No Fish On My Car

As I write this, the news is that the Supreme Court precedent of "Roe v. Wade" may be overturned. What this means is that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion will no longer be a Federal issue, but will be left up to the individual states. With many states already pushing laws limiting, or in some cases eliminating, abortions, you can see why this is such a hot topic.

Let me be clear, I really don't care whether or not "Roe v. Wade" stands or falls by the wayside. Why? Because, according to high school civics, the Supreme Court does NOT make the laws. That's the job of Congress. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret those laws in accordance with the Constitution. "Roe v. Wade" is not a law; it is a precedent. Like an Executive Order, it does not have the weight of a law and can be overturned by future courts (or Executives, in the case of the latter). 

Many on the "right" (Republicans / conservatives) have been playing footsie for years with challenges to the precedent. Such are the laws in the individual states. However, Congress has never made a LAW that states that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body, including the right to an abortion. What is really needed is an amendment to the Constitution. But really, who wants to go to all that trouble (see the 18th and 21st Amendments and you'll understand the drug war)? 

Let me be clear: I am a Caucasian male who identifies as a Christian. Got it? Okay, continue. 

Christians are considered anti-abortion/anti-choice/pro-life (depending on which side of the subject you stand). And here is why: If abortions were "normal", Jesus may never have been born. 

Luke 1:35 - "The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" 

What you just read is what Catholics call the "Immaculate Conception", because it was a conception and it was immaculate - no mess. 

According to Christian doctrine, every pregnancy is due to immaculate conception. If a woman has an abortion, she is killing something holy and pure. 

I'm kidding. The reason they call it the "Immaculate Conception" is that there was no penis involved (thus "no mess"). 

But apparently, those on the "right" believe the doctrine joke above. Why? Because EVERY law limiting a woman's right to choose has no impact upon the penis-bearer involved. And that too is Christian doctrine: 

John 8:3-6 "As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. 'Teacher,' they said to Jesus, 'this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?' They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger." 

The Bible does not state what Jesus wrote, but I've heard a few speculations. The best was He was writing the name of the MAN she was caught in adultery with. Think about it: it takes two to tango. 

We in the United States are anti-Sharia Law. It is Islam's legal system, derived from their holy book (Quaran) and other writings, and states such things like a woman has to be covered head to foot in public, a woman cannot walk around in public without a male family escort, and in many cases, cannot receive an education. I understand the reason behind Sharia Law: Islamic men are WEAK, COWARDLY, and have NO control over themselves. Instead of making laws to limit the MEN, they make laws to limit the WOMEN because the men can't control themselves. This is also known as a patriarchy. 

We too have a patriarchy for the same reason. We men here in the United States are also WEAK, COWARDLY, and have NO control over ourselves. Most of those involved in writing our laws are men, which explains the laws in the states impacting a woman's right to choose. Which is why we blame the woman for getting pregnant - as if they did it all by themselves. 

If you are a Christian reading this, the rest is directed at you. If you are not a Christian, and know a Christian, please pass this onto them as well. 

The title of this post is "No Fish On My Car". You may have seen a fish symbol decal on the back of the car in front of you. This symbol is stating that the person driving this car is a Christian. I have no such symbol on my car, though the driver is a Christian. Why? Because I don't always DRIVE like a Christian. 

2 Corinthians 3:2 "You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men;" 

Or, as Francis of Assisi said, "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary."  

Ever see those protesters outside of an abortion clinic with signs stating life begins at conception (apparently WITH a penis)? Some even hold pictures of aborted fetuses. They, my friends are what are known as "hypocrites".  

James 2:15-16 "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?" 

Want to claim to be pro-life? Want to legislate your religious morality? Then put your religion where your mouth is. Go to these women and tell them, "Here is a legal contract between you and me. You agree to carry this baby to term and I will PAY all of your expenses, drive you to all of your medical appointments, and hold your hand during the delivery. Afterwards, I will ADOPT this baby and raise it as my own. If you DO decide to keep it, I will PAY all of your expenses, drive the child to soccer practice, dance recitals, etc., and provide all needs until the child graduates college."  

If not? Shut your pie hole.  

How many are planning on removing that fish? 

©Emittravel 2022

I'm No Political Pundit, But . . .

The 2016 Presidential Election is “finally" over. I put “finally" in quotes, because according to my Twitter feed, it ain’t over yet.

As of today, November 13, 2016, Donald Trump won the election with 290 electoral votes, to Hillary Clinton’s 228. Now, according to the U.S. Constitution, Donald Trump won. But, according to my liberal friends, Hillary Clinton won because she got the most popular votes. They think that the Electoral College should either go away, or that the Electoral College should ignore the states and vote for Hillary Clinton on December 19.

Now, I’m not going to go into a long dissertation on why we have the Electoral College. I may save that for a “It’s Broke . . . Time to Fix It" article. Or, you can just go ahead and read the U.S. Constitution. What I do want to do is hopefully give everyone something to grasp that is positive, and allow everyone to finally move on.

To start, let me remind you that I voted for Gary Johnson. You can go back through some of my recent posts to get an overall picture of why. Let’s just say if you think I voted to spite the parties, you are wrong. If you think I threw my vote away, you are also wrong. If you think that my vote gave your opposing candidate the win, you can stop thinking: you are also wrong.

The reason I voted for Gary Johnson was that, based on his policies and record, I believed he was the best person for the JOB we the people were hiring for. And that’s it in a nutshell.

I say that to make sure you understand that I am NOT a Trump supporter, and I am NOT a Clinton supporter. I’m a registered Independent, so I don’t have a party line to hoe.

I’d like to say this was the nastiest election ever, but from what I’ve read, our earlier Presidential candidates were barrel-scum flingers. And that’s far before our lifetimes. So, nasty elections are nothing new in our history. It’s unfortunate that this process cannot be handled with the same decorum as the Office of the President is supposed to present.

(Maybe that should be a criteria for winning?)

As far as Clinton winning the popular vote is concerned, let’s look at the numbers. More than 40% of registered voters did not participate in this election. You can scream voter intimidation if you want, but the truth is, many people that I talked to felt that neither “major" candidate was worth voting for. (Most people had no idea about any third-party candidates, since their 24/7 news channels gave them so little free advertising, compared to the Republicans and Democrats.) Many people - over 40% - decided not to vote. THAT is a major declaration by the people. Either run a candidate that they would hire for the JOB, or they aren’t voting. Not voting is as much a statement as voting.

As far as voter intimidation is concerned, I’ve never seen it. I’ve been voting in elections since 1984 and I’ve never seen it. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I’m almost positive it does. If the elections of old were as nasty as this one was, I’m sure voter intimidation took place. I am saying that I’ve never seen it. Maybe that means I’ve lived in areas that are just too wholesome for the practice, or more likely, I’ve lived in areas where the electorate is considered of no value. But this election was filled with screams of Trump supporters intimidating voters. I remember cries over alleged Black Panthers intimidating voters in the previous two elections. So, it either is happening, or the concept gets a lot of press.

So, subtracting the over 40% of voters not participating, the remaining popular votes were almost evenly divided between Clinton and Trump. Clinton DID receive the mathematical majority of popular votes. But since NEITHER candidate was able to break the 48% mark, you need to accept that Clinton was .2% (that’s point two percent) LESS UNPOPULAR than Trump. That’s not a majority, that’s splitting hairs. And if you are making the popular vote your argument, maybe you should just stop.

As a side: If Clinton had won the Electoral College but lost the Popular vote by the same .2%, would liberals be shouting that Trump should have won? Maybe it’s time to stop whining.

As far as the people who did vote for Trump: The media has been harping most of this election that he is a bigot, womanizing, pig (amongst many other derogatory adjectives). Because of this, the same descriptors have been placed upon those who voted for him. This needs to stop, people. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people who voted FOR Trump are bigots? I’m sure you do see in the media (social and otherwise) instances showing this to be true, but like the “man on the street" portions of late night TV shows, those are selected instances for impact. NOT the norm.

I saw two maps of the country showing you what it would look like if certain groups had voted. One was hysterical. It represented what it would look like if 3-year olds had voted (completely covered in crayon scribbles). Look for that one. It was the best!

The other map showed the actual results of this election by counties. The majority of Clinton voters were in urban counties, whereas the majority of Trump voters were in rural counties. Now, the media likes to divide that between educated and uneducated. I like to look at it as if those in urban counties live in their own bubbles. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, those in rural counties cared more about the fact that many are either without jobs (never returned to the workforce since the last recession), or are under employed (making less money, or working in jobs that pay less than they had), than whether or not a trans-gendered person used a certain bathroom (if you look at the stories in the media over the last four years or so, the emphasis on such stories was abnormally high). And it’s not that rural folks are bigots against transgenders, it’s that when it comes to their lives, those folks are a minority of a minority of the population.

Maybe, just maybe, those in the rural communities were tired of being left out.

I say this to tell you that I’ve never talked to ANYONE who said they voted for Trump BECAUSE they were bigots. If you think that is the reason why people vote in elections, maybe you need to go and talk to someone . . . professionally.

So to close:

Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States. If you were electing a President, you have nothing to worry about. If you were electing a King, be afraid. Be very afraid.

©Emittravel 2016

What's a Reagan Conservative?

I haven't heard it yet, but any day now we'll hear one of the GOP (Grand Old Poopers) touting that they are the Reagan Conservative candidate. Though, when you think about it, that may not be such a Grand Old Proposition.

Before Ronald Reagan was a Republican, he was a card carrying member of the Democrat Party. He made the switch in 1962, a whole four years prior to becoming Governor of California. He said that he didn't leave the Democrat Party, but that the Democrat Party left him.

(Note: I refer to it as the Democrat Party, because that is what it is. Democratic is a type of government. For the same reason we don't call the Republican Party the Republic Party: The United States government is a Republic.)

Reagan said that his political views had not changed. The Democrats had moved farther to the left and now he found that his political views were more in line with the Republicans.

Think about that for a minute. Read that last sentence one more time. What does this mean? It means that the Republicans have THEMSELVES moved farther left as well. Reagan said his political views (which at the time were considered liberal) had not changed. And this, my friends, is the root of the problem.

During the Primaries, the candidates are not talking to the general electorate. They are talking (primarily) to their base. Once the Primaries are over, and the general election cycle starts; the candidates start talking to the general electorate as a whole. That is where a lot of the "flip-flopping" occurs.

Here's the funny thing to me. What happens is that the media convince us that the Republican candidate is "too right wing". Oh, "we need a centrist candidate" they will repeat ad nauseam. So what does the Republican candidate do? He goes about proving how he's not "too right wing".

Think about it. If you are considered "right wing" and you move more towards the center, which direction are you moving? LEFT!! Correct! So now, the Republican Party is more left (a.k.a "liberal") than they were before. And each election cycle this repeats, moving the Republican Party farther and farther left. What was considered "centrist" last year is "right wing" this year. Don't believe me? George W. Bush touted "Compassionate Conservatism". That was another way of saying "Liberal". Remember that he always said he would veto additional spending bills (that bloated the size of the federal government)? It took to half-way through his second term for him to find his veto pen. And then the GOP runs John McCain up the flag pole; a man who spent more years working across the aisle than he did with his own party. And who is (currently) at the top of the heap? Donald Trump. A man who has supported Democrats and their policies for years.

One thing you never hear is that the Democrat Party is "too left wing" and needs to move more towards the center. The media seems pretty mute on that. Yet, in order to make sure the Democrats and Republicans aren't saying the exact same things, the Democrat Party moves farther left themselves.

The results of all this side-step shuffling is that the Republicans are the liberals and the Democrats are the new socialists. (Wow! I guess this means that Bernie Sanders IS the true representation of the Democrat Party after all!)

On second thought, looking at those who have ran for office in the GOP over the last few years, maybe nobody WILL tout themselves as a Reagan Conservative. You know, he was "too right wing".

©Emittravel 2016

Finally! Both Parties Agree!

My wife, who works as a teacher in the public school system, was reading to me an article concerning Toledo, OH teachers rallying for a moratorium on holding teachers accountable for the results of this year's PARCC exams (the state has already enacted one for the students). In the article it mentions how conservatives believe the testing is an encroachment of federal power.
 
This is funny to me. Think about this. Teachers, and teacher unions, have overwhelmingly supported liberal (a.k.a. "Democrat") politicians. Yet, they are standing WITH CONSERVATIVES - maybe not for the exact same reasons - on this issue. Wouldn't you think that liberal politicians would be paying attention to one of their largest and most supportive voting blocks?

Many conservatives and liberals have stood up against things like Common Core and Standardized Testing, and feel that the federal government has been spinning its wheels over improving public education. George Bush had his "No Child Left Behind", and Barack Obama has his "Race to the Top" initiative. Both are not only utter failures, but both emphasize testing children as a means of improving schools (or to be honest, the coffers of their lobbyists - tests, curriculum, and textbooks; a one-stop shop for all your student's educational "needs"). You can almost hear the engine screaming as the whole vehicle sinks deeper and deeper in the muck.

I guess it goes to show that both conservatives and liberals can truly be bipartisan about something: f***ing your children's education.

Teachers should make their political cry as follows: Stop this madness or you will lose our support. And more to the point, stop hurting our students!

© Emittravel 2015

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #5

It's broke . . .

When it comes to eliminating the nation's debt and balancing the budget there has been nothing but a stalemate in Congress. * Conservatives want cuts without tax increases. Liberals want tax increases without cuts. Both won't give an inch.

Now, as a fiscal-conservative, I have to sympathize with the conservatives here. Both Presidents Reagan and Bush (senior) agreed to a congressional plan to raise taxes $1 for every $3 in cuts. Both Presidents were blasted (and rightfully so) for this move, and they both regretted making it. Why? Because the tax increases took effect immediately, and the cuts were to future spending. None of the cuts have ever come to fruition. Why? Because you can't force a future Congress to abide by budgets set under previous congresses.

The solution is simple: put in a stipulation that states that if the tax cuts do not take place by a certain date, the tax increases are AUTOMATICALLY rescinded, including reimbursement to those affected (including those evil rich people). Make it a hard and fast law that a future Congress can't break.

 

Now THAT'S what you call a compromise we can live with!

. . . time to fix it!

* Generalization - both conservatives AND liberals have not been too keen on spending cuts

© Emittravel 2011