Abortion Discussion, 6/22/09

June 22, 2009
Luis

lol

looks like the internet here is fading out this is a topic i need to educate myself more in i am pro-life to a certain degree, an open to changing my views this is something of yours that has rubbed off on me.

3:38pmLeonard

It’s such an important issue Luis. It begs something so much further. It begs something primal to the very foundation of our constitution, and government itself: Life.

Life precedes all law and government.

3:39pmLuis

I wish I had the passion for the subject that you had

3:39pmLeonard

It is the foundation of assembly: the preservation of life.

It’s why we get together as humans and form societies and governments to begin with; because life is so important we need to protect and improve it.

3:39pmLuis

I can only articulate it so much based on reason, and what information I get from you.

3:39pmLeonard

What then, is to say of the argument of abortion?

It is the argument of the importance human life has on society and government as a whole. The moment we can talk away this importance, what next?

This importance has to be realized. If we can cast away the early stages of our being as non-life, what is next?

I’m sure the Nazi’s were able to rationalize their killings. I’m sure totalitarian governments do the same.

3:41pmLuis

that is very absolute

I like it though

3:42pmLeonard

It’s true.

You know why you like how it sounds?

Because it compels to your very nature.

Everyone works off the foundation that life is absolutely important.

Listen to this Luis.

3:43pmLuis

Yes, an that I am a paranoid person and suspicious person, if the schemers can do that, they can definitely do far worse

3:43pmLeonard

A liberal will even go beyond it, and say life of nature, and life of animals is important. People do not stop and argue the value of human life; it is absolutely suggested. It underoots any discussion of gun rights, or private property, or affirmative action.

Imagine if I sat there and one day said “Affirmative action? Blacks are not as valuable as whites”

Or if I went up there and argued that they were not human life to begin with.

I would be considered currently insane, because they all assume human life (and rightly so!).

Reason is reason. Look what happened to slavery. The hypocrisy of it was realized.

Why not with babies in the womb?

After all, if there such a progression of reason to believe a child is a child before and after the procedure of birth?

3:45pmLuis

I see where you are going with this, PETA and the Green movement value the earth and animals more than they do human life. To them we are seen as a cancer or virus upon this earth. And Only THEY because they care about the earth an animals are fit to live in it

3:45pmLeonard

Listen Luis. The absolute importance of human life is always assumed. You need to redirect someone’s focus on that assumption, and how it relates to abortion. If this was not assumed, and they were killed while in their mother’s womb, would they still be here, or would they be dead?

3:46pmLuis

They would say they never existed.

3:47pmLeonard

Of course. Listen. Luis if I killed you while in your mothers womb, would you be here talking about abortion to begin with?

Of course not. Further more: If I killed you right now, would you be here tomorrow to talk about abortion? Of course not. What then is the difference? Being in your mother’s womb? The results are the same, are they not?

3:48pmLuis

Your preaching to the choir I wish I could save this conversation to re-read to impound that logic on me

3:48pmLeonard

If you want me to have protections in place that prevent me from murdering you now, why not while in your mothers womb? After all, the results are the same.

3:48pmLuis

The results are the same

3:48pmLeonard

Exactly. Imagine if you could personalize this to someone. Imagine how they would look at it. And then even more, if they were how could they protect the earth or the whales even?


Tax Day Tea Party Comic

April 16, 2009

page_12page_22page_31page_41page_51page_61page_7

page_8

page_9page_10page_111page_121


Media Bias: The Poor Coverage of the Tea Party Protests

April 16, 2009

The Main Stream Media is absolutely biased. One need to merely compare not only the Presidential coverage, but now the Tea Party coverage. Over 200,000 individuals protested the size of government and debt, in 600+ locations across 300 cities all over the nation, and it had barely any coverage. The New York Times and the Boston Globe ignored the event entirely. Other networks barely gave it airtime. CNN decided to even have what they call a ‘reporter’ (who really seemed like an Obama Administration official) attack individuals at the site, and blame it on the vast right-wing Fox News conspiracy (what a joke). This is objective reporting?

No wonder CNN is incredibly behind in the ratings. Such insane biased reporting has NO room in the main stream media. The woman should simply be fired and forced to find another career.

Let us compare this daft empty hollow reporting with how Cindy Sheehan was treated. She received over a hundred mentions in the New York Times, and was protesting Bush’s ranch with a few dozen left wing code pink socialist. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN A COUPLE OF DOZEN TRUE RADICALS OVERRIDE IN COVERAGE THE PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS?

It is absolutely mind blowing. To add to this the spin placed upon the events by the left numbs our reason even more.

  1. They first spoke of a counter-protest by liberals. This was simply an epic failure (the only counter protest I experience was a guy with an Obama/Biden bumper sticker giving me the finger as he drove by me holding an American flag… I assume he was flipping off the flag).
  2. Then they tried to blame it as a vast right-wing conspiracy planned up by GOP bosses and Fox News. Are you kidding me? What insane ignorance. This was an organization plotted by blogs, twitter accounts, phone-calls, and facebook. To discredit it as anything else is politically poisoned judgment.
  3. Then they tried to paint it as angry conservatives protesting taxes. WHAT INANE IGNORANCE! THE PROTEST WAS AGAINST THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT, RECKLESS PORK BARREL PROJECTS AND SPENDING, $11,000,000,000,000.00+ IN NATIONAL PUBLIC DEBT, AND THE IMPENDING TAX INCREASES THAT MUST FOLLOW TO PAY FOR THIS DEBT! They may try to paint it as a partisan event, but this only discredits their ailing industry further (the Chairman of the Republican Party was not even allowed to speak at an event).

Perhaps if they actually went out, and did real reporting and journalism (i.e. their job), they would have discovered the actual message, instead of taking a lead from leftist blogs.

Seriously, regardless of your political convictions, clean your judgment and evaluate this honestly. Hundreds of thousands of individuals protested the size of government, the debt, reckless spending, and other anti-liberty based actions. How in the world does this merit less coverage than a fringe-leftist Cindy Sheehan, and her dozen or so campers?

It simply corrodes reason. The Media is biased.

Also, these claims of ‘Faux News’ as the source of political evil in the world is ridiculous. Fox News has more Independent and Democrat viewers than CNN and MSNBC. Simply look at the viewership, and determine whom has the most balanced audience:

2008 summary regarding Television News Viewership.* FNC: 39% Republican, 33% Democratic, 22% Independent
* CNN: 18% Republican, 51% Democratic, 23% Independent
* MSNBC: 18% Republican, 45% Democratic, 27% Independent

PS: Did anyone notice how peaceful the assembly of 200,000+ patriots was? No stories regarding fires, or broken windows, or arrests…

UPDATE: A video displaying that female ‘reporter’ getting a lashing from Tea Party supporters.


Miami, FL: Doral Post Office Tax Day Tea Party

April 16, 2009

  • OVER 300,000 PATRIOTS MET IN HUNDREDS OF CITIES ACROSS THE NATION TO PROTEST THE EVER GROWING GOVERNMENT, THEIR RECKLESS SPENDING, THE $11,000,000,000,000.00+ IN NATIONAL DEBT, AND THE IMPENDING TAX INCREASES THAT ARE SURE TO FOLLOW SUCH RECKLESS SPENDING.
  • 5,000 to 10,000 in Atlanta, Oklahoma City, Olympia, Wash., Lansing, Mich., and Sacramento
  • 1,000 Washington D.C.
  • 10,000 Tennessee
  • 1,000 Rochester N.Y.
  • 4,000 people  Cincinnati
  • 8,000 Madison, Wis.,
  • 5,000 Oklahoma Capitol
  • 4,000 Chicago party. Even
  • 1,000 at tiny Rhode Island
  • 5,000 Olympia WA
  • 2,500 Boise, Idaho
  • 1,500 Austin, Texas.
  • 7,000 Lansing, MI,
  • 3,000 Hartford, Conn.,
  • 1,000 Market Square in Pittsburgh, Pa.
  • 3,000 Des Moines, Iowa
  • Tens of Thousands at the Alamo Texas and Atlanta Georgia
  • 2,000 Jacksonville FL (wagons of tea into the St. Johns River).
  • 3,000 Miami FL (MDPD estimates)
  • These are only SEVERAL of the over 700 Tea Parties held across 300 cities all across the nation!

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A COMIC STRIP OF YOUR EVENT? EMAIL PICTURES OF THE EVENT TO LGOEN001@FIU.EDU, AS WELL AS THE LOCATION, AND THE ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE, AND I’LL DO IT FOR FREE!

Miami FL: Doral Tax Day Tea Party

Miami FL: Doral Tax Day Tea Party

Miami FL: Doral Tax Day Tea Party Pg. 2

Miami FL: Doral Tax Day Tea Party Pg. 2


DON’T FORGET, THERE WILL BE A SECOND MIAMI TEA PARTY PROTEST:


Tax Day Tea Parties

April 15, 2009
Tax Day Tea Party Protests, All Across the US

Tax Day Tea Party Protests, All Across the US

Thousands of normal every day citizens are gathering in States across the nation to protest the massive and growing size of the government. Tired of the $11,000,000,000,000.00+ of debt tossed upon the People?

Feel free to join us at the Miami protest location, today at the Doral Office Post office, from 6:00pm-8:00pm.

Hope to see you there!


Total Public Debt, as of April 2nd, 2008

April 2, 2009

Total Public Debt, Outstanding, as of 4.2.09:

$11,110,654,357,209.33

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

 

So Democrats, how do we cut this debt, let alone the future

 

$8,000,000,000.00+

yearly interest payments on the debt…?

 

Your share of the public debt: $36,000.00+

 

Enjoy…?


A Comparison Between Modern and Classical Liberalism: Is Modern Liberalism Truly Liberal?

April 2, 2009

Leonard O Goenaga

POT3302, Political Ideologies

Professor Boronat

March 9th, 2009

A Comparison Between Modern and Classical Liberalism: Is Modern Liberalism Truly Liberal?

A few days ago, Pat Buchanan, a well-known conservative commentator, released an article expressing how America is not on the path to Socialism, but is already there. With the climate of car and bank bailouts, trillion dollar stimulus plans packed with perceived liberal-programs, one is left to examine the claim seriously. Conservatives and Republicans alike have echoed the critiques of Obama as a Socialist, and echoing Rahm Emannuel’s statement that ‘we can’t let this crises go to waste’, one is left to wonder more. On what are President Obama’s policies modeled after? Are they truly socialistic? Or, are they truly of the Liberal tradition, known currently as Modern Liberalism? If so, how ‘liberal’ is this modern liberalism, and does it show any influence from the Social-Democratic movement within and abroad? This paper seeks to examine the similarities and differences between classical and modern liberalism, as well as survey the possibility of Social-Democratic thought on Modern Liberalism, and thus examine how ‘liberal’ modern liberalism actually is.

Before we can proceed to analyze any potential socialist narratives of the Obama administration, and with it this New-Left movement in modern liberalism, we must first move into defining terms. We will first start defining several traits of Liberalism as a whole, as it settled the background for Modern Liberalism’s arrival, and accommodate the majority of reference points Modern Liberals use to justify their system as essentially liberal. In our comparative analysis, we will first analyze key themes within these traditions, followed by key thinkers. To begin, we define Liberalism as a whole, as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties,” (Meriam-Webster). In more simplistic terms, Liberalism can be defined as the political ideology of preserving the individual’s liberty. This begs the question, what is liberty? Liberty is interchangeable with freedom, and it may be defined as “the ability to think or act as one wishes,” (Heywood 29). In other words, Liberalism attempts to first argue that the foundation of society is founded upon by a social-contract amongst individuals (see Locke’s Second Treatise), and that these individuals engage in said contract to best preserve their ability to think and act as they wish. John Locke, the father of this tradition, affirms this notion, arguing that “creatures of the same species and rank…should also be equal amongst another,” and that “every man has a property in his own person…nobody has any right to but himself,” (Locke 8, 19). Individuals are thus of prime importance (being all made in the image of God, and thus maintaining equality in design and self-ownership), both in political power (such as the establishment of a social contract and civil society), and economic pursuit (owning one’s own labor, and the freedom of pursuing the fruit of ones labor). Although such a brief attempt to summarize Liberalism is overtly not complete, we can see core themes that set the foundation for Liberalism: The Individual, Freedom, Reason, and Justice (Heywood 27). We have already established, given Locke’s argument of divine design and self-ownership that individuals are at the root of Liberalism. In addition, we have mentioned the purpose of individuals instituting government, via the social-contract, is to preserve their ability to pursue their aims and preserve their liberty. An additional foundation to this system is one’s access to reason. The individual’s ability to reason is central in engaging in society, making economic decisions, and establishing government and society. “reason…teaches mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions,” (Locke 9). One final liberal theme of importance is the concept of justice, or “a moral standard of fairness and impartiality,” (Heywood 32). Naturally, a combination of individualism, freedom, access to reason, and the pursuit of justice leads one to devise a concept of equality amongst individuals. It is from this idea of equality, as well as a morphed idea of justice, that Modern Liberalism begins its revision.

Having analyzed the central Liberal ideas of individualism, freedom, reason, justice and equality, we may now explore the political direction it led to, known as Classical Liberalism. Before analyzing Classical Liberalism’s defining themes, it would work to our advantage to summarize the initial aims of the liberal state (having hinted to it above. In Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood properly sums these aims of the Liberal state as being first “being created by individuals and for individuals…Second, social contract theory portrays the state as an umpire or neutral referee in society,” (Heywood 37-38). The characteristic of the government is thus a passive role, or as Locke properly sums it as a ‘night watchman’. This implies a minimist state, which both preserves one’s civil liberty (freedom from government), and protects one from the state of war (individual or foreign aggression, and governmental coercion). The Classical Liberals best wish to preserve this separation of government and the privacy and liberty of individual, both politically, socially, religiously, and economically. Society is generally atomistic, and made up of reason-driven individuals. Classical liberals believe, given the liberty of the individual, man is best designed to maximize his freedom to allow him maximized reason. This belief in the egoistical individual roots a system of economic and moral efficiency, arguing that since man is best enabled to handle his own economic and moral choices, he should be protected in-as-much as he doesn’t stumble over the boundaries of another man’s liberties. In addition, Classical Liberals believe in the existence of natural rights, found in the form of negative rights. Jefferson explained these national rights as seen in the Declaration of Independence, “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,” (Jefferson 3). Besides the utter importance of natural rights, and egoistical individual, Government is designed as a ‘necessary evil’. The Classical Liberal ideal is then, the least government possible, the absolute protection of natural rights, and the freedom of egoistical individuals to pursue their aims without fear of attack or coercion from governments. This leads way to an acceptance of laissez faire economic principles, as advocated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The Liberal political model was extended to the economic realm, where reasonably, individuals should also be free to pursue economic aims. “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men,” (Smith 466). The economic functions best when the government governs least. Due to man’s access to reason, and egoistical individualism, Classical Liberalism sought to embrace and maximize the ideas of Adam Smith and free markets, arguing that the preservation of man’s liberty naturally meant a preservation of his economic endeavor. It from the perceived failures of a supreme laissez faire approach (the Social Darwinism of the 19th century), as well as a different understanding of justice and equality, that the schism between Classical and Modern Liberalism occurred.

Finally arrived at Modern Liberalism, we must recap our finding. In the end, Liberalism wishes to preserve the liberty of man’s actions and desires; in-so-much that they do not trample the natural rights of his/her fellow man. Liberalism advocates the individual as the center of political power and society, as well as emphasizing man’s reasonable nature, his God-given status of equal and free, and the justice of maximizing man’s individual liberty. Classical Liberalism takes from these ideas, emphasizing a passive and minimal role for government, as well as focusing on a free market laissez faire styled economy. From this, Modern Liberalism is born in the wake of grievances against the perceived discriminative nature of laissez faire economies, and a different notion of justice. These are found in the arguments that Social Darwinism and laissez faire policies do not necessarily make one free, but rather produce inequalities. In other words, the policies made individual’s access to pursuing their freedoms unequal, or as popularly proposed, the playing field in which individual access their freedoms is unfair. Maintaining the individual as primal importance, Modern Liberals thought that through using government, as seen in the 20th century in the endeavors of FDR’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and JFK’s New Frontier, society could maximize an individual’s freedom. The focus here was now individuality, or “self-fulfillment achieved through the realization through the realization of an individual’s distinctive or unique identity or qualities,” (Heywood 55). J.S. Mills, in On Liberty, attempted to emphasize the individuality and self-actualization of an individual, “the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,” (Mill 22). This idea of self-actualization and individuality formed the bridge into modern liberalism: the goal is to provide the environment which best allows the individuality to experience freedom, or actualize themselves. From here, thinkers such as T. H. Green advocated a review of the notion of liberty. This led to the idea of positive freedom, which were rules made not to protect an individual from government (negative rights), but to advance one’s access to fulfilling and advancing their liberty. This came into fruition within the idea of FDR, whom working within the depression, advocated for a positive role for government. The idea was to utilize the government to ‘level the playing field’, by helping the disadvantaged poor. By implementing welfare-state policies, such as social security and welfare, it was argued that the government could pull individuals from the entangled restraints of poverty and social inequality that prevented them from actualizing their liberty. As justice was earlier mentioned, Government now took the responsibility of enacting social justice, or “a fair or justifiable distribution of wealth and rewards in society,” (Heywood 33). In addition to redistributing wealth and providing social services that arguably ‘leveled the playing field’, the role of government in economics grew. In The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, economist J. M. Keynes argued that the government could take a positive role of by regulating demand via fiscal policy. Although an opposite to the ideals of classical liberalism, Keynesian economics further added to the ability of Modern Liberalism to ‘level the playing field’. We thus see the following themes within Modern Liberalism: Individuality, positive freedom, equality, welfare state, and social justice.

(click to read more)

Read the rest of this entry »


FIU 30 Hour Famine

March 26, 2009

Click Here to Join Us Online!

Click Here to Join Us Online!

To Whom It May Concern:

Before this day is over, 26,000 children under age 5 will die because of hunger, disease and poverty. 14,000 of them will die from causes linked to malnutrition alone. Today… tomorrow… and the next day… That’s one every seven seconds.

But here’s the good news. Students in our beloved Florida International University are choosing to make a difference. They are getting ready to take part in World Vision’s 30 Hour Famine (a 4/4 rated Charity by CharityNavigator.com). They’re going to raise money by not eating for 30 hours so that kids eat every day.

We have a vision. We believe that the Charity and Love of our fellow students can bond our University in common cause: feeding and loving the poor. We believe that the goals of tending to the impoverished and hungry can be accomplished within our shared collegiate community. We believe that we can overlook our factional divides, and together, we Students of FIU can bring about change in the malnourishment of hungry children worldwide.

Click here to Donate to FIU 30 Hour Famine

Click here to Donate to FIU 30 Hour Famine

However, our vision does not include simply one club or fraternity, but the combined union of the University as a whole. We believe this is possible, and we believe it is forth-coming.

What Can You Do?
·    Pledge to Fast with Us During the 30 Hour Famine! Help us increase awareness and raise funds for starving Children worldwide. Join us online at

http://tiny.cc/FIUFamine

·    Sign Our Online Petition and Pledge to Remain Hungry for Hunger!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/FIU30HourFamine/
·    Make any small donation! With just $1 feeding a hungry child for one day, EVERYTHING counts! The change you receive at lunch can literally be life-changing.
·    Join the 30 Hour Famine Team! We’re looking for officers, ambassadors and more. Ask about service opportunities.
·    Spread the Word! The more we share this opportunity, the more opportunities arise. Help us share this goal.Facts About Hunger
·    Every three seconds a child dies because he or she is malnourished or susceptible to disease.
·    As many as 1 in 5 children die before reaching their fifth birthday.·    Every $30 you raise, you feed and care for a hungry child for 30 days. $360 will feed and care for a child for an entire year.

I personally thank you for any future involvement. May our Panther Pride and compassion unite us in this Common Good. Thank You.

Leonard O Goenaga

FIU 30 Hour Famine Chairperson

786.223.2404, LGoen001@fiu.edu


Obama and the Budget, Heritage Foundation

March 25, 2009

 

Obamas Budget and National Debt

Obama's Budget and National Debt

“During his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama promised the American people a “net spending cut.”1 Instead, he signed a “stimulus” bill that spends $800 billion, and he has proposed a budget that would:

  • Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;
  • Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout;
  • Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretion­ary spending;
  • Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over pre-recession levels;
  • Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade;
  • Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
  • Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion;
  • Assume a rosy economic scenario that few econo­mists anticipate;
  • Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and
  • Double the publicly held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation).”
Federal Spending Per Household Under Obamas Budget

Federal Spending Per Household Under Obama's Budget

“President Obama has framed his budget as a break from the “failed policies” of the Bush Admin­istration. Actually, his budget doubles down on President George W. Bush’s borrow, spend, and bail­out policies. For example:

  • President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.[3]
  • President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.[4]
  • President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
  • President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.[5]
  • President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.[6]
  • President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.[7]
Obamas 1.7 Trillion Tax Increase

Obama's 1.7 Trillion Tax Increase

“Analysts have described President Obama’s budget as a repudiation of the past 25 years of economic pol­icy. In doing so, the President has rejected the most prosperous economic period in American history.

Between 1953 and 1982—a period of high tax rates, spending growth, and applied Keynesian eco­nomics—the economy was in recession 21 percent of the time, inflation reached 13 percent, interest rates hit 19 percent, and the stock market grew only 5.4 percent annually.

However, beginning around 1982, tax rates were dramatically reduced, and federal spending began decreasing as a share of the economy. In the 26 years following this major policy shift, the economy has been in recession only 10 percent of the time (including the current recession), inflation has never topped 5 percent, interest rates have never exceeded 12 percent, and the stock market (despite increased volatility) has soared 7.0 percent annually, even including the recent 50 percent drop.[25]

The United States has created enormous wealth over the past 25 years. For President Obama to pro­pose returning to economic policies of the Carter Administration, which brought stagflation and mal­aise, is unfathomable. Lawmakers should reject this budget and instead reduce tax rates for families and entrepreneurs, restrain runaway government, and reform unaffordable entitlements.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2249.cfm

 

Projected Budget Deficit

Projected Budget Deficit


S&P 500 in the Great Depression, compared to the current recession

March 18, 2009
S&P 500 Comparison, 1930s Depression and Current Recession under President Obama

S&P 500 Comparison, 1930s Depression and Current Recession under President Obama