Euthanasia: Compassion, not murder

This topic came to me as I was browsing the internet on "stumbleupon.com". I had read an article explaining the case in favor of euthanasia. I read this article with an open mind, mainly because I have never really formulated an opinion on the topic. As I read, the author provided a scenario in which an elderly woman was dying of cancer and in an extreme amount of pain. Doctors informed family members it was only a matter of time. The woman asked her supervising physician if he could "put her out of her misery". The doctor said by law he wasn't allowed to do so. The family urged him to reconsider, but said it was out of his hands.

I feel for this woman. She wanted to die. She wanted the pain to end. So is it really murder if they ask for it? I think not.

At this point, anyone reading this against euthanasia is probably on the verge of commenting and telling me what a disgusting human being I am. "How could you let someone kill themselves?" or "Who are you to play God?".

I'm not playing God. I'm being compassionate, just as God would have been. Tell me, what's the difference when someone prays for an end to their suffering and when someone asks a doctor to do so? The way I see it, there is none. The person praying wants to die just as much as the person asking their doctor.

Although I support legalizing euthanasia in this country, I do think it should have its limits, much like abortion. Some abortion procedures, particularly partial-birth, is illegal to perform. Legalizing euthanasia should have similiar restrictions, such as not allowing the right for suicide unless stricken with a terminal illness.

As human beings, we have an obligation to help people, whether it be menial things such as offering to rake your elderly neighbors leaves, or signifcant things like rescuing someone from a burning building. We shouldn't just let people kill themselves. If we can help them, we should.

But, it's different when someone has a terminal illness, and they wish to die quickly with as less pain as possible. They should have that right. Is it right to see someone suffering and keeping them alive to further deal with it? That's not compassionate. Helping their suffering end is compassionate.

All in all, euthanasia should be legalized for those individuals who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and are experiencing massive amounts of pain. But it should be up to the person, and not the government. Government's job regarding this issue is to create the environment where individuals can choose to do so.

President George W. Bush: Big Government Spender, Not Fiscal Conservative

Republicans constantly and conveniently remind us that President Bush was a man of fiscal responsibility, tax cuts, smaller government and less regulation. Yet these claims are simply not true, and that's what bothers me. A president who runs on conservative economic principles but works with Democrats in creating deficits and debt is, obviously, not a true conservative president. I'm here to set the record straight and inform those who may not know or are willfully ignorant that the President Bush has spent just as much -- if not more -- than the President Obama during his time in office.

Here are some details about President Bush's spending compared to President Obama's spending (1):

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

The following charts also illustrate that President Bush was one of the biggest government spenders since President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ):



"Figure 1 shows the average increase in total spending under recent presidents. Bush II was the biggest spender since LBJ. His spending increases were far larger than the three prior presidents" (2).



"Figure 2 shows total federal spending without interest payments. Presidents have the least discretionary control over interest. The biggest spenders by this measure were again LBJ and Bush II. Note that Bush’s record by this measure is worse than in Figure 1. That is because Bush lucked out with relatively low interest rates on the federal debt and relatively low amounts of federal debt because of four years of surpluses under President Clinton" (2).



"For Figure 3, I took out both interest payments and defense spending from the totals. So spending includes domestic discretionary spending and so-called entitlement spending–in other words, mainly spending on the growing federal welfare state. By this measure, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon had awful records. These were the years of massive creation and expansion of federal subsidy programs for the elderly, state governments, and many other groups. By the late-1970s, the creation of new programs had slowed but existing programs continued to grow" (2).

But why am I contesting this? What sparked me to unmask this generation's (those that thought he was a good president at least) "conservative icon" as the true big-government Republican he really is.

Well, earlier today, I read an article titled Why is Andrew Sullivan So Dumb by Joe B. Pollack on biggovernment.com which counter-attacked an already issued or soon-to-be-issued article in the next edition of Newsweek titled Why are Obama's Critics So Dumb? (3).

In this article, Sullivan argued several points in favor of President Obama. Although I agreed with most of Pollack's rebuttals to Sullivan's dissertation, I disagree with his last comments:

"What is in front of Sullivan’s nose is Obama’s incompetence. He has coasted on the military success of his Republican predecessor, and is taking credit for moderate economic progress enabled by a Republican Congress that has held taxes, regulation, and spending in check."

The key phrase in that excerpt is "spending in check". The points and graphs above provide evidence to the contrary. Why mainstream conservatives fail to see that President George W. Bush was a big-government spender boggles my mind. The evidence is there.

It's not just the spending that bothers me.  It's the corrosion of our constitution civil liberties caused by the over-aggressive arm and reach of the federal government. Recently, President Obama signed and declared the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) martial law, meaning the military has the ability to detain American citizens suspected of domestic terrorism without trial and the right to ha beaus corpus. According to the American Civil Liberties Union:

"Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again.  The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.  In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war." (4)

They of course are referring to the Uniting (and) Strengthening American (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (aka USA PATRIOT). The bill has its noble intentions, but also violates our fourth amendment rights by allowing federal law enforcement agencies to wiretap and search homes WITHOUT a warrant. 

The Patriot Act is one of the most intrusive pieces of legislation in this country's long history, and it was signed by a president who every red-blooded conservative thinks was the best thing (besides Ronald Reagan) that ever happened to this country.


Where was the outcry then?


The fact of the matter is conservatives cannot praise President Bush while condemning President Obama for doing the same exact things. I urge conservatives to think twice before highlighting differences in fiscal policy between the two presidents. After all, President Bush did spend hundreds of billions on defense and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 which set aside $300 billion to the Federal Housing Administration to fix sub prime mortgages. He expanded Medicare, and shares responsibility with our current president for the massive national debt which threatens to crush the U.S. economy.


If you use President Bush as an example of fiscal policy, you will lose that debate every time... guaranteed!


1. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

2. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/george-w-bush-biggest-spender-since-lbj/
3. http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2012/01/16/why-is-andrew-sullivan-so-dumb/
4. http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Economic_Recovery_Act_of_2008

Obama vs Republicans: Will small government talk change voter perception?

This year marks do or die for the Democratic party. The “leftist” regime of President Obama and his blind, but faithful, Democrats are coming to an end as we know it. It’s obvious, otherwise the President wouldn’t have called Congress to approve him authorization to “make government leaner, smarter, and more efficient”, a plank which is considered blasphemy among many liberal Dems. Feeling the pressure from the disgruntled American voters, evidence of the dismal approval ratings of late, President Obama has decided to run on a more centrist platform – at least when it comes to the size of the federal government.

The press conference earlier today proved to be a success in the fact that it turned the spotlight away from Obama and the Democrats, and right onto the GOP leadership. I have to admit, this is a brilliant move, but it’s purely political. The goal of a one-term president is simply to make it to a second. So it’s no surprise that the President is all of a sudden “in touch” with the American public, specifically playing to the more right-winged Tea Party, a group which is mostly responsible for the Republican sweep of Congress in the 2010 mid-term elections.

But why brilliant?

Because it puts all the pressure on the majority leading Republicans in the House. If Congress (mainly Tea Party backed Republicans) were to deny the President authorization, it would depict them as big-government bureaucrats who only paid lip-service to small government principles in order to gain support and, ultimately, votes. However, if Congress allows it, then it will be a major political victory and a crucial enhancement to President Obama’s re-election campaign, marking him as a bi-partisan unifier. It’s a win-win scenario.

The decision will not be easy. The Republicans should adopt a strategy of “damage control”, choosing the option which prevents the most damage. It seems pretty obvious that the GOP would opt to allow this authorization and subsequently put some political spin on the issue. Though this is likely, GOP leadership may instead opt to go on the offensive by denying the proposal and charging the President with disingenuously adhering to independent voters, and possibly some conservatives, by making it appear he has shifted somewhat to the right of his leftist positions.

If President Obama had made this move earlier last year, it may have not raised doubts in my mind. He could’ve pulled off the idea that he honestly wanted to do what was right for the country. With the public’s general distrust of the government, this move could’ve spelled doom for the Republican party in 2012. However, with the Republican primaries well under way and the awareness of a coming general election in November, the President acted “too little, too late” now that all the voters’ attention is focused on the race for the GOP nomination.

In his attempt to attract swing voters with his small government rhetoric, he may have aroused more cynicism than anything else. Only time will tell.

Why Mitt Romney is the worst choice for the 2012 Republican nomination

Mitt Romney is the clear front-runner in the 2012 GOP primaries and I can't figure out why. From a guy who ran left of Ted Kennedy when running for Massachusetts Senate in 1994 and as a moderate during his gubernatorial campaign for the same state, it makes no sense for him to come out and say he's a man of "constancy". That's a pretty bold statement considering the fact he isn't. Here are some video clips to further my argument:

You see? His flip-flops are well documented. When he ran for president in 2008, voters didn't fall for it. Why are they now? Have they actually looked at his record?

The video above is a short trailer on the upcoming movie: "When Mitt Romney Came To Town".

I've read several articles online about Romney's success in these primaries. Many voters have been charmed by his past experience as a businessman, specifically his role as CEO of Bain Capital. But what many voters fail to realize is while he was the head of Bain, he "looted companies, tossed people out of jobs, and is now exaggerating his success at the venture capital firm" (1). He's touting his experience as a "job creator", which he's using as a central theme in his campaign. However, his claims that Bain helped create 100,000 jobs may not be completely accurate (2). He conveniently fails to mention how many more jobs were lost as a result of Bain Capital. Along with a recent gaffe he made at a chamber of commerce breakfast meeting (3), this could prove to be disastrous. And rightfully so. Romney is one of those Wall Street cats that most of the American public despises right now. Yet, for some odd reason, he is still leading in the polls.

Per several public opinion polls, voters feel Romney is the most electable, meaning he has the best chance to beat President Obama. But why ignore the character of a candidate just because he talks a good game. He certainly can't walk the walk.

My appeal to you as a fellow American is to do your research. Don't vote for crooks and liars like Romney, because character DOES matter. And if you want a president that's going to turn things around, you have to have someone you can trust. Romney is not that man.

1. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71231.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-100000-jobs-an-untenable-figure/2012/01/09/gIQAIoihmP_blog.html
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9003058/New-Hampshire-primary-Mitt-Romney-says-he-likes-firing-people.html

Leave Iran alone!

For the last half decade, we have been having problems with Iran. Actually, we've been having problems with Iran since the mid-1950's, but I want to focus on the more recent events. Lately, Iran has been building up their military and conducting naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz. According to the Energy Information Agency, about 17 million barrels of oil pass through the strait a day. The oil is being delayed to its recipient nations, therefore, causing oil prices to go up. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/03/world/meast/iran-u-s-/index.html).

Iran is supposedly attempting to block the strait due to their outrage of increased sanctions by the United States and several European nations, such as Germany and France. The reason for the economic sanctions is due to an insistent desire by the Iranian government to develop a nuclear program, which the U.S. and many of its allies have warned them not to establish.

I admit that Iran gaining a nuclear weapon threatens the stability of the region, especially after U.S. troops completed a complete withdrawal of the country in December 2011. However, nothing good has ever come from economic sanctions. Sanctions, in themselves, are basically an act of war. Refusing to trade with a country because of a disagreement in policies is what caused the Cold War. Prior to that, before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. had placed strict measures against the Japanese government when in January 1940, the U.S. refused to signing a new commercial treaty, and after July 1940, some of these implemented measures "deprived Japan of aviation fuel, high-grade scrap, and after January 1941, virtually every raw material and metal of any real importance" (1).

With rising gas prices and the current state of our economy, the United States cannot embark on an aggressive foreign policy. Wars cost excessive amounts of money. In fact, military spending is the worst budget policy a government can make (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.htm).

The reason for this is pretty obvious. War spending forces a country to build resources only to destroy them (ie. bullets, bombs, grenades, etc.). In another case, we are building resources like tanks, bombers, fighter jets, rifles, etc. to either deteriorate or be damaged or destroyed in battle. By the way, building these weapons are insanely expensive. For example, an F-22 costs around $150 billion to produce (2), while a tank costs around $1 million a piece (3).

Unfortunately, many conservatives feel that preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon is good foreign policy because it ensure the safety of not only ourselves, but our allies, chiefly Israel. However, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated Israel does not need aid from the United States.

Frankly, I agree with him. We don't need to be over there. We don't need to intervene and stick our noses in every one's business. We need to quit picking fights overseas and calling it "defending our freedoms". I would argue that our freedom is threatened not by radical Islamic fundamentalists, but by our own government. The USA Patriot Act is one of the biggest intrusions of constitutional rights in our nation's history, along with the more recent passing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was declared martial law. Martial law is defined as "the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis—(usually) only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law). What's ironic is this bill allows the President to detain American citizens without formal charges and a trial. That's absurd.

So what does "protecting" the Pakistan/Afghan border have to do with securing our freedom when our freedoms are stripped from us right under our noses? Why is it necessary to risk the lives of our service men and women overseas when they would be more useful protecting our own borders? That should be a priority. The FBI has confirmed that Al Qaeda operatives are training in Mexico and Latin America and that they routinely cross the Mexican border illegally (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/20/151654.shtml). Conservatives speak of "defending our freedoms", but they are endangering the country by not focusing on the real mission -- securing our borders.

It is in my humble opinion that we remove the economic sanctions on Iran, pull our naval fleet out of the Persian Gulf, and leave Iran alone. If they do gain a nuclear weapon, which intelligence claims they are close to achieving, we should try diplomacy. President Reagan tried that approach and took down the Soviet Union without firing a single shot, while simultaneously maintaining a strong national defense.

Let's not get in over our heads. The American people can't afford another war. The national debt is already looming large, and without significant cuts in spending (actual cuts, not just on proposed increases), we will run this country into the ground. To do that, the U.S. needs to first and foremost change its foreign policy, and lead by example, not by force.

1. "Wilmott, H.P; Cross, Robin; Messenger, Charles. World War II. Dorling Kindersley Limited. 2004. Pg 111."
2. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_fighter_jet_cost
3. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_price_of_an_army_tank