August 29, 2005
About Me *updated
Who is this "Everyman?" I'm a young, white male in my mid-twenties trying to make my way in life. I'm married with a child and reside in Alabama. I'm no scholar having graduated from Troy University in 2003 with barely a 3.00 GPA. My major for my BS was Criminal Justice with a minor in Military Science. I'm currently pursuing a MSHRM (Master of Science in Human Resources Management) from Troy University. I am also a veteran having served in the U.S. Air Force honorably for four years.I first entered the blogosphere early in 2005 with my original blog robertwchandler.com (dead link.) I was also one of the original contributors to Stop the ACLU as well as Patriots for Bush. I took a long hiatus from blogging and in August of 2005 I returned to the blogosphere albeit anonymous. Due to some resolved personal issues, I no longer must remain anonymous.
As an amateur (at best) pundit, I am very socially and economically conservative. I subscribe to the basic Constitutional values of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, which formulated this government and I believe that the Constitution should be interpreted using the founding fathers' original intent. I am pro-life, Christian, pro-victory, anti-death penalty, anti-homosexual union/marriage, pro-gun ownership, and anti-ACLU. I believe that America is a land full of opportunities available to every class of citizen and that to accomplish anything in life one must be prepared to be educated and work for his/her goals.
Posted by everyman at August 29, 2005 12:26 AM | TrackBackI've always wondered how "Christians" always seem to know what Jesus wants and what sins he sees as worse than others. It's interesting that you can claim that Jesus wouldn't tolerate homosexuals (which you did in my blog), and yet, I assume by your support for George Bush, you think Jesus would approve of a man who does nothing to prevent men and women from being murdered by the state (even though you are anti death penalty). If you believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution (a dangerous practice with any document, since your "strict" interpretation is probably different than someone else's), then do you think we should go back to the prevailing law of the time, when blacks were treated as less than human?
Posted by: Rob M. at November 8, 2005 07:46 PMI've always wondered how "Christians" always seem to know what Jesus wants and what sins he sees as worse than others.
Oh you're right. We should leave the interpretation of the Bible and Christianity to non-believers such as yourself...silly me.
I assume by your support for George Bush, you think Jesus would approve of a man who does nothing to prevent men and women from being murdered by the state (even though you are anti death penalty).
That tells me that you haven't read much of my blog. As all three of my readers (including myself) will tell you I'm not a firm Bush supporter although I was in the past. To put it bluntly Bush is not a true conservative, in my opinion. He's not fiscally conservative, he's ignoring the border issue while compromising our liberties with items like the "Patriot Act" (even though I ignorantly advocated for that act at one time), and the Miers nomination was simply a slap in the face. There are many issues with which I agree with the president. To say that I'm hypocritical for supporting a president who also supports the death penalty is simply asinine. Who proposes to agree with any one politician on every issue? We, as voters, must look at both candidates and choose the one that we feel best represents our overall goals. In my case in 2004 it was Bush.
If you believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution (a dangerous practice with any document, since your "strict" interpretation is probably different than someone else's), then do you think we should go back to the prevailing law of the time, when blacks were treated as less than human?
Interpreting the Constitution is not brain science. It is a very simple document which is easy to follow and understand thus it is easy to "strictly" interpret. So, yes, I support a Supreme Court who would first look to our Constitution first rather than, say, foreign law and precedents. Oh and by the way, anyone who has studied any bit of the Constitution knows that the founding fathers understood that slavery was a problem that would eventually be addressed and took this into consideration when wording the Constitution.
Thanks for your comments.
