Why I voted Yes

In Minnesota, there was an amendment that would have allowed only traditional marriages.  Why I voted for this amendment is because simply my pastor told me too.  Now, I thought about it for a while and was at a cross roads.  It came down to should I follow others that aren't Christians or should I listen to my pastor who is a Christian and not only that he is also my leader.  So, I did vote for the amendment not because of what I personally thought of, because I thought it was stupid to have an amendment on this issue to the Minnesota Constitution.  Originally I planed to vote No, but I had to vote Yes because it was an authority issue for me, because my pastor urged the congregation to vote Yes on the amendment.  I do however disagree with my pastor's decision on the matter in regards to have government involvement in the first place.  The simplest answer to my political views is that Government should be privatized all except the courts and the police, which I will post this on another topic.  That is why I disagreed with my pastor's decision on the matter of the amendment but voted yes because it was an authority issue for me.

360 of Politics

I took an unexpected reason of why I left politics but since then my good time friend who I debate about politics a lot said something to the effect that Christians should be in politics because of nations like North Korea.  God has given the people to decide our leaders.  In the past espically in Europe, the Kings and Queens made all of the important decisions of the nation, now God had let us decide our next leader would be.  That puts every citizen's responsibility to really look at what is going on in politics whether or not they want to or not.  So in effect the United States has about 300+million kings and queens that elect people to rule on their behalf.  Now I'm saying that in this country it is important that every person who is able to vote should vote.  This makes the average citizen more important than other types of governments.  In regards to my personal take on politics I did a 360 in politics meaning, politics is important, to politics is stupid and Jesus is the answer, and politics is imporant and Jesus is the answer.  So, now after the elections I'm getting back into politics.  I did vote because I was on the fence whether I should vote or not.  I was on the fence of voting due to this book that I read called Myth of a Christian Nation by Gregory Boyd.  He made some good points in regards of the Church should be more involved in the community.  But he is looking at the view point of that the church is in politics too much and that they are missing the point in what it means to be the hands and feet of Jesus.  This might be true for a lot of people who follow Jesus but in general those who follow Jesus needs that lives in this type of government needs to do their civic duty.  I didn't do my civic duty in regards to trying to the lower level offices in government because I was largly on the fence.  My pre-resolution for 2013 is at least go to two of the city government meetings.

Did the CIA needed to Intervene Iran back in the 1950s?

     The reason why the CIA intervened in Iran because the British was resentful of the nationalization of the oil industry that Iran had taken in the 1950s.  The British asked the United States for help and of course the CIA wanted to do so they can justified its existent.  Doing something is better than doing nothing at all, then why we need a CIA if they don't do anything.  Iran had a valid reason to want more control over its oil because they want it the profits to stay with in Iran instead of being outsourced also the British had also a valid reason to keep its oil corporations because it is either going to be the British cashing in or Iran cashing in.  If I had to take a side in all of this I would have to side with the people of Iran.  But this is a highly un-libertarian way of thinking state vs state on the issue of oil.  The reason why I would choose Iran over the British is because the British people don't live in Iran.  What the British corporations should of done was to actually work with the people of Iran to insure that both sides would win.  They could of "share" some of the profits to an organization that would help the people of Iran to better themselves.  So, the corporations would set up organizations that would be run by the Iranians that would best help the Iranian people, this could be done through various ways.  What came to mine was helping Iranians to be successful business owners or giving out loans to the Iranian business so that they could grow and prosper, but instead the corporations had to look towards the British government to help them out and the British wanted the United States to help because the United States had more of an expertise in foreign intelligence.  Iran would be a lot more prosperous if the corporations gave back to the local communities in a business way, maybe even charitable ways, but in this case it would be more appropriate for corporations to set up organizations that would help other organization like business owners and educational organizations.  This whole idea having to intervene in Iran would of never been thought of if the corporations were good to its surrounding communities.

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-chapter1.html

Libertarians being Pro-Union?

Now, you might be thinking that a Libertarians are against Unions, some libertarians are anti-unions but for me I'm for private individuals forming an organization that would help them negotiate deals with the employers this would describe a union.  Unions have and still should be in the forefront of our economy.  Unions did some good things like help increase the average wage of Americans.  They provided safer working conditions, help workers getting payed more and some other things.  What I do disagree about unions is their tendency to use government force for their benefit (this is also true for a lot of businesses like instead of going to a bank to get a loan they go to government).  Not all unions are equal because I do favor private sector unions but government unions should be disbanded.  Now about government unions are in the most technical since private but because they keep pressuring the politicians to increase their benefits (which in itself I don't have a problem), but the politicians tends to over due the benefits of public employees in the time of economic boom then when the economy goes under then the issues really come to arise.  The sad thing is that the politicians that are responsible are long gone, in this current situation (especially in California's cities) I would be against the idea of public sector unions.  Now, if the politicians were held to a really high standard then they wouldn't be put into these lucrative situations.  We live in a time where unions is a "dirty word" but I do have to give them the respect that I do for any other private organization.

Brief Intros of all the Presidential Candidates

Those who watch/read the news would know that there are two people running for President, Obama and Romney.  There are also other candidates out there like Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party (which I'm very biased for him), Jill Stein of the Green Party, and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party.  I urge you as a voter to look into all of the candidate's issues and records before you cast the vote in November.  As you get to know each of the candidates you'll see which one will line up toward your belief in politics.  There is a great site that your able to see who you should vote for in the upcoming election (http://www.isidewith.com/).

Obama - He wants to keep expanding government.

Romney - He wants to have slow reduction of government.

Johnson - He wants cut government spending around 43%.

Goode - He wants to have a constitutional government.

Jill Stein - She wants to have government policy to foster the US being environmentally friendly.

Now, this is a really basic overview that what basically describes on what they want to do and what they see government.

My choice of them is Gary Johnson.  Here is why.  He wants to scientifically reduce the scope and power of the Federal Government around 43%.  He promises to propose a balance budget to congress in his first year. Congress has the power to not accept his balance budget but it will get the national conversation going about having real balanced budget.  Both the Democrats and Republicans been reckless in spending, I think that the Republicans been more so because they campaign on fiscal responsibility and did the opposite of what they say.  Please note that this isn't all of the Republicans but it is the Republican establishment that are the ones who say one thing to get elected and do the opposite.  The Democrats at least have some credibility on the issue of government spending because they don't set any bar for their spending policies.  His message is that he'll be cutting government scientifically so that us as Americans can enjoy a greater range of freedoms.  According to the Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index, the United States is in the category of the land of the mostly free (http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking).  What Gary Johnson is campaigning that he essentially wants the United States to be in the category of the "Free".

The Question is whether you want to be more free or less free.

Back to blogging!

I've been trying the whole video blogging, I don't really like it nor I'm not the best at it, so I'm directing my efforts towards what I'm doing better at.  I'm really liking the new interface of Blogger.  It is much cleaner and more like Google.