewhat difficult time distancing myself through from individuals and countries that are having difficult economic, social, and despotic conditions.
        For instance, if there is a dictator who enjoys killing his citizens based on whatever his whims of the moment are, then what should the United States do in response?  Purely based on the wickedness of the despot the impacts upon the U.S.A. would likely be quite minimal.  So accordingly, I think the appropriate response of the president would be to ignore the situation or perhaps put political pressure on the country (which is technocratic talk for doing virtually nothing about the situation). From a Christian and moral standpoint, I have a very hard time simply standing by and letting those citizens be killed.  As a result of this, I have a difficult time with this question, and am not entirely opposed to war hawks - so long as their motivations are good - but I do definitely prefer non-interventionists.

        I lightly support the use of drones for gathering intelligence and killing terrorists.  I think drones and their counterparts are the wave of the future, and I am fine with them being used in warfare since it greatly reduces the risk for military personnel.  With that said, however, the use of drones can create further situations which are very tricky, such as, creating instances where terrorists can be murdered, but in order to do so you would also need to murder the terrorist's family.  While likely the terrorist's family is at least in complicit support of the terrorist's actions, still, I largely fail to see how this justifies killing the terrorist's family.

        I am uncertain what should be done in regards to North Korea or Iraq obtaining weapons of mass destruction.  My isolationist tendencies lean me towards not getting involved in the situation, but sometimes preventative action is the best deterrent to lives being lost.  I somewhat doubt North Korea would have the capabilities to even launch a credible nuclear attack at the United States (missile based that is).  But, I do not doubt that if they had nuclear capabilities, either South Korea or the U.S.A. would be North Korea's primary target.  As a result of this, I would certainly not desire for them to acquire nuclear weapons and may support preventive actions.  I think similarly about Iraq, except that Iraq's hot list of targets would be Israel and the U.S.A.  Also, I think a destabilization of Iraq would be much worse than a destabilization of South Korea.

        I am undecided on what should be done with Syrian refugees. My current position leans towards accepting Syrian refugees after background checks and continuous monitoring to ensure they have no terrorist connections, but even this position is held unconvincingly.  I support helping refugees, in general, but I am uncertain if it is the United States' duty to do so in virtually any situation.

        I support a decrease in military spending and better use of taxpayer money.  The US military spends approximately the same amount of money as the next ten countries' militaries combined.  The U.S.A. accounts for 34% of the world's total military expenditures. The US+NATO spend more than the rest of the world combined.  The United States has 395 military bases abroad. Most of the USA military bases are located in Italy, Japan, Germany, and South Korea. While I definitely support having a military which is paid adequately and does not have to worry about getting bulletproof armor, and the like, I do not support spending for the sake of spending. Currently, I believe the military has a large number of projects which are wasteful and a number of foreign operations which are imprudent.

        I am undecided on whether or not foreign terrorists should be given Constitutional rights or not.  I think the Constitution only applies to American citizens, but I am not entirely certain.  Beyond that, however, all individuals have certain unalienable rights, most of which were probably outlined in the Declaration of Independence.  I think that waterboarding should be allowed for use on certain terrorists, but that it should only be of the psychological kind and not any physical tactics.  I am not certain that physical torture should ever be allowed, because if that is allowed, then what separates us from the enemy?  Certainly, some principles are typically still different, but even with that, I do not believe that justifies physical torture.  I am not absolutely locked into this position, but I think Americans should hold themselves to a higher standard than those of an enemy.
        I also think the U.S. should close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and provide a fair trial to those terrorists there.  The death penalty should apply to some terrorists, while potentially others could be innocent, and others should be transferred to maximum security prisons. Alternatively, I am not entirely opposed to the military prison, it's just that the prison, I presume, holds prisoners who have been there likely for decades, at taxpayer expense.  I would prefer that something proactive and productive actually be done with the situation, rather than allowing the situation to simply flounder and continue on, in a foreign country no less.
        I think the ISIS should either be officially declared war against - and that such a measure would not constitute certain war based measures for the legislature or executive branch (I could be mistaken, but I believe there are some which apply) - or largely ignored.  I also think if America does declare war against the ISIS, America should attempt to actually win the war rather than simply keep the enemy at bay. Either attempt to destroy the enemy or do not fight a war, there is effectively no middle ground in my book.

       I think the United States should be more concerned with domestic concerns than with foreign concerns.  I think the United States should keep ground troops out of Syria and the U.S.A. should not overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

        I support Israel's sovereignty and their stabilizing presence in the Middle East.  Wait, Israel is a stabilizing presence in the Middle East?  Well, yes, actually.  If Israel would not exist, then I would be willing to bet that the Middle East and the world, in general, would be much more destabilised. As a result of this, I think the United States should be a good ally of Israel, and the U.S. should also respect Israel's sovereignty and not dictate how Israel interacts with its neighbors.

        I think the United States should be concerned with the welfare of United States citizens more than foreign citizens.   While foreign aid is not a significant portion of the federal budget, it is still a much larger portion of the federal budget than it should be - namely that foreign aid is a part of the federal budget at all.  I support a decreasing of and likely an elimination of all foreign aid.  While I think foreign aid is sometimes well-intentioned, even when it is given out with good intentions, foreign aid does not help a foreign nation's citizens and hurts American citizens.
        Foreign aid does not benefit a foreign nation's citizens because money is fungible and, as a result, potentially the million dollars (or whatever currency is used) that were going to be used for national healthcare for its citizens could instead be used for the country's military.  Meanwhile, the million dollars of foreign aid that were given to the country is used for the country's national healthcare system, so while the country is truthfully able to say that the million dollars were used for national healthcare for its citizens, in reality, the money helped to fund the country's military.
        And this is to say nothing of the corruption and salaries in governments. Perhaps during the transfer of money, 10% disappears due to corruption and the payment of salaries in the United States and another 15% disappears in the foreign country, as a result of this the country "only" receives 765,000 dollars to use for its national health care.  And if you are uncertain of how foreign aid hurts United States citizens, then you should perhaps take an Economics 101 class.  And somewhat connected to foreign aid, I support either a scaleback of current U.S. involvement in the U.N. or a complete dissolution from it.

        I think convicted murderers should lose the right to vote.  By taking away someone's voice and more importantly their life, I think it is easily justifiable to take away a murderer's ability to vote.

Immigration Issues 

        I support keeping religious elements out of immigration processes.  I believe explicitly banning Muslim immigrants, or any other religious minded individuals from entering the U.S.A. is anticonstitutional.  I mean, technically I wonder if there could be a case to be made from a safety precedence to keep certain belief systems out of the United States, but realistically I do not think that such a policy could be implemented effectively.  As a result, I think that each potential immigrant should be dealt with individually and there should not be any blanket ban on potential immigrants. (Also, Muslims could simply lie if they wanted to and still be acting within their belief system, so implementing a "Muslim ban" would not solve anything, regardless of intentions.)

        I think U.S. citizens should get the benefits of living in the U.S. (I typically like to frame things positively, rather than always being 'against' various things and on the defensive.  I usually attempt to take a more positively framed aspect of some issue that I support. I will admit that it was tough for this one, so I just had to take a cop-out answer of a generality which sort of applied.)  I oppose granting illegal immigrants access to government subsidized health care and tuition grants to college.  Although, with that said, I actually oppose granting U.S. citizens access to government subsidized health care and tuition grants to college as well.  So yeah, in order to connect the first sentence of the paragraph, I think the benefits of the U.S. do not include access to government-subsidized health care and tuition grants to college.

      I support America keeping its citizens safe and able to pursue various economic opportunities.  As a result, I support the implementation of further border security measures.  I support the further development of a wall which crosses the southern border of the United States and there should also be many electronic measures put into place to easily detect illegal immigrants attempting to enter the United States.  I would also support the further hiring of (rough estimate) 8,000 border guards.  Also, if possible, drones should be fitted with nonlethal weapons and roughly 1,000 border guards will operate these non-lethal drones.
        Furthermore, in any instance of illegal immigrants being discovered in the United States, the individuals should be deported to their respective countries.  This would be done regardless of family ties within the United States or political connections.  But that's inhumane, why would you tear families apart?  First of all, why am I supposed to be on the defensive in regards to individuals intentionally breaking the law?  Should not the individuals who break the law be on the defensive? Secondly though, to address your question, yes, I am insensitive in this regard.  I would support the deportation of illegal immigrants even if it would separate family members from each other.
        That is not the end of the situation, though. I would support the debureaucratization of immigrating to the United States and an increase in the number of immigrants accepted into the U.S. each year. Would some families likely be forced to move back to their respective country because of the situation?  Yes, this would be the case for some families.  There are typically consequences for breaking the law and a decent amount of the time those consequences are enforced.  I do, however, think the majority of families would actually be able to legally be together in the United States within a decade (presuming that other deregulation legislation would pass, of course).
        I lightly support "forcing" immigrants to learn English, since it is the common language spoken in the United States and is part of the culture here.  But, at the same time, I understand that other peoples and cultures are obviously quite diverse, and I doubt that learning English would truly help America's situation greatly.  As a result, I do not consider requiring immigrants to learn English as a very significant or strongly supported issue.
        I support a large deregulation of the immigration process.  I am uncertain of specifics because I would need to learn more about the situation and legislation to have a concrete, detailed plan.  I do think some regulation of the immigration process is certainly a good thing, just not to the extent that currently exists. I think unlimited immigration from other countries would go too far, but I do support much larger numbers of foreign citizens being able to immigrate to the United States.

Thanks for reading.

Political Thoughts 2

Environmental Issues

        I believe climate change is a natural occurrence and has been happening for at least six millennia.  As a result of this, I do not think the government should be concerned with keeping the earth from warming or cooling since both are natural processes.  Furthermore, there is little valid scientific evidence for there to be any concern over any sort of warming or cooling of the earth. Over about the last 15 years, the average global temperature has risen approximately 0 degrees. Also, I think it is a very self-centered thought to think that humans can have a significant impact on the earth's temperature.  Can humans have a sizable impact?  Definitely.  But significant?  Certain things, such as humans causing volcanoes to explode and a nuclear war would certainly be significant, but currently, neither of those things is happening and the impact of humans on the earth's climate is somewhat limited.

        With all of these things said, however, I do think that humans have a duty to keep the earth close to as clean as possible.  I think excessive pollution of water, land, and the air should be illegal and that there should be some oversight and regulation for this problem.  The issue should probably be left to individual states to determine what they believe is the limit of pollution which should be tolerated.  Also, businesses and individuals should not be taxed for their carbon emissions and should be able to use dirty energy, such as coal in their operations if they so desire.  My issue with businesses or individuals is simply when there is an excessive abuse of the environment which should not occur.

        I support an end to all tax credits and subsidies to the energy industry.  I think that Oil Drilling/Fracking should be legal and that the free market should determine the best course of action in regards to what energy should be pursued - even whether it be a traditional or alternative form of energy.

Domestic & Unknown Issues

        I support the legalization of sports gambling.  I fail to see how the stock market is allowed to operate in the United States and individuals can buy stocks from any state in the United States, yet sports gambling is legalized only to certain areas, such as Las Vegas and a few states.  If a person is allowed to bet on the livelihoods of businesses, commodities, individuals, and technologies, etc. Why should individuals not be allowed to bet on the outcome of sporting events?
        Furthermore, the legalization of sports gambling would result in millions upon millions of new taxpayer dollars for the government to spend (presuming that the government would want a cut of the action... which obviously they would).  I fail to see how there is not precedence for sports gambling, I fail to see how sports gambling hurts anyone (outside of individuals becoming addicted to it, but becoming addicted can happen for pretty much anything), and I fail to see how the benefits of legalized sports gambling are not enticing to its legalization. 

        I am undecided on the use of electronic brain implants.  I think that brain implants are an issue that will likely be a political issue in another decade, and they have the potential to greatly benefit people and to cause a lot of pain.

      I am somewhat opposed to the development of artificial intelligence.  I think artificial intelligence could benefit humanity greatly and could also, outside of Divine intervention, destroy humanity.

        I support a return to a Constitutional hierarchy for the judicial system. Judicial activism has been one of the main causes of the social decay in the United States.  Abortion, eminent domain, etc., the blows to life, morals, and economic durability have been hugely and negatively impacted by judicial activism.  A return to a Constitutional hierarchy of law would mean that the judiciary would no longer be able to legislate decisions from the bench and the rule of law would return to the legislator where it belongs. (where the legislator could then legislate evil decrees at a slower rate than the judiciary's rate...  Sorry for being so cynical...)
        The Supreme Court does not offer the final say on any law, they simply offer an opinion, an educated and important opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.  I think judicial activism is one of the most important issues of the last half-century and that the judiciary has led the charge towards Gomorrah.  While I would like for there to be more Constitutional judges appointed, I think a more important point to be made is that the entire system should be reorganized to what it was originally intended to be.

        I think a candidate's religious beliefs and lifestyle should play a role in the voting decision process for voters.  If a candidate is an atheist, then that tells me she (or he) does not believe that she will ultimately be accountable for anything she does.  As a result, there is no higher standard than herself for what ultimately determines whether something is reasonable or unreasonable.  Consequently, my opinion of that candidate will diminish greatly.  Being an atheist, a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc., does not disqualify you from my vote, but your religious views can certainly reduce the chance that I will vote for you.

      I support the ability of individuals and businesses to own land and not sell it to the government.  I think a case can be made that the government is able to use land in a way which benefits a larger number of citizens than an individual would be able to do.  However, I also think that the government would often abuse this power to the harm of individuals and businesses.  Concurrently, I oppose eminent domain.  Possibly there could be a handful of cases where I could be persuaded to support it, in a particular individual case, but even that situation is fairly unlikely.  If an individual or business is unwilling to sell their land to the government, then there should be virtually no case where the government has the ability to simply give them the so-called fair market value for the land and forcibly take the land from them.

        I support an increase to the legal driving speed limit on roads, effectively across the nation.  Up until near the end of 1995, a federal law prohibited driving over 65 MPH.  While some states have addressed the issue by raising the speed limit in their respective states since then, overall, in my opinion, the matter has not been addressed significantly enough.  While I think there should still be an upper-speed limit, probably 80 MPH, I think speed limits should be raised locally, statewide, and nationally by 10 MPH.  

        Additionally (And what I am about to layout is a big brother type of initiative, so it would only be instituted with a morally correct government - so in other words I would probably never support such an initiative.  And I mean, this would also be unconstitutional, but things can be made to be Constitutional with Constitutional Amendments, obviously.), I think cars should be affixed with GPS's which allow the police to fine individuals who drive over the newly raised speed limit, likely starting at around 5 MPH over the speed limit.

        I am undecided on the positives and negatives of legalizing or decriminalizing various drugs.  I would need to learn more before I land firmly on the side of legalizing drugs or being in opposition to them being legalized.  I can understand there may be benefits to legalizing various drugs, such as marijuana, and I lean towards supporting such a measure, or at least decriminalizing marijuana anyways, but I am uncertain of all of the negative ramifications of such an action.

        I am uncertain of where I stand on the issue of Super PAC funding. I have heard semi-convincing arguments from each side, but, as of yet, I have not heard anything that has put me firmly against the current funding situation for Super PACs or in support of it.

        I am lightly in support of flag burning remaining a legal course of action.  Although, I am not entirely certain of each side's reasoning and could certainly change my mind on the issue.

        I think life should be valued and suicide should be declared illegal.

        I would like to reestablish the proper roles of the three branches of government as was intended in the Constitution.  One such result of this undertaking is that executive orders should largely become a thing of the past.  While I need to research the issue more, it is my understanding that a vast portion of executive orders are unconstitutional.

        I support marriages where each individual honors their promise to their spouse to the end of their respective lives.  I think no-fault divorce has been one of the underlying faults which has caused the large cracks in the average American family.  As a result of this, I support a return to fault divorce being the only legitimate way for a husband and wife to become divorced.

        I support the continued illegality of prostitution in the United States.

        I am uncertain as to what should be done in certain gender cases.  For instance, if a business desires to be inclusive (in their mind) and has bathrooms that are gender neutral, then I would guess it would not cause major problems for anyone.  I would not support the business's decision per se, but I also do not think I would support government intervention into the situation.  As another for instance, though, if a school only had gender neutral bathrooms and locker rooms for its students, then I would have a problem with the situation.  Additionally, in that instance, the government should intervene in the situation and say the children should go into bathrooms and locker rooms which correspond to their respective gender.
        I think the gender issue gets to be extra complicated when someone becomes transgender.  I think if a girl "becomes" a guy, then that girl is still a girl.  But, it certainly complicates the issue. Should the girl now go into the girls' locker room or the guys' locker room?  I would lean towards the girls' locker room, but yet that wouldn't be right, so currently I am not certain what should be done in such a situation.

        I lightly support the actions of Edward Snowdown and his whistleblowing of the NSA's surveillance program.  I think Snowden may properly be viewed as a traitor to the United States and also as a relative hero for his attempted protection of "traditional" American principles.  In other words, while what he did is somewhat traitorous to the current United States, it does promote a more transparent government which is more along the lines of what the Founding Fathers would have desired.

        I support the destruction of the two-party system.  I am uncertain of all the measures which should be taken to support this view.  One of the things which could be done is there could be lower requirements for ballot access for states and lower requirements for appearing on television debates. Promoting a two-party system pretty much inherently supports each party moving towards the middle of the political spectrum. Although Democrats mess with this paradigm slightly by typically being more convicted for their supported issues than are Republicans.  This consequently leads to most Republicans having political spectrums that are even further left than the center of a given issue.

        I support the labeling of foods so consumers are able to know what is in the food they are consuming.  As such, I support the labeling of products which have ingredients that have been genetically modified.  I would also consider banning the production of genetically modified foods, but currently, I would not go so far as to say I support that action.

        I believe the culture should promote healthy societal and moral constructs and healthy body types.  As a result, I think pornography should be outlawed.  I think it promotes an unhealthy society which promotes promiscuity and the destruction of the family.  Moreover, I am not certain pornography can be viewed without being sinful, so from a religious standpoint I am also morally opposed to it.  Also, the individuals which are often portrayed in pornography are not always of a typical body type, as a result, couples can have unhealthy views of each other based on what they have seen in pornography.  Furthermore, the pornography industry largely provides a destructive lifestyle for the individuals who participate in it and promotes further destructive lifestyles for other individuals who view it.

        I think churches and businesses should have religious freedom, so long as that religious freedom does not infringe upon another person or business's rights.

        I support term limits for politicians at all levels of the government.  I would say an individual should be allowed a maximum of perhaps 30 years of elected office at any level of government.  For instance, you could be the mayor of a city for 10 years, state representative for 10 years, and a U.S. Senator for 10 years.  Additionally, there should be state and national limits as well - possibly local limits as well, but I would lean towards no limits for local government.  For state limits, I would lean towards 16 years and for national limits, I would likely say 12 years - other than the presidency that is, for the presidency I would support an absolute monarchical system... Kidding, just seeing if you were paying attention.  Additionally, the same limits should apply to elected and unelected judges at the state and national level.

        I am uncertain what should be done with the NSA.  I do not know if there is a convincing Constitutional argument which may be made that proclaims the NSA to be unconstitutional, and I am pretty certain there is no Biblical precedent for it being illegal. The NSA's surveillance may be abused to the harm of many individuals and nations, but it is not inherently wrong to have it in place.  I think the NSA and the surveillance measures used therein have led to the prevention of a number of terrorist attacks.  As a result of these things, I would need to learn more to determine what should be done with the NSA.
        Also, connected to this topic, I am uncertain what level of a knowledge the average citizen should have of the government and its security measures.  Obviously, accountability is typically a good thing, but the price of accountability is that some information is confidential and could endanger citizens... So it is an odd conundrum, as a result, I am conflicted as to whether Americans should have complete freedom of information from the government or not.

        I support a voting process which allows only eligible voters to vote.  In other words, I support additional pre-voting procedures, namely showing your ID in order to vote.  Showing your ID is used for a variety of more trivial times in a person's life, I fail to see why it should not be shown and scanned when a person is voting.  I do not believe voter fraud is often significantly impacting the results of elections, but I do think it is significantly impacting elections by effectively canceling the voices of eligible voters.  For instance, if in a governor's race where 200,000 people vote, 300 ineligible voters vote for Candidate Smith and 300 eligible voters vote for Candidate Johnson, then, in essence, those 300 eligible voters for Candidate Johnson did not have a voice during that election process - while each of the ineligible voters had a voice when they should not have had one.  Would those 300 votes have made a difference in the elections outcome, possibly yes, likely no, but whether or not the 300 votes would make a difference is irrelevant in my opinion. Each eligible voter should be allowed a consequential vote regarding what government presides over them.

        I support an individual's right to own guns and protect themselves.  With that said, I do support some restrictions on guns, such as a person needing to pass a background check before the purchase of a weapon. Currently, I think semi-automatic weapons should be legal to the general public, but automatic weapons should be illegal to the general public - which is effectively the case now.  I believe gun free zones and most anti-gun measures do not help to keep individuals safe, but instead, endanger them.  

Healthcare & Education Issues

      I support a free market approach for health care providers.  I support an appeal of Obamacare and an opening up of competition within the health care market in various aspects, such as for insurers competing across state lines.  Opening up the health care system to the free market will help to reduce costs, cut down on inefficiencies, and improve health care for the average individual.

        I think families, churches, and charities should be a primary option to help with the costs of health care for low-income individuals.  I think Medicaid should be phased out and abolished.  I am not inherently opposed to a government program similar to Medicaid, but, among other things, the program would need to be done on a much, much smaller scale.

      I support parents having the ability to decide whether or not their children are vaccinated.  I think there is an interesting case to be made for government intervention and for forced vaccinations of children, but overall it is too intrusive for my tastes and consequently I oppose forced vaccinations - voluntary vaccinations are fine.

      I think prayer should be encouraged in school.  Students should be allowed to pray to whatever God they believe in.  Students should also be able to read their religious material in school, on their own time.  Also in education, Evolutionism and Creationism should at least  be put on equal footing of one another and both should be taught as possible reasons for the creation of the earth - though I would prefer that Creationism would be the primary focus by far.  Additionally, schools should be allowed to focus on Creationism or on Evolutionism as they desire, but the split should never be greater than 80-20.
        I also support alternatives to public schooling, such as homeschooling and private schooling.  I think a voucher system improves education and children and parents should be able to determine where they desire to go/send their children to school.

      I would say education should be handled at the local level first.  I am not absolutely opposed to having common standards of excellence for education, but I think it can be fairly hard to form a national education board which properly sets the standards for every school.  As a result of this, Common Core and similar standards should likely not be handled at the national level.

Political Thoughts

      In this blog post and the next two posts I will be running through my thoughts and beliefs on different political issues.  As recently as last month I believed in pro-life with the exception of the life of the mother but have since come to believe that even this promotion of murder of children is actually a red herring.  I will explain in further detail in a moment.  I brought this point up though, to illustrate that even my convictions may change a little bit and my positions can definitely change given time and more information.

Life

       I support life.  I believe the life of a child should be saved in all circumstances whensoever and wheresoever it is possible to do so.  The lone partial "exception" (aka killing of the child) I would make to this, is when the life of the mother is at stake.  Since this is a core issue to me, the candidate in whatever election I am voting in should either be pro-life entirely or pro-life with the exception of the life of the mother.  

      How, you may ask, if I am pro-life without exceptions, can I support candidates who are pro-life with exceptions?  Well, for me, it all comes down to motivations.  If a candidate's motivations are to save all the lives which he (or she depending on the candidate, obviously) can and he buys into the notion that in some instances it is necessary to take the life of a child in order to save a mother's life, then I can understand a candidate's motivations and support him for taking a reasonable stance to defend life.  I believe every person in the world first became a person at their conception.  I believe both the life of a mother and the life of a child are very, very important and that both individuals should be kept alive if at all possible.  As a result of this, I think the intentional murdering of a child or a mother should be illegal.  

      I do believe there are instances where both the life of the mother and the life of the baby may be at stake.  In such an instance, based on my experiences, I think the life of the mother should be saved. However, this does not mean the intentional murdering of the child.  In other words, if a life can be saved, the life should be saved.  The website American Right to Life lays out in their article Life of the Mother Exception how the typical "pro-life with exceptions" proposition is a red herring and uses fallacious reasoning.

      While, I am able to support candidates who are pro-life with an exception for the life of the mother (Also, random thought, if your disclaimer is longer than your title, it's probably reasonable  to assume you are doing something wrong - though not necessarily morally wrong.), I think a pro-life with exceptions argument leaves open a very deadly opportunity for Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics and doctors to take advantage of.  According to various surveys of women, the most common percentage of women who give the reason that the murder of their unborn child was done due to dangers to the woman's life (my framing, not theirs, clearly) is less than 1% of the primary reason for all abortions.  I would estimate that the number of doctors who would perform murders for women based on "dangers to their life" would rise astronomically if abortions were made illegal in all cases except for that one deadly exception.  

      If you believe the abortion industry, which profits from the murder of innocent children, would not be willing to cut corners, lie, and commit fraud, etc., in order to have doctors sign off on and commit just as many murders each year based on "dangers to the life of a mother", then you probably believe that certain historical events, such as the extermination of many Christian, gypsy, homosexual, Jewish, and disabled individuals in Auschwitz and other concentration camps ever happened either.  Auschwitz, what's that?  Exactly.

      I believe that personal responsibility should be promoted.  I am opposed to parental consent and late-term abortion laws.  To me, such "pro-life" legislation is actually pro-death.  It simply supports killing the child by informing more people first or by going around the moral law earlier.  It saves effectively no one and simply perpetuates the pro-death's side logic.  I am also opposed to contraception being the main alternative to abortions because contraception focuses on lust, while chastity focuses on love.  Instead of simply addressing the symptoms of the problem, the underlying problem itself should be addressed.

Religious & Social Issues

     I believe the "separation of church and state" is a completely fabricated argument which contains no basis in Constitutional or Biblical history.  As a result of this, and the belief that religion has large implications on moral reasoning, on a nation's health, and upon society's very framework, I believe it is important to reestablish that there is no true separation of church and state, as it is commonly perceived anyways.  With this said, however, I believe there should actually be a separation of church and state, just in a different framing.  I believe the separation of church and state should be in regards to how the church should not be controlled by the state, and the state should not be controlled by the church. (Although, the church should be allowed to attempt to influence the state through its influence upon its congregation members.) 

       I believe that so-called "homosexual marriage" is not truly marriage and that a mother and father provide the best family structure for the rearing of children. Additionally, the Bible clearly states homosexual acts are sinful, as a result, something such as "homosexual marriage" would clearly not be Biblical.  With these things said, however, I am not certain as to whether or not homosexuality should be made illegal or if it should simply be decriminalized.  I do, however, believe homosexual marriages should, at the very least, not be legal.

       I think the death penalty should be legal, but should only be used for horrific crimes with truly undeniable evidence.  I am still open to changing what I think of what should be defined as being a horrific crime.  Right now I would say horrific crimes consist of murder and rape.  Also, I think the death penalty gives the government a lot of power, and with that power comes a very distinct possibility of misuse.

     I believe euthanasia should be illegal.  Also, I think it makes sense to allow individuals the ability to deny artificial life support for themselves (this opinion could change though). 

     I think women should be allowed in the military, as long as a woman can pass the same physical tests as a man - in other words, the standards should be the same regardless of gender.  There are a number of individuals whom I respect who come from a Christian background who do not support allowing women in the military.  As a result of this knowledge, I wonder if could be misguided regarding my thought that it is fine for women to be in the military.  As of yet, I have not been convinced otherwise, though, so I will continue to think so until proven otherwise.  

       I think that by-in-large discrimination policies promote discrimination rather than diminish it. I think every workplace should be concerned with the productivity and competency of an individual, rather than their ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender (etc.).  It is possible there are one or two good discrimination laws/affirmative action laws because there is legitimate discrimination which occurs, but, with that said, most laws simply create a further discrimination divide rather than lessen it. Creating laws which promote a "discrimination free process" by enforcing discrimination processes are actually  promoting further discrimination.

Economic & Welfare Issues

       I support an end to the minimum wage and an end to all federal wage standards.  I also support the ending of all or virtually all federal agencies that are unconstitutional.  So, virtually every federal agency? 

      I think the corporate income tax should be abolished and replaced with a flat tax.  The tax will probably be in the realm of a 20% tax to start with, then after various government agencies, subsidies, and departments are reorganized and decommissioned, the tax could be moved to even lower levels.  If all of the other taxes would be in place that I support, instead of the current taxes, then an internet tax would likely be a logical occurrence.  However, I think there is a case to be made for deregulation of the internet, though not the most logical one.  Furthermore, though, I do not support an internet tax until the current tax system is overhauled.

       I think the blessings of work should be focused upon.  I think there should be virtually no unemployment benefits for anyone.  I could possibly support unemployment benefits in certain situations for individuals who are truly not able to work, but even that should not be a continual government handout. 

       I think businesses should have the freedom to offer whatever incentives they desire to employees.  If a business wants to offer maternity leave or paternity leave, then they should be able to do so, if they do not wish to, then they should not be forced to.  If a business wishes to pay an individual eight dollars an hour to do a job, then so long as the person is willing to do the work for the pay, then there should be no intervention from the government.

       I think there are too many hidden agendas to support TPP.  I support what I think is the underlying essence of the TPP, namely an expansion of free trade. However, this underlying essence is covered up with 5,000+ pages of bureaucracy, and many different regulations and hidden provisions.

       I support a return to common sense retirement policies.  When Social Security was first implemented in 1935 the average lifespan of a person was over a decade less than the average lifespan of the average person today.  Despite this increase in lifespan over the last 81 years, the government still seems to think that people live the same length of time and consequently offer benefits for roughly the same age now as in 1935.  Where has "common" sense gone?  Beyond this, though, who took care of retired individuals before 1935?  No one, right?  I mean they all probably just died of starvation, I presume.
       Individuals in the years before 1935 did not think ahead, they did not have supportive families, and they did not have charities and churches to help them in case of financial difficulties.  They were simply helpless individuals in need of a government to set up some giant bureaucracy that would tax them more money than they would ever get in return for a program they did not ask for.  Right? Right.  I would not necessarily say I am entirely opposed to Social Security since there are elements of it that can be thought of as good, but, I certainly do not support it.  I would favor, at a minimum, the option of citizens being able to completely opt out of Social Security payments and to privately invest their money instead.
       While I could be mistaken about this, I believe I have already paid thousands of dollars into Social Security.  This is done despite the fact that I am tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Effectively any person with any economic sense would tell you it is better to pay off debt than to invest in any investment below the rate of return for whatever rate your debt payment is.  Considering that the rate of return for the forced investment into Social Security is going to be negative for me, this offers a very poor choice of investment.  It is frankly ridiculous (though Social Security is nowhere close to as morally repugnant and disgusting as many other government policies, such as pro-death policies) that I and millions of other individuals are forced to pay into a system which is mere decades from becoming insolvent - barring drastic changes that is. Also, I support a complete abolition or drastic reduction for many other policies that support government's propping up of a welfare society through taxpayer funding.

       I support simplifying the entire tax system.  Such a simplification process would include steps such as abolishing the IRS, the income tax, drastically reducing the corporate income tax, removing many taxes, such as the death tax, the marriage license tax, the payroll tax, etc.  I would keep the sales tax and implement either a fair or flat tax type system.  I think the government should have a balanced budget, effectively no matter the outlying circumstances.

       I support American citizens having self-awareness in paying their money to the government. I think citizens should be forced to pay their taxes to the government every month and that these taxes should not be paid automatically, or taken out of their paycheck, but that citizens should be forced to write the check, or hand the money over, or whatever the case may be, directly to the government, every single month.  Admittedly, if most of my other propositions would actually become a reality, then this would become a semi-unimportant side point, but as reality currently stands, I think this is a fairly important point to make. 

       I support companies failing and succeeding based on their own failures and successes.  I do not support bailouts and think companies should work out of their financial difficulties themselves, and if they are unable to do so, then they should be forced to do what any average American citizen who owns a business would carry out.

       I support the development of further transportation options, although I do not have major problems with the current transportation system. One of the options which probably deserves to be looked at is high-speed rail transportation. Additionally, by-in-large, I do not think the government should be involved in transportation systems, so I would simply encourage the free market to look into this option. Furthermore, I support the development of the Keystone Pipeline, and the use of coal, wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources as each individual and the free market see fit.

       I support the selling off of at least 35% of Federal land.  I think there are some benefits to the national parks maintained by the government and other reservations, but I do not think those benefits are worth the cost, the majority of the time.  Currently, the federal government owns 27% of the land in the United States and I would support a better use of a decent portion of that land.  

     I would like to deregulate, lessen, and in some cases eliminate many federal administrations. I certainly appreciate the FDA's desire to keep American's safe, but sometimes I think they may also be influenced just a little bit by financial concerns (just a "little" bit).  On average it takes the FDA 12 years and 350 million dollars to fully approve a new drug.  While safety and other concerns are certainly legitimate, other concerns, such as those from Big Pharma lobbying groups often seem to be more pressing.  It almost seems as if the FDA and other federal administration groups give more attention and preference to special interest groups than the average American citizen.  

       I support furthering economic opportunities for American citizens.  Consequently, I support the lifting of the Cuba trade and travel embargo (unlike a number of Republicans).  A trend which I have noticed over the last few years (possibly it has been happening for much longer) is the confluence of globalization and free trade, despite the end goals of globalization and free trade agreements being based on different propositions. If the entire world would have free trade agreements with one another, in other words, no trade barriers with one another, then I believe the global economy would boom at around a 25%-30% growth improvement and then after a decade or so settle down to growth levels "only" around 10% better than the current growth rate.
   Free trade benefits everyone involved, pretty much without exception (outside of dumping occurrences and other such things).  Globalization, on the other hand, does not benefit everyone - I find it somewhat difficult to tell whom globalization benefits the most.  Globalization, for the most part, would certainly not benefit America. Globalization would likely strip America's citizens of various freedoms and cause many social problems.  As a result, while I do support the expansion of free trade agreements, probably without reservation, I oppose globalization also effectively without reservation.
       One of the reservations against free trade is that workers in other countries have poor working conditions and in some cases, children may be producing the materials that would be purchased in the United States.  While I would certainly agree it is unfortunate (to say the least) that some workers have poor conditions and in some cases, children may be working in factories, I fail to see the connection to any free trade agreement. Furthermore, the United States pays vast sums of money to foreign countries in order to obtain black gold, oil, despite those countries often supporting terrorists, both directly and indirectly.  Yet, where is the public outrage when terrorists use funding, that they sometimes acquire from a Middle East government, to kill other individuals?  (And this analogy is not meant to downplay the potentially horrid working conditions of the workers)  It seems as if there is a double-standard in play for when it is correct to complain about where American dollars head toward.
       As a quick aside, however, I do not think it always the duty of the government to know every single thing which goes on in a country, such as finding out about terrorist funding or the current working conditions within a country.  Additionally finding out such information is not always very easily attained.  However, I do think it is typically possible to find out what the government supports with their funding and what working conditions for workers are like.  Anyways, though, while I do support the improvement of working conditions for all workers, I do not think that free trade agreements offer a proper medium for such a discussion.
       If a given country did not trade with the United States (free or tariffed trade), then that country would likely find another country to trade with.  If the country would be unable to find another country to trade with, then there would be other domestic focuses made within the country.  In other words, no matter what the United States would do in regards to its trade agreements, that country's workers would still be working in factories, regardless of trade agreements (and I do support political pressure and the like to be used on a country to improve the worker's working conditions). Finally, in my opinion, free trade is a policy which lifts all nations, regardless of workers' conditions.   As a result of this, free trade would be one of the quickest routes to improving the lives of those workers (although corruption and tyranny would obviously distort the process somewhat, which is kind of the problem to begin with).

I think space travel should be entirely privately funded, outside of possible militaristic research. I support the expansion of the use of nuclear energy so long as there are various precautionary measures in place.

I support an abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank and a return to the gold standard or some similar standard.  I am uncertain if having a fiat currency is inherently a poor economic decision or not, but I know it effectively always (if not always) leads to poor economic decisions.  Having a currency which is backed by nothing except the power of the government seems as if it is a poor choice to me. Even beyond that, though, allowing the government to have a fiat currency enables the government to simply print (or mint or whatever the case may be) as much of that fiat currency as the government desires.

Thanks for reading.

Validation of Laziness

There are many days in which I do not feel motivated and fail to perform any regular definition of the word “work”.  In my conscience I used to feel remorse and shame when I was lazy, but thankfully I no longer have these sensitivities.  Despite my evolution past my conscience there are some people around me who have not evolved as much as I have and believe I am not actually carrying out work when I am lazy.  I think that these people are misguided in their intolerant views.  I think that my movement has a lot of merit to it and that the symbolic representation of my movement should be a cross – both to symbolize the suffering that the lazy have had to endure from the dogmatic employed individuals around them and as a goading against religious zealots. I wish that the narrow-minded people who do not recognize what I believe could feel as liberated as I do.

As a result, I think that the government should validate my belief that all “work” should be rewarded, even if my interpretation of the word “work” effects a complete redefinition of the term and the “work” that I carry out simply pertains to sitting around and doing nothing.  Accordingly, the government should reward my right to have a different definition for what “work” really means and should reward my outstanding productivity on these days and give me the same recognition and benefits that many working-class individuals receive, aka respect and money.  A further collaboration with my reasoning is that there are some employed individuals who earn money in dishonorable manners and the way in which I desire to earn money is no less reasonable.  Those who are employed need not worry about some watering down of “work”, there will surely be no slippery slope of consequences resulting from the substantiation of my belief.  I simply want some sort of “higher being” to validate me.

[I wrote this to be taken as satire, although through it I may happen to be making an analogy to another issue, just in case you could not tell.]

Three Topics: Representatives of what/whom? Can We be God? Flawed Messaging?

Representatives of the People or the Constitution?

I fail to understand why some people get upset when their representative or representatives in the US congress or their state legislator or legislators, etc., disregard what appears to be the majority of the people's wishes in that particular district or state.  I agree that most representative things should be, you know, representative of whatever they are supposed to be representative of.. But, politicians should not actually be proper representatives.  Last time I checked, politicians do not make an oath to carry out their duties as a politician along the same lines as what the majority of the populace in their representative area wish for them to support. Simply being a representative representative leads to mob rule, which does not quite happen to be what the Founding Fathers intended..  

Instead, I have this silly thought that the representatives should not be representative to the people whom they are representing, unless there is a completely gray area that is being discussed, and should actually be carrying out what the Constitution says they should be doing.  Politicians do not swear to defend the people and all of their many wishes, but to defend the Constitution.  Of course the number of politicians that actually believe that they should defend the Constitution and then carry that out with their actions are few and far between, but I still think that you have to begin with one of the root symptoms of the problem instead of simply attacking politicians with the flawed Constitutional premise that politicians are not truly 'representing' the people by not carrying out whatever the majority of people desire.

Do We Get to be God?

(Here's an even quicker thought, though it grabbed some other flawed premises to make it about the same length as the first discussion point..) I do not understand why some people say that Christians need to BE THE GOSPEL.  How does that even make sense?  I cannot be the Gospel. How can I be God?  We can spread the Gospel certainly, but in no sense of the term can we actually BE the Gospel.

The 'Be The Gospel' kind of thinking tends to run alongside other great beliefs such as, I'm not religious, I'm spiritual, or Jesus is above religion, etc.  In regards to the I'm not religious, I'm spiritual comment, while I would be tempted to just flippantly say to these fine folks that indeed they are not religious and are consequently not actually Christians, that would probably be the wrong thing to do.  While some of them are indeed not Christians, certainly this is not the case for all of them.  This may actually be one of the rare times where improperly judging others may actually apply, and, as such, since we do not get to be the final arbitrate we should not come out and say that those people are not Christians..  However, that obviously still does not at all mean that we should not attempt to convince them that their statement is contrary to the Bible, and attempt to convince them that both 'spirituality' and religion are quite important in Christianity. 

(In general I'm not actually a big fan of 'spirituality'.. Partially because of the lack of common definition, for instance it can mean such things as, relating to ecclesiastical law belonging to the church, attachment to religious values, or, the most common meaning, relating to a person's spirit.  Which leads me to my second main reason as why I think 'spirituality' or being 'spiritual' happen to be silly terms.  What does it even mean for something to 'relate' to a person's spirit?  It doesn't really mean anything.  What it means for one person could be almost entirely different to another person.  The terms that I find which define spirituality and spiritual provide definitions that either do not help an argument for Christians to be more spiritual than religious or provide amorphous definitions that do not truly define anything.)

I find the Jesus is above religion comment to be just a bit pretentious, among other things anyways.  This statement is much like saying that Jesus is above grace or above belief...  Is the Lord above all things?  Certainly, but this is an argument on a different level (I'm not even certain if I nail down the proper level here, since I really think that statements such as Jesus is above religion are just one of the Devil's ways to attempt for Christianity and Christ to lose their proper definitions, so that even so called Christians will not truly be Christians.).  What this Jesus is above religion saying may really be trying to get at is a difference of semantics, with the consequences of those redefinitions being a weakening of a person's faith.  

While it is definitely possible to define religion a bit differently, religion may effectively be simply defined as the following:  Religion is a belief in some sort of deity.  The statement that Jesus is above religion simply does not make any coherent sense.  Are you trying to say that it is not necessary to believe in Christ?  Are you trying to say that Christ is not a deity (much less THE Deity)?  Your logical framework is fundamentally flawed and makes no sense.  While obviously the vast majority of religions do not lead to Heaven (maybe this is the point of the saying?), Christianity does point the true way to Heaven. Christianity is a means to Heaven, a means to spending eternity with Christ.  

Last I checked, Christ said that He alone is the narrow path to Heaven. Trying to unwind the intertwining of religion and Christ simply does not work. We need to believe in Christ's death on the cross, His resurrection, His 100% Godness, etc., to be Christians.  How is it possible to have an ocean yet no water within it?  How is it possible to be with Christ come Judgment Day and yet be saved without faith?  While Christ and Christianity are, or course, not of the same essence, there are plenty of interweaving parts wherein it is impossible to have Christianity without Christ and it is impossible to reach Christ without Christianity, without belief in Christ and God giving us saving grace.  There are no other means by which a person may be saved, Christ has laid out the only path to heaven.  We are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ given to us by the Holy Spirit.

The Flawed Messaging of Pro-Marriage and Pro-Life Groups
Why do pro-marriage groups tend to brand themselves as being against 'gay' marriage and pro traditional marriage? There is only one kind of marriage: marriage between a man and a woman. God set the standard, mankind cannot redefine it. You are either pro marriage or you are for redefining it, there is no middle ground where you should defend marriage on the basis of it being 'traditional'.

While pro-lifers tend to get more of their branding right, I certainly have plenty of problems with their messaging as well. For instance, occasionally you may see billboards that say something along the lines of, “My heart beat 30 days from conception.” I am guessing that the point that Pro-Lifers of America and other groups are trying to propose is that babies are in fact humans, so through the advertisement's messaging they are trying to humanize the babies. While I think that this is a somewhat decent idea and all, I think that it still misses the, uh, heart of the issue.

If we were to all accept that babies are alive once their heart starts beating, then what? If a person 'sheart stops for an instant, can they be killed in that instant? Or does the heart have to stop beating for longer than an instant? Can a person be killed if they have numerous heart palpitations in a day? Or does the line for killing a person begin 'legally' if that person is under cardiac arrest? Why set premises that give your opponent the means they need to murder children? If you say that murdering children is legal at any point beyond conception, then there will still be a vast number of abortions  (see that as murders of little children) that will take place in that 'murder legal' zone. And if for some reason you think that there will not be any doctors who would be willing to perform murders even if a child is only a few days from being delivered and there are pragmatic laws against said murders, then I have some children in Pennsylvania to show you. NO, WAIT, I cannot show you those children because those children happen to be DEAD.

Knowing that there are billions of people going to Hell should probably be the saddest thing in my life.  But, for whatever reason, a fair amount of the time, I tend to be the most saddened and angered by all of the abortions which take place in America and across the world.  I get extremely frustrated with the ticky-tack, go along to get along, pragmatic policies of the pro-lifers who, while they may save a few kids here and there, in general, those who want to murder children will find a way to keep the murder factories running and accept the human sacrifices before the pragmatic regulations would take effect anyways. In conceding that life beings at some point after conception, pro-lifers may as well be waving the white flag.
.
Pro-lifers need to have some sort of higher standard.  If everyone simply went basing their decisions on what science proves, then I've got some news for you, we would all be liable to be killed at any instant. Even when there is some sort of general consensus about an issue there will still almost always be plenty of dissenters who do not see that issue in that particular light. Science can prove nothing. Science can set no true lasting standard.  There is always more potential knowledge which could be learned that would put things into an entirely new perspective. Only lasting things get to set the lasting standards.  If only there would just be some sort of truly lasting thing, some sort of eternal deity that laid down the standards.  If only there would be some sort of eternal deity who would have happened  to step into history at some point and put into place the proper definitions of laws that humans should follow.  If only...