I came to you as a democrat and you did not vote for me.

Who decides which side the God is on?

If you want to say any candidate is against God, remember Matt. 7: 1-5, which starts with these words: “Judge not, that you be not judged.”


Read on...

Digg

I'm voting for Bob Barr, to be included in the debates, that is.

The presidential debates are coming. After going through numerous debates from both parties,especially democrats , it is only conceivable that the debates would see some action. However, should we leave the debates only to the big boys or should we let the firebrand third party candidates in for the debates? I already see some efforts in this matter: St Joesph Telegraph. However, let me explore the case for including former congressman Bob Barr and possibly the old warrior Ralph Nader into these debates.

Firstly, The Commission on Presidential Debates, a private, non-profit corporation, only allow candidates who poll above 15% nationally to be included in the presidential debates. This adds a serious dent to the commission's claim to be non-partisan. They are siding with the big guys who nevertheless treat the third party candidates as a thorn in their sides. A better way would be to include everyone that have made themselves into the ballot in at least 15% of the states, let us keep the number at 8 to round it off.

Practically, a lot of people, the so called independents who roam the aisle and choose which side to vote at the last moment, make that decision based on the presidential debates to see where the candidates stand on the issues, what plans they have up their sleeves to send the country in the right direction and also to see the integrity and strength that they display in the debates. This means that the third party candidates, being marginal in terms of visibility to the nation will have no chance to get their ideas across to the multitudes. Who knows what the people would decide once they see all the ideas being showcased in a nationally televised presidential debate? It is absolutely the spirit of democracy. So are you saying that people do not think outside the box? Well, about that later.

At least the people of America are polling in a majority to get the third party candidates to be included in the debates. I am quoting straight from the Zogby International's website.

UTICA, New York - More than half of likely voters nationwide - 55% - want Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr to participate in presidential debates this fall, while nearly half - 46% - said they think Ralph Nader should be allowed into the on-stage fray, the latest Zogby Interactive polling shows.



The final argument for the third party candidates is that they will not be afraid to broach subjects that the democratic or republican party candidates would rather evade. They do not have to worry about offending any of their big money donors. They are also fearless of defeat and hence would be totally truthful and forceful in discussion about any matter. I can see Senators Obama and McCain trembling about the prospect of Bob Barr asking about how well their policies protect the constitution and whatever it stands for. Or Ralph Nader asking about how their policies do anything that helps America's middle class.

So in conclusion, we should all urge The Commission on Presidential Debates to include the third party or independent candidates in the debate and see democracy flourishes. This would enable the debates to actually reveal and cross examine the effectiveness and honesty of the policies of all the candidates. I would only help America. I do not see how it could hurt America.

A letter of support to Prof. Douglas W. Kmiec

Dear Prof. Kmiec,

Thank you for the courage that you have shown to support Barack Obama. Even though many of his policies violate the message of Jesus Christ, there are other aspects in which he has a superior claim of doing the Lord's work. Your decision has proved at least this much: No party in America has a monopoly on Jesus.

I hail from a predominantly Catholic community. The Church that I knew and its message contrasts a lot from what I have seen and heard in the Catholic church in the United States. Out there, the Church prominently preaches social morality. The one about being the keeper of your brother. The message in which God helps anyone who helps, not himself, but his neighbor. We hear the story about Jesus telling us on the judgment day that he came to us as a poor man and we neglected him.

However, the Catholic Church in the United States appears to be on a war for personal morality, even though not all aspects of it. The right of a woman to choose or gay rights are personal choices, that we do not have to judge. Nobody forces anyone to be gay. Nobody can force me to have an abortion at my family. Such laws or Supreme Court judgments do not really affect my life or do not make me sin. Let the Lord be the one who judge them.

My uncle, Arch Bishop of Guwahati, has remarked on many occasions during his visits to the United States that the Church in the US has lost its direction fighting against abortion and gay rights. The debate sadly pushes aside the real issues that face the society; the real action that needs to be taken by us as fellow Christians. The inequality and poverty should be the primary issues that we need to care about as a society. Abortion and gay rights, which are cases of individual morality should be left to each person.

So I'd love to see the Church giving Social morality, at least the same importance that it gives to individual morality. Also, looking at the Republican policies in the past decade has made me wonder how I can justify those actions. Cutting health-care to children in different states is definitely not pro-life. Waging an unnecessary war that results in thousands of deaths and trillions of tax payer money is not a Christian way of doing things. The so called conservatives, at least the neocons do not stand for my values as a Christian.

But, there is always a word of caution in all these issues when it comes to liberals. As much as I applauded your decision to support Obama, you and I, as Catholics, should hold him accountable for having our religious rights unscathed. The story about Boston Catholic charities not being able to exorcise our religious beliefs in case of adoption should be a dire warning. Even from a totally agnostic point of view, the end result, that is those charities closed down does not benefit the nation or the people.

In the same vein, I am delighted at Obama's decision to make use of religious groups in making progress with the society. However, like the case of Catholic Adoption agencies, there is a trap hidden in his own words. While it is acceptable that these religious groups do not discriminate against their benefactors, he has asked the groups not to discriminate in hiring processes too. How would a Catholic charity be Catholic if its workers are Jewish or Atheists? Inasmuch as a Pro-Choice organization would want to hire someone who shares their ideas, even a Catholic organization, or any religious bodies for that matter, would want to hire people that share its values. We should fight to keep Obama accountable in this aspect.

Keeping in mind all these, I am appalled to hear that you were denied communion by a priest for endorsing Obama. Such bigotry is not part of Jesus Christ's message. Such hate is not professed by bible as I know it.

So, I wish to congratulate you for your stance and would love to see you continue to champion the Catholic values, be it demanding for government policies with an emphasis on social morality or fighting for religious freedom in the public square.

Thank You,

Politics Avalanche

Update: Prof. Kmiec actually responded with a message of agreement. He alerted us that the love of our homosexual neighbors in California ought not be turned around as a discrimination against the church. I applaud that. As much as they have the right for unions, it should not be held against a judge or a clerk or a priest who would not want to perform ceremony due to religious beliefs.

Gas Prices Soaring, Politicians Warring.

Gas prices are soaring. New Jersey has one of the lowest prices in the nation and it was around $3.59 a couple of days ago. On the same day, just across the state border, it was $4.29 in Rockland County, NY and the price shown in the above Chicago Tribune picture in Downtown Chicago. Obviously, nobody is happy about it. Every congressman is trying hard to put the blame on someone else, whether it is Bush administration's foreign policy or record profits by oil companies. But what people want to know is where this ends.

Some of the solutions that are floating around are suspending federal gas tax, enforcing higher fuel efficiency standards and forcing the oil companies to let go of their profits. I can dissect one by one to show how each one of these measures will not put a dent on the current scenario.

Suspending or repealing the federal gas tax could save about 20 cents per gallon to the consumers. Sen. John McCain has been promoting this idea. This would only lead to about $10 savings per month for the consumers where as it would deny billions of dollars from the federal infrastructure programs. There is also a chance of the gas station owners and the oil companies will readjust the prices so that the savings may not go into the wallets of the public. Well, this is not a chance, we've seen it happening in Illinois before.

Enforcing higher fuel efficiency standards is an idea supported by the white house hopeful Sen. Barack Obama. At first glance, it looks like a pretty sound idea. But in reality, it would not work the way it is envisioned. A classic example would be story behind Chrysler PT Cruiser. The car is designed in such a way that it would be classified as a truck by NHTSA for CAFE fuel economy calculations. This enabled the company to lower the fuel economy of its light truck fleet into compliance with CAFE standards. If there is anyone out there who can challenge it when I say that it is a small car, come forward. This is just an example that shows a way by which companies circumvent the Corporate Average Fuel Economy regulations. It is very clear that the regulations cannot improve fuel efficiency. Free market can. There is no better incentive for the manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency than a $5 per gallon gas price. We see that happening now. Look at how Chrysler is doing in terms of sales. Look at the Japanese companies with their smaller fuel efficient cars. You get the idea.

Another idea that Sen. Barack Obama has been promoting is enforcing windfall taxes on oil companies. He talks about record profits by Exxon Mobil of the order of $10 Billion. What he fails to bring into perspective is that Exxon Mobil made a profit of $10 Billion on an operating revenue of over $100 Billion. This is not a windfall. This is definitely not cut-throat profit. Earning 10% profit is the least that the investors can ask for from any company. Would Sen. Dick Durbin invest in a company that does not make at least some meagre profit? Go check out the share prices and the revenues and profits of different companies, oil companies or others and figure out by yourselves.

Now look at gas prices around the world: UK- $5.64, Hong Kong- $5.62 , Germany- $5.29, Italy- $4.86, Portugal- $4.80. Let us examine how these countries fare in terms of median household income. Well, most of them are behind the United states in this aspect. While I am at it, I should make one smaller point. In the UK, everything is more expensive, not just gas prices, than the in the United States and at the same time, people earn less. This has been the way things have been for a long time. There must be some way that the people in Europe got away with a higher cost of living.

One thing that we can be certain of is that the cheap gas prices of 90s are never coming back. These high prices would make the consumers reduce consumption voluntarily. The market will work if we let it. High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations. Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much. However, the alternative sources have to be proven their viability in the free market for long term sustainability. Government subsidies won't cut it. Any source that is truly cheaper and cleaner and still viable would survive. Government does not need to support it. These high gas prices would make many of these sources more viable and this could help us in the long term by weaning us off our dependency of oil from the Middle East. We would definitely love to see us stop funding both sides of the war on terror.

Secondly, drill more in Alaska and Gulf Coast. This the only country in the world that denies its citizens access to known recoverable oil resources in the country. A blind opposition on more drilling is a terrible mistake that the democrats are making. Allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production would go a long way in helping reduce the gas prices. If you are concerned about the environment, you can create some basic guidelines to protect it. I am sure the drilling techniques have evolved in a long way in the last two decades so as to minimize the effect on the environment. People who blindly oppose any drilling are acting like they are oblivious of this fact.

In essence, if we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate. The government can do certain things. But mainly, it should let the free market operate itself out of this situation. From a national security point of view, this is the time for America to innovate, conserve and adjust itself in many ways so that we do not have to vent all of our money to the states like the Venezuela and the ones in Middle East that definitely do not have America's prosperity and security as their first priority. The blame game must cease.

Check out the claims.

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Democrats to entrust Coyotes with national security!

America is the only country where anybody can just walk in to the country and the local law enforcement authorities doesn't have any right to check anyone's legality to remain in the country. Go to any country in the world and one service that the governments do to the citizens is to make sure that it does not allow anyone to arrive without permission and cause harm to the citizens physically or economically.

For the record, Politics Avalanche is not against immigration. PA believes in creating provisions for temporary workers to be allowed into the country through special visas. There are around 13 million illegal immigrants in this country who are earning money and yet paying no taxes. The only way to end this free-ride is to get them ways to become legal and force employers to hire only legal workers by strong enforcement tactics.

Coming back to the main issue in question. Have anyone of you thought about how good is the border security in Mexico? Well, other than from certain neighboring countries, the border security measures in Mexico is pretty slack and anybody can get into Mexico pretty easily. So are we trusting Mexican authorities with our national security? They have other things to worry about.

Think about this: Once in Mexico, anyone can pay the coyotes to get themselves easily into the United States. Do you seriously think that the Coyotes are going to check the people against the US Terror Watch List before letting them cross the border? You must be kidding me! So in essence, we are trusting the coyotes with the National Security of the United States of America.

One argument I see against the strengthening of the borders is that no terrorist has come that way yet. OK, let us wait till a bunch of them arrive and blow up half of America before we can start doing something about it.