Calling Bullshit on Bob Barr

I've been waiting for quite a while to see who the Libertarian Party would finally nominate as their candidate. It seems as if they've come to a decision with former republican Bob Barr. You can visit his website at bobbarr2008.com.

Somehow it all seems vaguely familiar... a conservative leaning Libertarian congressman, pushing for limited government. Even the layout and color of the website remind me of someone.... right down to the animated donation image. Who could it be? Ron Paul maybe?

Well, let's just see how he lines up on "the issues."

Bob Barr is against "Big Government" and "Big Spending." Ok, that's cool. But I would think that has to be a given stance for anyone that positions himself as a conservative and competes for the LP nomination, so I'll believe it when I see it.

He also proclaims to be a proponent of maximizing individual liberty, and restoring the Constitution. This is still sounding really familiar, but unfortunately that seems to be about where the similarities end. You see, apparently parting ways with the LP, Bob Barr doesn't seem to believe in equal liberty for every one since he voted to ban gay adoptions in DC in 1999. Now I'm not about to play the "why do you hate gay people" card, but surely your sexual orientation shouldn't be something that the government can use to prohibit you from entering into a contract that you would otherwise be able to fulfill.

He also apparently doesn't follow the LP platform regarding personal liberty and victimless crimes either as he cast an affirmative vote for military border patrols to battle drugs and terrorism (why these two were lumped together I'll never know) in 2001, and also voted to prohibit medical marijuana in DC in 1999. Not even the street stuff... we're purely talking about healing potential here.

So, Bob Barr is a big advocate of maximizing individual liberty right? I'm calling bullshit.

And as far as his history of "restoring" the constitution: In 1996 he voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals, while the US constitution specifically states in Article 1, section 9 that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.".

He also supported the anti-flag desecration amendment of 2001. Now, it is my opinion that the desecration of any symbol can be a form of protest, and political speech which is clearly protected by the First Amendment which clearly says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." To prohibit the freedom of speech or free expression by protecting a symbol that defends it would obliterate the value of the very symbol you seek to defend.

Then if that wasn't enough, in 1994 he supported the line item veto. Allowing the president to modify bills before they are passed into law is a direct assault on the checks and balances that our founding fathers put into action. There are reasons that the legislative and executive branches of government were set up separately.

So, Bob Barr is a Libertarian with a proven interest in restoring the constitution? Again, I'm calling bullshit!

If I haven't already brought out enough to discourage you, let my present just a few additional issues in a minimalist format.

In 1998 Bob Barr voted to end preferential treatment by race in college admissions. Now, this sounds great at first.. but do you really want the government mandating what qualifications you are allowed to use in your business or school? It's not like you owe them a job, or an education. I'll grant that racism is stupid, but should stupid be illegal?

In 2001 he supported requiring schools to allow prayer, and in 1997 he supported a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. Now I think prayer can be a great thing, but it should not be mandated in private schools and it is already protected in public schools under the first amendment. Do we really need another one?

In 2004 Bob Barr wanted to use the tax code to "reinforce families." Does that mean that he wants to use the tax code in a way that would (just as much) punish people for being single?

In 2001 he voted to ban soft money donations to national political parties. (Explanation of soft money here.) This, like the anti-flag desecration amendment and John McCain's campaign finance reform, is censorship of your freedom of speech - protected by the first amendment.

In 2000 Bob Barr voted to subsidize private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. I'm sorry, but why the hell is the government forcing me to pay for your mistakes?

In 1999 he voted to ban physician-assisted suicide. Wait a minute... are you saying that I don't have authority over my own life? That I can't delegate that to someone else, and ask them to help me do what I already have the authority to do? Do you mean to tell me that another person has a higher ownership or authority over my life, and my time, than I do? Well, I guess that's what income taxes are about after all.

In 1998 Bob Barr voted no more immigrant visas for skilled workers. So let me get this right: Good labor, at a good price... is a bad thing?

In 1999 he voted yes on a $266 BILLION Defense Appropriation bill. This was pre-911. Do you realize how much money that is!? So much for cutting spending..

In 1994 Bob Barr wanted to provide incentives to business to create jobs and raise wages. Tell, me exactly who is he going to get the "incentives" from to give to the businesses? Let's just say that everything the government has it gets from the people. So the employees of these businesses will end up paying for their own pay raise. Not a very practical solution in my ever so humble opinion.

So, from what you've just read, do you think that Bob Barr is honestly and uncompromisingly a proponent of smaller government, a revitalized constitution, and Libertarian principles? The candidate that will bring Liberty for America? Is he really the next best thing to Ron Paul? I think this time I'm screaming... BULLSHIT!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Special thanks to OnTheIssues.org.

Note: Bob Barr is not the worst candidate to vote for, but I'm not exactly looking for "the lesser of two evils" and he's certainly not my hero. In fact, I am almost tempted to say that his only redeeming qualities are his stance on lower taxes (which means nothing unless you cut spending), and when he voted to withdraw from the WTO in June of 2000.

Is Jesus Christ a god?

So, in fashion with my curious nature I am also checking into Jehova's Witness. (Somebody remind me not to encourage the girl that comes to my door too much. lol.) My biggest hangup (or should I say saving grace?) is that I can't get past the "Jesus is a god" doctrine. I've looked at the scriptures that they point out in their "What Does the Bible REALLY Say?" book but it is not strong enough evidence to sway my belief in the trinity. It seems to be taking interpretations and questioning them, rather than proving them. As in "John 1:1 could be interpreted to say that 'In the beginning was the word and the word was a god.'" Well sure, it could. But should it be? Is there undeniable proof that this is what the author of John intended to communicate? I don't think so... Here's why:

Two verses later, still talking about "the Word" (Jesus) it says "All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being." - John 1:3

So the "Word" is the creator of everything that exists...

And then in Acts 14:15 we see it says that "...We bring you the good news (Gospel) that you should turn away from these foolish and vain things to the living God, Who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything that they contain."

So the Living God made "the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything that they contain." Wouldn't this show that God and the Word are one and the same; not two separate entities (a greater God, and a lesser god)?

In Acts 3:15 again it affirms that Christ is the Creator of the world by calling him the "Author of Life," a title that many would argue belongs only to God, when referring to his crucification. "But you killed the very Source (the Author) of life, Whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses."

Another verse referring to the crucification (and God's involvement in it) is Acts 20:28 which says "Take care and be on guard for yourselves and the whole flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you bishops and guardians, to shepherd (tend and feed and guide) the church of the Lord or of God which He obtained for Himself [buying it and saving it for Himself] with His own blood."

Since each person is his own entity and owns his own body, then Jesus, especially if he were a god (no matter how much lesser), would certainly have the ownership over his own body and blood. Unless of course he was one in being with the Father... in which case it would make sense why this verse suggests that God paid the price with "his own blood."

Another verse to keep in mind is Isaiah 9:6 where it is prophesied that "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

It's my opinion -- and I've been known to be wrong before so don't take my word for it -- that these titles ascribed to this child would have been reserved only for God.... especially "The everlasting Father." Tell me, how can a child be called a Father unless He is One?

However, since the argument made is that Christ is a created being, and a lesser god, you may put all of the above aside as I think there is only one verse that needs to be brought up to resolve this issue...

"You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know Me, believe Me and remain steadfast to Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me." - Isaiah 43:10

Edit: Here is another, Isaiah 45:5-6: "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Much thanks to ScriptureCatholic.com and BibleGateway.com for many of the quick references used here.

Are Vaccinations Safe?

Since hearing some disturbing things regarding immunization shots, and since it happens that my son's going into kindergarden this year, I've decided to look into the safety of childhood vaccinations..
Here's a website that I came across that gives multiple reasons why they think vaccinations should be avoided. They seem to have a reference system set up, but unfortunately I haven't found where the references actually are. Oh well, here's a brief glimpse into what they had to say anyways:

"In 1956, soon after the Salk polio vaccine was introduced, officials decided to determine how safe and effective it really was. The results of this study -- the now infamous Francis Field Trials -- would help determine the feasibility of continuing to vaccinate millions of young children. What they discovered would have stopped most ethical people from continuing: large numbers of children were contracting polio after receiving the vaccine. Clearly, the vaccine was either unsafe (it was causing the disease it was meant to prevent) or ineffective (it failed to protect). Instead of removing the vaccine from the market, however, officials decided to exclude from the statistics all cases of polio that occurred within 30 days after vaccination on the pretext that such cases were 'pre-existing.'"

I would like to find out exactly what the percentage was, and compare it to the percentage in that area that contracted polio without the vaccine. Although, it does give rise to thought. They also refer to a "pardon me" rule that exempts physicians from being required to receive the vaccines that other employees of medical institutions are required to submit to.

"A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that obstetrician-gynecologists are the least likely of all doctors to submit to the rubella vaccine. Fewer than 10 percent are inoculated, and blood tests indicate they are susceptible to rubella. The researchers conclude that a "fear of unforeseen vaccine reactions" lead these specialists to invoke their self-exempting 'pardon me' rule."

Of all the people who would be the most familiar with the positive (er, maybe not so positive) effects of immunizations, you would think it would be the physicians themselves right? Well, even if they don't bother to receive the vaccines, they would certainly require them for their children right? Or maybe not:

"According to Dr. Jerome Murphy, former head of Pediatric Neurology at Milwaukee Children's Hospital, 'There is just overwhelming data that there's an association [between the pertussis vaccine and seizures]. I know it has influenced many pediatric neurologists not to have their own children immunized with pertussis.'"

So then they go on to talk about the FDA:

"The FDA recently lost an important legal battle when they permitted the live virus polio vaccine, manufactured by Lederle Labs, to be released to the public even though it did not meet existing safety standards. As a result, several people were severely damaged."

Of course, if you know me very well then you know that I don't think this should be going through the FDA anyway. As a matter of fact I don't think there should even be an FDA at all:

"After losing the U.S. Supreme Court case, the FDA immediately implemented the "pardon me" ploy, and rewrote its safety procedures so that previously unacceptable safety measures would be allowable. Consequently, Lederle can continue to produce and the FDA can continue to sanction the same kind of polio vaccine that caused injuries in the first place."

Can you say false sense of security? Not that I've decided that all vaccines are inherently harmful, but this certainly raises some issues that I'd like to look into further.