|
Andy_Cinema
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Andrew
Birthday: 4/10/1987
Gender: Male
Interests: Filmmaking, politics, just dabbling with theology nothing serious...Guns :)
Expertise: I tend to hang myself real well.
Occupation: Lincoln Logs
Industry: Construction.
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
5/29/2006
|
|
| As a conservative I'm constantly having to decide between wasting my vote and voting for principle, or choosing the lesser of two evils. I was one year to young to vote in the last election so I didn't have to make a choice. However this year I have to decide soon. I will probably end up voting for the Libertarian candidate for president (whether it's Ron Paul or ron paul lite, Bob Barr ;). In the past the question would have been for either the Republican candidate or the third party dude. But how can I vote for the Republican candidate this time around? Many conservatives are annoyed with McCain because concerning the economy Obama sounds more right wing! Not by much, but by some. The Republican party wants me to fear Obama and vote against him. I already don't like him and am planning on voting against him, but to ensure his not winning the White House they tell me to vote for the man with the surest chance of beating him... John McCain. This is why I won't be voting for John McCain over Obama. On substance there is very little difference between McCain and Obama. They both believe in government intervention in the economy. They both believe in global warming. I will not allow myself to be emotionally manipulated to vote for someone I "like". Because of his military record I'm supposed to like John McCain, but this man has built up his record his entire political career. I'm sick and tired of it. I don't believe in the leadership principle. If God wanted someone else to be making my life's decisions he wouldn't have given me a brain! And besides, this man wasn't a war hero... He got shot down, he flunked academics, and his entire political career has been marred by political opportunism. What are his qualifications for leading this country? The Republicans are already looking to lose House and Senate seats, McCain is looked upon already as the one Republican who can win. And why can he win? Because he's a liberal. If we conservatives help to elect this political whore, we will have sealed our political doom. The party already looks at us as hindrances, we limited government types, we faithbased voters. If the Republican party could only replace us with more moderate voters (culled from the Democrat party) then they will finally have rid themselves of that Goldwater-Reagan revolution. Back when Goldwater won the nomination in '64, Rockefeller, the loser, walked out on the convention. The moderate wing of the party walked out and we conservatives got crushed. Years later Reagan led a grassroots movement, it took him three tries to wrest the nomination from the likes of the Fords and Bushes. And even with his popularity he had to placate the moderate wing and give them a Bush as VP (who went on to win the White House due to Reagan's popularity, and lose it due to tax hikes...ie moderatism). The moderates finally gave us Bush II, a moderate with conservative appeal. We helped give them the win, now we are to purge ourselves and give our country John McCain as president? I can't do it. People are leaving the major parties in droves, the time for an alternative party is now. | | |
| One of my problems with the Republican leadership is that they seem to have two agendas. One of which they act upon, the other they promise. While there are a good many actual conservatives across the country, speaking on the radio, writing columns, teaching. There are very few in the political world.
Before Reagan was elected president, America was about to come to it's end. Literally, it had ceased being a free Republic in every sense of the word. It was very nearly a state run economy that was sputtering downward. Reagan came along, and while he didn't exactly move the conservative agenda down the road all that far, look at what he did do. He validated the idea of small government, he, or those who believed in his cause I should say, gave us a second chance. A little time had been bought...
There was a time when people could advocate the abolition of the income tax, now they are considered nuts. This scares me, and I'll explain why. The income tax was put in place because the government needed a steady source of a large amount of tax revenue. For what purpose? Well, the politicians of that era fell in love with the idea of social engineering. Of being able to take a little bit from everybody, and give to somebody. At first that somebody was a somebody who "arguably" needed it. A national project, a startup company, a public service. But as the old axiom states "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With this power to disburse money politicians have the means of disbursing "favors", which in time warrant payback from the recipient. A culture of corruption then begins to breed, it is inevitable as the sad condition of human existence warrants it.
Human beings can either sweat for what is theirs (Genesis 3:17-19) or steal from those who have (Genesis 6). Since stealing is easier the human condition is such that it will gravitate toward stealing, unless if law/justice exist making it harder to steal than to work.
Since the politician now has the power to grant favors to people who can grant him power/desires, the only law/justice that exists to punish him is the people. But people naturally crave a strong leader out of selfish impulses, one who can lead them through hard times. The politician must now only give just enough to the masses to placate them. However another axiom so immutable it might as well be an inscribed law of nature, is that a democracy will never last, because as soon as the people learn they possess the power of emtpying the coffers into their own pockets it will fail.
This game the politician plays with the money will only last until either the people with an unsatiable lust completely drain and spoil their own country... Or the people surrender enough freedoms unawares that the politician can impose restraints on them and say enough is enough. At which point the politician is no longer an elected representative of the people but a despot.
I repeat. A Despot.
Now why does this scare me? Alright, if the money that was being stolen from us was greater than the amount we are receiving back, then a man such as a Ron Paul/Huckabee promising tax reform would be on his way to the White House... However, if the majority of the people are receiving back more than they are giving, than they will encourage the policies to continue.
Now it's mathematically impossible to take 50 dollars from someone and give them back 100 dollars. Yet if this is what the people think is happening then it demonstrates that at least one of two things must be true.
1. The people are idiots and should be considered subhuman for not even understanding basic mathematics.
2. The more likely of the two, is that the government has found another way of increasing revenue.
Now since the American government cannot levy taxes on say Australia. This extra form of revenue must be in the form of either loans, or inflation (printed money/credit). Now the idea that we're borrowing money to support our habits is scary because as a third and biblical axiom states "The borrower is servant to the lender" (Proverbs 22:7). Inflation is even scarier, because it weakens the overall value of the dollar.
Now since inflation weakens the currency, why would it be practiced? Because if you print a large amount of money and give to a someone, that someone benefits at everyone else's expense. Inflation is practiced so that money can be given to banks to invest. Investment capitol is hard to come by, so this makes it easier for sectors of the economy to receive a steady flow of capitol enabling them to grow. The theory being that they will hire more people and contribute cheaper and better products to the economy, thus offsetting any losses due to inflation.
However it doesn't work as it breeds yet more corruption. Banks receiving money from the sky are more likely to engage in risky loan practices, resulting in housing market upheavals etc.
The effect of inflation on the people is to drive them into debt and weaken their economic independence. Instead of saving their money and being able to start up their own companies, they must borrow from those who are the recipients of inflation. Again not only is the borrower servant to the lender, but you should read the entire verse, it is very scary considering that Proverbs 22:7 states-
Proverbs 22:7 "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender."
Read that first part again. The rich ruleth over the poor. That is scary considering the practice of inflation. If you take 100 dollars and print up 100 more dollars giving you 200 dollars, you've just debased your 100 dollars by 50%. However, if you were to go out to buy a lawnmower worth one hundred dollars, you can still buy it, because while 100 of your dollars now only equal 50, you have 200 after all. So the fellow selling the lawnmower will sell it to you for 200 of your dollars. You could debase your dollars another 50% and end up with 300 dollars. This three hundred dollars will still buy you that 100 dollar lawn mower. Your individual dollars have lost worth, but all of them together are still equal to what you started out with.
Why is this scary? Rich is defined by your purchasing power, who has more purchasing now than when we started inflation? We the people now need two income households to support our lifestyle. And we're now further in debt. If inflation were to not hurt the people, then we would still only be sending father off to work, and saving money to partake of the American dream. Now we have to send poor mother off to work, are still in debt, and need to beg and plead at a government backed bank for money to start a business or go to school.
There are those benefitting from inflation and those hurt by it. Those benefitting by it are able to buy and add to their wealth and power, while those being hurt by it are continually indebted and are becoming indentured. The horrors of Fuedal Europe in the Middle Ages are about to wrought upon us, as a wealthy upper class is being created from the wealth of the people at large, at their expense.
This partly explains my support for Ron Paul, a large issue of consequence such as this, has been due to ignorance on the part of the people been relegated to a mere sideshow of the political scene. Those who sound the alarm to such dangerous policies are looked upon as nuts, malcontents.
I hope this helps you understand some of the thought behind the Ron Paul Revolution.
| | |
| Am I being too reactionary to leave the Republican party only because the Mac is Bac? They tell me to vote for the lesser of two evils... How is McCain the lesser of two evils? Conservatives need to wake up and smell the roses. The republicans are more than happy to run as conservatives, as long as the votes are there. However conservatism has been waning, at least true conservatism. If you point to Bush's two terms as victories of conservatism you're dead wrong, Bush combined traditional values with a faith in big government. That is not conservatism it is nationalism (which goes by other more sinister names...). Due to the state of education system we conservatives are in a battle against time. We have the entire culture to work against, children are daily indoctrinated in the public skrool system. People only learn to be conservative when they feel the government has unfairly taxed them. We are losing conservatives as they age and die off, their children are liberals. We are in one way very much like the Confederate army in the Civil War, in that we have a limited amount of men, and time is not on our side.
I'm not panicking, I know that God is in control of things... But if I'm to be politically active then I must attempt to preserve America as it once was. All I'm saying is to support people who actually believe in conservatism, even if they don't win they may reach minds and open hearts. Instead we're supporting these guys who don't believe, when the going gets rough they are more than ready to jump ship.
There was a day when conservatives used to honor individualism. When they spoke warmly of individual rights... When they realized that a Christian form of government must never replace the God we serve. When they knew that government can only do one of two things, be the destroyer of injustice, or the agent of injustice.
The republicans have sold out to a nationalized system of government. The Christian right has left their Saviour of old and have hitched their wagon to a secular beast. They believe that since they worship the beast, and love the beast it will return their affections...
Must this be the end. There was a day when a Ron Paul would have been a mainstream candidate. Now we have these clowns, since when is John McCain a respected man? There is nothing about him that commands respect! Oh, he wants to protect this nation from a third world country bordering Iraq. A third world country, with an elected ruler with a higher approval rating than our own dearly beloved leader. A third world country whose religious leaders send the head of the Catholic church Christmas letters every year... A third world country that has been promising it's people electricity for thirty years, and still hasn't been able to deliver, is about to nuke us.
Yes there are dangers in this world, but in another time we would have just gone about our business and trusted in the Lord. And by living in peace and as friend to all we were loved all around the world. But now, when our businesses fail we demand the government to bail us out. Do you honestly think that lobbyists don't buy politicians on a regular basis? Do you honestly think that these bought politicians won't hesitate to use the government's power to rub the backs of their backers? Do you honestly think that the US military hasn't been used to open up markets for our products, and hurt the native businessmen of a foriegn region? Do you honestly think that the people who hate us don't have grievances?
No, not all of our politicians are crooked, not all them believe in special interest groups... Why there was one I recall, but as I recall it seems the crowd wanted Barabbas. | | |
| Alright, by reading Benito's nice little essay you begin to understand that Fascism has very little to do with what it generally is associated with. We Christians always associate Fascism with atheism in control of the civil government, this is a stupid fallacy as worship of the state comes at the expense of the Creator. Fascism is a branch of "state theology". The Fascist believes that since the individual can be destroyed by a stronger entity, that the individual needs a stronger entity to protect him. Myself as a Christian that stronger entity is God, but someone without the trust in God must place it somewhere. The recipient of that trust must be government, so yes while Fascism holds an attraction for atheists it also attracts individuals without a strong practicing faith.
The Fascists believe that in order to protect the individual the state must be powerful enough to protect the people, and serves as a moat. The State exists in concert with private organizations and institutions, both propping each other up. While the Communists see the church as a distributor and breeder of inequity, the Fascist sees the church as either complementing or opposing the state. If it complements the State, advances the state's agenda and tends to it's needs, then the church is met with protection and subsidies. Hence Bush's faith initiatives I look very unfavorably upon, as they only seeks to extend state control over the church by providing the church with life. This life comes in the form of money, however the church must now acknowledge the state at the expense of the True Giver of Life and that is Jesus the Christ. Also the church must now live up to certain societal guidelines...
The Fascists see the government as a moat, protecting all that is good within a society. Hence a One man one woman marriage amendment is Fascist. Don't give me that look, I know what you're thinking....
You're thinking to yourself that we supporting this amendment are all Christians and have linked our arms together to oppose something truly evil. So if what we're doing is good, and Fascism is evil, how can we be wrong? Get it through your skull that Fascism is not the embodiment of all that is evil!!! It is a theory concerning the practice of law, law being the government. In an atheist society Fascism will look different from Fascism in a religious society. They will both use the state to protect what they deem to be in society's best interest. However what they think is good for society will differ from society to society.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. By giving the state the power to oversee and protect the institution of marriage you've just placed the state over marriage. How so? Since the state is necessary for the protection of marriage it must be superior to it, if it is the arbiter in manners relating to marriage it has now received the authority to oversee an individual union of two people and judge it's usefulness to society. The state will not look at a marriage and consider if it is a union of two heterosexual's and use that as the guideline for whether or not the union satisfies it's societal responsibilities. It will look and see if the heterosexual couple are doing all in their power to make sure the State's objectives for society are being met.
What are those objectives? Well, equally critical to society's functioning is an educated people. For homeschoolers the implications of a marriage amendment are damnable, the state will now be able to legally consider the parent's actions concerning the education of their children, and measure it against a State view of education. We all know what happened in California recently.
You laugh at me and say "Not so Brother Andrew! For we will control who is elected, and who will enforce the laws, so just stand with us and make the movement stronger!" You fools, you can't get an education without a loan from someone you don't know. You can't start a business without money from a government backed bank. You have a gun, whoopty doo da! It's either a shotgun, 30. caliber pop gun or the occasional 30.06'. This is utterly laughable! Aside from my neighbor I don't anyone who could hit a moving target with their personal firearm exceeding some pathetically low range of yards. You think you're going to control the government of over 300 hundred million people when you can't even control one of it's many political parties? HA!
You don't have independence in any area of your life, the only thing you can do to the government is give it your consent. Without independence you surely can not oppose it.
Yes Bush is a Fascist, and so are you. The majority in this country are enamoured with big government, the theories concerning the operation of big government can be boiled down into two basic differences, Fascism and Communism. If you wish government to step in and punish private institutions and organizations for their trespasses concerning the people, well then you are a Communist (a soft commie perhaps, but a commie nonetheless). If you wish the State to complement and nourish institutions deemed necessary for the health and continuation of society as we know it, then you are a Fascist (a soft fascist perhaps, but a fascist nonetheless).
I believe in freedom for myself, and will fight for others who desire it. I believe my freedom to be a complete and whole act of dependance on my Saviour Christ the Lord, as it demonstrates a willingness to step away from the cares and false promises of the world, and into the arms of my Creator.
Sic Temper Tyrranus!
For God and Family. The State can go to hell. | | |
| Again, I consider Bush to be a Fascist, as well as many other Republicans. I consider Most of the Democrats to be Communists. I dislike both forms of governmental theory considering them to be equally statist, but I do recognize differences. Being a recovering former Republican this is meant to be read by Republicans, therefore any criticism of liberals will be most noticeably absent from this article/thesis/delusional rambling.
Also I am not implying that Bush and other Republicans are evil on a level of a Hitler or Himmler. Communists have proven to be as blood thirsty and harmful to mankind as Fascism, while America with her government's blessing has committed a genocide on the unborn. I am merely saying that when the government is used to control society in any way but one, disastrous results abound. And that there are various differences in statist philosophy. But if I were to call many in the conservative to be advocating kleptocracy you would have no idea what I talking about. Fascist is merely the lowest common denominator I can think of if I am to divide into two schools of thought statism.
Okay before we continue please reread Benito Mussolini's definition of Fascism. If you have a hard time understanding sentence "1. Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence."
The Fascists have very few differences with Communism as they both worship the state. But as they are always at each other's throats there must be a difference in state theology. Sometimes the Christians who fight the most among themselves are the ones who are most alike, a Protestant can sit down with a Catholic and enjoy lunch quite easily. But how about a Southern Baptist and a Fundamentalist Baptist (I'm not a Baptist so I'm just guessing there is such a thing as a Fundamentalist Baptist)?
The Communists believe in a war that has existed throughout time immemorial between the ruling class and the downtrodden. The Communists seek to use rebellion to overthrow the ruling class, and then the government to equalize the condition of everyone, both materially and spiritually. Over time the government will be made useless after it has fulfilled its purpose of destroying and weeding out every institution of man that creates inequity among man. They believe that this inequity causes all of man to commit crime and acts of mayhem so with these institutions gone mankind will exist in a state of utopia.
The Fascist however doesn't believe in this class warfare creed. The Fascist loves and enjoys life, he wishes to use the state to enhance the life of all. To strengthen freedom (well the Fascist's idea of freedom at least) as something concrete, if it cannot be felt it is not freedom. The Fascist believes religion to be irrelevant to society, but can be used to control or influence society. I don't give a nickel in a gold mine worth of care to Bush's profession of faith, Hitler had the same profession. No, Hitler was not a Christian, but to say that Christians did not fall for him is to be extremely and purposely naive.
The Fascist believes that the individual can be destroyed and harmed, therefore the state is necessary to protect and nourish the individual. Thus a weird symbiotic relationship is bred between a large omnipresent state and a somewhat private economy. The Fascists under Hitler in Germany sought to control the flow of subsidies and investments, but allowed private ownership of products. The Republicans unfortunately have too much of a resemblance to Fascists, in that they wish to lower taxes and deregulate, not for the purpose of private enterprise but to encourage greater productivity. They still desire the State's control over subsidies and investments. There can be no true economic freedom in this country until we reassert our right to save our money and start up our own companies and organizations. But every day that the government taxes and the Fed inflates, every day your wealth and buying power is sapped away. In some sectors of the economy the only way to start up a company is to borrow every penny of it. And that old Biblical principle applies that the "Borrower is servant to the Lender."
Now before I move on and continue my Bush=Fascist screed, you must understand something. I am not harboring a conspiracy theory. I have an ideological difference with the man, I do not distrust everything that comes out of his mouth... I DISAGREE with everything the man says. I don't believe he is the devil incarnate and is intentionally trying to mislead me. I believe that he is sincere in his beliefs, but as I disagree with the face value of his statements how can I support him?
One of the reasons I've been hesitant in going into greater depths on how I think government is to perform its functions, and what those functions are, is because you'll say "Oh but why don't you support Bush? He's working toward the same thing." I'm sorry his intentions have nothing to do with it. The consequences of his actions do on the other hand. | | |
|
