Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, summarized all people into two broad categories: the oppressed and the oppressor. For this reason, he offered his communist ideology to the world to end profit maximization and the exploitation of the poor. Since this time, those who hold to his philosophy, whether by name or ideology, have ignorantly classified capitalism as an economic policy of greed and exploitation. Capitalism, they presume, must encourage the "oppressed vs. oppressor" and "slave vs. slave master" world, because it is in capitalism that greedy men who only want profits abuse the honest individuals. In the 1980's, many capitalists began taking this as a compliment. Capitalism is about greed, they confessed, but this greed is a good thing. Without greed, they suggested, economies cannot grow and flourish.
Although certain elements of the "greed is good" philosophy are true and do help a society prosper economically, greed is not really what capitalism is all about. Sure, the "greedy" man, who desires to maximize profit, will hire the most labor, make the riskiest yet smartest investments, acquire the most capital, etc. And, from the positive side of this "greed," without this entrepreneur doing these things, he would not have the revenue to hire his workers (even if they are of cheap labor) or give the good workers raises. Nonetheless, it is the greedy men who ultimately fail in a capitalist economy.
In order to have real economic growth, investments must be made. This, of course, means investments of all kinds - not simply the rigid definition of investing in the stock market, gold, etc., although these investments are included. College students invest their time and money into college with the hopes of earning a good job after completing their higher education. Entrepreneurs invest in land, labor, and capital with the hopes that it will provide them with more revenue than costs, thus leading to profit maximization. Ideally, citizens invest a small portion (again, ideally) of their income to the government so that their rights will be better protected than if they were left to fend for themselves in anarchy. Everyday, investments of all varieties are made. There are two types of investments: efficient investments and inefficient investments.
The wise and diligent man makes efficient investments. He studies the economy, knows his abilities and inabilities, plants his seed, and follows through. The inefficient investor does not. He may make investments which are unwise, or, he may fail to make investments that he should make. Either scenario is fueled by his greed. On the one hand, he assumes that any investment he makes will be profitable simply because his name is on it. On the other hand, he is too lazy to make investments. His greed suffocates him and he then believes he can beat the economy without playing by the rules. The greedy man may be one who wants so much profit that he continually invests and is given nothing to show for it. He may avoid what he sees as hard-work in being employed by another already-existing entrepreneur and ignorantly open a business doomed to fail. Another greedy man may choose not to invest in labor and provide jobs. His greed, which tells him he can do all the tasks on his own, will soon fail him. The diligent men and women who make efficient investments provide jobs, invest in research and development, and, at the end of the day, only stay in business because they provide a good or service the world needs. These successes come from the diligent people - not those fueled only by greed.
A common mistake a lot of students of economics make is to see wealth as simply a piece of pie. Wealth and the world's recourses are limited and scarce - this is a fundamental truth to economics - but it is not as if one man's success comes at the expense of someone else. All this means is that the successful man has more efficiently dealt with the scarce recourses the world has, which in turn, raises the standard of living for everybody. The only reason the successful man is successful is because he gives a good or service at an affordable price to plenty of people. In his success, he may also give to the poor and needy through a charity or church, higher more workers to work for him, and place his money back into the market by his desire for goods and services. Therefore, capitalism can be as communal of an economic system as it is an individualist one, and it is energized not by greed, but by knowing the needs and desires of fellow men and women.
What do you think?
God bless America
August 2, 2010
Ryan Hampton
Showing posts with label social issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social issues. Show all posts
Monday, August 2, 2010
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Case Closed: Experts tell us Obama's Citezenship is no Longer a Debate
With the heated debate over Obama's citezenship weighing heavy in the media recently, political experts have come to investigate whether or not the One is a true American and our rightful President. Although we should never lose faith in the One, it is important to be fair and give insightful responses to the complaints and arguments of those who deny the Hope offered now to all Americans. So, what did the experts conclude?
"We have yet to make a complete conclusion of Obama's native home," said Nancy Gore, President of HIYLO (Honk If You Love Obama), "but we have found that irrelevent right now." That sounded a big strong of a statement. What about our Constitution, or our American values? She was questioned further and continued. "You see, Obama offers hope not to just Americans but the entire world. He is a citizen to a world, not just America. As long as he was born on this earth, then the case is closed."
However some argue the case may not be as closed as it seems. Ted Kerry, who is also on the Obama's Citezenship committe and author of "Learning to Give Full Praise to Obama in the Midst of a Recession," said "I am not sure that Obama is even of this earth." Perhaps that is why we cannot find his birth records. "Still," said Kerry, "Even if he is not of this earth, we may should just have faith in Him as the Emperor of the world."
"What about our Constitution, and the rules for office of President" someone from our panel asked Hillary Edwards. Edwards responded "The Constitution did have its place and we mustn't forget that. However Obama has come to fulfil the Constitution and we mustn't forget that either. The Old Way, the Constitution, paved the way for the One, Barack Obama Who has come to set the weak and vulnerable free."
So whether or not his birth cirtificate says "United States of America" or not, we concluded, it doesn't really matter. The case is clOsed.
"We have yet to make a complete conclusion of Obama's native home," said Nancy Gore, President of HIYLO (Honk If You Love Obama), "but we have found that irrelevent right now." That sounded a big strong of a statement. What about our Constitution, or our American values? She was questioned further and continued. "You see, Obama offers hope not to just Americans but the entire world. He is a citizen to a world, not just America. As long as he was born on this earth, then the case is closed."
However some argue the case may not be as closed as it seems. Ted Kerry, who is also on the Obama's Citezenship committe and author of "Learning to Give Full Praise to Obama in the Midst of a Recession," said "I am not sure that Obama is even of this earth." Perhaps that is why we cannot find his birth records. "Still," said Kerry, "Even if he is not of this earth, we may should just have faith in Him as the Emperor of the world."
"What about our Constitution, and the rules for office of President" someone from our panel asked Hillary Edwards. Edwards responded "The Constitution did have its place and we mustn't forget that. However Obama has come to fulfil the Constitution and we mustn't forget that either. The Old Way, the Constitution, paved the way for the One, Barack Obama Who has come to set the weak and vulnerable free."
So whether or not his birth cirtificate says "United States of America" or not, we concluded, it doesn't really matter. The case is clOsed.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The War on Religion
The War On Religion
By Ron Paul
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
December 30, 2003
By Ron Paul
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
December 30, 2003
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Verses: Courtship vs. Dating
Courtship vs. Dating
One debate that is growing in today’s American society is that of courtship vs. dating. How do two young people of the opposite sex pair off and eventually become one flesh in the covenant of marriage? Is dating the way this happens? Or is courtship the more appropriate way? Or perhaps is there a mysterious third alternative that has yet to be named?
I personally believe that the debate between courtship and dating is overrated by both parties. Those who reject the idea of courtship as silly, outdated, or too romantic for today’s time are often ignorant of the many dangerous associated with the way many people date today. However advocates of courtship who call dating “ungodly” or “unbiblical” often replace wisdom with rules – rules that are often times not found in Scripture in the first place.
The Bible is not a handbook on how to get married. Although we can use creative logic and principles found in Scripture to give us certain ideas of what the “falling in love” process should look like, it is never appropriate to make such legalistic rules as if Scripture demands them. Many who advocate courtship complain that while one person is dating, they may be dating several people at one time. These same people complain when two people get committed to each other so quickly. These people are often unable to understand all of their rules. How are we going to expect hormonal teenagers to understand them?
I do believe the way many people date today causes problems. I am not advocating we keep the world’s standards of dating, and that any attempt to revise the system is foolish. Many of the ideas that courtship offers are good ideas and should be taken into account. But what some people would call courtship, others may only call a wise form of dating. And some radical people who push for courtship push for what is close to arranged marriages, which is not Biblical either.
What are the differences in dating and courting? Essentially the goal of dating is to get a girlfriend, whereas the goal of courting is to get a wife. Courting usually promotes more family involvement. But other than this, the general idea of courting is not that much different than the idea of dating. It is foolish dating and fundamentalist courting that has its differences, and both are dangerous.
So what are the problems in today’s world of paring off a man and a maiden? I believe we push dating too early and marriage too late. Think about it: boys and girls reach the age of sexual maturity (or you could say sexual immaturity) at about age twelve. Now days, it is not uncommon for two twelve or thirteen year-olds to start “going out.” And somehow we expect them to not get married until their late twenties. So we have about fifteen years for boys and girls to date each other, all while their hormones are most rampant. This is no safe way to expect abstinence. On top of this, we have more divorces. Some people push for late dating and late marriages. This too has its problems in that children fail to grow up the way they used to. Beyond this, keeping older children who want to date from dating may cause rebellion. Pushing for early dating and early marriages would work, except we must then take the responsibility of maturing much quicker than we are now in today’s society.
I do not believe one should date, court, or whatever else you may call it, until marriage is at least in sight. Some fundamentalists believe that no one should date until one is completely ready for marriage. I believe this is too tall of an order. But I do believe marriage should at least be in the seeable future. One should not date someone without at least considering the possibility of marrying them. Recreational, directionless dating only goes south.
I also believe that it is wise to not simply do things alone. I am not against being alone on a date if you are mature enough to, but going in groups is important for various reasons as well. I believe the families should know who their children as well. Family relations is one thing that destroys relationships. I have seen family relations tear down one relationship, and both parties wound up getting hurt.
The problem is not, I do not believe, whether we date or court. It is that we are not preparing people for marriage. Conventional wisdom tells us that people should not think about marriage until their twenties. But I believe marriage should be on people’s minds from a very early age. We should be preparing ourselves to be emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, physically, etc. ready for marriage. Men should know how to treat women (with respect), and women should know how to treat men (by not always clinging to them for attention). This way we will be more prepared to date (or court), and beyond that, to marry.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
December 14, 2008
Ryan Hampton
One debate that is growing in today’s American society is that of courtship vs. dating. How do two young people of the opposite sex pair off and eventually become one flesh in the covenant of marriage? Is dating the way this happens? Or is courtship the more appropriate way? Or perhaps is there a mysterious third alternative that has yet to be named?
I personally believe that the debate between courtship and dating is overrated by both parties. Those who reject the idea of courtship as silly, outdated, or too romantic for today’s time are often ignorant of the many dangerous associated with the way many people date today. However advocates of courtship who call dating “ungodly” or “unbiblical” often replace wisdom with rules – rules that are often times not found in Scripture in the first place.
The Bible is not a handbook on how to get married. Although we can use creative logic and principles found in Scripture to give us certain ideas of what the “falling in love” process should look like, it is never appropriate to make such legalistic rules as if Scripture demands them. Many who advocate courtship complain that while one person is dating, they may be dating several people at one time. These same people complain when two people get committed to each other so quickly. These people are often unable to understand all of their rules. How are we going to expect hormonal teenagers to understand them?
I do believe the way many people date today causes problems. I am not advocating we keep the world’s standards of dating, and that any attempt to revise the system is foolish. Many of the ideas that courtship offers are good ideas and should be taken into account. But what some people would call courtship, others may only call a wise form of dating. And some radical people who push for courtship push for what is close to arranged marriages, which is not Biblical either.
What are the differences in dating and courting? Essentially the goal of dating is to get a girlfriend, whereas the goal of courting is to get a wife. Courting usually promotes more family involvement. But other than this, the general idea of courting is not that much different than the idea of dating. It is foolish dating and fundamentalist courting that has its differences, and both are dangerous.
So what are the problems in today’s world of paring off a man and a maiden? I believe we push dating too early and marriage too late. Think about it: boys and girls reach the age of sexual maturity (or you could say sexual immaturity) at about age twelve. Now days, it is not uncommon for two twelve or thirteen year-olds to start “going out.” And somehow we expect them to not get married until their late twenties. So we have about fifteen years for boys and girls to date each other, all while their hormones are most rampant. This is no safe way to expect abstinence. On top of this, we have more divorces. Some people push for late dating and late marriages. This too has its problems in that children fail to grow up the way they used to. Beyond this, keeping older children who want to date from dating may cause rebellion. Pushing for early dating and early marriages would work, except we must then take the responsibility of maturing much quicker than we are now in today’s society.
I do not believe one should date, court, or whatever else you may call it, until marriage is at least in sight. Some fundamentalists believe that no one should date until one is completely ready for marriage. I believe this is too tall of an order. But I do believe marriage should at least be in the seeable future. One should not date someone without at least considering the possibility of marrying them. Recreational, directionless dating only goes south.
I also believe that it is wise to not simply do things alone. I am not against being alone on a date if you are mature enough to, but going in groups is important for various reasons as well. I believe the families should know who their children as well. Family relations is one thing that destroys relationships. I have seen family relations tear down one relationship, and both parties wound up getting hurt.
The problem is not, I do not believe, whether we date or court. It is that we are not preparing people for marriage. Conventional wisdom tells us that people should not think about marriage until their twenties. But I believe marriage should be on people’s minds from a very early age. We should be preparing ourselves to be emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, physically, etc. ready for marriage. Men should know how to treat women (with respect), and women should know how to treat men (by not always clinging to them for attention). This way we will be more prepared to date (or court), and beyond that, to marry.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
December 14, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Final Thoughts Before the Election
**Please do not discard this as simply another one of Ryan Hampton’s boring political notes. Though it may be political, and at times boring, I believe I can bring up some points that will be helpful for you and I to consider heading into the election this Tuesday. And although I am pessimistic towards the choices we have for President this year, I do offer some sort of optimism in this nasty political season. I ask that if you have time, to read this open-mindedly, and give me your thoughts (I know many of you do not have much time, but any thought is greatly appreciated : ))**
Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.
There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.
First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”
Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.
A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?
Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.
I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).
Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.
I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.
Please consider what I have said here.
Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:
Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html
John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0
Chuck Baldwin for President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek
What do you think?
God bless America
No King but King Jesus
Pray for our Troops
November 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.
There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.
First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”
Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.
A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?
Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.
I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).
Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.
I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.
Please consider what I have said here.
Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:
Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html
John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0
Chuck Baldwin for President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek
What do you think?
God bless America
No King but King Jesus
Pray for our Troops
November 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton Endorses...
With just a little over a month until the general election, I have figured it is time for me, Ryan Hampton, to throw out my official endorsement for our next President to all of my millions (*cough*choke*gag*) of readers. Some of you who have read much of what I have said lately probably have a good idea of who it would be. Some of you probably have a good idea of who it would be because you know that I, Ryan Hampton, am no liberal, much less a socialist like Barack Obama. And so you naturally figure that I would endorse John McCain.
But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.
I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.
Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.
Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.
Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.
I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.
I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.
Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton
But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.
I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.
Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.
Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.
Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.
I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.
I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.
Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, September 5, 2008
Lessos From the Olympics
The Olympics have recently been wrapped up in Beijing, the Communist Capital of the world, and I must say that America did really great. America earned the most medals of all countries, and was only second to China is most golds. Michael Phelps added to the summer of super-heroes by becoming, to steal Ray Melicks word, "aqua-man," Nastia Luckin and Shawn Johnson took gold-silver in the women's gymnastic all-around, Dara Torres was one of the fastest women swimmers, and certainly the fastest 41 year-old, American beach volleyball took gold in both men's and women's, and as expected, America took gold in men's and women's basketball. That's not to mention plenty of other sports where America took home medals as well.
I believe that our olympians represented themselves and their nation well. Outside of being close with China, America dominated the competition and did so with class and sportsmanship.
And it makes me wonder - what if our leaders viewed their jobs the same way as our olympians viewed their jobs. What if John McCain and Barack Obama took the Constitution as seriously as Michael Phelps took the techniques of swimming, or Nastia Lucan took the routines of gymnastics. We can only wonder. Maybe I would vote for one of them in that case.
Kerri Walsh and Misty May don't take an oath with their hand on the Bible to win gold. But they do it anyway. Michael Phelps did not swear on national telivision to win gold in all of his competition. But he did anyway. Those who are elected President take an Oath of Office with their hand on the Bible to simply do their best to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic. But it seems so often that they are the enemy of the Constitution themselves.
I can only wonder, what if our leaders cared as much about their jobs as most of us care about ours, where we'd be today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
August 25 , 2008
Ryan Hampton
I believe that our olympians represented themselves and their nation well. Outside of being close with China, America dominated the competition and did so with class and sportsmanship.
And it makes me wonder - what if our leaders viewed their jobs the same way as our olympians viewed their jobs. What if John McCain and Barack Obama took the Constitution as seriously as Michael Phelps took the techniques of swimming, or Nastia Lucan took the routines of gymnastics. We can only wonder. Maybe I would vote for one of them in that case.
Kerri Walsh and Misty May don't take an oath with their hand on the Bible to win gold. But they do it anyway. Michael Phelps did not swear on national telivision to win gold in all of his competition. But he did anyway. Those who are elected President take an Oath of Office with their hand on the Bible to simply do their best to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against enemies foreign and domestic. But it seems so often that they are the enemy of the Constitution themselves.
I can only wonder, what if our leaders cared as much about their jobs as most of us care about ours, where we'd be today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
August 25 , 2008
Ryan Hampton
Some Inconvenient Questions
Some Inconvient Questions
September 5th 2008 (finished just past mid-night)
Ryan Hampton
After hearing much about global warming (we were supposed to read a book about it over the summer for Samford), I think it is time to shed some logical light on the issue. Now this is not going to be a whole bunch of propaganda telling you about how there is definetely no such thing as global warming. I am not going to give you much direct evidence about how our temperature changes are definetely cyclical, or about how I can show there is not temperature or climate change after all. I may hint at some of that evidence, but my main purpose in this post is actually to ask plenty of questions that any proponent of government intervention because of their belief of global warming or climate change has been left unanswered.
What do I mean? Well consider what many global warming finatics tell us. They tell us that the earth is definetely warming (or they may use the term “climate change” on cold days). They tell us it is our fault. They tell us that it is a problem. They tell us that since we caused this problem, then we must be able to fix it over time. But since we are not going to individually take the sacrafice, the government must force the issue upon us by law, and eventually this should turn into a global effort – still, most likely, by force.
Here is the way I look at: the burdon of proof falls upon the one’s making these claims. The idea of a global government controlling the environment comes only after all of the other things have been proven. That is a lot to prove! I mean think about it. Do we have full proof that the earth is really warming up a whole lot? Now I’m sure it has been some. Most people say that. But c’mon. I’ve heard that we just came out of the “little ice age” in the 1800’s. So perhaps we are just recovering from that and it’s all good. Perhaps it is cyclical. Perhaps we are warming a little but is it necessarily a bad thing? Maybe not. Maybe it is even a good thing. Maybe we get more flowers, more sunshine, more green grass (ironically that is what we are supposed to move toward anyway). Maybe it is a problem, but maybe not. Again the burdon of proof is on those who believe that it is a problem because they are advocating doing something about it. And if they do prove that, there are still more questions to answer.
Are humans involved. Sure, we drive SUV’s. Sure, every now and then we accidently set off a wildfire. I’m trying to think what else we may do. Mow our lawns using gasoline. But do these things contribute to global warming? Really? Does mowing my lawn really make the earth hotter? Or even driving the gas-guzzling 1993 Ford Explorer? Where is the proof from those who bear its burden? I have heard that everyone driving cars for about fifteen years does not even put out as much heat into the atmosphere as one single volcano that we can not control. So is it really our fault? If the models that are used to show how the earth’s temperature has risen over-time are correct, we must also admit that the earth’s temperature is cyclical. If the graphs are incorrect, then perhaps people five-hundred years ago were “suffering” from the same heat that we are today.
And you know something? I would wager to say that we are more energy efficient and environmentally beneficial with our recources than we used to be. The “environmental” Native Americans would burn down a whole forest to get some wood or some land. A whole forest when they only needed a little bit of it. Do you know how they would kill just one buffalo? Run a whole herd off of a cliff. They’d kill them all when they only needed one! These actions today would be considered wrong as they should be. The Indians knew no better and had little of the machinery (oh the evil machinery!) to be more energy efficient. We do. So not to sound like a hyper-libertarian, but the free market will work better than government intervention. That goes for a safer environment as well as the economy. We are constantly coming up with better ways to do things because we as humans demand it. There is a scarcity in the world, so we by nature know we must have things that best deal with that scarcity. The free market will probably overtime push SUV’s out of the market because we come up with better solutions for carrying a large family somewhere – more enery efficient and economical ways. And yes we may even by the power of the businessman (oh that evil greedy businessman!) get something other than gasoline to power our automobiles – without government intervention.
And even if we have been causing global warming, could it be that perhaps our actions level off somewhere – where we don’t just keep on and keep on getting warmer? I find it very hard to believe that we will just die in the next fifty years because we got too hot. I believe in God and I don’t think He’d let that happen to His earth. Even if your atheist, you probably believe that the earth has been here for billions of years anyway. So are you just going to all of a sudden think that the earth is warming due to non-cyclical reasons and unless we do something, the earth is going to die? This happened all of a sudden and evolutionists are supposedly uniformists!
But let us assume even yet that the earth is warming, it is a problem, humans are causing it, and it appears that we in and of ourselves are making no progress to fix our problem. This is the beginning – and only the beginning – of an argument for government intervention. If we are not fixing the problem, will the government help? Will the rewards be worth the sacrafices? What about the things we give up? What if we gave the government so much power to control business and our personal decisions that we fell under some sort of tyranny? What if we fell back into the life of the 1700’s? As romantic as it is to think of those times, I am glad for the improvements we have made. Instead of dying from a blizzard riding on the back of a horse to go see an old friend, we drive cars and write e-mails, etc., and then complain of the heat or the price of gasoline! What if we took away all the things that make our life the blessed life it is now, and returned to living in a life where turning 50 was a big deal, and where an out-of-state travel may have taken a couple of weeks if not your life?
Furthermore, even if we realized that government intervention is the right thing to do, we must ask what the proper precedure should be. We should go about this in a Constitutional way – probably an ammendment passed in the way that the Constitution prescribes. And the last thing we need is a global government to get involved. The last time I checked, I am an American, not a globalist. The last time I checked, we can individually take action by picking up after ourselves, not being careless with our recources, etc. I have nothing wrong with personal action to keep the world a better place. But making a wager that we as humans are controlling the weather and the government must get involved because of it, takes much proof to many questions. And so far I see more questions than proof.
My verdict is this: until I see more evidence, the idea of global warming is still up in the air (no pun intended).
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 5th 2008
Ryan Hampton
September 5th 2008 (finished just past mid-night)
Ryan Hampton
After hearing much about global warming (we were supposed to read a book about it over the summer for Samford), I think it is time to shed some logical light on the issue. Now this is not going to be a whole bunch of propaganda telling you about how there is definetely no such thing as global warming. I am not going to give you much direct evidence about how our temperature changes are definetely cyclical, or about how I can show there is not temperature or climate change after all. I may hint at some of that evidence, but my main purpose in this post is actually to ask plenty of questions that any proponent of government intervention because of their belief of global warming or climate change has been left unanswered.
What do I mean? Well consider what many global warming finatics tell us. They tell us that the earth is definetely warming (or they may use the term “climate change” on cold days). They tell us it is our fault. They tell us that it is a problem. They tell us that since we caused this problem, then we must be able to fix it over time. But since we are not going to individually take the sacrafice, the government must force the issue upon us by law, and eventually this should turn into a global effort – still, most likely, by force.
Here is the way I look at: the burdon of proof falls upon the one’s making these claims. The idea of a global government controlling the environment comes only after all of the other things have been proven. That is a lot to prove! I mean think about it. Do we have full proof that the earth is really warming up a whole lot? Now I’m sure it has been some. Most people say that. But c’mon. I’ve heard that we just came out of the “little ice age” in the 1800’s. So perhaps we are just recovering from that and it’s all good. Perhaps it is cyclical. Perhaps we are warming a little but is it necessarily a bad thing? Maybe not. Maybe it is even a good thing. Maybe we get more flowers, more sunshine, more green grass (ironically that is what we are supposed to move toward anyway). Maybe it is a problem, but maybe not. Again the burdon of proof is on those who believe that it is a problem because they are advocating doing something about it. And if they do prove that, there are still more questions to answer.
Are humans involved. Sure, we drive SUV’s. Sure, every now and then we accidently set off a wildfire. I’m trying to think what else we may do. Mow our lawns using gasoline. But do these things contribute to global warming? Really? Does mowing my lawn really make the earth hotter? Or even driving the gas-guzzling 1993 Ford Explorer? Where is the proof from those who bear its burden? I have heard that everyone driving cars for about fifteen years does not even put out as much heat into the atmosphere as one single volcano that we can not control. So is it really our fault? If the models that are used to show how the earth’s temperature has risen over-time are correct, we must also admit that the earth’s temperature is cyclical. If the graphs are incorrect, then perhaps people five-hundred years ago were “suffering” from the same heat that we are today.
And you know something? I would wager to say that we are more energy efficient and environmentally beneficial with our recources than we used to be. The “environmental” Native Americans would burn down a whole forest to get some wood or some land. A whole forest when they only needed a little bit of it. Do you know how they would kill just one buffalo? Run a whole herd off of a cliff. They’d kill them all when they only needed one! These actions today would be considered wrong as they should be. The Indians knew no better and had little of the machinery (oh the evil machinery!) to be more energy efficient. We do. So not to sound like a hyper-libertarian, but the free market will work better than government intervention. That goes for a safer environment as well as the economy. We are constantly coming up with better ways to do things because we as humans demand it. There is a scarcity in the world, so we by nature know we must have things that best deal with that scarcity. The free market will probably overtime push SUV’s out of the market because we come up with better solutions for carrying a large family somewhere – more enery efficient and economical ways. And yes we may even by the power of the businessman (oh that evil greedy businessman!) get something other than gasoline to power our automobiles – without government intervention.
And even if we have been causing global warming, could it be that perhaps our actions level off somewhere – where we don’t just keep on and keep on getting warmer? I find it very hard to believe that we will just die in the next fifty years because we got too hot. I believe in God and I don’t think He’d let that happen to His earth. Even if your atheist, you probably believe that the earth has been here for billions of years anyway. So are you just going to all of a sudden think that the earth is warming due to non-cyclical reasons and unless we do something, the earth is going to die? This happened all of a sudden and evolutionists are supposedly uniformists!
But let us assume even yet that the earth is warming, it is a problem, humans are causing it, and it appears that we in and of ourselves are making no progress to fix our problem. This is the beginning – and only the beginning – of an argument for government intervention. If we are not fixing the problem, will the government help? Will the rewards be worth the sacrafices? What about the things we give up? What if we gave the government so much power to control business and our personal decisions that we fell under some sort of tyranny? What if we fell back into the life of the 1700’s? As romantic as it is to think of those times, I am glad for the improvements we have made. Instead of dying from a blizzard riding on the back of a horse to go see an old friend, we drive cars and write e-mails, etc., and then complain of the heat or the price of gasoline! What if we took away all the things that make our life the blessed life it is now, and returned to living in a life where turning 50 was a big deal, and where an out-of-state travel may have taken a couple of weeks if not your life?
Furthermore, even if we realized that government intervention is the right thing to do, we must ask what the proper precedure should be. We should go about this in a Constitutional way – probably an ammendment passed in the way that the Constitution prescribes. And the last thing we need is a global government to get involved. The last time I checked, I am an American, not a globalist. The last time I checked, we can individually take action by picking up after ourselves, not being careless with our recources, etc. I have nothing wrong with personal action to keep the world a better place. But making a wager that we as humans are controlling the weather and the government must get involved because of it, takes much proof to many questions. And so far I see more questions than proof.
My verdict is this: until I see more evidence, the idea of global warming is still up in the air (no pun intended).
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 5th 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Politics of Racism
The Politics of Racism
This will probably a long in-depth blog and might bore you. But I do believe that if you have patience and try to follow this, then it should (hopefully!) be thought provoking, interesting, and possibly even worth your time.
Clifton Gardner did a similar piece on this (1) in which takes up much less of your time to read. I will try to expound upon Clifton's points, and go into deeper detail.
His point was that liberalism is actually filled with much more racism than conservatism, and that, conservatism at its truest is actually not racist at all, despite what the liberals and the media tell you about how conservatives are passionless, authoritarian, rich, white, idiots from the South.
But I will go into deeper points, discussing what worldview and religion have to do with this, and I will be fair. I will give criticism to conservatives when they need it, and I will not bash every liberal in this world as a racist. I will only blame the liberals worthy of being held a racist as a racist, and the rest; I will simply try to inform politely.
But let me explain my politics, which I consider to be more or less conservative, although I may not fit in exactly with every so-called conservative today. It begins with my Christian worldview.
I believe that God created this world and all that is in it. That includes me; that includes you. I can only trust Him for my life, and give thanks ultimately to Him for the blessings upon this life of liberty and property He has given to me. I believe that I, like all other people (except Jesus), am a sinner who deserves Hell, and can only be saved by the blood of Christ. In the New Covenant, this salvation is open to those of all races, both to men and women, from all cultures, ways of life, etc., and can be received simply through faith in Christ. The theology of predestination might could be argued (that is, God predestines His people from before all worlds, so salvation is in God's Hand), but even yet, since we would not know who the elect were, we must assume as if this salvation is offered to all, and must preach the Gospel to everyone as if they can receive it. Obviously, this is not racist.
Now to some, this Christian worldview supposedly leads to the conservative politics of forcing Christianity, hating those who may not believe exactly as they do, etc. But that is not where it leads me or many other Bible-believing conservatives. Here is where it leads me:
God created everyone, and He created him or her equally.
God created everyone good, but each man has responsibility for his sinful nature, and must call upon God to have it forgiven.
God gave us certain Rights under His Law. The core Rights He gave us are the Rights to life, liberty, and property.
The way each individual exercises these Rights is between him and God. He must make his decisions and take responsibility for his actions before God.
But we have a little problem: men being sinners, will want to naturally use force against others to achieve their ends, something they do not have the Right to do under God's Law. Taking the life of someone is murder. Taking their liberty is slavery. And finally, taking their property is theft. All of these things (murder, slavery, and theft) can be used to achieve one's ends at the expense of others. But God works in very subtle ways, and is not going to strike someone down the moment they kill someone. Before the Flood, God pretty much let it go. But when it got out of hand, God sent a flood to destroy the evil of the world. Afterwards, He promised not to destroy the world again like that, so He gave man the authority to set up government for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).
Therefore governments purpose is to secure everyone, of all races, their Rights to life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of their own happiness.
But we have a catch 22. Government is comprised of sinful men. Sinful men usurp one's Rights. Therefore there must be limits on government. In America, we have a Constitution that limits the Central government to their authorities. We have checks and balances. Also, as written in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow bad government (certainly as the Declaration says it is wise to suffer under sufferable, for no government is perfect, but there are times to overthrow a bad government). Not all governments do or should limit themselves in the exact way, but a limited government is important so that the government protects our Rights, and does not usurp them.
To sum all of this up, let's look at the Declaration of Independence itself:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Now within this Christian worldview that establishes this basic form of government, there are some questions that still linger and are harder to answer. What about war? Immigration? What about social issues, as today we have the homosexual marriage debates, debates over drug laws, abortion, etc.?
With war, we are killing people, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that destroy life and property, and we are sometimes withholding the liberty of our soldiers. Yet at the same time, it is the duty of the government to protect us at home, and sometimes war becomes the only rational way. Therefore, "war as a last resort" is generally the battle cry for foreign policy. Putting that in perspective in today's world is very hard to do.
Immigration is hard because we should want to offer liberty (although ultimately liberty comes only from God – 2 Corinthians 3: 17) to everyone. We certainly do not want to take it away from those who seek it – even foreigners. But at the same time we must be willing to guard our borders from any enemy we may have. If we have no border, we essentially have no nation or government, and that goes against the Christian worldview.
Social issues are hard as well. Homosexual marriage does not directly take away my life, liberty, or property, but it by no means is apart of the conservative Christian morals that come from the Christian faith, and this relativism can sometimes be enough to destroy a nation. (Abortion would be different, because it involves taking life, which should definitely be protected by government and law.)
And all of the civil rights battles, the civil war, and all of the other political turmoil that has gone on, particularly in the conservative South, does lead some in their right minds to assume that the South or that conservatives our racist. I had one person from Connecticut say that her Aunt, or someone or another told her that a lot of people in the South are racists. And although I find it a bit of a smudge on the South, and very untrue, to someone who does not understand the complicated issues and has had a one-sided education on the "Civil War," it may seem like a fair statement.
And while certainly I am no liberal on the issues I listed above (war, immigration, homosexual marriage), I do think it is possible that some conservatives are a bit too hard-nosed the other way. I would not consider it racist that they support the war, want real tough immigration laws, and are morally and legally against homosexual marriage, but perhaps some conservatives do border a small amount of bigotry, or if not, perhaps it can easily be seen that way to someone who grew up hearing liberal propaganda.
So I have been fair. I have, to the degree that I can without falling over dead, put myself in the shoes of a liberal, and seen how some conservatives may could border or appear to border being bullies, or being bigots of some sort. But now it is time to look at the liberal point of view, and show its racism. And I will begin with none other than an atheistic worldview.
How do liberalism and atheism go together? Liberals are all for giving, right? And isn't that what Christianity is largely about? Helping the poor, providing equality for everyone, etc.? And how would racism fit into this?
I am not going to say that all liberals are racist, or that all liberals are atheists, or even all atheists are racist, or any other combination of the three there is. But the platform of modern liberalism is very atheistic, and very racist in its essence. How so?
Well imagine that there is no God (atheism). We are all here by the chance of predestined molecules that arranged in the way they did to form us. There is no real standard of good and evil, we must make it for ourselves. Furthermore, Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" becomes supreme, where if one group of species can survive over another by force, then so be it. And if that worked for different kinds of fish, then it could work (though no one would admit it), for humans today, where one race can claim superiority over another. Consider what Darwin had to say: "Whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." (2).
And with no God, we have no destiny, nothing to live for other than today, etc. We live for ourselves; for today; that's it.
So what is the purpose of government, if it is not to punish wrongdoers as Paul spoke of in some of his writings? In an atheistic worldview, there is either no government (because there is no real "sin"), or there is an all-powerful government, because it is now the government's job to become god. This sounds like modern liberalism: moral relativism, yet the government controls wages and measures equality, and, to put radically, teaches racial superiority. Abortion is kind of the climax of it, because it teaches both moral relativism, and it teaches that the government can strip an unborn child of its Right to life. It teaches that we can by force take away the unwanted children of the world.
And government programs that liberals ask for fits right in with this atheistic racism. Equal opportunity becomes equal wages, or at least that's what it seems. It's not the government's job to control wages. Our property is between God and us. The government, at the very least, stands as the middleman between God and us in the world of modern liberalism. Think about it: liberals call conservatives racists, when it are the liberals themselves asking to distribute wealth by force from one group of people to another based on race and/or social status. That is the real racism!
Government control of education, as offered by the liberals, is atheistic, and in a sense, racist. It puts all of man into on common basket for the government to control. It strips poorer children the opportunity to receive better education because they are stuck in the bad sides of town with bad school zones. So much for the cultural diversity that liberals are supposedly for. So much for the freedom to choose our religion that liberals are supposedly for. We are stuck being taught what the government wants us to be taught – whether it is politics, religion, etc.
Modern liberalism took hold in the mid nineteenth century, mostly in the North. Interestingly enough, they were called Republicans. Northern intellectuals were the one's who founded government schools. Darwin, someone of the middle of this century, brought evolution to a whole new perspective. Even Abraham Lincoln, America's "hero" and the one who supposedly saved the blacks, was swept into the idea of racial superiority. Consider his words:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (3)
Strong words for the man who "united" America. Of course, Lincoln was also the person who waged the bloodiest war in American history.
This Republican Party stayed strong in the North until the Democrats in the South lost touch with reality and taught the things this new liberalism began to teach. Republicanism began to change into what it is today: a moderate change from oppressive liberalism. The ideas of liberalism then spread to people such as Karl Marx among others who took the ideas into a more radical approach. These liberal extremist ideas were coined with terms such as "communism," "socialism" and "fascism," although even many Republicans today are fascists. It becomes easier to see how atheism and communism fit together, but modern liberalism is really not far from communism or socialism. Consider the song "Imagine" by John Lennon:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
It's easy to see the atheism in this, but Lennon was a communist as well, a strong supporter of Karl Marx. And the idea of the world being one is the same utopian propaganda we hear from modern liberalism. The idea that the government can take away hunger and greed is part of modern liberal propaganda. John Lennon would not be far from modern liberalism.
To be fair, I understand that many liberals are simply misguided by the attractive propaganda taught by modern liberal leaders. It sounds good to think that the government can solve our problems; it sounds nice and fair that we'd all make the same amount of money; and it seems to be only descent not to judge homosexuals, people who put drugs in their body, etc. (And for the record, I have not judged any of these people in this blog or even mentioned government control in the matter anyway, simply that I do disagree with their choices by a real moral standard). And it's easy for me being brought up a white Southerner to be conservative, as I'm sure it is easy for someone of the Northeast to be liberal. For some, liberalism teaches we're all one, so we must all live as one, which would include wages, etc. Even some who borrow from atheism only do so thinking it makes us one and equal, not realizing that atheism teaches more racism than Christianity which is offered to all groups and races of people. I think this is the reason for much tension in liberalism. Liberalism teaches some sort of racial superiority that the government can control; yet it teaches some sort of moral relativism in which you can be whoever you want to be. And atheism is the cornerstone to both of these ideas. So it makes me wonder, inasmuch as liberals justify homosexuality, a woman's "right" to choose, "equal opportunity" for minorities, if liberals really have a hypocritical motivation, being to destroy these things. Perhaps conservatives are the better friends to the homosexual, minorities, and a struggling soon-to-be mother, because they offer a true and real alternative that is much better than a hypocritical liberal answer.
These issues are confusing, and can sometimes be taken both ways, so I understand some liberals are simply mistaken and misguided (as are some conservatives on tough issues as well). But I have done a great deal to show that liberalism is founded much in atheism, which can in the long run be the most racist worldview there is. The politics I believe in, however, based on my Christian worldview, is by no means racist. I look at people as people, not classes or groups; majorities and minorities; whites and blacks; etc. People are people created in the image of God – from conception, I believe – with unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and property, or perhaps more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. You can call this conservative, libertarian, Constitutional, or for all I care, liberal. There was a time when these beliefs were considered liberal or Democratic (but if you called me one of those, please put "classical" before it). But I am unable to stand on the platform of modern liberalism because it goes against who I am, my core beliefs, etc. I am forced to believe in small government, free markets, and a meaningful Constitution, none of which are racist.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless you
Pray for our Troops
August 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Works Cited:
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=20692146491&subj=518112463&index=1
(2) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
(3) http://home.att.net/~howingtons/abe.html
More suggested articles:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/justice
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
This will probably a long in-depth blog and might bore you. But I do believe that if you have patience and try to follow this, then it should (hopefully!) be thought provoking, interesting, and possibly even worth your time.
Clifton Gardner did a similar piece on this (1) in which takes up much less of your time to read. I will try to expound upon Clifton's points, and go into deeper detail.
His point was that liberalism is actually filled with much more racism than conservatism, and that, conservatism at its truest is actually not racist at all, despite what the liberals and the media tell you about how conservatives are passionless, authoritarian, rich, white, idiots from the South.
But I will go into deeper points, discussing what worldview and religion have to do with this, and I will be fair. I will give criticism to conservatives when they need it, and I will not bash every liberal in this world as a racist. I will only blame the liberals worthy of being held a racist as a racist, and the rest; I will simply try to inform politely.
But let me explain my politics, which I consider to be more or less conservative, although I may not fit in exactly with every so-called conservative today. It begins with my Christian worldview.
I believe that God created this world and all that is in it. That includes me; that includes you. I can only trust Him for my life, and give thanks ultimately to Him for the blessings upon this life of liberty and property He has given to me. I believe that I, like all other people (except Jesus), am a sinner who deserves Hell, and can only be saved by the blood of Christ. In the New Covenant, this salvation is open to those of all races, both to men and women, from all cultures, ways of life, etc., and can be received simply through faith in Christ. The theology of predestination might could be argued (that is, God predestines His people from before all worlds, so salvation is in God's Hand), but even yet, since we would not know who the elect were, we must assume as if this salvation is offered to all, and must preach the Gospel to everyone as if they can receive it. Obviously, this is not racist.
Now to some, this Christian worldview supposedly leads to the conservative politics of forcing Christianity, hating those who may not believe exactly as they do, etc. But that is not where it leads me or many other Bible-believing conservatives. Here is where it leads me:
God created everyone, and He created him or her equally.
God created everyone good, but each man has responsibility for his sinful nature, and must call upon God to have it forgiven.
God gave us certain Rights under His Law. The core Rights He gave us are the Rights to life, liberty, and property.
The way each individual exercises these Rights is between him and God. He must make his decisions and take responsibility for his actions before God.
But we have a little problem: men being sinners, will want to naturally use force against others to achieve their ends, something they do not have the Right to do under God's Law. Taking the life of someone is murder. Taking their liberty is slavery. And finally, taking their property is theft. All of these things (murder, slavery, and theft) can be used to achieve one's ends at the expense of others. But God works in very subtle ways, and is not going to strike someone down the moment they kill someone. Before the Flood, God pretty much let it go. But when it got out of hand, God sent a flood to destroy the evil of the world. Afterwards, He promised not to destroy the world again like that, so He gave man the authority to set up government for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers (Rom. 13:4).
Therefore governments purpose is to secure everyone, of all races, their Rights to life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of their own happiness.
But we have a catch 22. Government is comprised of sinful men. Sinful men usurp one's Rights. Therefore there must be limits on government. In America, we have a Constitution that limits the Central government to their authorities. We have checks and balances. Also, as written in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Right and Duty of the people to overthrow bad government (certainly as the Declaration says it is wise to suffer under sufferable, for no government is perfect, but there are times to overthrow a bad government). Not all governments do or should limit themselves in the exact way, but a limited government is important so that the government protects our Rights, and does not usurp them.
To sum all of this up, let's look at the Declaration of Independence itself:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Now within this Christian worldview that establishes this basic form of government, there are some questions that still linger and are harder to answer. What about war? Immigration? What about social issues, as today we have the homosexual marriage debates, debates over drug laws, abortion, etc.?
With war, we are killing people, blowing things up, doing all sorts of things that destroy life and property, and we are sometimes withholding the liberty of our soldiers. Yet at the same time, it is the duty of the government to protect us at home, and sometimes war becomes the only rational way. Therefore, "war as a last resort" is generally the battle cry for foreign policy. Putting that in perspective in today's world is very hard to do.
Immigration is hard because we should want to offer liberty (although ultimately liberty comes only from God – 2 Corinthians 3: 17) to everyone. We certainly do not want to take it away from those who seek it – even foreigners. But at the same time we must be willing to guard our borders from any enemy we may have. If we have no border, we essentially have no nation or government, and that goes against the Christian worldview.
Social issues are hard as well. Homosexual marriage does not directly take away my life, liberty, or property, but it by no means is apart of the conservative Christian morals that come from the Christian faith, and this relativism can sometimes be enough to destroy a nation. (Abortion would be different, because it involves taking life, which should definitely be protected by government and law.)
And all of the civil rights battles, the civil war, and all of the other political turmoil that has gone on, particularly in the conservative South, does lead some in their right minds to assume that the South or that conservatives our racist. I had one person from Connecticut say that her Aunt, or someone or another told her that a lot of people in the South are racists. And although I find it a bit of a smudge on the South, and very untrue, to someone who does not understand the complicated issues and has had a one-sided education on the "Civil War," it may seem like a fair statement.
And while certainly I am no liberal on the issues I listed above (war, immigration, homosexual marriage), I do think it is possible that some conservatives are a bit too hard-nosed the other way. I would not consider it racist that they support the war, want real tough immigration laws, and are morally and legally against homosexual marriage, but perhaps some conservatives do border a small amount of bigotry, or if not, perhaps it can easily be seen that way to someone who grew up hearing liberal propaganda.
So I have been fair. I have, to the degree that I can without falling over dead, put myself in the shoes of a liberal, and seen how some conservatives may could border or appear to border being bullies, or being bigots of some sort. But now it is time to look at the liberal point of view, and show its racism. And I will begin with none other than an atheistic worldview.
How do liberalism and atheism go together? Liberals are all for giving, right? And isn't that what Christianity is largely about? Helping the poor, providing equality for everyone, etc.? And how would racism fit into this?
I am not going to say that all liberals are racist, or that all liberals are atheists, or even all atheists are racist, or any other combination of the three there is. But the platform of modern liberalism is very atheistic, and very racist in its essence. How so?
Well imagine that there is no God (atheism). We are all here by the chance of predestined molecules that arranged in the way they did to form us. There is no real standard of good and evil, we must make it for ourselves. Furthermore, Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" becomes supreme, where if one group of species can survive over another by force, then so be it. And if that worked for different kinds of fish, then it could work (though no one would admit it), for humans today, where one race can claim superiority over another. Consider what Darwin had to say: "Whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours, and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." (2).
And with no God, we have no destiny, nothing to live for other than today, etc. We live for ourselves; for today; that's it.
So what is the purpose of government, if it is not to punish wrongdoers as Paul spoke of in some of his writings? In an atheistic worldview, there is either no government (because there is no real "sin"), or there is an all-powerful government, because it is now the government's job to become god. This sounds like modern liberalism: moral relativism, yet the government controls wages and measures equality, and, to put radically, teaches racial superiority. Abortion is kind of the climax of it, because it teaches both moral relativism, and it teaches that the government can strip an unborn child of its Right to life. It teaches that we can by force take away the unwanted children of the world.
And government programs that liberals ask for fits right in with this atheistic racism. Equal opportunity becomes equal wages, or at least that's what it seems. It's not the government's job to control wages. Our property is between God and us. The government, at the very least, stands as the middleman between God and us in the world of modern liberalism. Think about it: liberals call conservatives racists, when it are the liberals themselves asking to distribute wealth by force from one group of people to another based on race and/or social status. That is the real racism!
Government control of education, as offered by the liberals, is atheistic, and in a sense, racist. It puts all of man into on common basket for the government to control. It strips poorer children the opportunity to receive better education because they are stuck in the bad sides of town with bad school zones. So much for the cultural diversity that liberals are supposedly for. So much for the freedom to choose our religion that liberals are supposedly for. We are stuck being taught what the government wants us to be taught – whether it is politics, religion, etc.
Modern liberalism took hold in the mid nineteenth century, mostly in the North. Interestingly enough, they were called Republicans. Northern intellectuals were the one's who founded government schools. Darwin, someone of the middle of this century, brought evolution to a whole new perspective. Even Abraham Lincoln, America's "hero" and the one who supposedly saved the blacks, was swept into the idea of racial superiority. Consider his words:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (3)
Strong words for the man who "united" America. Of course, Lincoln was also the person who waged the bloodiest war in American history.
This Republican Party stayed strong in the North until the Democrats in the South lost touch with reality and taught the things this new liberalism began to teach. Republicanism began to change into what it is today: a moderate change from oppressive liberalism. The ideas of liberalism then spread to people such as Karl Marx among others who took the ideas into a more radical approach. These liberal extremist ideas were coined with terms such as "communism," "socialism" and "fascism," although even many Republicans today are fascists. It becomes easier to see how atheism and communism fit together, but modern liberalism is really not far from communism or socialism. Consider the song "Imagine" by John Lennon:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
It's easy to see the atheism in this, but Lennon was a communist as well, a strong supporter of Karl Marx. And the idea of the world being one is the same utopian propaganda we hear from modern liberalism. The idea that the government can take away hunger and greed is part of modern liberal propaganda. John Lennon would not be far from modern liberalism.
To be fair, I understand that many liberals are simply misguided by the attractive propaganda taught by modern liberal leaders. It sounds good to think that the government can solve our problems; it sounds nice and fair that we'd all make the same amount of money; and it seems to be only descent not to judge homosexuals, people who put drugs in their body, etc. (And for the record, I have not judged any of these people in this blog or even mentioned government control in the matter anyway, simply that I do disagree with their choices by a real moral standard). And it's easy for me being brought up a white Southerner to be conservative, as I'm sure it is easy for someone of the Northeast to be liberal. For some, liberalism teaches we're all one, so we must all live as one, which would include wages, etc. Even some who borrow from atheism only do so thinking it makes us one and equal, not realizing that atheism teaches more racism than Christianity which is offered to all groups and races of people. I think this is the reason for much tension in liberalism. Liberalism teaches some sort of racial superiority that the government can control; yet it teaches some sort of moral relativism in which you can be whoever you want to be. And atheism is the cornerstone to both of these ideas. So it makes me wonder, inasmuch as liberals justify homosexuality, a woman's "right" to choose, "equal opportunity" for minorities, if liberals really have a hypocritical motivation, being to destroy these things. Perhaps conservatives are the better friends to the homosexual, minorities, and a struggling soon-to-be mother, because they offer a true and real alternative that is much better than a hypocritical liberal answer.
These issues are confusing, and can sometimes be taken both ways, so I understand some liberals are simply mistaken and misguided (as are some conservatives on tough issues as well). But I have done a great deal to show that liberalism is founded much in atheism, which can in the long run be the most racist worldview there is. The politics I believe in, however, based on my Christian worldview, is by no means racist. I look at people as people, not classes or groups; majorities and minorities; whites and blacks; etc. People are people created in the image of God – from conception, I believe – with unalienable Rights to life, liberty, and property, or perhaps more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. You can call this conservative, libertarian, Constitutional, or for all I care, liberal. There was a time when these beliefs were considered liberal or Democratic (but if you called me one of those, please put "classical" before it). But I am unable to stand on the platform of modern liberalism because it goes against who I am, my core beliefs, etc. I am forced to believe in small government, free markets, and a meaningful Constitution, none of which are racist.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless you
Pray for our Troops
August 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Works Cited:
(1) http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=20692146491&subj=518112463&index=1
(2) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_07.html
(3) http://home.att.net/~howingtons/abe.html
More suggested articles:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/cleveland/docs/justice
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
Friday, July 4, 2008
Independence Day
I think it is good to occasionally sit back and think about our many blessings we have as people and as American's. And Independence Day, the Fourth of July, is the fitting time to do so. So that we do not fall or fade away as a nation, we must take the time to remember both those fighting for us now, and those who have fought for us before.
It may be cliche' to write this and to talk about our Troops, but yet it is necesary. Our men and women - some of whom are my age - are out fighting for us, or preparing to fight for us. Fighting so that we can debate who should be our President, whether or not we need more or less or the same taxes, debate the roles if any the Federal Government should play in the economy, and debate our presence in the Middle East in the first place. Those are great things that should be debated, but sometimes we should put those aside for our love of our nation. Whether you are for this war, against it, or just unsure what to think like myself, you can still join others in a love for America, and a support for those who are fighting.
But I don't want to only think of those overseas in the present. Many have gone before them in previous wars. Many men died fighting to become an independent nation just less than two and a half centuries ago. July 4th is the birthday of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Each one who signed that document pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for their nation. And even in our great success as we are today, so often both us as regular citizens, and our leaders forget about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. We forget about those who founded this nation as a City upon a hill. Think of the unity and togetherness our early leaders had, even in a time that should be much more splitting than today. Breaking off from another nation is nothing small. Yet the American's joined together then to claim their independence, and so may we this Independence Day come together and reclaim ours.
So while you are celebrating with your families today, eating watermelon, swimming, or whatever you are doing, take a time to thank God for the brave men and women of the past and the present who have fought and perhaps even gave up their lives for this nation. May we be ever greatful.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
July 4, 2008
Ryan Hampton
It may be cliche' to write this and to talk about our Troops, but yet it is necesary. Our men and women - some of whom are my age - are out fighting for us, or preparing to fight for us. Fighting so that we can debate who should be our President, whether or not we need more or less or the same taxes, debate the roles if any the Federal Government should play in the economy, and debate our presence in the Middle East in the first place. Those are great things that should be debated, but sometimes we should put those aside for our love of our nation. Whether you are for this war, against it, or just unsure what to think like myself, you can still join others in a love for America, and a support for those who are fighting.
But I don't want to only think of those overseas in the present. Many have gone before them in previous wars. Many men died fighting to become an independent nation just less than two and a half centuries ago. July 4th is the birthday of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Each one who signed that document pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for their nation. And even in our great success as we are today, so often both us as regular citizens, and our leaders forget about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. We forget about those who founded this nation as a City upon a hill. Think of the unity and togetherness our early leaders had, even in a time that should be much more splitting than today. Breaking off from another nation is nothing small. Yet the American's joined together then to claim their independence, and so may we this Independence Day come together and reclaim ours.
So while you are celebrating with your families today, eating watermelon, swimming, or whatever you are doing, take a time to thank God for the brave men and women of the past and the present who have fought and perhaps even gave up their lives for this nation. May we be ever greatful.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
July 4, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Hypocricy of Feminism
Not too long ago I posted a blog entitled "The Other Side of Feminism" in which I argued that we shouldn't blame just women for feminism. Feminism often comes from men failing to be men. You would have to read my blog to understand my full points, but I think that the blog did well to show others at fault for the dangerous movement as modern feminism.
But that doesn't mean I justify all women feminist leaders either. There is a great amount of hypocricy in their ideology. So often women fight for the "right to chose" to have an abortion, and fight for equal pay in the workplace (something that should be handled by the free market), but so often utterly ignore the disrespect that many men, or boys, give them.
I have been reading "How To Ruin the United States of America" by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth. In it they make a good point. The writers argue, "It amazes us that the women's-rights lobby is too busy fighting for abotion and for allowing multimillionare females into country clubs to notice that the most popular form of music among youth today routinely refers to all women as 'hos' and 'b*t*hes.' Don Imus can't get away with this - why is it tolerated in the rest of the radio dial?"
Not to defend the comments made by Don Imus, but if the media would have left it alone then they would be much more harmless than the songs "Low" or "Stronger." If Don Imus should have been mandatorily fired, then perhaps half the rap songs should be banned from the radio.
This is kind of an inverse of my previous blog on feminism. The other one showed the fault men had to play in feminism. This one, you could argue, shows women's fault in not just feminism itself, but for the lack of respect they get. If they want respect then actually attack real disrespect, and don't become so disrespectful as to fight for the "right," or so it is called, to abort a baby or fight for money you did not earn. Stand up for yourself where it matters, practice what you preach, and if you want to dominate the workfield, then all the more power to you to do so on your own initiative without the government's help. If you want respect, then make yourself respectable. Don't tolerate being treated as a sex object, and don't place yourself in a position where you probably would be treated as one.
If your going to be a feminist, then do so without being a hypocrite about it.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
June 30, 2008
Ryan Hampton
But that doesn't mean I justify all women feminist leaders either. There is a great amount of hypocricy in their ideology. So often women fight for the "right to chose" to have an abortion, and fight for equal pay in the workplace (something that should be handled by the free market), but so often utterly ignore the disrespect that many men, or boys, give them.
I have been reading "How To Ruin the United States of America" by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth. In it they make a good point. The writers argue, "It amazes us that the women's-rights lobby is too busy fighting for abotion and for allowing multimillionare females into country clubs to notice that the most popular form of music among youth today routinely refers to all women as 'hos' and 'b*t*hes.' Don Imus can't get away with this - why is it tolerated in the rest of the radio dial?"
Not to defend the comments made by Don Imus, but if the media would have left it alone then they would be much more harmless than the songs "Low" or "Stronger." If Don Imus should have been mandatorily fired, then perhaps half the rap songs should be banned from the radio.
This is kind of an inverse of my previous blog on feminism. The other one showed the fault men had to play in feminism. This one, you could argue, shows women's fault in not just feminism itself, but for the lack of respect they get. If they want respect then actually attack real disrespect, and don't become so disrespectful as to fight for the "right," or so it is called, to abort a baby or fight for money you did not earn. Stand up for yourself where it matters, practice what you preach, and if you want to dominate the workfield, then all the more power to you to do so on your own initiative without the government's help. If you want respect, then make yourself respectable. Don't tolerate being treated as a sex object, and don't place yourself in a position where you probably would be treated as one.
If your going to be a feminist, then do so without being a hypocrite about it.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
June 30, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Immigration
One of the most heated topics of debate in today's political arena is that of immigration. Someone is talking about how we should secure the border better, and some politician is making an empty promise about a border fence, simply to speak to the "heart" of the American.
And yet out of all the things I have found time to write about, I have not written much about immigration. So, I want this to be a blog where I post my views on immigration.
One reason I have not written much of it is because the issue is really complicated. I have a theoretical mind, and theories only go so far in the case of immigration. It's similar to the War in Iraq, in which I can have principled ideas on the matter, but it is just too hard to hold to one definite opinion. But I will speak of the libertarian and conservative viewpoints on immigration. Since we can't ever figure out what liberals believe, I'll leave their contradicting viewpoints to the side for most of this blog.
The general libertarian point of view on immigration is very loose and lenient to immigrants. Have a very open border - don't be authoritarian about your controls. Why assume any and every immigrant is a terrorist or criminal? Why not assume them as good until they prove otherwise, as is generally done for the born & bread Americans?
In some ways I see their points, but I do not hold completely to this libertarian principle. The libertarian idea of personal liberty, which I strongly believe in, is here, but I do believe a government should protect its people and their Rights. One of the chief ways to do this is to have a secure border, and have some sort of knowledge of who is coming into the country from abroad. Before starting wars, before "fixing" the economy, the government should have some sort of security on our borders.
However I do not completely hold the mainstream conservative point of view either. Although I do want some sort of security on the border, I get the idea that some conservatives take the issue too far. Most immigrants come here for a better lifestyle. They do not ruin the economy, but actually provide it with more competition, which is better for the economy. History has shown that nations despising immigrants do not last, and nations that are welcome to immigration and diverse culture have the most success and the greatest legacy.
Conservatives wouldn't admit it, but I believe that often they believe that loving America means having negative even racial feelings toward immigrants. Immigration is how we came here, and it is how the blacks came here a little while after.
I do want immigrants to respect our country and her laws. I certainly want them to abide by the laws, and if they do not, then they should be prosecuted like the rest of us. I want them to pay taxes. I would rather see them learn English well than for the rest of us to have to learn Spanish. But some things should be out of the government's hand. I understand that Mexicans who come here may still have some sort of Mexican pride. As long as they do not pledge loyalty to Mexico while living as an American citizen, I do not think it is the government's business or even my business if they own a Mexican flag, any more than it is the government's business that I own a Confederate flag. Sometimes conservatives take the issue a bit too far. While I am all for some sort of control on immigration, it may be better for the control to be smaller and the paper work easier, so that that way we would know who wants to come here and not pay the taxes, and who is willing to pay the taxes.
So the bottom line to my "principled" approach would be that we should treat immigrants as American citizens, once they become citizens. We should make sure they abide by our laws, pay the appropriate taxes, and make sure in time of war they do not pledge loyalty elsewhere. In many ways, this side of the immigration battle is not being fought by our leaders who become so compassionate as to give out extra money for immigrants, on top of many who do not pay taxes. However at the same time, we should be loving, respectable, and honorable to them. We should grant any good-hearted immigrant citizenship, and not judge them by their skin. We should not scare them away with a big border fence or by putting too many people on the border (not to mentions spending a lot of money). We should not control their wages as if they hurt the economy, when in reality, the provide great help to a struggling economy. They should be treated as humans and Americans, nothing more, nothing less.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
And yet out of all the things I have found time to write about, I have not written much about immigration. So, I want this to be a blog where I post my views on immigration.
One reason I have not written much of it is because the issue is really complicated. I have a theoretical mind, and theories only go so far in the case of immigration. It's similar to the War in Iraq, in which I can have principled ideas on the matter, but it is just too hard to hold to one definite opinion. But I will speak of the libertarian and conservative viewpoints on immigration. Since we can't ever figure out what liberals believe, I'll leave their contradicting viewpoints to the side for most of this blog.
The general libertarian point of view on immigration is very loose and lenient to immigrants. Have a very open border - don't be authoritarian about your controls. Why assume any and every immigrant is a terrorist or criminal? Why not assume them as good until they prove otherwise, as is generally done for the born & bread Americans?
In some ways I see their points, but I do not hold completely to this libertarian principle. The libertarian idea of personal liberty, which I strongly believe in, is here, but I do believe a government should protect its people and their Rights. One of the chief ways to do this is to have a secure border, and have some sort of knowledge of who is coming into the country from abroad. Before starting wars, before "fixing" the economy, the government should have some sort of security on our borders.
However I do not completely hold the mainstream conservative point of view either. Although I do want some sort of security on the border, I get the idea that some conservatives take the issue too far. Most immigrants come here for a better lifestyle. They do not ruin the economy, but actually provide it with more competition, which is better for the economy. History has shown that nations despising immigrants do not last, and nations that are welcome to immigration and diverse culture have the most success and the greatest legacy.
Conservatives wouldn't admit it, but I believe that often they believe that loving America means having negative even racial feelings toward immigrants. Immigration is how we came here, and it is how the blacks came here a little while after.
I do want immigrants to respect our country and her laws. I certainly want them to abide by the laws, and if they do not, then they should be prosecuted like the rest of us. I want them to pay taxes. I would rather see them learn English well than for the rest of us to have to learn Spanish. But some things should be out of the government's hand. I understand that Mexicans who come here may still have some sort of Mexican pride. As long as they do not pledge loyalty to Mexico while living as an American citizen, I do not think it is the government's business or even my business if they own a Mexican flag, any more than it is the government's business that I own a Confederate flag. Sometimes conservatives take the issue a bit too far. While I am all for some sort of control on immigration, it may be better for the control to be smaller and the paper work easier, so that that way we would know who wants to come here and not pay the taxes, and who is willing to pay the taxes.
So the bottom line to my "principled" approach would be that we should treat immigrants as American citizens, once they become citizens. We should make sure they abide by our laws, pay the appropriate taxes, and make sure in time of war they do not pledge loyalty elsewhere. In many ways, this side of the immigration battle is not being fought by our leaders who become so compassionate as to give out extra money for immigrants, on top of many who do not pay taxes. However at the same time, we should be loving, respectable, and honorable to them. We should grant any good-hearted immigrant citizenship, and not judge them by their skin. We should not scare them away with a big border fence or by putting too many people on the border (not to mentions spending a lot of money). We should not control their wages as if they hurt the economy, when in reality, the provide great help to a struggling economy. They should be treated as humans and Americans, nothing more, nothing less.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, April 18, 2008
Do American's Exploit Foreigners Through Labor?
The following is a paper I wrote for economics class this year.
Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”
Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.
The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.
It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.
People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.
Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.
Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.
The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.
Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.
Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.
So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.
Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.
In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.
Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.
However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Basic Economics
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Question # 7
Do American companies exploit foreign workers buy paying lower wages to them than what they pay in the U.S.? Should the U.S. Federal Government pass legislation on this “exploitation?”
Many people today believe that American businessmen are evil. They want nothing more than a profit. They could not care less about moral virtues or “fair” trade. For an example, many people criticize Wal-Mart’s success because they “underpay” their employees, and take away the small businessman’s opportunity to succeed. Many people complain to the oil companies for “price gauging” the consumers. Along with all of this, many people complain at any typical American company for their policy on hiring any foreign work.
The arguments for all of these complaints come from little understanding of economics. People want minimum wage to help the poor, when in reality, it exploits the poor from work. People want regulations on foreign trade and work to help people at home, to help the home nation’s wealth, and to “protect” over-seas workers. Often, the reversal of their goals is met. The people at home and abroad are exploited because of government regulations. Government regulations simply do not work.
It is true that foreign workers generally work for less pay than workers at home do. Many Mexicans who come to the United States get jobs that pay much less than the average American is willing to work for. Some people complain that our businessmen are hurting the foreign workers by not paying them enough. Some people complain that businessmen are hurting American’s because the foreign worker takes away the American job. However neither argument would hold up in an economic courtroom.
People easily look at the negative side of things when it comes to free market economics, and look to the positive side of things in a government regulated economy. It is natural, because the “seen” effects are noticed first, and often, the seen effect go to support a government regulated economy. But we must look at the whole picture – all groups of people, for a long amount of time, not just one group of people for a short amount of time. Consider no laws on trade – no laws saying that a businessman must pay his foreign employees the same as he pays his native employees. Sure, the foreign workers may get some of the jobs that the American’s lost. Sure, they may not make as much money at first. But American businesses can expand more rapidly by hiring people for less money – creating more jobs in the long run. Meanwhile, the foreign workers can gain job experience and find another job that pays more money.
Yet despite the common sense of economics, many in today’s political arena fail to see it that way. CNN News anchor Lou Dobbs believes in this “exporting” of jobs, and says it is a result of “corporate greed.” But is the government going to put a law against this “greed?” If the government gets to outlaw greed, then they get to decide what greed is. Often times the government calls something greed that really isn’t greed, such as simply wanting to make a profit to support a family. All this does is further invite the government into your home.
Exporting jobs also does good things for the consumer. It saves them money! If a company gets cheap labor, they have more freedom to charge lower prices for a product to knock other companies out of business, or force them to drive their prices lower. Think of who benefits: the business benefit by buying cheaper labor; the consumers benefit in buying cheaper products; and the workers benefit by getting a job. The American workers will benefit in the long run as well, by paying less for products, and finding a job at an expanded company who “exported” the jobs overseas.
The problem with much flawed economic thought comes from the fact that people look to the seen effects and utterly ignore the unseen effects, that are just as real. They look at the glass half-empty. There are no side effects to any economic plan, for the good or bad. Fact-twisting politicians spoon-feed gullible Americans into believing lies.
Without government intervention, foreign workers still get paid a market wage. It could be that their market wage for a particular job is lower than that in America, but that does not make it immoral or illegal to higher them. Making laws against hiring over-seas workers is the immoral act. Basically laws forcing businesses to pay the same amount on over-seas workers is creating an artificial minimum wage overseas, which is turning their economy into ours. Why should the government try to make another nation’s economy like our own, especially when our economy has enough problems of its own? That is immoral.
Making laws against hiring over-seas workers for lower wages would obviously make prices go up, because workers at home would have to pay more money for labor. These laws would also probably force higher taxes, because it is another law that has to be passed, and, at least theoretically, enforced. Law enforcement requires someone working to enforce the law, which is much of the purpose of taxes. Of course, this is another reason making laws would be immoral and not wise, not to mention the fact that they are unconstitutional.
So why do many people including our politicians advocate so much government intervention in overseas working? Are they misguided? Are they greedy and power hungry? Is it somewhere in between, or somewhat of both? We really can’t tell if they are just hypocritical or just honestly misguided, but nonetheless it is a mistake that they make.
Often it comes in the name of a “favorable balance of trade.” Supposedly just giving American’s the jobs would help our economy. But we have already seen that forcing this would increase prices and taxes, cut jobs from those overseas, and possibly in the long-run even take away our own jobs at home. But supposedly, this would keep more jobs at home, and therefore keep more money at home. But that again is a fallacy of economics. Even if we did bring in more money in our nation, it would not help, because it would simply cause inflation. It seems that our leaders who make or call for these stupid regulations are either hypocritical or severely misguided.
In the end, nothing good would come from passing laws against cheap labor over-seas. If a law were passed, it would be very hard to define and uphold. How could someone define what too low of a wage was? Since it is hard to define and uphold, it would require all the more taxes and intrusion into your personal life and the economy.
Our taxes would be raised, our prices would go up. Our businesses would fail to expand into bigger businesses creating bigger and better things and more jobs. Those over-seas would not get the jobs that may have had without government interference. Nothing good would come from these rules and regulations.
However we would see good come from the government getting out of business affairs and international marketing. It is the government’s job to protect our liberties, which may include protecting the border from any enemies we may have abroad. But that does not mean that they must cut off any contact with any foreign nation, or pass laws keeping the people from having contact with foreigners. Government restrictions hinder economic growth. A free market would give us economic growth, and allow fair trades to take place, at home, or abroad.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
April 18, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Other Side of Feminism
Forgive me for being a while getting back on here. I have been busy with work, school, and traveling to the lake.
The Other Side of Feminism
Feminism is a movement sweeping into the minds of many people across the globe, and it destroys the traditional and proper view of humanity. But there are many myths surrounding feminism. We have the general idea of what feminism is. Women are to blame - they want power and want to be equal or greater than man - that general sort of idea. But feminism is much more than a modern attempt at electing a woman as President. Feminism is a constant struggle throughout the race of mankind, and it is not merely the fault of women.
What feminism does is destroy the way we should view humanity. It takes us away from the traditional God-ordained way of viewing men and women, giving us a worldly alternative. This movement is not really modern - in fact, the very first sin man committed was feministic in nature. The "modern" side of feminism is just the different applications and rhetoric used.
When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, she was putting herself to the level of God, or so in her mind, and did so even without asking her husband. Perhaps it would be forgivable if, when Eve felt tempted, she asked her husband's permission, and he said no. But Eve did not do this.
However at the same time, Adam is blamed for this sin much more than Eve is. The Scriptures do not tell us about "Death through Eve" but rather "Death through Adam." Adam seemed to have been present watching Eve eat the fruit, and he failed to remind her of God's grace and His law that they should not eat of that tree. He failed to be the man! See, feminism is not so about women wanting too much power, but it is often about men not being men. If men are not the men, protecting their families, loving a wife with a passion unknown to the mind of mortal man, raising a family in a God-fearing way, being the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, etc., then it is very forgivable to the women to want to take over.
I do not agree with the women feminists of today, so do not get me wrong. But it seems the actions of the men speak as louder or louder as the words used by women. So often while working at Chick-Fil-A, I notice women paying for the food, telling me what they and their husband want, grabbing the food and taking it to the table, etc. These may not be great big deals, but there is something behind them. If men are not willing to make a living for the family, then who can blame the women for doing that?
Once again, I do not write this to condone the women leaders of modern feminism, because they, the voices, are at fault too. This blog is written to show 'the other side' of feminism, not the only side of feminism. But it is the side that does not get talked about much today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
The Other Side of Feminism
Feminism is a movement sweeping into the minds of many people across the globe, and it destroys the traditional and proper view of humanity. But there are many myths surrounding feminism. We have the general idea of what feminism is. Women are to blame - they want power and want to be equal or greater than man - that general sort of idea. But feminism is much more than a modern attempt at electing a woman as President. Feminism is a constant struggle throughout the race of mankind, and it is not merely the fault of women.
What feminism does is destroy the way we should view humanity. It takes us away from the traditional God-ordained way of viewing men and women, giving us a worldly alternative. This movement is not really modern - in fact, the very first sin man committed was feministic in nature. The "modern" side of feminism is just the different applications and rhetoric used.
When Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, she was putting herself to the level of God, or so in her mind, and did so even without asking her husband. Perhaps it would be forgivable if, when Eve felt tempted, she asked her husband's permission, and he said no. But Eve did not do this.
However at the same time, Adam is blamed for this sin much more than Eve is. The Scriptures do not tell us about "Death through Eve" but rather "Death through Adam." Adam seemed to have been present watching Eve eat the fruit, and he failed to remind her of God's grace and His law that they should not eat of that tree. He failed to be the man! See, feminism is not so about women wanting too much power, but it is often about men not being men. If men are not the men, protecting their families, loving a wife with a passion unknown to the mind of mortal man, raising a family in a God-fearing way, being the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, etc., then it is very forgivable to the women to want to take over.
I do not agree with the women feminists of today, so do not get me wrong. But it seems the actions of the men speak as louder or louder as the words used by women. So often while working at Chick-Fil-A, I notice women paying for the food, telling me what they and their husband want, grabbing the food and taking it to the table, etc. These may not be great big deals, but there is something behind them. If men are not willing to make a living for the family, then who can blame the women for doing that?
Once again, I do not write this to condone the women leaders of modern feminism, because they, the voices, are at fault too. This blog is written to show 'the other side' of feminism, not the only side of feminism. But it is the side that does not get talked about much today.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 21, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, March 7, 2008
I Thought Evolutionists Did Not Look For Their Conclusions
If you hear a debate between a conservative Creationist Christian and an evolutionist/atheist, the evolutionist will most likely mention that we should "study facts and then reach a conclusion." Supposedly, Christians assume a conclusion, and then find random facts to back it up. But watching this video, this seems different. I find the evolutionist reaching a conclusion and then looking for the facts. No, I am not posting this as a Ron Paul video. Of course, I do find it odd that small clips are used to try to show Paul's "flip-flop" on evolution, when the majority of the video is supposedly scientific and not political. But that is not what I post this for. For the point I am trying to make, you really only need to watch is the last two and a half minutes or so.
I find it odd that the evolutionist, forced with his problem of the missing chromosome, looks for a conclusion and just happens to find it. He found his conclusion, and then looked for the facts. Of course, his "finding," even if is true, does not prove anything, and only leads us to the question of "why were the two chromosomes 'taped?'" Just something I happened to notice.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I find it odd that the evolutionist, forced with his problem of the missing chromosome, looks for a conclusion and just happens to find it. He found his conclusion, and then looked for the facts. Of course, his "finding," even if is true, does not prove anything, and only leads us to the question of "why were the two chromosomes 'taped?'" Just something I happened to notice.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Politics of the Church
One of the problems the church has always had has been knowing how to approach
politics. The church has been in political troubles all throughout her history. We should not treat this generation or time period as an exception, but neither should we treat it as the only time this has been a problem either.
Many tell us that the church has become too political. A few would argue that the church has not been political enough. But the problem is not that the church has been too political or not political enough, but the problem is that the church has not been the church.
There was a time when there was argument whether the King or the Pope had complete authority. Was the church being the church at this time? No, they were too obsessed with civil power that they forgot about the Great Commission. The church has forgotten about the Great Commission today, and has instead has become legalistic about books and movies such as "Harry Potter" and "The Golden Compass." These things may be issues that the church can deal with, but only after it has first focused on its main roles: to love others as ourselves, to spread the Word to all nations, to reunite the many denominations that have divided Christians for so long, to worship God corporately each Sunday, and to all around return to the basic principles of Jesus.
The point is we should first focus on ourselves before we really worry about politics. But at the very same time, we should not resist politics. The politics of the church will come when we focus on the teachings of Jesus, and they will come in a profound way. Dr. George Grant said that "We must think of politics some of the time, so that we do not think of politics all the of the time." This quote seems to hold up; many of those today who complain that the church is too political are the most legalistic of Christians out there.
So what should the politics of the church look like? Well, as I said before, let us first focus on our basic task. The politics will then begin to take care of themselves. We should long for a day when the entire world bows on their knees and confesses with their tongues that Jesus is Lord; we should long for the day when earthly rulers bow to the ultimate rule of God; we should long for the day our governments are orchestrated by a Christian worldview that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights, and that governments are set up by God to protect our Rights; we should long for a day when the life of an innocent baby, born or unborn, would not be threatened; we should long for a day when our government punishes those who threaten our life, liberty, and property. This is extremely political, but it comes from the mission of the church.
And what has happened today? Today, we start with politics, and then we try to separate Christianity and make it something to the side. If we see religion and politics crossing paths, we make a political issue about it. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, should we not vote for him? Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister, does this make him more or less prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong - I want a firm Christian who can confess Jesus as Lord while speaking to the entire nation to be our President as much as most anyone, but the way we make political issues out of it all today is quite distasteful to me. One reason I would be skeptical of voting for Mitt Romney is because of his Mormonism. But I don't want to go around making a political issue about it. Perhaps today what we need is someone with a quiet driving faith, if a political fuss will be made of anything else.
The difference between the ideal way the church should handle politics and the way it has, is that the ideal way of handling politics is to first be a Christian. Because our Christianity covers (or should cover) all of our life, politics will be taken care of in the boldest of ways. Today, Christians seem to first be political, and then try to separate Christianity out of it. When the two intermingle, as they inevitably do, we have a giant mess on our hands.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His church
Pray for our Troops
March 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
politics. The church has been in political troubles all throughout her history. We should not treat this generation or time period as an exception, but neither should we treat it as the only time this has been a problem either.
Many tell us that the church has become too political. A few would argue that the church has not been political enough. But the problem is not that the church has been too political or not political enough, but the problem is that the church has not been the church.
There was a time when there was argument whether the King or the Pope had complete authority. Was the church being the church at this time? No, they were too obsessed with civil power that they forgot about the Great Commission. The church has forgotten about the Great Commission today, and has instead has become legalistic about books and movies such as "Harry Potter" and "The Golden Compass." These things may be issues that the church can deal with, but only after it has first focused on its main roles: to love others as ourselves, to spread the Word to all nations, to reunite the many denominations that have divided Christians for so long, to worship God corporately each Sunday, and to all around return to the basic principles of Jesus.
The point is we should first focus on ourselves before we really worry about politics. But at the very same time, we should not resist politics. The politics of the church will come when we focus on the teachings of Jesus, and they will come in a profound way. Dr. George Grant said that "We must think of politics some of the time, so that we do not think of politics all the of the time." This quote seems to hold up; many of those today who complain that the church is too political are the most legalistic of Christians out there.
So what should the politics of the church look like? Well, as I said before, let us first focus on our basic task. The politics will then begin to take care of themselves. We should long for a day when the entire world bows on their knees and confesses with their tongues that Jesus is Lord; we should long for the day when earthly rulers bow to the ultimate rule of God; we should long for the day our governments are orchestrated by a Christian worldview that all men are created equal with certain unalienable Rights, and that governments are set up by God to protect our Rights; we should long for a day when the life of an innocent baby, born or unborn, would not be threatened; we should long for a day when our government punishes those who threaten our life, liberty, and property. This is extremely political, but it comes from the mission of the church.
And what has happened today? Today, we start with politics, and then we try to separate Christianity and make it something to the side. If we see religion and politics crossing paths, we make a political issue about it. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, should we not vote for him? Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister, does this make him more or less prepared for the job. Don't get me wrong - I want a firm Christian who can confess Jesus as Lord while speaking to the entire nation to be our President as much as most anyone, but the way we make political issues out of it all today is quite distasteful to me. One reason I would be skeptical of voting for Mitt Romney is because of his Mormonism. But I don't want to go around making a political issue about it. Perhaps today what we need is someone with a quiet driving faith, if a political fuss will be made of anything else.
The difference between the ideal way the church should handle politics and the way it has, is that the ideal way of handling politics is to first be a Christian. Because our Christianity covers (or should cover) all of our life, politics will be taken care of in the boldest of ways. Today, Christians seem to first be political, and then try to separate Christianity out of it. When the two intermingle, as they inevitably do, we have a giant mess on our hands.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His church
Pray for our Troops
March 1, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, February 1, 2008
Final Thoughts Before the Primaries
I figured before I get back into my "lessons" series, I would give a final blog about the upcoming Presidential Primary elections here in Alabama. I want to make this a quick (hopefully!) defense for my support of Congressman Ron Paul, Texas. I understand that he has little chance of winning, and many consider his views too radical, but I do believe he would be the best man for the job.
For one, Congressman Paul is the most convicted man running I do believe. He has convictions that do not depend on the latest surveys or polls. Congressman Paul is a Christian, and incorporates this worldview into his political ideology. Even if you may have disagreements with some of his applications, it is fairly obvious that he is at least convicted in his thoughts, and has come to what he sees as the best conclusion.
In saying this, he has the most consistent record of anyone running, and in Congress is known as "Dr. No." If the proposed bill is unconstitutional, then you can almost bank all of your money that Congressman Paul will vote against it, if he does indeed vote on the matter. And I believe with little question that one of the key missing elements in today's political society is the Supremecy view of the Constitution, and the main reason we have a Constitution. The Constitution was formed to limit the role of the Central government, not the people of the nation.
But even in saying this, I agree with most of what Dr. Paul has to say about the applications of this philosophy. We have a big monstrous government that spends way too much. Not many politicians would speak against our dangerous system of fiat money as I believe it is, but Dr. Paul does. Not many politicians want to get the Central Government out of education (something that is unconstitutional) while I do, but Dr. Paul does. This list that seems all too "radical" can go on longer, but these are the more obvious issues that come to my mind.
On the more dominant issues we see, Dr. Paul is pro-life, and for tougher border security, wanting no amnesty for those who come here illegally. After all, should they come here and not pay the taxes legal citizens pay, only to take part in our government programs (which are unconstitutional often times anyway)? Dr. Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax (which was also originally unconstitutional). We are all over taxed, and perhaps Dr. Paul stresses that the most. Consider how much more the government takes from you against your will, compared to the ten percent you should freely tithe at church.
I write this, and have written little on the issue of foreign policy, which is perhaps the biggest issue that drive Congressman Paul apart from the conservatives. I wrote of this in the last blog, and briefly defended Paul. I do not deny the possibility that Dr. Paul is perhaps a bit naive, but at least he knows where he stands and why he stands there. Congressman Paul has been the most consistent in foreign policy, showing me that he is not just making this a political issues as many Democrats and Republicans do. Even if you disagree with his foreign policy, I would rather disagree with a principled man, than agree with a man (or woman) of no principles, who will probably change their mind when the time shows them benefits of doing so. I would rather be in no war than a war for merely political reasons.
And the issue of foreign policy is really very complicated anyway. While I do agree that we should go after our enemy (as Dr. Paul agrees with as well), we should be careful. And one thing I wonder: If there are terrorists who camp out in Iraq, then perhaps they are there because we are there. If they want to kill us, wouldn't they go where we go? And if getting out of Iraq means they would follow us here, then does it follow that going to Iraq or staying in Iraq means that they would follow us to or stay in Iraq? Maybe this logic can be explained away, but I do think they are at least a decent question to be asked.
I should probably mention the others who are running for President as well. I appreciate Mike Huckabee's Christian values, but he wants a big Central government (and he scares me be a slick Christian from Arkansas, as Clinton was). Giuliani is a bit liberal on social issues and does not have the best personal life either. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has changed his political views over time, and does not have the best right now anyway. John McCain is just John McCain, and has been moderate-at-best on many issues. When it is said and done, Congressman Paul is the most principled man, the best Constitutionalist, and closest to my specific points of view.
So when it is said and done, I give support for Congressman Paul for these reasons: I believe he is the most principled man running for President; I believe that he will better secure the borders; I believe he will lower taxes accross the board; I believe his foreign policy, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, will be acted upon in principles, not for political purposes; he is pro-life and has spoken in favor of over-turning Roe vs. Wade; and finally, because he is the best Constitutionalist running for President, a principle much forgotten about today.
And one last quote about war that I just found yesterday...Warriors fight, not because they hate those in front of them, but because they love those who are behind them. -G.K. Chesterton
And one more...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
And to close it up, here is a link to Dr. Ron Paul's statement of faith:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
For one, Congressman Paul is the most convicted man running I do believe. He has convictions that do not depend on the latest surveys or polls. Congressman Paul is a Christian, and incorporates this worldview into his political ideology. Even if you may have disagreements with some of his applications, it is fairly obvious that he is at least convicted in his thoughts, and has come to what he sees as the best conclusion.
In saying this, he has the most consistent record of anyone running, and in Congress is known as "Dr. No." If the proposed bill is unconstitutional, then you can almost bank all of your money that Congressman Paul will vote against it, if he does indeed vote on the matter. And I believe with little question that one of the key missing elements in today's political society is the Supremecy view of the Constitution, and the main reason we have a Constitution. The Constitution was formed to limit the role of the Central government, not the people of the nation.
But even in saying this, I agree with most of what Dr. Paul has to say about the applications of this philosophy. We have a big monstrous government that spends way too much. Not many politicians would speak against our dangerous system of fiat money as I believe it is, but Dr. Paul does. Not many politicians want to get the Central Government out of education (something that is unconstitutional) while I do, but Dr. Paul does. This list that seems all too "radical" can go on longer, but these are the more obvious issues that come to my mind.
On the more dominant issues we see, Dr. Paul is pro-life, and for tougher border security, wanting no amnesty for those who come here illegally. After all, should they come here and not pay the taxes legal citizens pay, only to take part in our government programs (which are unconstitutional often times anyway)? Dr. Paul also wants to abolish the Federal Income Tax (which was also originally unconstitutional). We are all over taxed, and perhaps Dr. Paul stresses that the most. Consider how much more the government takes from you against your will, compared to the ten percent you should freely tithe at church.
I write this, and have written little on the issue of foreign policy, which is perhaps the biggest issue that drive Congressman Paul apart from the conservatives. I wrote of this in the last blog, and briefly defended Paul. I do not deny the possibility that Dr. Paul is perhaps a bit naive, but at least he knows where he stands and why he stands there. Congressman Paul has been the most consistent in foreign policy, showing me that he is not just making this a political issues as many Democrats and Republicans do. Even if you disagree with his foreign policy, I would rather disagree with a principled man, than agree with a man (or woman) of no principles, who will probably change their mind when the time shows them benefits of doing so. I would rather be in no war than a war for merely political reasons.
And the issue of foreign policy is really very complicated anyway. While I do agree that we should go after our enemy (as Dr. Paul agrees with as well), we should be careful. And one thing I wonder: If there are terrorists who camp out in Iraq, then perhaps they are there because we are there. If they want to kill us, wouldn't they go where we go? And if getting out of Iraq means they would follow us here, then does it follow that going to Iraq or staying in Iraq means that they would follow us to or stay in Iraq? Maybe this logic can be explained away, but I do think they are at least a decent question to be asked.
I should probably mention the others who are running for President as well. I appreciate Mike Huckabee's Christian values, but he wants a big Central government (and he scares me be a slick Christian from Arkansas, as Clinton was). Giuliani is a bit liberal on social issues and does not have the best personal life either. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, has changed his political views over time, and does not have the best right now anyway. John McCain is just John McCain, and has been moderate-at-best on many issues. When it is said and done, Congressman Paul is the most principled man, the best Constitutionalist, and closest to my specific points of view.
So when it is said and done, I give support for Congressman Paul for these reasons: I believe he is the most principled man running for President; I believe that he will better secure the borders; I believe he will lower taxes accross the board; I believe his foreign policy, whether you agree with it or disagree with it, will be acted upon in principles, not for political purposes; he is pro-life and has spoken in favor of over-turning Roe vs. Wade; and finally, because he is the best Constitutionalist running for President, a principle much forgotten about today.
And one last quote about war that I just found yesterday...Warriors fight, not because they hate those in front of them, but because they love those who are behind them. -G.K. Chesterton
And one more...Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
And to close it up, here is a link to Dr. Ron Paul's statement of faith:
http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Foreign Policy
One of the most heated topics of debate in this year's Presidential Election is that of what our foreign policy should be. Should we have a humble foreign policy? Should we try to spread the American way of life? Do the two go together? How does our overall foreign policy philosophy fit into our foreign affairs of today?
Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.
As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:
It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!
When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.
I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.
But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have
A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.
We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.
But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.
Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.
I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.
Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.
And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.
And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Saying that I have mixed feelings toward these questions, particularly the last question, would be an understatement. To my admission, one reason I would consider it an understatement is because of ignorance. I do not know the entire situation of every country in the world, not that I really know a good chunk of it either. I can have an overall foreign policy philosophy, but determining how it plays into our position in the world today is really a tricky question.
As far as our place in Iraq, and whether we should have gone, should get out, and the like, I will pose the four basic viewpoints:
It was a mistake to go, but because we went, we should finish the job (stay in).
We needed to go, but we caught Saddam, so it's time to get out.
We needed to go, and we should finish the job (stay in).
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. Get out!
When I try to find some opinion on the matter, I really cannot make up my mind between those. On one hand, I want to finish the job, whether we should have gone or not. But on one hand I am ready to get out, because we are losing lives and seeing little progress of late. On one hand I tend to think that withdrawing would allow the terrorists a place to camp out, and they would soon follow us back here. On the other hand it seems that if the terrorists would follow us here if we left Iraq, then going to Iraq only means that they followed us to Iraq in the first place. If we go home and secure our borders, then we would be much safer.
I do want to make this point though: we have strayed from the foreign policy of our founding fathers, which I tend to think is the best foreign policy we can have. Our founders, particularly Washington, supported a humble foreign policy. History has dictated to us that things do not get better when we delve into the affairs of other nations. Not just this administration, but many administrations before have fallen from the foreign policy of Washington. Washington in his Farewell Address listed out several points that are often ignored, forgotten, or even denied today. One of these is that of a humble foreign policy. We should not force our will upon other nations. This would be like one family telling another family how to run a family life. Besides, we have our own problems to work out here at home.
But there are times for war, and that should not be ignored either. Our founders knew this. They just came from war, and they designated Congress the power of declaring war. But we should remember certain things about war, and what must happen to be in war. We must have
A just cause
A probable chance of winning, and
A proper declaration of some sort. Furthermore, it must be
A last resort.
We have fallen astray from these principles. And it is not just the Republicans. The Democrats have fallen astray, and perhaps to make the matter worse, they have turned the war into a political issue. When blood is on the line, the issue is no longer merely political. It is moral, sacred, all out hell.
But I do not believe that anyone against the war should be declared guilty of treason. A point can be made both for staying in Iraq, and for getting out. Ultimately, the question is about how we apply foreign policy philosophy to a world that has abandoned the philosophy. Should we have a mass pull out? Should we finish the course we are on, and then seek correction? Should we slowly but surely pull out? Answering these questions are hard and complicated, and I suppose that not many people really can answer the question with great evidence for their case.
Before leaving, I would like to make a few more points. I do believe that the acts of 9/11 were acts of war. We needed to go fight the war and win. Catch those behind attacks, and better secure the borders so no more terrorists gets in. They gave us hell and it was time to give them hell. However this does not mean we attack the entire Middle East. Many conservatives even then wanted a humble foreign policy, but they have been slowly changing since.
I would also rather be in no war than to be in a political war, and I see some Republicans making the war a political issue. If we are in the war, then we should fight it, win it, and not fiddle around with it.
Also, we should be making a move to return to the sound foreign policy of our founders. Be humble and friendly with other nations. Declare war when you should go to war. Win the war (or at least give a darn good effort). But do not "experiment" with other nations in war.
And certainly we should support our Troops, whether we agree with the war or not. Pray for those who risk their lives doing what their nation asks of them to do.
And the person I support for President is against the war. His name is Ron Paul, and he is a Republican Congressman from Texas. I would rather have someone who is against the war because of moral convictions and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, than I would have someone who is for the war for political reasons. Ron Paul is the best Constitutionalist running for President (at least of the major candidates), and can actually defend himself when questioned about his foreign policy. I would not deny the possibility that he may be a bit naive toward foreign policy, but I do agree with his long-term plan, and would put more confidence in someone like him than I would in those who make the war a political issue.
UPCOMING BLOGS: I will write a follow up on this declaring why I support Congressman Ron Paul. I call this a follow up, because it takes a whole separate blog to defend my support for an anti-war candidate to my fellow conservative friends. I then plan to write a four part series on building Christian theology. This will cover the ideas of predestination/free will, sacraments, salvation, and worship. I plan for each to build on each other.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
