The Left Evolving Backwards

With all the thrilling talk lately about Ida, I guess this is another excuse to wonder about Darwinian ideas. Of course, I’m joking about Ida being thrilling. I think it was news for about half a day and then no one cared again.

So, the left pushes Darwin on everyone else. The right pushes religion. I think this is true generally enough that I can make those assumptions. I’ve already asked the question before, but to briefly recap, the left insists that we all accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle, while simultaneously preaching that we all evolved. This means that homosexuality is a defect that will ultimately lead to the extinction of gays. AGAIN, let me state that this is what the left believes and isn’t even close to what I personally believe.

So, how does this line of thinking apply to our economy? Companies and people that are big and successful must give what they have to the weak and helpless. I believe the general idea behind Darwinism is that the strong survive while the weak die off. So, why should the wealthy be forced to give to the poor? Shouldn’t the lefties leave the rich (strong) alone and let the poor (weak) fight for themselves? If evolution is going to be shoved down our throats then why don’t those who espouse evolution practice what they preach?

I guess the left hasn’t always been such a bunch of hypocrites. Not that long ago, they not only preached evolution but also got involved in their communities and tried to speed up the process. But they were also taxing the wealthy at >80% at the same time, so I guess they always have been hypocrites.

If evolution is so great and everyone who disagrees is a fool, then why do those on the left refuse to let it work? I believe that evolution applied to the economy is called capitalism. And evolution applied to sexuality is bigotry. And hypocrisy applied to liberalism is called typical.

I was going to end it there, but let me anticipate an argument. I suppose it could be argued that compassion for the poor and sexually-disoriented is what makes us human – the result of the miracle of evolution. Whether we arrived at this point in time as the result of millions of years of gene-refinement or much quicker thanks to God, the end result is the same. And that’s not a good thing for the lefties.

More Neglectable Than Electable

This political season is looking pretty grim. Besides the fact that campaigning started way too soon, there just isn’t much to look at with the current contenders.

On the Democrat side the race is between two absolutely unelectable people: Hillary and Obama. Hillary’s policies aside, she is, without a doubt, the most shrill woman on the planet. If people think the world hates the United States now just wait until they have to listen to her. We’ll be in the middle of WWIII before you can blink. Obama is clearly more presidential, but his beliefs are so extreme that I can’t imagine enough people would vote for him. The remainder of the candidates don’t really have a chance against Hillary and Obama. It’s laughable that people like Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich are even running.

On the Republican side the decision is much more difficult since there aren’t any candidates that standout. I want to support Romney, but am finding this increasingly difficult each time he discusses his views on abortion. My primary concern is that he continues to insist that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no problem with their members supporting abortion. This is clearly not correct. The LDS church has made this official statement on their webpage, which states that the LDS church “…counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.” Although the wording says “counsels” and not commands, one must consider that it would not be advisable to go against the “counsel” of the church if they believe that the church is indeed led by God. For Romney to continue to say that it’s okay to be pro-choice is just rubbish. He states that he is now pro-life, so why can’t he just say that he was wrong before? I would support him whole-heartedly if he were to make a statement saying, “I was pro-choice before but I’m now pro-life. I was wrong and deeply regret my mistake.”

The other candidates have flaws that I consider to be fatal. Giuliani is still pro-choice and has strange ideas about gun control. McCain works against the Republicans as often as he works with them. Additionally, he’s responsible for atrocities such as McCain-Feingold. Thompson – besides that fact that he’s in his own little sphere instead of competing – supports McCain-Feingold, which is a fatal and unforgivable flaw. Ron Paul is a little too extreme. As much as I want to agree with him, I don’t think he has a clear understanding of the situation between the United States and the terrorists. The others have issues I like, but don’t have an overall image I can vote for. For example, Tancredo is a stud when it comes to talking about illegal immigration. Besides this issue, there isn’t anything that makes him standout.

One particular issue that distresses me is that some Republican candidates would use ridiculous anti-Mormon tactics against Romney. For example, Brownback had an aide that attacked Mormonism. Other candidates have had similar problems, even though the candidates have stated that they did not condone the attacks. At least three of the candidates are Baptist, a religion notorious for it’s vehement attacks on the LDS church. Although this does not automatically disqualify them in my book it certainly makes me question whether they indeed do not condone the anti-Mormon attacks on Romney.

I’m anxiously watching to see if a candidate will emerge that clearly deserves our support. I would love it if Romney would apologize and make himself that candidate.

Is Gay Okay?

Let me preface this mental wandering by stating that this is not a gay-bashing rant. This is an analysis of another example of idiotic liberal logic. I will make no attempt to examine the gay issue at this time except as it relates to my point.

My argument makes a couple of generalizations and assumptions, but I think they’re pretty good ones. First, I think it’s safe to say that most gay people are fairly left-leaning liberals. Second, most are irreligious in a general sense. I doubt anyone will argue with the former assumption; however, I’m sure many would argue with the latter. The reason I make this assumption is that most Christians feel that it is morally wrong to be gay. I know that many Christian religions – such as the Methodists – are beginning to change their point of view on this issue but this is the exception, not the rule. I am also aware that a person can be religious even if they are not Christian. All of this taken into consideration, I think my assumptions are pretty good ones.

Liberals seem to want all religion out of our country. They want the ten commandments removed from courthouses, crosses removed from public property and “under God” removed from our Pledge of Allegiance. The don’t want religious songs performed in schools and they don’t want references to God on our money. They also refuse to allow creationism to be taught in school, not even as “inteliigent design”. Such hatred for religion means they must believe in evolution. Can any other conclusion be drawn?

The problem with evolution is that it teaches that nature weeds out the weak and only the strong survive. What does this teach us about people who are gay? They have chosen to live a lifestyle that does not allow them to reproduce, which means that they are being filtered out.

I personally don’t believe in evolution, so my view of this issue is much different. If you choose the liberal way of viewing things, then aren’t they saying their fellow liberals are defective and should die off to clean the gene pool? It seems kind of messed-up to me.

Anyway, I would love to hear a gay person who believes in evolution explain this one for me.