About Me

Name: Chris Lee Reyes
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Pillow Fighting With Global Values

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:11:06 PM

 Pillow Fighting With Global Values

By Christopher Lee Reyes

Most people can compare and contrast the iPhone from the iPod Shuffle better than they can tell apart right from wrong. In fact, for many individuals in society morality is relative, social status prevails over humility, Christian ethics are obsolete, humanism is religion, and the Dali Lama or Barack Obama (depending on which side of the world you live on) is God.

There are several reasons why morality has been exponentially depleting throughout the Western world and why Christians are constantly downcasted, however I will focus on one that transcends cultures and is promoted as a means to bring humanity closer together: global-political correctness. In an increasingly interconnected world, this political correctness that I speak of strongly coincides with the notions of multiculturalism and moral relativism.

In the international community (mostly on a social not political level) there is a strong surge to obliterate morality to small relative pieces that have no direct jurisdiction over humanity. According to many of the renowned scholars and militant atheists of today these pieces of “cultural interpretations” should have no sovereignty over one another. Dr. Richard Dawkins, best selling author of the “God Dellusion”, constantly asks why we should adhere/believe in the God of the Bible and not the gods of Greek mythology, or the gods of the primitive tribes of Sub-Saharan Africa.

One of the major problems is that secularists have taken the opportunity to spread the ideology of humanism through this scholarly-influenced version of political correctness. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; masquerading itself through the pinnacles of our societies. 

This humanistic version of political correctness shrouds society like a dark cumulus cloud ready to burst; it’s only a matter of time where it will cultivate the assimilation of cultural morals that will demolish all sense of relevance toward actual righteousness.

As Shakespeare once wrote: "Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to Heaven." This is the battle cry for moral relativists that say morality could be defined on broad terms.

We are living in the times where, regrettably, the only individuals that stand up for a cause tend to blow up buildings and terrorize the innocent. Unfortunately, those called by God to defend His principles have become victims to the general rule of political correctness: “you have to be neutral, and assimilate.”

Therefore Christians in the U.S. don’t stand-up for anything anymore, instead they hide behind the four walls of church and try to blend in with the culture by playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey while their pastor goes into cardiac arrest for trying to dance to the “Thong Song.” And while church leaders begin to assimilate with the culture on a domestic level, Islam continues to expand globally, agnosticism is growing exponentially in Europe, and multiculturalism viciously shreds the influence Christian values have in the world.

Globalization’s effect on values

There’s no question that Globalization has brought forth an unusual connectivity. In any instance, you might have been garnered in clothing made from Mexico, spoken to a telemarketer from India --on a cell phone made in Japan-- and driven a car engineered in Germany to eat at a Arabian restaurant that imports food products from the corn fields of South Africa. This is the reality of the world we live in, and this is not a bad thing at all.

This phenomenon has brought forth great benefits to the overall well-being of humanity. Economies have flourished, and international development has elevated significantly. Likewise, the understanding of other cultures benefits us greatly intellectually.  

That being said, world views are clashing at levels never seen in human history, and when battles are launched there is always a winner and loser.

The European Union has already taken the first major step by not allowing any biblical references be outlined through its Charter of Fundamental Rights within its constitution. This initiative was taken in respect to the growing Islamic influence, humanistic-scholarly imperatives and the political secularization that has spread throughout the continent.

The Western world should undoubtedly embrace the differences that make us unique as humans, but we also need to maintain—and recognize— the moral traditions/standards that have set us apart. Christians should stand firm with their principles and not water down the Christian world view in order to assimilate for others.  

The only way Christians can survive globalization is by using the Word of God as their sword instead of pillow fighting with the cotton fabric of multicultural belief systems. Don’t get me wrong it’s you can definitely chose to stray away from controversy and stay neutral; you have the right to do that. I also, in most states, have the right to stack a pile of sharp-edged forks on the floor and play Twister with Swine Flu-infected terrorists,as I digest expired shrimp. But I choose reason; I chose purpose. 

 

Therefore put on God’s complete armor, that you may be able to resist and stand your ground on the evil day [of danger], and, having done all [the crisis demands], to stand [firmly in your place]

Ephesians 6:13 (Amplified)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Life Cycles of Oops Babies

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:14:42 AM

 

Reasons to prevent illegitimate births

By Chris Lee Reyes
 
So the fetus of an unbeliever forms. Over time, it will grow to be a big fat Gerber baby. Then, later, an adorable child—with edgy mannerisms.

Soon thereafter, she might take up recreational sports. Feeling indifferent and over-used, she develops an inferiority complex. Then, as a troubled teen with serious acne issues, she’ll turn to under-aged snorkeling and rap music.

When she reaches young adulthood, she’ll yearn to be free and liberated; moving to Los Angeles to live with a performance artist named "Franz." She’ll take the bus home, and become the number one ranked Hooters girl in all of Southern California.

She will get married, divorced, and then married again. Then in her late 40s, she will open an Irish pub near Pillow Creek, Utah. Shortly after, she will divorce again due to multiple love affairs --one with her Guatemalan roof inspector —Antonio— and the other with a presidential candidate.

After much controversy, and death threats, she relocates to sunny Florida.

Considering suicide, she then turns to environmental activism, and begins taking online courses for a Forestry certificate at Broward Community College. Almost instantaneously, she gets introduced to the South Beach Diet and gets a $60 liposuction behind a dumpster in Little Havana, to feel young again.

On holidays (Earth Day, Thanksgiving and the Super Bowl) her daughter from the first marriage will show up ,with pictures of her honor-student child and PhD diploma in Eastern Religion from Princeton, to argue how "she ruined her life by stealing Antonio from her."

After long struggles in addiction to opium, fudge cakes and Yoga, she replaces her agnosticism for full-pledged atheism. Then shortly after, she changes her mind about religion, and joins the church of Scientology pastored by Tom Cruise. After three weeks, she quits, and joins the Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion Book Club and subscribes to the Dali Lama’s weekly newsletter.

 

Then one night, when she’s especially wasted after clubbin’ on South Beach (while pretending to be a 27-year-old mortgage consultant from Brazil) she drives into the Atlantic Ocean and dies.

This, of course, is the life cycle of an "Oops Baby." In fact, this occurs 9/10 of the time—according to my estimates (using a scientific calculator, metric ruler, and spark notes from Harry Potter).

But seriously now, let’s get focused. I’m sure at this point you may be asking "What in the world is an "Oops Baby?" and what’s with the mellow-dramatic screenplay?

The reality is I can’t really explain the nuclear holocaust of creativity that goes in my head, so therefore I can’t explain the latter, but the former, however, is an issue that needs to be addressed immediately, and on more conventional terms.

"Oops babies," for the lack of a better term, is my pathological diagnosis for specific types of illegitimately-born children that live by the "everything goes you only live once" worldview. This specific type of illegitimately-born child will more than likely grow up to have an intolerant humanistic worldview driven by militant atheism, and suffer from inferiority complex, lack of judgment, and family-value deprivation (another of my coined terms).

Thankfully, most illegitimately-born children turn out fine, to the world’s standards. And although the more extreme versions of illegitimately-born children--"Oops Babies"—are the basis of the narrative you just read, the rapid rate of normal illegitimacy, in general, tarnishes the traditional concept of the family institution too, and has subsequently created a slew of issues in the American socio-cultural landscape.

When the socialization process of a child occurs without a stable father and/or mother in place, the results are frightening. Granted, not every child automatically becomes the next O.J. Simpson, Hanibal Lector, Joseph Stalin, or failed Dancing with the Stars contestant, but, it’s a discrepancy that may be avoided by means of traditional intervention rather than liberated social thought.

The National Center for Health Statistics reported that there were almost 6.4 million pregnancies.45 percent were to women who were not married, and there were 1.22 million abortions and 1.06 million stillbirths and miscarriages. Of course, it would be impossible to determine how many were actually of the "Oops Baby" type, but the numbers are regrettable nonetheless. Keep in mind that many illegitimate births are registered as legitimate, while many others escape registration entirely. If illegitimacy is, as defined by Webster, an index of comparative sexual morality among peoples having the same laws, customs, and social conditions, what do these stats say about our culture?

Illegitimacy and single parenthood have now become the conventional lifestyle option for raising children in many low-income communities. In the late 60s the relatively slow growth in black illegitimate births skyrocketed; reaching 49 percent in 1975 and 68 percent during the late 90’s. And if current trends continue, the black illegitimate birth rate will reach 75 percent in ten years, according to the Heritage Foundation.

These rapid increases in illegitimacy are also occurring among low-income whites; the illegitimate birth rate among white high school dropouts is 48 percent. The Center for Immigration Studies also reported that Hispanics have seen the largest increase in out-of-wedlock births — from 19 percent of births in 1980 to 42 percent in 2003, mostly from immigrants.

The collapse of the family is the most important political issue facing American society because it is the root cause of so many other social and economic problems.Consequences of family disintegration have a substantial effect on the health, emotional stability, educational achievements, and life prospects of children.

Psychology Today Magazine stated that children born out of wedlock, when compared to those in intact families, are almost twice as likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. They are more likely to manifest behavioral problems such as anxiety, depression, hyperactivity, and are more likely to commit suicide as teenagers. They are also more likely to begin sexual activity at younger ages, thereby increasing the chances of having a child out-of-wedlock themselves.

 

According to research conducted by Dr. Robert Hutchens of Cornell University, because the father plays an important role in a child’s cognitive development, children in single-parent families of low income are three times as likely to fail and repeat a year in grade school as are children in intact two-parent families.

Illegitimately-born children are not synonymous with "Oops Babies." But just like high school football leads to college football, and one drug leads to another, so too,in most cases, will illegitimacy lead to the dreadful wasteland mentioned above.

Henceforth, a solution must be found soon, or else, yeah you guess it, "Oops Babies" will destroy the family institution, and illegitimacy will undoubtedly be the status quo for future generations.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rome Burns, But Values Prevail

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:00:14 PM

 


By Chris Lee Reyes

 

This has undoubtedly been one of the most dynamic presidential races in history, but, anyone that believes that the result of the 2008 election will entirely change the course of the world is terribly naive. Obama winning the presidency does not mean the Armageddon is automatically upon us, nor will McCain’s victory entail our eternal damnation into Dante’s Inferno. As Ronald Reagan famously said: "Politics reflect deep cultural changes." In other words, politics mirror the cultural values of the time and place; they don’t entirely define it.

What will truly define our course in history is our culture, not politics, folks. Obama’s “change we could believe in,” and McCain’s “change you can trust” are completely insufficient. Don’t get me wrong, this election result is pivotal; however, the strength of true morality in our culture is much more important.

 

Do you really think that the fate of our country and human race hinges on how much foreign policy experience Barack Obama has? Or did you honestly believe that John McCain’s stand against insurgents in Iraq will define the course of moral history? If you answered yes, or a hesitant maybe, then you and your world view have been corrupted.

At this point, the general election has either fascinated or un-fascinated you to death. Like most Americans, you have either been swayed away by rhetoric or have become indifferent to politics. Both illusions are dangerous; they fool you to think that America will not survive because of who sits in the Oval Office.

 

The reality is that the citizens’ choice of moral direction for the next four years is much more prevalent than that of the rookie senator’s– or the 71-year-old veteran’s– domestic policy.
 
Politicians kindle the hearts of the voters, they don’t create the voters’ hearts (i.e. Obama would simply approve the pro-choice lobbyists’ values when he keeps abortion legal; he didn’t reproduce them nor teach them their shady values). It‘s the morality of the culture that needs to be fixed. And if our moral understanding continues to dwindle-down the hill like Paris Hilton’s IQ level, then, and only then, can we say we’re in deep trouble.
 

Now who could possibly make this paradigm shift become a reality? Is it the Environmentalists? Could it be Shaolin Monks? Chuck Norris? What about Martha Stewart, I heard she could fix anything with a frying pan and exacto knife? Well, sure, I guess they could jump on board too, but the answer lies within the historically proven two-hit combo for cultural change: the Church and state.  

 

The Church and state have always been the most essential tools by which to sculpt morality within the culture.In fact, church and state are to culture as Botox and sin are to Hollywood: inseparable. Through the course of American history one can see how Christianity has laid the moral foundations by which the sovereign state can function and prosper.

 

In the old days, I’m told, most people would value the beauty of Sundays; going to church and spending quality time as a family. Nowadays in the status quo-family's social life, the father dedicates himself to his Fantasy Football results as the kids X-Box their lives away and the mother practices safe promiscuity with the family’s roof inspector and/or plumber.

 

One of the most remarkable men in U.S. history, former president Abraham Lincoln, summed up this reality with much greater eloquence than I can in one of his most memorable speeches:

“…America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves…”

 

And destroying ourselves we are, for America today, thy name is wickedness. Looking at the core of America’s moral fiber you can’t help but feel that we are going the wrong direction. The deflation of love for God and country is very alarming. It seems not nearly enough people are willing to take a stand against the massive killing spree of babies (or as most call it: abortion) and the family-value slicing immoral acts of homosexual marriages; all which undermine the traditional values that made this country great.

Of course real change will not allow society to spit at these traditional values and enforce corrupted ideologies that will encourage the destruction of the family institution.


With divorce rates, illegitimacy and abortions skyrocketing as crime rates continue to be associated to the disintegration of the family, one can’t help but want to retain traditional values and forego secularism. And although the naysayers would like you to believe it’s worthless to try and change the culture, I believe Rome can still return to its grandeur.

 

Once Again, these elections are vital, and I’m not, by any means, advocating that we rip our voter registration slips into pieces and go girl-scouting for Jesus either. But we should, at least, live out a distinguishable morally-sound life with our peers, colleagues and friends; showing them that a life dedicated to something far greater than one’s self is the best alternative; demonstrating how a family instructed in Biblical-based ethics, ultimately, prevails.

 

Once this becomes more prevalent and the culture is re-solidified by family values, then we’ll see politicians, from both sides of the spectrum, have to adjust their policies. Whenever the church decides to “juice up” the culture with the much needed traditional values, then, we can rest assured that the shape-shifting politicians will establish social policy accordingly. This is my posed two-hit combo to change the world for righteousness.

 

Because all in all, the real solution to this country’s ever-growing decay is less about who will move into the White House and more about what fills the hearts and minds of the people of a country in flames. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It’s Ladies Night at Your Church’s Bar and Lounge

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Monday, July 14, 2008 7:11:20 PM
 Britney Spears, Ricky Martin and Oprah at a Liberal Christian church bar

By Chris Lee Reyes

It's a late Saturday evening, and I'm putting together a marketing pitch for my pastor to recruit more youth. Then, it hits me! We should have a church that will comply with everyone's desires, and let them be whoever they want to be.

Yeah! That'll do it! But wait, how I can get that across and still be biblical?

Well, I guess I could always use the conventional sales pitch terms, such as: "Innovative Opportunity," "Diverse Audience," oh! and of course, "Happy Hour,” “Open Bar,” and “Ladies Night," you know, typical church ventures, according to liberalized Christians.

 Then again, I could just show him a statement of faith from the United Church of Christ followers:

"We do not discriminate against couples based on gender, sexual orientation, age...God wants us to be happy, and we should do whatever makes us happy'.'

But then I would read that statement out loud and come to a rapid conclusion, and say to myself: "Wow! These guys are complete lunatics!"

Hey, good call Mother Teresa(s), why don't we just add belly dancers and yoga sessions too; let's just scratch off family picnics and submerge a Hooters swimsuit face-off with a Proverbs 31 women's biblical study while you're at it.

By all means, forget selling cotton candy; we'll just have beef jerky and rum for the kids. Yeah, great spiritual insight you perplexed goons!

But wait, maybe I'm being too harsh on our post-modern Liberal Christian friends; maybe they're on to something. Maybe their un-Christianized doctrine and "Godly-less" teachings have some points. Yeah... that's right... and maybe... just maybe, Nehemiah was an anorexic unicorn!

Are you kidding me?! Is that what we have come to? But, in all fairness let's step into the future, in the year 2000-something. Let's see how this ideal church may look. Let's call our theoretical church: The Saint Lucifer's Reformed Bar and Lounge Christian Church. Where the motto is, "Where you can be you and nobody would give a damn," or something to that effect.

Think about it, it might not be so bad after all. We can have Michael Jackson (and possibly Tito) as the worship leaders, while the Pussycat Dolls sing harmony for "Baby, Jesus Lover of My Soul." And if that doesn't quite get you in the spirit, we'll throw in Ozzy Osbourne for special Celtic hymns.

Surely it will have the best teachers around. Ricky Martin will conduct the men's meetings, teaching us true manhood, while Britney Spears' heart warming insights on purity and abstinence are taught to young girls during "quilting for Jesus" classes sponsored by the American Society of Handicap Lesbians.

And who needs that old fashioned sin talk? Let's make it prosperity gospel 24/7 with the spontaneous "how to make money in 38 days according to the book of Lamentations" messages sneaking in during the holidays, preferably St. Patrick's Day.

Heck, let's throw in some pillow fluffs and emotionally-driven coffee talk too. We'll brand it and make some money while we're at it. Of course we have to maintain some level of integrity, so it has to have a Christian sounding name (you know you don't want to get too crazy now). We'll call it the no-sugar "Jonah" mocha latte.

 And please, let's go green. Ushers could ride eco-friendly scooters around the temple, making sure all the women are wearing their comfy "chonga" clothing and men are looking like Puff Daddy on steroids.

 Yeah sure this is making whole lot of sense isn't it?

Ok let's get serious (I'll try my best, I promise). Now obviously I've been a tad bit sarcastic on the Liberal Christians' ideologies, but, to be honest I'm not that far off. The Liberal Christians, such as the United Church of Christ and others, promote same-sex unions, gay rights, and, most ingenuously, abortion rights for women. They, like secularists in modern society, want to degrade our churches with the relativist ideals and political correctness that make everything equal. As true believers in Christ, we cannot comply with these social-relativist ideals, or conform to multiculturalism in totality.

Yes, we were all created equally under the sun, but I'm sure you can concur, for the most part, that western philosophy is preferable, Islamic fundamentalists' call for Jihad is wicked, the U.S. is still the greatest nation in the world, Jesus Christ is a better role-model for children than Snoop Dog, and ultimately, a morally stable society with firm family institutions would prevail over the injustices of our own human nature.

So let's stand up to these blasphemers at an even keel. If not, your next pastor will be wearing tutus and flossing Chanel sun glasses at in-door church events (sorry couldn't help it) while preaching universalisms.

It's a shame. The state of the church is in complete disarray. How can we continue allowing these moral-phobic Liberal Christians shape public policy and mix-up worldly habits with that of the church? Something has to be done.

Now obviously, I'm not calling Jihad on Liberal Christians, the fact is that we live in the most enviable country in the world with rights such as the freedom to religion and speech at the forefront. However, I'm not asking Christians to just put this topic in their dusty "prayer closets" either.

Let your voice be heard. Make it known to others that these fallacies are not synonymous with righteousness, nor do these leaders represent Jesus' true teachings.

 It's time for a revolution. And if we don't embark in one soon, my theoretical extravaganza (making it more realistic by interchanging the celebs for the Liberal average-Joe Christians with the same moral fibers) might not be as far-fetched as it seems.

 Christians have been well known to water-down the doctrine before, but please, don't let yourself be cast to play a role in this moral genocide. And if you don't want true wisdom, just go watch Oprah and gulp energy drinks till you get diabetes, or do the equivalent: join a Liberal Christian church.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Departed Values: Films or Viewers?

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Friday, June 20, 2008 10:50:37 AM
 

By Chris Lee Reyes
 
Blood shatters all over an elevator floor, as an undercover cop gets blasted by a head shot from a crooked cop. Seconds later, brain particles splash throughout the elevator floor once again, artistically of course, as that crooked cop receives a bullet through his skull himself, right before subsequently executing another head shot just for “kicks.” Total number of bloody gunshots to the head, three, total lapse time of scene: 45 seconds.

This was a mildly violent scene from the Academy Award winning motion picture The Departed directed by Martin Scorsese, which is infamous for controversial and brutally- violent films. However, in comparison to recent films, the violence in The Departed is parallel to a Disney Classic.

Films such as “Hostel” and “Saw” glorify human torture; depicting gory, grotesque and inhumane scenes. They are, by every definition, cult classics of the modern age of horror film making. The following of this genre (for lack of a better term) is enormous. In fact, it has assimilated so effectively, that its themes have become culturally acceptable and a good source of entertainment.

“Family-fun” is gone, a new age of filmmaking is clearly making notice, I call it the “no-family, some buns, more guns” movement, where gory and sexually-explicit-driven movies atop the top ten list of almost every average Joe below the stratosphere, and yes, even those so-called Christians.

Moviegoers have been enthralled by violence for a long time in the history of American cinema. There’s no question about it. But today filmmakers have gone too far. Think about this for a second, is it wrong for one human being to applaud and cheer on an act of a vicious beheading or depraved bloodshed of another human being? Yeah , maybe if you were a part of the Mongol Empire in 1220 AD or part of rapper 50 Cent’s entourage, but, quite frankly, we’re in the 21st century folks, let’s be more civil.

Whose fault is it?

How can these films have been so ferociously marketed and distributed within our modern society, through the mediums of mass communication, in such a lightly manner? Is it Hollywood’s fault or is it our own violent human nature that helps these films become not only admissible but, seemingly, vital to our self actualization of American culture? 

Don’t get me wrong, a movie without any action could be as boring as, say, a pep rally led by NASA engineers and a senior citizens’ chess club, but honestly, how far is too far. Nowadays, viewers have not only let these types of films integrate with our culture, they have permitted them to become the pure essence of entertainment. Which brings yet another question: Are traditional values in film being annihilated by Freddy Kruger films or the viewers that plead for them?

The American Psychological Association has stated in the past that violence is not a natural state, and it is heavily influenced by societal factors such as the media.

That being said, some may argue that before we were filming Indians we were killing them, so where exactly is the ultimatum. Well, if you feel wayward about it, then, let me point you to some commonsensical perspectives.

The fact is, one can’t help to agree with two very distinctive figures in world history, with amply different ideologies yet similar point of views, Sigmund Freud and Jesus Christ, when they pointed out that all humans are inherently malicious. Of course, Jesus established that first, but he wouldn’t brag.

I believe human nature is to blame too.

This makes human nature the culprit, and our soul the victim. And if that’s the case, then Hollywood is the cocaine trafficker, and gory movies are just ill-produced coca bushes.

Either way you look at it, one cannot help but see how society has truly departed from some of the imperative principles that distinguish us from brute beasts and total depravity, whether you decide to point at the manufacturer of the drug, or the drug itself, maybe you should consider a mirror first.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ignoring Latin America Breeds Global Instability

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Monday, May 19, 2008 8:45:22 PM

 


By Chris Lee Reyes


Latin America is in complete disarray. Hugo Chávez and Ecuador were on the brink of war with Colombia, dangerous Marxist-style ideologies have been cultivated in South America, dismal poverty continues to demolish economic stability and apathy toward the U.S. is far reaching.

There are many obstacles starting to take serious shape. Unfortunately, some of these problems have existed for a while. Latin America has been a ticking time bomb ready to blow up in people’s faces.

Extreme leftist Hugo Chávez has verbally assaulted the U.S. on several occasions; calling George W. Bush a “donkey” and “the Devil.” Of course nowadays, unfavorable Bush commentary is almost as common as “Starbucks coming soon” signs, automobile accidents and the Bird Flu. But one thing is a for a comedian like Chris Rock to call President Bush a “dodo head,” but far more offensive is an American policy-bashing lunatic like Chávez, to do so.

In dealing with global politics the unearthly question may arise:
Why should we concern ourselves with these, seemingly, unaffiliated developments and irrelevant leaders?

The reality is unless Chávez receives a sudden spiritual awakening, more of the same tyranny will continue to hover over global affairs like cumulous clouds ready to burst and precipitate an international crisis.

In 2005, the United Nations reported that Venezuela has had the highest number of deaths by gunfire per capita in the world, that’s pretty astonishing considering there’s a war in Iraq.According to CNSNews, Chávez has even received praise reports from Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

Consequently, he has developed strong connections with the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stating that he would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition."(Reuters) Knowing all this, his continuous anti-American rhetoric and dangerous affiliations have been, relatively, put aside.

Chávez draws an eerie parallel to Saddam Hussein for his wicked demeanor and hatred toward western philosophy. And his half-living diabolical colleague, Fidel Castro, has handed down the thrown to another suppressor, which may inevitably push forward communism once again, due to, amongst other things, the economic influence Venezuela has had in the island.

In addition, socialist /semi-fascist countries have been developing in Latin America, some sporadically, others in close relation to Chávez and the anti-American philosophy.
Which brings forth the inevitable questions: Has the U.S. ignored Latin America? Have the candidates truly emphasized the pivotal issues in foreign policy, or have they solely centralized their rhetoric toward the Middle East for political gain?

 An argument could be made that the ample media attention that has been given to the Middle East and the presidential primaries may have backset the noticeable—but highly disregarded—political upheaval in Latin America.

Although Cuba and Venezuela are the only countries two officially disown the U.S., other Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama, have possibly negated to do so for economic interests, relevant to current or past trade agreements. And in Colombia’s case, due to the more than $600 million given by the U.S. to support the war on cocaine reproduction and trafficking, as well as other government supported issues.
I believe that developing a good foreign policy will alleviate —or at best deter— the anti-American sentiment that has risen in Latin America.

The U.S. should concern themselves with Latin America not only for its interests—export business valued at $150 billion a year (Foreign Affairs Org)—but also to promote a more stabilized world in a demoralized region, this time without the use of tanks and AK-47’s.

There’s no doubt that U.S.-Latin American relations have deteriorated exponentially—the result of an ambiguous foreign policy, coupled by flaw-driven leadership in Washington, from both Democrat and Republican administrations. However, this does not legitimize the masses to vote “Nader” or advocate a “non-voting-pledge” for ‘08, nor does it render the proposition of unilateral stability in Latin America impossible for another four years.

Hopefully, this brink-of-war- scenario between Chavez, Ecuador and Colombia may influence more efforts to eradicate the frail system of foreign policy and broaden the general public’s perspective on Latin Americas’ relevance to the overall success of globalization.

The media has not completely accomplished its journalistic goal either; accommodating Americans with the proper knowledge needed to decipher Latin American politics has not been a central point of news organizations across the union. Most Americans—let alone students— if asked would not have known who Rafael Correa (the president of Ecuador) was. But today, thanks to an almost cataclysmic collision, the world has taken notice of Chavez and Correa’s dangerous ties, and possibly ignited some interest into understanding the region more comprehensively.

The media could help jumpstart this venture substantially, by covering the real issues and the candidates’ economy and foreign policy stands, instead of advocating subjective and sensationalist intrinsic stories, such as John McCain’s alleged love affair, Iraq’s semblance to Vietnam and Clinton’s Kodak moments.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: The False Prophet of Change

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Friday, April 18, 2008 1:08:38 AM

 

By Chris Lee Reyes

Beware of false prophets, they come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. Oh what the world would be if they were in-tune with real wisdom; the MTV generation, however, has been swayed away by Barack Obama and his sugar coated lies.

I will hand it to "America’s favorite illusionist," the overbearing rhetoric and passion for change is, at times, intriguing, and his eloquent speeches are indeed alluring; almost like hypnosis or drinking five Red Bulls in less than a minute. But, the reality is that all this Dr. Phil-happy go lucky-like small talk is irrelevant; one can only change America by assertive actions and sound judgment.

The next president should stand firm on a wide range of pivotal social and economic issues, which Obama falls far short on. What troubles me most however, is not his alleged family ties with Islam(not true), peculiar associations with lunatics , narrow foreign policy, or even his lack of experience for that matter, but what is of high concern to me is his over-the-top liberalism and insufficient leadership qualities.

Obama has been named the most liberal senator in Washington, and with his strong push for abortion/gay rights and secularism, there’s little to argue; the man is so liberal that he might make the "Al Gore Book Club" cringe.

In fact, the only arguable concept of his liberal ideology would be if his socialistic approach tends to lean toward fascism, of the likes of Italy’s Mussolini.

In terms of leadership qualities, Obama does not have the adequate job descriptions; it’s sort of like asking an anorexic-airhead to win a pie-eating contest while elaborating on the theory of general relativity.

In addition, Obama is not the most truthful and honorable person in the world either. Granted, he has not been caught playing hanky-panky in the oval office, like fellow liberal Bill Clinton, but rest assured that the wide ranges of flaws are plentiful.

Obama has been an active member of one of the most anti-American-hate-speech-driven pastors the world has ever seen: Jeremiah Wright. It’s a bit unsettling that our presidential candidate with so much zeal for change gets his spiritual and personal advice from a man that has said, and I quote:

"God damn America," "America’s chickens are coming home to roost," "The government purposely infected African American men with syphilis… inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," and so on.

All these unpatriotic and racial slurs are the backdrop of Obama’s upbringing. Frightening isn’t it.

Unlike my deceived opponent, which will probably say "We worship you Oh, Obama! Let thy wil be done, oh Sovereign one. Umm...Here have my wallet, take my brain too."
I firmly believe that electing Obama will be the downfall of this country’s prominence.
And yes, admittedly, John McCain is 1, 788 years-old, and he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, exciting, but his patriotism, semi-conservative values and intrinsic leadership qualities far surpass the heartless, morally inadequate, deceptive wolf—or as they call it in modern politics: Obama.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do Students Care About Politics?

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:27:29 AM
 By Chris Lee Reyes

Students have been unfairly labeled with negative connotations for their political awareness. Allegedly, young people are politically incoherent and have indifferent attitudes towards political affairs.For years, most analysts in the upper entourage of politics have stereotyped the young voter (18-29) as an unreliable statistic; unstable in all their ways.

This cliché-ridden theory has been embedded so deeply into common thought, that even the most optimistic person will inevitably fall victim to the chorus of apathy. Yes there has been a slew of bad apples, in fact, it’s possible that a legion of numskulls have infiltrated are campuses and disgraced our forefathers’ plea to partake in the democratic process for the actualization of true democracy. All this being said, from the elections of 2000 to 2004 studies have publicized that youth voting has surged by 11 percentage points. In addition, one can’t help to see the overwhelming number of young people across the nation surrounding the town hall meetings and campaign events of the 2008 presidential candidates.

Whether they support Obama, Clinton or McCain, there is a significant presence being displayed by the most sought after--but least respected-- voter. In Florida, 46 percent of 18-24 year-old citizens voted in the 2004 presidential election (Civic Youth Org.). And young people across all the states in the union may be the determining factor in an already topsy-turvy election. Are there young people out there that feel disenfranchised? Will young people vote in masses? Can students be motivated enough to demolish the stereotype once and for all?

Professor Michael Froomkin, University of Miami School of Law, feels young people will be up to par with every other voter: “I think turnout will be up since people understand that this election matters a great deal.”Due to a slew of relevant issues that are vividly opinionated by students today such as the economy, the war in Iraq and the almost unanimous call for change, it’s unquestionable that young people will be more inclined to storm the polls. In an extensive post election study from CIRCLE, a survey showed that 72.4 percent of students, when asked if they spoke about politics and current events on a daily and/or weekly bases, said yes.

In presidential election years between 1972 and 2000, the turnout rate had been declined by 16 percentage points among young citizens before rebounding in the 2004 election. In 2004 the efforts to mobilize the young vote where extensive; rap mogul Sean Comb’s “Vote or Die” and MTV’s endorsed “Choose or Loose” where two of the major organized ventures that advocated young people to vote. After it was all said and done, only 17 percent (CNN exit poll) of the voters where from the age of 18-29.

It was an increase, but at the same time, most experts where hoping—due to the tight race between George W. Bush and John Kerry— for more of a turnout. This election year may bear more of the same competition. Can this minor but pivotal setback happen again? Many students in MDC feel it won’t.Andrew Cassidy, 20, sophomore, a member of the Students Ethics Association, believes the diversity of the candidates will make a difference “I believe these diverse candidates will animate more turn-out. They will clearly steer our country to a new direction.” “I feel this country needs to change [its] course very fast if not we might be in bad shape…” said 19-year-old Obama supporter Nicole JimenezStudents passionately seek change; few would argue that. However, there are several popular opinions that want to override this notion.

Casey A. Klofstad, University of Miami Department of Political Science, says, “Youths are distrustful of government, and feel shut out of the process… In short, young people are civically engaged, but they do not see politics as a viable venue to express their engagement.”There’s no question that some cynicism has slowly eroded the trustworthiness factor of the election process. Students are well aware of the mishaps of the 2000 voting scandal. And after Gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the delegate count, some are uneasy about Electoral College system in America.

“I don’t feel the system [Electoral College] should determine who should be president. The popular vote should determine it,” Jeremy Anderson, 20, sophomore.Consequently, some un-registered voters have elaborated on the notion of liberty being taken for granted by some students; this has always been a common concern from the naysayers. “If you don’t vote, you don’t voice your opinion. More students should be aware of the candidates’ policies. I can’t vote because I’m not a citizen, but many out there are [citizens] and don’t vote,” said Carlos Aponte, 22, sophomore. In many countries the freedom and privilege to elect leaders without hindrance, among other inalienable rights, are nonexistent. Nowadays, there is an influx of countries through Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe that have not seen the full effect of liberty. Immigrants fleeing these afflicting regions of the world take all measures, including life and death scenarios, to make it to American soil and assure their family’s freedom.

In Kenya, heavily disputed elections have increased ethnic violence and elevated the death toll up to nearly 800 in the last month. In Saudi-Arabia women still don’t have the right to vote. Elections in North Korea are non-competitive, with a single unopposed candidate. And while China, the Republic of Laos and Cuba are constricted by communism, the privilege that young people have in this country has not been fully valued. Hopefully that small portion that feels indifferent will look at these scenarios and feel privileged to be American and have the liberty to voice their hearts desire without getting beheaded.Ultimately, the desire for change will be able to drive the majority of young voters to the polls.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Up-Close With Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

Posted by Chris Lee Reyes on Friday, February 15, 2008 3:00:07 AM
By Chris Lee Reyes
 
 
In what many are calling the most dynamic presidential race in history, the country has been
stirred up by a rare collection of diverse candidates that are determined to break away from the status quo. Although senators Barack Obama (D-ILL), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) and former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee have seen their diverse political viewpoints get across in larger numbers, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) —notably labeled as a revolutionary by his own campaign—has also brought a distinctive approach to the forefront and represented a wide variety of people.
 
He has been criticized gravely by his own constituents for his peculiar policies stemming from the retrieval of troops from Iraq, the dismantling of the IRS, proposed foreign policy reformation and the demolishment of the Patriot Act. “We're spending nearly a trillion dollars a year overseas maintaining this empire,” said Paul at the 2008 Florida GOP Presidential Debate sponsored by MSNBC. “It's a sad story, because we started that war and we should never be a country that starts war needlessly.” Paul has not seen the numbers he would have hoped for, and is far from the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination.
 
Paul ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian and his distinctive views have upset the top tier members of the GOP. And with a recent poll from NBC News that shows 76 percent of Americans believe that the two-party system has problems or is seriously broken, many political pundits have suggested that he may run as an independent. At the Florida GOP Presidential Debate Paul took the time to answer questions from the CLR.COM concerning college tuition and the education system:


Chris Lee Reyes: What will be your initiative on education as president, and what will you do with the increasing tuition of college students?

Ron Paul: This [high tuition prices] is a reflection of the loss of value of the dollar… When we’re talking about education and the cost of medicine where the government has been too involved, money gets in there but you don’t get more medical care or better education, what you get are increasing prices which is reflection of bad market policies. Taxes, regulations and many other things are involved with this [increase] as well.

Chris Lee Reyes: Will you reform the education system?

Ron Paul: Well, it would help to get rid of the inflation, but we have to take the government out of it as much as we can…I remember paying $300 a semester for my education in the 1950s. It is because of government involvement that prices have gone up.
 
 
please visit my website for more:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »