Conservative Observer

Republican Front Runner?

2011-11-23T08:40:00.001-08:00

Still up in the air, and I'm wondering why the media loves to jump on the foibles of the candidates. It make sthem all look incompetent. But then again, maybe they all are. Hopefully, for our sake, a clear cut candidate emerges, even if it's someone who'll make the rich richer, then it'll be a clear race at least.

How's Unemployment In California? Pretty lame

2011-09-21T20:51:00.000-07:00

Take the largest state in the country and check their health. If we do that for California we see issues. Check out this graph.

If you look closely, ok you do'nt have to look closely, but if you look you'll see that there's really no change as of late, unemployment numbers are still very high.Couple that with foreclosures and bankruptcies and you'll get a bleak picture. There aren't many states that are doing any better. Seems to me whatever was broke is still broken.It seems clear, we're in another recession, in fact, we barely came out of the one we were in. Next steps?

Raise Taxes for the Rich?

2011-09-14T20:46:00.000-07:00

So I'm obvious in favour of increasing taxes to the rich because I do'nt see a class warfare issue like some Republicans try to monger. I do however, understand economics when it prescribes lower taxes for those who create wealth. We can assume those who make lots of money know how to make it and want to make more of it. Thus they'll take the incentive of less taxes and use that to make more money. More money requires employees thus more jobs are created.really simple way to look at the economy but that's the reason behind lowering taxes. The problem? Rich people horde their money, or they buy frivolous items. That's not to say that's ALL they do, but last I checked we're not adding jobs and rich execs are getting bonuses for short term profits rather than long term sustainability.As well, what I never get, is the Republican push for competition and less gov't. Private sectors all the way! But when that happens the race is for cheap, and cheap means sending jobs to India.....So long story short, go ahead, raise taxes for the rich, I won't notice.

This could be you

2011-08-28T14:28:00.000-07:00

http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2011/08/12/confessions-of-a-green-conservative/ lol

Republican Front RUnner

2011-08-17T10:00:00.000-07:00

Who would you pick to lead the Republicans? A boob from Texas (no, sorry Texas, we do'n need another solid C+ student as President). How about crazy Bachmann? If you had to pick who would it be, there are some interesting candidates, and then there are some 'interesting' candidates.

Green and Conservative, No problem

2011-07-13T20:38:00.000-07:00

You can have a liberal sensibility, with conservative political beliefs, no? One can still recycle, adore nature, volunteer to help the less fortunate and give money to those in need. But I also can opt for plans that reduce deficits, that seek to save rather than spend, that opt for job creation in the private sector rather than government intervention.......Can't you?

Green Conservative

2011-06-27T14:55:00.000-07:00

Check out this blog written by a REpublican with a slant towards conservation: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/

Conservative Majority in Canada

2011-05-17T20:43:00.000-07:00

Canadians went to the polls earlier this month and elected a majority Conservative government. For years now the Conservative have governed the country in a minority government which mean conservative legislation had a tough time passing Parliament. All that has changed. The graph shows that with the majority of seats the Conservative party of Canada can now push their agenda, and the one that was supported by most Canadians.

(Actually the majority of Canadians in accumulation voted for left wing parties, but because there are 2 left wing parties in Canada, that vote was split.)

The new official opposition is the socialist party the NDP. A definite surprise in this election.

What will this mean for foreign policy and the economy (with the majority government)?

Well because Canada is a parliamentary system the majority of votes will pass any legislation. That means there's little to no opposition even though there are opposing opinions, when it comes to voting it's merely symbolic.

The Conservatives tend to be slightly more right wing when it comes to fiscal policy. They would opt for less government intervention, lower taxes, and eventually deficit payments. One can also expect a hard line stance on immigration, increased spending for the military, lower taxes for corporations, and cuts to unnecessary social programs.

For America we can expect Canada will continue to milk a stronger economy and offer their oil exploits to us, that's a win.That's important to because a strong Canadian economy means a strong export economy. They do after all buy 30% of our exports.

Wake up Oregon!

2008-05-14T18:12:00.000-07:00

It never ceases to amaze me when I see Democratic voters falling prey to the MSM who helped us get George W. Bush elected. I've been reading some of the Obamabot blogs in recent days and they spew the same bullshit that the right wingers used to eat up for breakfast. Instead of actually taking the time to research their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, they swoon like little school girls waiting to get an autograph from a rock star. It doesn't matter that said rock star is a phony piece of garbage who lip-syncs his songs.

A few weeks back, Hillary Clinton spoke in Oregon about The Oregon Compact.

This compact clearly sets out the goals Hillary has for Oregon and the way she will partner with the state to help meet its needs. The compact includes:

* Bringing Green Jobs to Oregon
* Supporting Oregon on its Path to Energy Independence
* Protecting Oregon’s Right to Determine the Siting of Liquified Natural Gas
* Partnering with Oregon to Provide Affordable Health Care for Every Oregonian
* Restoring County Payments for Oregon’s Rural Communities
* Standing up for Oregon's Soldiers, Military Families, and Veterans
* Creating Sustainable Jobs by Thinning Choked, Unhealthy, Second-Growth Forests
* Stopping and Reversing the Depletion of Wild Salmon
* Protecting Remaining Old Growth Forests and Roadless Areas
* Achieving Wilderness Parity for Oregon and
* Defending Oregon’s "Death with Dignity" Law from Federal Meddling

Now, this sounds like a plan to me and of course, Obama had to try to trump this plan with one of his own....unfortunately, he had no plan. So what does Obama do when he has no plan? He makes up a snazzy title...CHANGE OREGON CAN BELIEVE IN. There ya go folks, all he has to do is put in his code word, "Change", and the Obamabots start to drool at the thought of a tasty pile of shit for lunch. Unfortunately, Obama didn't do much research when his campaign put out that "change" you can all believe in. Here it is:

Barack Obama will reinvigorate the drinking water standards that have been weakened under the Bush administration and update them to address new threats. He will help communities by restoring better federal financing for water and wastewater treatment infrastructure, and he will continue his leadership in protecting national treasures like the Great Lakes from threats such as industrial pollution, water diversion, and invasive species. Obama will establish policies to help high-growth regions with the challenges of managing their water supplies.

I guess Obama figured that you guys will buy anything, a little geography snafu means nothing, after all, he DID say that there would be change! He didn't mention that he planned on moving the Great Lakes from the northern Midwest portion of our country, to the Pacific Northwest.

Ever ready at the damage control, Nick Shapiro said that his campaign wasn't trying to match Clinton's Oregon compact. "The last thing Oregon needs is another plan." Hugh? That's right, Oregon don't need no fucking plan! At this point the Obamabots eyes had already begun to glaze and the chant "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!" had already begun. Shapiro continued by arguing that the important thing is that Obama would be more successful in breaking through Washington gridlock to get things done. Ok....we don't want any of those nasty "plans" causing Washington gridlock. I'm just not sure why Obama needed to have a plan that said "Change Oregon Can Believe In", if they didn't need a plan to begin with, but I digress....

Let's look at that plan...ooops, I mean "non-plan" that Obama put out. Ignoring the blaring mistake that the Great Lakes aren't in Oregon, Barack tells Oregon that he will "Require 25 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2025." And that's great. Except that Oregon already passed that standard into law, on their own, back in 2007. I guess Oregon already had a change they could believe in. Maybe if Obama actually did his homework instead of trying to copy off others, he could come off not looking like an out of touch elitist.

On the other hand, Hillary, who does do her homework said, "the Bush Administration has tried to stop states like Oregon from taking action to address this pressing problem. Against this headwind, Oregon has made progress, joining with its neighbors to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gases, and setting a 25% renewable electricity target. Where President Bush has attacked and stymied Oregon's efforts, Senator Clinton will partner with Oregon and protect Oregon's right to lead the way in reducing greenhouse gases. And where President Bush refused to take action at the federal level, Senator Clinton will implement a bold plan to attack the growing climate crisis."

About siting rights, Barack says that he:

supports the right of states like Oregon to veto the siting and construction of onshore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities in their states. He believes that any LNG terminals must include strong environmental and safety reviews, a process that is critical for the proposed LNG facilities in Oregon. He also said that he supports legislation championed by Senator Ron Wyden to preserve Oregon's siting authority and will sign it into law as president.

Wow! All that came out of Obama??? Here's the problem, the phony forgot to mention that the only reason this is even an issue for Oregon is because the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill stripped States of their voice in the siting process. That's the bill that Barack "No Plan" Obama voted for, while Hillary voted AGAINST it. I guess Obama didn't think first before he voted for that plan, but hey, at least he showed up for the vote, eh?

Wipe your mouth, Obama, there's still a tiny bit of bullshit around your lips.

Obama does have a plan for veteran's though. Trouble is, the geography challenged candidate was talking about Pennsylvania to Oregon voters. Ooops! He said, "As president, I will ensure we honor the sacred trust to care for Pennsylvania's 1.1 million Veterans."

Hillary, on the other hand, said this: "Oregon's National Guard has contributed significantly to our nation's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan with 7,000 individual mobilizations. More than 3,500 Oregon Guard members are scheduled to go to Iraq in 2009. In addition, Oregon has 359,000 veterans within its borders, which is higher than the national average. Yet unlike many states with this level of military involvement, Oregon has no active duty bases, which routinely provide health care for military families. This means Oregon's veterans, Guard members, reservists and their families have limited access to the health care they deserve, making reliable health care through TRICARE even more critical in Oregon than in most states."

Kind of makes Obama look like he doesn't know what he's talking about, doesn't it? But he's sooooooooo inspirational! He's change we can believe in! Obama keeps saying we have to have some serious discussions about the issues. It's not too easy to to that with a candidate like Obama who doesn't understand the issues to begin with.

After eight years of listening to a Yale Graduate who couldn't put two coherent sentences together, I was hoping to have the opportunity to have a President...like Bill Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton, who knows and understands these issues, someone who actually takes the time to listen to the voters and their needs, not just an empty suit with empty rhetoric and catchy phrases like "Hope and Change you can believe in." That's nice, but when you haven't got a clue as to what the American people need, you can't change it, can you.

Wake up Oregon, wake up Obamabots.....you backed the wrong horse and he's making an ass out of you.

Oh, and speaking of asses, it seems that Obama, while speaking in Oregon said that he has traveled to 57 States in the last 15 months. Again, the man needs to get his geography and history straight. He explained it all away, though, when he said to a group of reporters at a stop later on where he was discussing the cyclone victims in Burma, "I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh." At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out.

Marriage Debate happening in Canada

2006-06-09T21:16:00.000-07:00

One blogger from the country had this to say about the impending problems around changing the legal definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

I have had numerous discussions of late with various people regarding the definition of marriage. This has led me to do some serious thinking about what marriage is and is not, why we marry, what relation the state has to it, what God says about it, and what we should do in light of all this information. I wanted to figure out exactly what I should be thinking about all this in light of my faith in the God of the Bible. If you do not believe in the same God as I, I would ask that you would look upon this as an opportunity to understand a little more about those whose decisions on these issues are formed by the Bible. However, be warned. I do battle with a number of sacred cows here, and I would not hesitate to say that my views are by no means representative of the typical Christian of any stripe.

My first question is, where do we get this idea that the government has any authority over marriage in the first place? Do they have the right and mandate to define marriage, let alone issue licenses for it? In an essay, Pastor Matt Trewhalla looks at 5 reasons why Christians should not even get a marriage license. He gives a brief history of marriage licenses towards the end of the document, to quote:

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.
The basic reason why the government got into the marriage business was because they had passed laws previous to that banning the marriages of blacks and whites. Then they passed laws indicating that a license was required to intermarry. Then this was extended to any marriage at all. It gave the government authority over who was being married, presumably to control the acceptability of the union. I think everyone agrees that it is not the government's business what the colour of your skin is or your spouse's. Hence, there should be clear agreement that marriage licenses should not be issued by the state. For this and other reasons he outlines, the government should have no jurisdiction over marriage - a marriage to a Christian is between the couple and God.

Ok, so now no licenses are needed. Fine. What about weddings? Why do we have weddings? In society of late, the "big wedding" has been fading in popularity, but the main reason for this is because of the decreasing importance of weddings in society as a whole. As all the of the activities which were once tied to marriage become "public domain" in the relaxing of morality (sex, reproduction, cohabitation), people don't see the need to be married, and hence don't see the reason to make a "big occasion" for it. In addition, because of the rising frequency of divorce and remarriage, people don't see why they should make a big deal out of something that may or may not be permanent. When marriage was a once-in-a-lifetime occurence, people made a bigger deal about it. Now, not so much. This has carried over to Christian circles - the divorce rate (sadly) is not much lower than that of non-Christians.

Despite this, I believe there are still a number of fallacies surrounding the idea of marriage for Christians. Take engagement for example. Engagement, or betrothal, is commonly accepted as a period of time before marriage where the couple is "committed" to marry, meaning that they will not entertain any other offers of marriage. Some like to attach greater meaning to it, but there really isn't any. The reasons for attaching greater meaning to it is usually to rationalize the accessing of some of the benefits of marriage before the marriage is "finalized" in a wedding - like cohabitation and/or sex. God is clear on this though - sex before marriage is a sin, engaged or not. I don't see any place in the Bible where God permits sex before marriage without condemning it as sin. Engagement and betrothal are not required by God to precede a marriage.

Then there is the marriage or wedding itself. A legal marriage as defined in the marriage license requires a governing body (a representative of the state, licensed to solemnize marriages), the participants, and two witnesses. These are there for the purposes of ratifying a legal contract - for that is what a marriage license is. However, to God this is not a contract. This is a covenant. To God, it is unbreakable, except under very extreme circumstances, which God clearly outlines. Covenants to not require witnesses. The authority party in marriage remains, but the only authority that is necessary is God. In some denominations, the priest is considered the "representative" of Christ and is required to be there, but as an evangelical protestant of the reformed tradition, I do not consider any man to be a necessary representative of God - God in Jesus is the high priest and the only mediator necessary between myself and the Father.

Without witnesses necessary, and without an officiator, then the only necessary parties for a pair of Christians to wed are themselves and God. Hence I believe that weddings in Christian circles can be done away with. But there is one more feature that God requires for marriage - it is public. This is a critical feature - it is meant to be an announcement to the community in which the couple lives that they are now married before God. I believe there is freedom in how this is conducted. In the Bible there are a variety of forms this takes from the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony and accompanying feast (for marriage is a joyous occasion) to the post-consummation announcement without fanfare. The important thing is that the community knows that the man and woman are now married, and are "one flesh", united by God for life. The reason for this announcement is because ultimately, the community will be the ones to make sure they remain so for life. The community is called to support them, to help them, to resolve conflict between them, and so on. They cannot do this if the marriage is not known. This is hard for some to deal with because this is the era of individualism, but this is the way God made marriage. The couple needs to be in community and needs to be in relationship with them.

The necessity of public confession of a marriage need not precede the marriage. I find no support for this necessarily occuring before a marriage. In fact, I find it doesn't make any sense. You don't celebrate an event before it happens. You celebrate it while or after it happens. The nature of the marriage covenant as a covenant demands the "shedding of blood". This happens in the first act of intercourse between husband and wife. Yes, I know that it is possible for the hymen to be broken by accident before marriage, or for it to be naturally thicker or break-resistant, but these are exceptions to the norm, and should not define the norm. This is why they call it "consummating" the marriage - it is why marriage law even today allows anullment (instead of divorce) if a marriage was not consummated - it never existed - the covenant was not made. This is a relection of the covenantal nature of marriage for Christians (who wrote the law). The party should happen after this in my opinion - in Jewish weddings it did - the wedding party literally waited outside the door of the wedding chamber, and when the sheet with the blood was displayed, THEN the party began - for a week!

What justification do I have for all this? I believe that marriage is actually meant to be an earthly reflection of the relationship between man and God. The Bible backs this up. In the Old Testament, before Christ came to earth in the flesh, God was in a betrothal period with mankind. God made promises to man, to specific men and their families. This makes it an engagement. God said "if you do this then I will be with you", but like during an engagement, Israel didn't have to do anything, and she did as she pleased. She was not in submission to her betrothed. The Holy Spirit came sometimes to individuals, but never stayed. The presence of God - the Shekinah glory filled the temple and the tabernacle - sometimes. But when Israel strayed from God, God strayed from Israel. God was faithful, but Israel was not. Still, God promised that one day they would be united.

Then Jesus came. In Jesus, God made a way for man to be married to God, despite her waywardness. Jesus explained, that all man had to do was ask Him to be united with himself and God would do it. This is marriage. Man asks to be united with God - to be made new and clean and spotless, and to be with God forever. God does so - He sends his Holy Spirit to reside in our hearts forever. Jesus says that nothing will separate us ever again once this happens. The Holy Spirit comes and consummates the marriage by entering into the person who accepts the marriage, like intercourse, creating a one flesh union between God and man. This happens in an instant and requires no witnesses - only the bride (the human) and the groom (Jesus) and the Father (of both incidentally).

Like marriage, your new relationship with Christ is a public one. Jesus tells us that when we accept Him (and become married to Him) it must be made public, via baptism. It is not true unless it is public. This is where we diverge presently and where I believe tradition is wrong. In tradition, the wedding party happens before consummation, the public confession of their marriage happens before the marriage is in fact real. With our relationship to Jesus as the model, this is backwards. Nobody is baptized and confesses Christ before they have accepted Jesus and received the Holy Spirit. It wouldn't make any sense. They do this after they have been married.

Some have suggested that in fact, we (the church) are not yet married to the Lamb. They point to revelation and the fact that Jesus has not yet returned, and the marriage feast is yet to come. I say that the marriage feast, unlike our tradition, should come AFTER the marriage, which is true. The celebration follows the object being celebrated. Jesus does not need to return in the flesh for our marriage to be consummated - the marriage of the church to Jesus is a spiritual one, and the union and consummation of that union happened when Jesus came to dwell in our hearts - when the Holy Spirit took up residence in us. This happened at confession, when we accepted Christ and were redeemed. If this is not true, then every one of us with the Holy Spirit living in us is fornicating with Christ - having "premarital intimacy" with Christ because we are not yet married. Obviously, this is not the case.

So here we end. In a nutshell, I believe that the government has no place in marriages. I believe that marriage itself is a relfection of our relationship with Jesus - as such it is permanent, it is one time, it begins and is consummated in private and it is celebrated and acknowledged in public following its consummation. I don't say that we MUST NOT have traditional weddings, but I think that we should acknowledge that the marriage of a man and a woman happens before the ceremony when they decide between themselves and God that they will be together for life. This does NOT give license for unmarried Christians to rush out and start having sex without marriage - it would be a grievous sin to have sex then not announce marriage publicly. However, I believe that commitment can precede a wedding, and there is no sin if two people consider themselves married before the ceremony and consummate that marriage, IF they act in obedience to God and make the announcement, to be held by God and their community responsible for that decision.