Paul Ryan 4 Smaller Government; Governing Against Civil Rights

Too many kettles, not enough stove time

The events of the last couple years has been VERY interesting. Really. Wisconsin is a hot spot for a lot of politics.
One thing that seems peculiar, that Paul Ryan has spent over $2 million in ads for his run for the 1st Congressional District Representative. That's a LOT of money. Yet he took the opportunity to run for vice president. The odd thing is, he has been rarely seen in his 1st congressional district offices, here in Racine, Kenosha, and some of the other surrounding areas that he represents.
One ad in particular, he's sitting in a classroom type setting, talking to people of various voting groups, such as a parent, teacher, etc. talking about how he believes in smaller government, and how the government should not be dictating so much that affects our personal lives. Really!?! That's interesting. It's so interesting, in fact, because he is the one that wants to make abortion 100% illegal. When asked about a rape victim who may want to have access to one, for her own mental health, he just states, "If it's illegal, it's illegal". Seriously? Rape is illegal, and rather than being worried about making sure rapists get their due justice with hard times (but then again, government is intruding on our personal rights now, aren't they)? Instead, he talks about if abortion is illegal, than that's just too bad for the rape victim. So. The rapist goes free. The victim has now been socially labelled, because say she is 16 or unwed. Society will pass the judgment against her that she is irresponsible, for not waiting until there is stability. Then the fact that *IF* she speaks up as a victim, they will most definitely see her in a different light, and still be discriminated against. Then, the financial part, because now she may need medicaid to have her care, and tax payers have to pay for it.
So, you see, in Paul Ryan's eyes, it's not the rapist who is the criminal. You do the math. Rape victims who end up pregnant use up too many resources and money, that they are the real perpetrators.
Mind you, the current statistic is that about 5% of all unprotected sex results in a pregnancy. Which means, it's 5%, across the board. 5% of rape victims, who will ultimately be blamed for her own pregnancy, even though we all know that women can't make ourselves pregnant.
This goes beyond just abortion rights and rape victims. What about the woman's health? Just letting people know, that while there aren't any hard facts yet, the consensus is, if the mother dies in some manner, unless it's during full term childbirth, the likelihood that her unborn will also die is pretty high. And also, I'd like to point out, we are ALL anti-abortion. It's just that thinking people are pro-choice. Choice means you can pick from 2 or more options. Not get told that there are limited options. So, until we can stop victimizing the victims further, we MUST go after the real perps. And this time, Ryan is the perv that wants to tell crime victims that their options should be illegal.
So again, I remind you, that Paul Ryan is running on the premise that big government is bad, and that's what is making us go bankrupt, corrupt and what ever else wrong for personal goals. Again, really. So why is it that he wants to ban same sex marriage? Didn't he just say that big government needs to stay out of our personal lives? Or maybe he's Lyin' Ryan.
Whether you support same sex marriage or not, it's NOT the point. If you're not the one participating in that commitment, you don't have a say as to what goes on. We would never tell a white woman that she can't marry an Asian man, would we? We would never tell a Hispanic man he can't marry a black woman, would we? So why would you tell a man or a woman that they have to marry the opposite gender or forget it? It's NOT about you, it's about them! As for taking anything away, I would like to ask, how is YOUR marriage, whether it's your first or fifth, any less sacred, because we have same sex marriage?
Yet again, you do the math. Never mind that same sex unions still pay the same fees to the courthouse, and may be able to pool money together for better property to pay taxes on, and make those larger investments to increase not only their own bottom line, but also by having a larger tax base, the government's too, so that everyone's taxes will go down by sharing the burden. No. It's about the fact that the benefits package will be less expensive as a couple, rather than 2 individuals, and that some how adds to the extra cost of things, if you ask Mr. Paul Ryan.
To further make against Ryan, now that he's been actively campaigning as Veep, and spending $2 mil on his Wisconsin Congressional seat, he's been MIA here to represent the people of S.E. Wisconsin, to which he is getting paid to do. Since he is nowhere to be seen on the home front, maybe we need the CIA to contact the FBI to investigate a missing person? Oh, wait. He's running as a vice prez. So maybe we should be fact checkers to see how wrong he is, not just for Wisconsin, but for the whole United States.

An FYI...

The collective bargaining bill that Scot Walker (and Paul Ryan supported as a fellow republican) signed, has been struck down. Too bad for Paul Ryan, that he couldn't use his federal pull to keep that in place, and the governor he so much admires took a loss with this decision.
Here is the link: http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/state-and-regional/judge-strikes-down-law-that-ended-collective-bargaining/article_3e2a74f6-feb8-11e1-9bc6-0019bb2963f4.html

Rob Zerban for Congress!

Rob Zerban, a political newbie, is here to compete against Paul Ryan. I urge you to find out more about him and vote him into office.

What do YOU think?

Where would you like to see Paul Ryan serve his term?

• Vice President
• Congressman
• Neither, go home!

Politics & Religion: Separate, or Intertwined?

 

American Politics & Religion

 

U.S.A. Founded on what?

It is interesting for me to listen to a lot of republicans, especially the far right like the tea party. Many of them actually argue with me that the Constitution and this country were founded on (Judea)Christian values, because most of the original Amendments reflect off of the 10 Commandments. So they do. For example, homicide (murder, killing, manslaughter, etc) as well as theft (even petty) are both illegal. Adultery and sodomy are grounds for divorce, though it is not really defined in the U.S. Constitution.

Thing is, the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution, don't really have much to "do" with Biblical values. Lets check these out.

1) The government is not allowed to restrict how or what faith we practice, infringe on free speech or press, to peacefully assemble, nor to petition our government.
2) We are entitled an organized "militia" and not abridge our right to bear arms.
3) We have the right to our own homes, w/o the military barging in to take over during peace nor wartime.
4) The right to keep our private matters private, unless there is a probable cause (and a warrant) to search/seize our possessions.
5) We have the right NOT to incriminate ourselves.
6) The right to a speedy trial, with a jury of our peers, and if we cannot afford representation, one will be appointed to you.
7) Civil suits are excused from the jury.
8) We get a fair bail and sentencing, not to be overdone or overly excessive.
9) Certain rights cannot be taken away by the constitution.
10) The individual states have a certain amount of sovereignty under the constitution, so as to the fact that the U.S. can't restrict individual State rights to govern it's own people.

Let us see what we are comparing, since the Bill of Rights sets the stage for the Constitution and American Law, so then the Ten Commandments are also the basis for the faithful laws that are included in the Bible.

Here are the Ten Commandments, for which the rest of the laws and bylaws of our faith are derived and supported from:

1) The God of Egypt is the God. Put Him first!
2) No idol worship - do not put people or things above God.
3) Keep His Name Holy in your mouth.
4) Just as God rested on the 7th day, keep the Sabbath Holy.
5) Respect your parents.
6) No murdering!
7) No cheating on your spouse!
8) No stealing!
9) Do not lie about other people.
10) Don't be jealous of others, keeping up with the Jone's is not becoming.

Now, lets see here... I don't know about you, but, the two lists don't even look the same. The 1st Amendment says I get to be Lutheran, you get to be what ever faith you are, Paul Ryan gets to be Catholic, Mitt Romney gets to be Mormon. So we all get to worship (or not) the way we feel fit for ourselves. The Bible's first says put God first. You get the picture of where we are going...

Aside from the fact that Amendments 6 & 7 are the basis for our Miranda Rights, Deuteronomy 17:6 in theAmerican King James Version states "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death" and there is another that reiterates that. But, this, of course is meaning that we obey the commandment not to lie about others.

So the oath to tell nothing but the truth is not saying that you are necessarily Christan nor Jewish. Yet it's amazing at how many of these people say that we are a Christian Nation, that they are very Christian and "libtards are evil", yet are against "redistribution of wealth". Yet in Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, and Luke12:33, the way to truly follow Jesus Christ is to give your possessions and money to the poor (and undiscriminating at that), so you have a place in Heaven. The Bible also says that the meek will inherit the earth.

Do we see anywhere in the constitution about the meek ruling our country? No. Only the welcoming sign of the Statue of Liberty welcomes the poor, the tired to come rest here.

Faith Survey: A comparison

First off, let us not forget, that what separates the Jewish people from the Christians, is that the Torah, or Old Testament, is the Jewish Holy Book called the Torah. They believe in Jesus' existence, but NOT that He is the Messiah. They are still waiting for someone like King David. Maybe the Second Coming of Christ will be more proactive in certain ways, and will be one and the same with the Jewish Messiah. But I digress...
Lets first look at the Islam religion. Sure, there are many denominations of Islam, which is not so different than the different denominations of Christianity, and some are more conservative than others. Yet many conservative Americans want to say that all Muslims are extremists and what not. The Koran, the Islamic Holy Book, shares the first 4 chapters of the Bible/Torah, so in that case, since the Ten Commandments of Exodus are also in the Koran - which the Muslims believe in. On top of which, many of the other Principals of Islam also corroborate this. Look up "The Commandments of Islam: 1ststepsinislam" and you will see that one of the principals is not to be extremist. Other principals include not oppressing others; joining - not severing ties; taking care of parentless children; projecting generosity and love, forbidding hate; practicing humility & respect; not sticking their business where it doesn't belong; commanding leniency and mercy, not harshness nor cold heartedness; infecting truth, and more... Go look it up for yourself. It's there.

Yet Christians are sometimes the most judgmental people I come across, when we need to take the logs out of our own eyes before judging the speck in others'. To not judge, unless we get judged harsher. I would like to remind all conservatives who want to judge another faith just upon the 9/11 attacks, that the group whom committed that is a small fraction, and just like not all Christians go to war over faith, as it happens in the Eastern European countries, not all Muslims are terrorists either.

Hinduism, while it states it very differently, also has many of the same principles that Christianity does, also. There are 5 principles and 10 commandments.

5 Hindu Principles:
1) God is; in Trinity and in various forms.
2) Human is Divine
3) Unity of Existence in Love
4) Religious Harmony
5) Believing in the 3 G's - the Sacred River, Script, and Mantra

The 10 Hindu Commandments:
1) Truth
2) Non-Violence
3) Celibacy/non-adultery
4) No desire to possess or steal
5) Non corrupt
6) Cleanliness
7) Contentment
8) Reading of Scriptures
9) Austerity, perseverance, penance
10) Regular prayers

While more simple and serene, you can see where this would overlap.

Shall we look at Buddhism? While it's more of a way of life, not a religion, it can work well to get your own spirituality and "zen" working together as a balance. I really think it can go well with other faiths. Since it teaches tolerance of others, as well as enlightenment, it's more of a central balance that encourages to look at the bigger picture. While it's not so easy to explain, Buddhism is about peace and natural balance, as the Constitution wanted the Sovereign rights of this colonial country, but of the state and the people, also.
Shintoism is mainly wrapped up as the "divinity-way". It's very spiritual, even more than Buddhism, in my humble opinion. The deity is primarily female, and all aspects of life are in harmony. The term "kami" is kind of a generic word for "God(s)" of all sorts, though there is one of each male and female at the top, with the female being the dominant of the two. This may surprise many, since it's traditionally a Japanese faith, adapted from China. It encourages personal faith and communal way of life. This may be a reason why a socialistic democracy works in Japan so well. They all take care of each other, and you don't find the corporate head complaining that the janitor takes too much time to take care of his ailing parents - family is the key component, and when one person suffers, the greater community also suffers. I see their belief in taking care of each other as a good thing, not a bad.

Native American spirituality is a bit more complicated to explain, though I think the simplest way to describe it is similar to Lion King's "Circle of Life" - where the top of the food chain dies, and becomes the fertilizer for the plants that the other animals eat... and that we all must accept our place, and all life is related. Often, when Native Americans cut down a tree, they plant at least 2 to take it's place, so that the natural resources don't get over used. They want to leave the planet at least as good, if not better for the next generation - a good way to practice the Golden Rule.

There are many more faiths, also, and most normal people in each faith has the code of being faithful to each other and to the earth, being a good citizen, and so much more.

Founding Fathers' Faiths

Now say THAT fast 3 times in a row... Founding Fathers' Faiths...

I don't question that our Founding Fathers were very spiritual and very moral people. They were many of the highest regarded people, and looked down upon public drunkenness, lewd behavior and more. But, they weren't about being the judge and jury for their fellow man, but to have the greatest country, founded on the greatest Constitution on the planet, which is only as strong as the weakest link, supported by the strongest.
Thomas Jefferson thought Christianity and other religion as being superstition, because people have been tortured in the name of religion, for no good apparent reason. Of all the religions, he considered Christianity as the most perverted.

John Adams made it a doctrine, called the Treaty of Tripoli, in 11 states, that "our country's basis is NOT founded on Christian principles", "because the divinity of Jesus made a fine absurdity of a cover".
Thomas Paine is NOT going to dishonor his Creator by attaching Him to the Bible, nor mixing faith with politics. He understands that mixing them leads to Holy Wars that the government dictates the faith of the people, and the person(s) in power dictates the faith and government.
James Madison states that both religion and politics will stay more pure, if they stay separate, and was against religions getting a tax break.

In a nutshell, these founding fathers believed in a higher power, sure. But obviously were NOT necessarily Christian. They were deist, kind of like agnostics, not theists, as in organized religion. For more information, look up "The Faith of Our Founding Fathers" and see what you get. You can't argue direct quotes FROM them.

Still think they were based on Christian principles? Not me. In the mean time, I will follow suit of Jesus, who commands me to take care of those who are less fortunate than themselves, and they do NOT include the 1%. The Tea Party wants the poor to go to homeless shelters, the hungry to soup kitchens, and the weary to whom ever takes them in, and not make themselves anybody else's problem, and discriminates against who they think are deserving of help. And while sure, I am all for punishing those who commit crimes, but to lump the bad check writer because baby needed diapers and milk with those who commit felony fraud is just plain a travesty.

Until next time, peace out. Thanks for reading!

p.s. I am NOT a theological professional in anyway, shape or form. I love to read and learn new things, and gathered much of my info from being friends with Muslims as well as reading the Koran and research, I went to an Indian Reservation, and lived in Japan for a few years. I also went to college with an International Relations degree, and this is where I make my personal basis.

Voting: It's your right, as well as your civic duty!

May the vote be a force within you...

Rep. Paul Ryan is running for two positions, and he had already been put on the ballot for Wisconsin's First Congressional District, which includes where I live. Thing is, he's also running as Veep under Mitt Romney. In my opinion, they're both pretty far right strung.
Thing is, lets humor him, and say that Ryan has the power to bring the Romney/Ryan ticket all the way to the top. So why not endorse another candidate, then, for the congressional seat? And if he wins both seats, the seat does NOT automatically go to Zerban. Which is ridiculous, so on top of spending money on the election, there would have to be another special election afterwards. I think that Ryan is trying to ensure he's in, one way or another, and, he forgets who he is running for. This race is NOT about him, but for we, the people.
Rob Zerban is a local native, who is a concerned citizen of his district. So, he plans on running, as an independent democrat, who will for sure vote with his constituents in mind. He's not doing it for himself, no, that would be greedy puppetry. Rob is running for us.
There will be a fundraiser for him in Kenosha, WI at the Best Western Harborside, 5125-6th Ave. Please attend, and bring supporters.
Remember, voting isn't just a right, it determines the walk into the future. It's also your civic duty as a responsible person, to get out, and be a responsible voter! It's a power thing, just do it.

My Local Legislators on Akin's Faux-Pas Statements.

Remember "legitimate rape"?

We can recall that recently, Representative Todd Akin made statements along the line that all abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape, because if it were a real rape, the female body would reject the pregnancy, so abortion wouldn't be necessary. As if we can talk ourselves OUT of it, too. This would mean that we could actually get pregnant by ourselves, correct?

No. Even the likes of Rush Limbaugh is saying those comments were stupid. Rush Limbaugh, of all people, the same guy who called a college student a slut for wanting contraceptive help during her college years. This is the same Rush, who thinks that giving rights to gay marriage is a war on "traditional" marriage. The same Mr. Limbaugh, that says he's against the women's movement, because demonstrating for equal pay for equal work is leading us astray. I could go on, but you get my point.

Anyway, my local legislators weighed in. I'd like to give a special kudos to Representative Cory Mason, who basically stated that once you start putting limits on who can or can't get an abortion, then we get lame comments like from Akin, who makes uneducated statements about a topic he should have stopped talking about. I agree with not restricting to the point where you're saying that this person has a right, but that person does not. I'd also like to give another kudos to Representative Robin Vos, for his stance that in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother should be an exception to the 'no abortion rule'.

While technically, yes, I do support Rep. Vos's stance, because abortion for the sake of convenience does crawl under my skin. But, I have to agree with Rep. Mason about the fact that once you've made one restriction, all others may follow due to the fact that you get a bunch of morons who don't know the difference between a biological fact, and wishing something away like an ostrich.

So why would I support the open abortion rights stance, when I disagree with some of the reasons? Well, let's see, sure, some women can say that they've been raped, but, what about the rapists? ALL of them will say they've never committed that crime. They think they're entitled somehow, or because she may have been too drunk to say no, they took it upon themselves to take it anyway, even though the victim is too drunk to consent, also. Thing is, we don't blame the home owner, if the burglar breaks in and robs them blind. We don't blame the dead person for being shot to death, nor do we tell the family about what they did wrong as to why their loved one got stabbed or beat within an inch of their lives either. So why do we blame rape victims? It's an added stigma to an already stigmatized crime.

For those who are interested in attending and/or supporting a gathering for abuse survivors, please go here, to read more about it. Right click, and ask it to open in a new tab, or copy/paste into your browser.
http://likamarie.livejournal.com/910.html