This "sticky" is a brief listing of political issues that I find important and where I stand on them. There are two aspects each of them, political and religious. "Political" is how I think this country should handle the issue, "Religious" is how I morally feel about it.
GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGE (changed June 2010, expanded March 2011):
-Political: This is not a federal issue. I would not support an amendment that would either allow or disallow gay marriage. The people of each state should govern themselves. I used to think that "marriage" was far more of a religious concept than legal, and therefore should not enter into legal politics at all. That has changed, as I have come to realize that marriage is completely a legal term rather than religious at all; it is a legal term that is simply supported by the Bible, just as the Bible backs up paying taxes, and slaves obeying their legal masters.
-Religious: My views on this have recently drastically changed. I am not gay at all, but I strongly believe, now, that it in no way conflicts with the Bible- and the passages used are being twisted, mistranslated, misinterpreted, taken completely out of historical context, and used legalistically, pulled from the very books of the Bible that tell us -not- to use the Bible like that. I have spent night after night in prayer on this issue alone, and believe that the Church is completely wasting their time alienating people on an issue that is pointless. The church's legalistic affair with sex is nothing short of idolatry. Their twisting of what is considered "traditional marriage" is downright deceitful, a flat out lie. True traditional marriage means that a man wants to start a family, so he purchases a wife from a father as sexual property. Sexual property, with the intent of procreation to start a family. That is what is -truly- traditional. What we have today, marriage for love infatuation is as far from Biblical "traditional" as one can get. Me? I support neither extreme- but that's beside the point. Why "gay marriage" issues, or even gay relationship issues at all, exist as a point of contention in the Church is because of a GROSS misunderstanding of so-called "traditional values."
FREEDOM:
-Political: People should be allowed to govern themselves instead of being governed. The government, military and law enforcement should be viewed as subservient, and in "status" should be below civilians, not above them (although civilians should honor them). The rights of civilians should always be more than the rights and powers of the government. Restrictions, regulations, coercions and taxes are by definition contrary to freedom. The federal government has no place imposing any of the above on the citizens of America.
-Religious: Freedom is a Biblical concept and (I believe) is intended by God, but is not guaranteed by Him. Not only must freedom be fought for, but it is worth fighting and dying for.
SOVEREIGNTY:
-Political: This country has the right to defend its borders and define its own laws. No treaty, so-called international "law", UN resolution, or international agreement should ever be placed above the internal laws of this country, decided only by the self-governing people of this nation.
-Religious: sovereignty is granted by God. He will support our sovereignty as long as we are loyal to Him. God has the right and the power to take it away- He has before and He will again if we as a nation deny Him.
PROPERTY RIGHTS:
-Political: Property is owned by it's owner, not by the city/state/nation that surrounds it. No city, state or national government has the authority to tell a property owner what he, she or they can do with their own property, until it directly affects someone else's property. Private property is sovereign.
-Religious: God has a right to everything that's "mine", because they are His first and only granted to me. That said, what God has granted ME is not YOURS. If God wants me to give it to you, I will. Until then it's my decision, between me and God. Keep your hands, and your laws, off of my property.
STATES RIGHTS:
-Political: States are the arena where the people govern themselves. Multiple states allow people of different minds to pass different sets of laws. This causes competition among the states and promotes productivity and freedom as people will simply move to a state that fits their beliefs. This is somewhat true today, but not enough. One may argue that this will divide the country and damage many of the universalism that exists today. To that I would say "Yes, that's the point." I don't believe forcing someone to live as they don't want to live is freedom. Worry about YOUR state, keep your laws off of mine. Federal laws are always a problem here.
WEAPONS:
-Political: The people have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say small arms, it says ARMS. That includes small arms. The people do, and should, have the right to bear any weapon in the U.S. military, or any other weapon ever created in the history of man. Any weapon: sharp, dull, hot or cold, .50 caliber or above or below, any weapon that will fire one or more bullets per pull of the trigger, any weapon that explodes, any weapon that can drive, fly or float, any weapon that can move, shoot, or shoot down any other weapon, and any weapon that can destroy an entire city, country or planet. We DO have the right. Any law that says otherwise is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL, not to mention tyrannical. If you are one who would restrict any of these, then pass an amendment. Until then, the LAW says that U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms. This has nothing to do with fighting off a mugger, it has to do with fighting off our own military and law enforcement if it ever comes to that- and it has in the past. Sound impossible? Think about WHY it's impossible. States on the other hand, beaus they are the arena where people govern themselves, should be allowed to impose restrictions as their own constitutions prescribe. However, this would be a violation of the 14th amendment, and therefore every law restricting weapons, every one, everywhere, any type of weapon, State and Federal, is illegal under the constitution.
-Religious: Luke 22:36
ABORTION:
-Political: Abortion, like murder, is not in the federal jurisdiction per the Constitution. This is purely a state issue. Any federal ruling or law to the contrary is illegal and unconstitutional.
-Religious: Abortion is murder, and is akin to child sacrifice. The god to which the child is sacrificed is ourselves, and our own convenience. A life begins at conception. While I don't believe that this is a federal issue, I would hope that every state would call it murder.
FAMILY:
-Political: Family is the one thing above everything else that government has no authority over, even if they like to think they do. CPS is nothing more or less than a terrorist organization. I firmly believe that most of what they do, even if they don't see it themselves, is for the sole purpose of exercising control over another person, and using their children as hostages. However, believe it or not, even I will claim that CPS is one of the few government agencies that SHOULD exist, but saying that they have overstepped their bounds would be like calling the Nazis "naughty". The ONLY times a child should be taken into government custody are when BOTH parents are hospitalized or in prison, AND when there is no other family available. If there is family available, custody should be automatically given to the family, and CPS and the courts should only mediate is the wishes of the parents are not known. The instant a parent is available again custody should revert to the parent. NEVER should a child be removed from a house when a parent is available. I would agree to very short-term exceptions of 48 hours or so in extreme circumstances while a situation is being determined, but no more. Removing a child from a parent during investigations is guilt until proof of innocence. Innocence should ALWAYS be assumed. Furthermore, I believe that all family related issues from drinking age to proper marriage age should be decided by the family.
-Religious: God gave me my children to watch over them. I will raise them as I believe I should, regardless of what a tyrannical government and sick society tell me.
INFORMATION AND FREE SPEECH:
-Political: I am as firm a believer in the First Amendment as I am the Second. I believe that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING should be illegal to say. I believe that "Top Secret" is a violation of the First Amendment, among other concepts held dear among our founding fathers. I believe that I should be able to run a political ad whenever I want however I want, however I want, no matter who I am. If you are offended by what I say, then say something back. BLOGGING IS FREE SPEECH, AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAXED, NOR RESTRICTED IN ANY WAY, BY THE GOVERNMENT.
PRIVACY AND SEARCH AND SEIZURE:
-Political: Again one would think the Fourth Amendment would speak for itself. But then we have FBI, TSA and NSA. The government should ABSOLUTELY NEVER indiscriminately mine for information, gather information on individuals or groups, or require that an individual or group give up this right in order to practice another (this tactic is used WAY too often today, and is a way to take right while claiming that none have been violated).
DEMOCRACY:
-Political: Democracy is the biggest threat to freedom, even more than pure socialism. This is because democracy will ALWAYS lead to socialism, but very slowly and quietly, and few will recognize that it has happened. If 99% of people vote that the tree in my front yard is too big and needs to be cut down, my property rights have just been violated. It doesn't matter if 99% vote for it to be cut down, it's MY tree. A Representative Republic, with a supreme constitution, is the only way for freedom to remain intact, so long as the constitution actually protects the rights of the people and is followed by the government. In America, only the first is true.
RIGHTS ABUSED, RIGHTS UNUSED:
-Political: Rights are bound to get abused. This NEVER gives the government the authority to implement restrictions on this right. Rights are not always exercised. This NEVER gives the government the authority to begin infringing on it. They are still rights.
