Mr. Kunza Speaks #02: The American Third Position, History, Leadership, and Positions & Policies

Download the Podcast:

Mr. Kunza Speaks #02 (Part 1)
Mr. Kunza Speaks #02 (Part 2)

Had to cut up the file the show. For hosting reasons.

Sorry it took so long to do this show. It is a topic that I did not want to take lightly.


Podcats Notes:

A3P Website: http://american3rdposition.com/
Southern Poverty Law Center website: www.splcenter.org/

The SPLC page on the A3P: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-third-position

And the page on Jamie (James) Kelso: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jamie-kelso

Image placed by Anonymous on the A3P's website:

Copy of Hacked A3P Emails: http://indianaantifa.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/a3phackfrontpagetext.odt

Video of Kelso at CPAC

A Rough Transcription of the Podcast:

Hello Again and welcome once more to Mr. Kunza Speaks.

For this podcast I will be covering the American Third Position in some detail. I will cover a little History of the party its founding and notable events. Then take a look at the party's Leadership, last I will review the  Positions & Policies of the Party.

Before we begin a little disclaimer. I want to make it clear that American Third Position Party or A3P as they like to call themselves is a hate group according the Southern Poverty Law Center and by the Anti-Defamation League.


If you are not interested in hearing about a hate group, I will not fault you for skipping over this podcast.

I also want to make it clear that this podcast is by no means an endorsement of the Party or its ideas. The same can be said for anyone and any party I cover. The goal of this podcast is to be informative, skeptical, and objective.

I try to find the best evidence for my Podcats and will point out any bad information and lies stated by any party or person.   

Yet I am only human. I can be influenced by own personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing information. Especially when it comes to a group like the A3P.

Alright with that said lets take a look at the A3P's history.  

The 2012 election is the first time that party has ever ran anyone for any office. The only office that they are running for as of this podcast is the President. Which does make some sense seeing as the A3P is not even three years old yet.

There are conflicting reports as to the official date that A3P came to be. The dates range from October 2009 to January 2010. According to the A3P's website they 'launched' on January 01, 2010. 

However, the history of the A3P goes a few months further back. Not too far back, just to May 2009. In that month Freedom 14 a noted California base white power group founded the Golden State Party. A white nationalist political party. 

Freedom 14, primarily organized the party via the website Stormfront.org. For those that are not familiar with Stormfront. According to USA Today it is the most visited white supremacist site on the net. It is the go to website for discussion and information for any Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, etc.

The Golden State Party can be seen as American Third Position 1.0. As most the Golden State Party's platforms and policies have been adopted almost word for word by the A3P.

Almost as quickly as the Golden State Party started it fell apart. On  Sept. 4, 2009 Tyler Cole the chairman of the party was discovered by Jaimee Lynn Fletcher of the Orange County Register to be a two-time felon. The chairman was "convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in 2001 in Arizona and sentenced to a year in prison, court records show. Also, he was convicted in 2008 in Orange County of possession of an illegal machete, possession of marijuana and resisting arrest."

The barely months old party did not survive long after. Either because the fall out was to great for the party or that it was just easier to start over. It happened so soon after their found that they probably didn't even have their pens and letterheads yet.

What happened next has been neatly summed up by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"On Oct. 15, 2009,  [Freedom 14 members] held a meeting to form a party with a new name and new leadership. They elected racist corporate lawyer William Daniel Johnson as chairman of the newly renamed political party, American Third Position. Johnson had been advocating for the deportation of all non-white immigrants and U.S. citizens, including anyone with any “ascertainable trace of Negro blood,” since 1985, when he wrote a book arguing for a constitutional amendment to do just that. Johnson promoted his book far and wide, including at the 1986 Aryan Nations World Congress."

Moreover the Southern Poverty Law Center stated the following:

"On June 27, 2010, the group absorbed the League of American Patriots, a New Jersey-based group. The league is best known for passing out racist fliers and requiring its members to be heterosexuals of “complete European Christian ancestry.” The merging of the two groups advanced the A3P’s goal of developing active chapters throughout the United States."

Since that time the A3P leadership has evolved to be a whose who of racists. To understand the A3P it very important to look at who is running the party. As the party itself puts out an very lax racist front. This maybe to have some sibilance of respectability. However, one does not have dig very deep to see the deep rooted antisemitism and racial hate at the party's core. The A3P has a total of eight directors and a chairman at the time of this podcast. 

William D. Johnson, Chairman. He is an attorney and noted white supremacist activist.

Kevin B. MacDonald, Director. He is a professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach. At the time of this Podcast he is still on staff, likely a product of tenor.

He is best known for a theory called "group evolutionary strategy." He put forth the theory in series of books called The Culture of Critique. MacDonald claims that Jews have eugenically evolved to enhance their ability to conspire to out-compete non-Jews for resources while undermining the power and self-confidence of the white majorities in Europe and America whom he insists Jews seek to disposes.


I have not read much of MacDonald's work. I did take a look at 'A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy.' In that book it appeared that MacDonald thinks that their is some short of 'Jewish hive mind.' Where each and every Jew follows whatever the hive mind decides for them. I do not want to spend too much time on this theory. After all this is a podcast on the A3P not MacDonald. 


However, MacDonald's theory is pseudoscience. Eugen Schoenfeld, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Georgia State University, stated "[The theory] is controversial, not only because of its theoretical approach, but also, and perhaps primarily, because of sloppy scholarship. [Macdonald] selects historical incidents that can be used to support his thesis and conveniently omits others that challenge his thesis." 


Moreover in a Slate Magazine article "How To Deal With Fringe Academics". MacDonald's theory has never been peer-review. Steven Pinker of Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences MIT said the following of MacDonald and this theory. 


"MacDonald's main axioms - group selection of behavioral adaptations, and behaviorally relevant genetic cohesiveness of ethnic groups -- are opposed by powerful bodies of data and theory, which Tooby, Cosmides, and many other evolutionary psychologists have written about in detail. Of course any assumption can be questioned, but there are no signs that MacDonald has taken on the burden of proof of showing that the majority view is wrong. The argument, as presented in the summaries, fail two basic tests of scientific credibility: a control group (in this case, other minority ethnic groups), and a comparison with alternative hypotheses (such as Thomas Sowell's convincing analysis of "middlemen minorities" such as the Jews, presented in his magisterial study of migration, race, conquest, and culture)."   

Basically MacDonald theory is junk science.  


James Edwards, Director. James Edwards (No relations to former Presidential candidate John Edwards) is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a rising star of the white-nationalist movement. He has a radio show entitled 'The Political Cesspool'. It appears to be broadcasted on only one terrestrial  radio station WMQM 1600AM in Memphis, Tennessee a Christian radio station. Also, It has a stream and podcast. The show is a promotion of anti-semitic, white nationalist and white supremacist views.

Tom Sunic, Director. Tom Sunic or Tomislav Sunić. Is a fascist thinker. He has been involved with Nouvelle Droite or New Right movement and is said to be of the Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne school of thought. He has held diplomatic positions with the Croatian government and has taught at California State University, the University of California, Juniata College in Pennsylvania, and the Anglo-American College in Prague. He has a steaming radio show "The Sunic Journal," on Voice of Reason. He anti-Semitic and has stated that Jewish influence threatens America's European heritage. Also he thinks fascism is awesome.

Virginia Deane Abernethy, Director. She is also the vice presidential candidate for the party. I will go into more detail on her when I cover the Presidential candidates of the party. For right now all I will say about her is that she is a retired professor that speaks out against immigration.

Dr. Adrian Krieg, Director. The Good Doctor is Swiss born and holds a Cultural doctorate in Manufacturing Science from the World University. The World University is a  distance learning school that dedicated to education in what politely can be called 'New Age' subjects. Dr. Krieg is the Co-Chair Political Science Department World University Roundtable. Which is a odd position for an anti-semitic to hold. Since the World University states that they are a an organization whose goal is "To fulfill the needs and aspirations of men and women of goodwill, of whatever age, nationality, or culture." It is claimed that Dr. Krieg hold many U.S. Patents. The Doctor believes that 9/11 was a false flag opertaion and he makes the following claim "The litigious nature of American society is in fact not American at all but is a Jewish trait." Along with many other anti-semitic statements. And to top it off he is on the editorial board of The Nationalist Times which is the paper of choice fascists and anti-Semites.

Don Wassall, Director. He is the founder and main editor of the Nationalist Times. He is also the Executive Director of the American Nationalist Union and is the administrator of ANU.org, ANU News.net, and Caste Football.us. The American Nationalist Union is a nationalist political organization. ANU is not necessarily fascist but it is white supremacist group and supports many conspiracy theories. While Caste Football tries to to the same with its 'reports' on pro-sports.

Alexander Carmichael, Director. He is the groups lawyer outside of that all I could inf was what i believe is his firms website www.carmichaellaw.org which is very mundane.

Last but not lest is James Kelso, Director. I greatly enjoyed what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about James or Jamie Kelso "Jamie Kelso is an extremely hyper organizer and serial joiner of religious sects and, starting in the 1990s, racist organizations." Jamie Kelso has had a very unique past. It reads like fiction.  He was a member of the “Sea Organization and ran away from them. Then he "John Birch Society (JBS), a conspiracy-minded outfit that has been around for decades and is perhaps best known for accusing President Eisenhower of being a secret communist." Kelso became a moderator for Stromfront.org and is credited with turning Stromfront.org into the site that it is today. He has his own radio show "The Jamie Kelso Show,” which runs on the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network. he has been involved in many  neo-Nazi and white power groups before he joined the A3P. Moreover he has his own news site White News Now. 

I am leaving a lot out when it comes to Mr. Kelso. For anyone that wants to read up on him check out the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Files on him.

Mr. Kelso is a key figure in the A3P's short history. It is in his role as the A3P's webmaster that the lead to, what is more than fair to say, most public event in the A3P's history. On February 1st 2012 the A3P's official website was attacked by individuals affiliated with the group Anonymous. 

The website was defaced, the website was replaced with an image of the soviet flag and saluting blue pony with a rainbow main. The full image can be seen on the notes for this podcast. While the image was notable it was the text across the top of the image that was of the most significance. A sentence of white text stating the following: "Jamie Kelso and American Third Position Hacked and Destroyed; Private Emails Expose Blatant Racism and Ties to Ron Paul"

It is those supposedly exposed ties to Ron Paul that made the most news. Anonymous leaked many emails from Mr. Kelso,  Merlin Miller the A3P pestilential candidate, and others. There is 86 pages of emails for those that wish to read it all that can be found in the notes of the Podcast. I have read though most of them and if they are fake a lot of work has gone into them. 

Most of the Emails are by Mr. Kelso. Many of the speak to his goals with the website that he runs "Whitenewsnow.com". Mainly how important it is to get the site ranking up and how the site tries to be a tool to recruit people into white nationalism. What becomes clear in email after email is how whitenewsnow is a tool for Kelso to get members of the A3P. AS the following quote from a email by Kelso indicates. "WhiteNewsNow Mods and Members will be joining us, and joining A3P as they get the word."

In emails form Merlin Miller the A3P pestilential candidate. In a email it revealed that the A3P position platform was developed in conjunction with The Nationalist Times. Also, it appears that Miller was trying to court many of Ron Paul supporters to his campaign. 

Moreover, many of the emails speak about Ron Paul and how Mr. Kelso was going to meet him or had a phone call with him. But it is never clear if such a thing actually happened and if it did the what happened and what discussed. In fact one email speaks to how Kelso going to Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. A Tea Party sponsored meeting and how Kelso was going to promote the party and while he was there Kelso was going to "be meeting with Congressman Ron Paul and his son Senator Rand Paul personally there on all three days." I could find no evidence that this happened in fact I found a video that shows that things went very bad for Kelso while he was at the conference. He was asked to remove his "Campaign for Liberty" Ron Paul button which he does and then Kelso leaves the hotel alone with his bags in hand.

Alright so what does this have to do with the A3P. It is not clear if anyone form the A3P ever met with Ron Paul or had any real contact with him. Those claiming some ties to an organizer for Ron Paul appear to have sent some emails to Mr. Kelso or got emails from him. Outside of that there is little to tie the A3P to Ron Paul.

That puts us up to day with the A3P. Not much of note has happened since the Anonymous hacking. The Party is now is full campaign mode for the presidency. Which leads us nicely into the platforms of the A3P.

The A3P has a 10 point platform. I have used their own official website as the source for this information.  

"Crime. Taking back our communities."

"Our country has become unrecognizingly dangerous...  Our people (I assume that they mean white people) have had to alter their everyday behaviors to simply keep from being victimized by predators roaming the streets. While the ruling elites drone on endlessly about the rights of criminals, the happiness and welfare of our people has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness."

"We will put these common sense principles into practice without delay: Enable police to concentrate on real criminals and serve the public welfare, not the political goals of the ruling elite. Permit victims of crime greater freedom to defend themselves and their property. Introduce automatic sentences for repeat offenders who prey on our communities. Support states rights to enforce capital punishment for those convicted of capital crimes. Make prisoners understand that they are being punished, and not rewarded with a state-subsidized vacation for their crimes; in part through wide-scale obligatory public-works projects."

Based on those statements it is more than fair to say that the A3P believes that America has become unrecognizingly dangerous and that predators are roaming the streets.  This is an unfounded statement and it sounds a lot like the plot to the movie Robocop.

Yes there are some places that can be called dangerous in America. However, the the fact is America's crime rate has been falling across the board. Even in a economic downturn crime is still falling.

I do not know who these people are that are droning endlessly on about the rights of criminals. Nor do they make clear of whom they are speaking of.

What is clear is that A3P believes in the right to self-defense. I can only guess that this means that they are supporters of gun rights. One odd statement they make is the following: "Permit victims of crime greater freedom to defend themselves and their property." Which sounds like they believe that a person can only defend themselves and property after they have become a victim. I do not think that this is their intent.

A3P wants automatic sentences for repeat offenders, I think that this means they want something along the lies of the Three Strikes Laws. Also, they support the death penalty and state that jail is a vacation. They support the use of prison labor for public works. Which is something that differentiates them from most political parties.     

It is fair to say that A3P is a law and order party.

On to their next position again this is quoted right off their website with some mild trimming on my part:

"Economy:

The American Third Position supports a nationalist economic policy emphasizing ethical business practices and prioritization of the community. A3P supports “fair trade” as opposed to the so-called “free trade” policies... This can be accomplished through tariffs and quotas at home along with diplomatic pressure abroad. Under this America first system, we would also withdraw from NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.

Current tax policies often dis-incentivize invention and entrepreneurship. Tax dollars are aggressively collected from our people and funneled to so-called minorities, criminals, and persons unwilling to work. We will cut all programs that provide an incentive for people to be anything other than hard-working and productive.

The Federal Reserve – a central bank made up of privately-owned member banks – loans money to our government at interest. Commercial banks also create money through lending to businesses and citizens. Both practices involve creating money out of thin air. To restore ownership of the American economy to its rightful owners, we will abolish the Federal Reserve, incorporating it into the United States Treasury. We will then grant government the sole right to print, issue and regulate money. Accordingly, the entire banking system would be subject to appropriate ethical constraints."

For anyone that is familiar with right wing or libertarian economic positions will  find nothing unique in the A3P positions. However, they say the following "Tax dollars are aggressively collected from our people and funneled to so-called minorities, criminals, and persons unwilling to work." Of what the referring to is hard to say. There is Tax Incentives for Using a Minority-Owned Business. Or it could be an statement against welware programs. It is not really clear.

Now for their views on Education:

"Education. Not Indoctrination.

The same schools that once taught our children the knowledge, skills, culture, and traditions necessary to maintain and enhance our nation are now controlled by social Marxists....

We support measures to restore our school system to its first rate status. Teachers must emphasize traditional mathematics and literacy skills which have practical application to everyday life. A full curriculum of American history must also be taught....  Organized classrooms settings and well-disciplined learning environments must become the norm once again. We also support greater opportunities for home-schooling arrangements.

Critically, we would introduce a compulsory Community Service system after the student completes their schooling – whenever that may be – to instill in them a work ethic, discipline, and social and community values. Projects would consist of caring for the elderly and handicapped, environmental and heritage restoration projects, or military training.

Service in this system would entitle each individual to get something back from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as subsidized university education or apprenticeship, and/or business training and start-up capital for would-be entrepreneurs."

I looked up the word social Marxists and found the following on the Urban Dictionary:  "A social Marxist is someone who half heartidly believes in the Marxist school of political though. They may be anti capitalist, anti war and anti racism, but wont join up a Marxist movement and are more like armchair generals of the far left persuasion. Left wing forums are rife with social Marxists. Some social Marxists simply buy CCCP flags, shirts and hats and have a faint idea what its about, but have no foundations for their ideology"

I do not think that this is what the A3P is referring to. Even though it was the only place that I could find a definition of the term. But maybe it is. Either way it is an odd statement. It should go without say that evidence of this Marxist hold on education is non-existent.

Outside of that statement there is not much of anything unique to found in there education position. The A3P supporting home schooling and believes in  compulsory Community Service for students. The latter policy is unique when compared to the major parties.

As for their views on the Environment:

"Environment. Taking responsibility.

The American Third Position is committed to a beautiful, clean and healthy nation. We are this country’s only true Green party with policies that will actually save the environment. Overpopulation, fueled by massive Third World immigration, is a major cause of the destruction to our environment.

Many Americans recognize the serious trouble associated with dependency on oil from abroad. We must diligently explore and develop cleaner energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. In keeping with our free enterprise system, individuals, businesses and industry should be encouraged to tap into these abundant non-polluting sources."

Immigrates cause the destruction of the environment. To be frank I have never heard that claim before. Thus I did some research and found the following by Scientific American:

"The non-profit Pew Research Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. population growth is attributable to immigration...

Americans, consumption habits, are fundamental to U.S. environmental problems than population pressures. With just five percent of the world’s people, Americans use a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels, own more private cars than drivers with licenses, and live in homes that are on average 38 percent larger today than they were in 1975. By scaling back, Americans can take a big bite out of pollution, sprawl and other environmental problems, while also setting a good example for those who land in the U.S. every year, lowering the nation’s collective carbon footprint significantly in the process."

Furthermore, if population densities is any indicator American is at no risk of overpopulation.

Anyway, their environmental views for the most part fall in line with what Democrats often argue. Not the overpopulation or immigration part but the invest in alternatives and cut the dependency on oil.

Carrying on the A3P quote: "rejects homosexuality and all of the other types of so-called “alternative lifestyles”." I have not a clue what "alternative lifestyles" they are referencing and what they would do to those people and homosexuals if elected. Their stance is nothing new for anyone who is familiar with right wing politics.

The A3P's Foreign Policy can neatly be summed up as non-interventionist. Furthermore they state they following. "We must withdraw from the United Nations and NATO and close most of the hundreds of overseas military bases. At the same time, we must maintain a strong military for legitimate defense, such as better protection of our borders."

The statement is very close to those that have been and still are made by Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

The A3P has very clear stance on Immigration the following is right off of their website:

"1 We will deport all illegal and criminal aliens.
2 We will impose massive penalties for employing or assisting them.
3 We will use the U.S. military for border security and build an impenetrable southern fence.
4 We will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration.
5 We will provide immigrants and their children who have become citizens since 1965 with generous grants to assist their voluntary return to their respective countries of origin.
6 We will also eliminate birthright citizenship, chain migration and asylum."

1 -4 is not anything all that different from most anti-immigration stances. However, 5, 6 are. To be honest here number 5 would affect my parents and it seems like it would be rather costly and confusing. Since there are many children who have one parent that was a citizen and other than was an immigrant. Moreover how would country of origin be proved.

Also, the elimination of birthright citizenship would affect just about every American, other than those that passed a citizen test. I do not know if they mean that very American must pass a citizen test in order to be an American or if this only applies to those that are not white. Bear in mind no distinction is made.

There next stance is on National Defense.

It is just a rehash of their foreign policy. The only difference is this stance "We should, in no way, share our technologies and operational plans with other nations." and an error was made "As President, I will implement these policies and strengthen our national defense." This is the party's website not the candidate. So that is a little slip up on their part.

Moreover America is the biggest arms exporter and I do not know if  technologies applies to arms and armaments.

Now for they last position to quote the A3P:

"Race Issues

A nation’s character is determined by its people – and racial demographics are a primary determinant... we have been undermined by internationalists seeking to destroy the “liberty, sovereignty, and identity” of America.

American values, heritage, and even language are under massive assault and we are quickly degenerating from a predominantly White, Christian nation — which led the world by its positive example — to a third world “tower of Babel”.

This is bizarre and not happening by accident. During the 20th century, socialist global elites hijacked American institutions and media, and began indoctrinating our people into accepting “cultural Marxism” and “political correctness” — complete with multiculturalism, miscegenation, radical feminism and unnatural characterizations.

A3P stands to protect White American interests, since no other political party has shown interest in doing so. This does not make us racist, but protective of our rights – which every other race or group is encouraged and praised for doing. Discriminatory “affirmative action” programs and the invasion of illegal immigrants adversely affect the welfare of all Americans, but especially the White majority.

The goal of A3P is therefore to restore and preserve the legitimacy of White identity, White heritage, and expressions of White interests. We want to stop the divisive, orchestrated destruction of America and restore her to greatness."

For those that have been waiting for the evidence of the A3P being a White Power group there it is. While they do go out of their way to state that they are not  racist, it does fall a little flat.

So there are the American Third Position polices and  positions. On their website they have Position Papers which go into more detail on there views and goals.


Here are some more facts that I am sure the A3P likes to over look. I suppose that they do not like to look at Cracked.com:

Non-citizens born in Mexico but living in America are eight times less likely than male U.S. citizens to be incarcerated. Moreover, American cities that saw the greatest increase in their illegal immigrant populations from 1990 to 2000 also saw the greatest drops in robbery and homicide.

American Third Position Party: Positions & Policies.

When the best information that you find on a political party comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, well to say that is telling is an understatement.

American Third Position Party or A3P as they like to call themselves are a hate group according the Southern Poverty Law Center and by the Anti-Defamation League.

If you are not interested in hearing about a hate group, I will not fault you for skipping over this podcast.  

So if anyone is still listening. I will try to be objective I will try not to be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing information.

However I will call out bad information and lies.   

Okay, Lets start with the positions of this political party. I have used their own official website as the source for this information.  

"Crime. Taking back our communities."

"Our country has become unrecognizingly dangerous...  Our people (I assume that they mean white people) have had to alter their everyday behaviors to simply keep from being victimized by predators roaming the streets. While the ruling elites drone on endlessly about the rights of criminals, the happiness and welfare of our people has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness."

"We will put these common sense principles into practice without delay: Enable police to concentrate on real criminals and serve the public welfare, not the political goals of the ruling elite. Permit victims of crime greater freedom to defend themselves and their property. Introduce automatic sentences for repeat offenders who prey on our communities. Support states rights to enforce capital punishment for those convicted of capital crimes. Make prisoners understand that they are being punished, and not rewarded with a state-subsidized vacation for their crimes; in part through wide-scale obligatory public-works projects."

Based on those statements it is more than fair to say that the A3P believes that America has become unrecognizingly dangerous and that predators are roaming the streets.  This is an unfounded statement and it sounds a lot like the plot to the movie Robocop.

Yes there are some places that can be called dangerous in America. However, the the fact is America's crime rate has been falling across the board. Even in a economic downturn crime is still falling.

I do not know who these people are that are droning endlessly on about the rights of criminals. Nor do they make clear of whom they are speaking of.

What is clear is that A3P believes in the right to self-defense. I can only guess that this means that they are supporters of gun rights. One odd statement they make is the following: "Permit victims of crime greater freedom to defend themselves and their property." Which sounds like they believe that a person can only defend themselves and property after they have become a victim. I do not think that this is their intent.

A3P wants automatic sentences for repeat offenders, I think that this means they want something along the lies of the Three Strikes Laws. Also, they support the death penalty and state that jail is a vacation. They support the use of prison labor for public works. Which is something that differentiates them from most political parties.     

It is fair to say that A3P is a law and order party.

On to their next position again this is quoted right off their website with some mild trimming on my part:

"Economy:

The American Third Position supports a nationalist economic policy emphasizing ethical business practices and prioritization of the community. A3P supports “fair trade” as opposed to the so-called “free trade” policies... This can be accomplished through tariffs and quotas at home along with diplomatic pressure abroad. Under this America first system, we would also withdraw from NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.

Current tax policies often dis-incentivize invention and entrepreneurship. Tax dollars are aggressively collected from our people and funneled to so-called minorities, criminals, and persons unwilling to work. We will cut all programs that provide an incentive for people to be anything other than hard-working and productive.

The Federal Reserve – a central bank made up of privately-owned member banks – loans money to our government at interest. Commercial banks also create money through lending to businesses and citizens. Both practices involve creating money out of thin air. To restore ownership of the American economy to its rightful owners, we will abolish the Federal Reserve, incorporating it into the United States Treasury. We will then grant government the sole right to print, issue and regulate money. Accordingly, the entire banking system would be subject to appropriate ethical constraints."

For anyone that is familiar with right wing or libertarian economic positions will  find nothing unique in the A3P positions. However, they say the following "Tax dollars are aggressively collected from our people and funneled to so-called minorities, criminals, and persons unwilling to work." Of what the referring to is hard to say. There is Tax Incentives for Using a Minority-Owned Business. Or it could be an statement against welware programs. It is not really clear.

Now for their views on Education:

"Education. Not Indoctrination.

The same schools that once taught our children the knowledge, skills, culture, and traditions necessary to maintain and enhance our nation are now controlled by social Marxists....

We support measures to restore our school system to its first rate status. Teachers must emphasize traditional mathematics and literacy skills which have practical application to everyday life. A full curriculum of American history must also be taught....  Organized classrooms settings and well-disciplined learning environments must become the norm once again. We also support greater opportunities for home-schooling arrangements.

Critically, we would introduce a compulsory Community Service system after the student completes their schooling – whenever that may be – to instill in them a work ethic, discipline, and social and community values. Projects would consist of caring for the elderly and handicapped, environmental and heritage restoration projects, or military training.

Service in this system would entitle each individual to get something back from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as subsidized university education or apprenticeship, and/or business training and start-up capital for would-be entrepreneurs."

I looked up the word social Marxists and found the following on the Urban Dictionary:  "A social Marxist is someone who half heartidly believes in the Marxist school of political though. They may be anti capitalist, anti war and anti racism, but wont join up a Marxist movement and are more like armchair generals of the far left persuasion. Left wing forums are rife with social Marxists. Some social Marxists simply buy CCCP flags, shirts and hats and have a faint idea what its about, but have no foundations for their ideology"

I do not think that this is what the A3P is referring to. Even though it was the only place that I could find a definition of the term. But maybe it is. Either way it is an odd statement. It should go without say that evidence of this Marxist hold on education is non-existent.

Outside of that statement there is not much of anything unique to found in there education position. The A3P supporting home schooling and believes in  compulsory Community Service for students. The latter policy is unique when compared to the major parties.

As for their views on the Environment:

"Environment. Taking responsibility.

The American Third Position is committed to a beautiful, clean and healthy nation. We are this country’s only true Green party with policies that will actually save the environment. Overpopulation, fueled by massive Third World immigration, is a major cause of the destruction to our environment.

Many Americans recognize the serious trouble associated with dependency on oil from abroad. We must diligently explore and develop cleaner energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. In keeping with our free enterprise system, individuals, businesses and industry should be encouraged to tap into these abundant non-polluting sources."

Immigrates cause the destruction of the environment. To be frank I have never heard that claim before. Thus I did some research and found the following by Scientific American:

"The non-profit Pew Research Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. population growth is attributable to immigration...

Americans, consumption habits, are fundamental to U.S. environmental problems than population pressures. With just five percent of the world’s people, Americans use a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels, own more private cars than drivers with licenses, and live in homes that are on average 38 percent larger today than they were in 1975. By scaling back, Americans can take a big bite out of pollution, sprawl and other environmental problems, while also setting a good example for those who land in the U.S. every year, lowering the nation’s collective carbon footprint significantly in the process."

Furthermore, if population densities is any indicator American is at no risk of overpopulation.

Anyway, their environmental views for the most part fall in line with what Democrats often argue. Not the overpopulation or immigration part but the invest in alternatives and cut the dependency on oil.

Carrying on the A3P quote: "rejects homosexuality and all of the other types of so-called “alternative lifestyles”." I have not a clue what "alternative lifestyles" they are referencing and what they would do to those people and homosexuals if elected. Their stance is nothing new for anyone who is familiar with right wing politics.

The A3P's Foreign Policy can neatly be summed up as non-interventionist. Furthermore they state they following. "We must withdraw from the United Nations and NATO and close most of the hundreds of overseas military bases. At the same time, we must maintain a strong military for legitimate defense, such as better protection of our borders."

The statement is very close to those that have been and still are made by Ron Paul and other Libertarians.

The A3P has very clear stance on Immigration the following is right off of their website:

"1 We will deport all illegal and criminal aliens.
2 We will impose massive penalties for employing or assisting them.
3 We will use the U.S. military for border security and build an impenetrable southern fence.
4 We will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration.
5 We will provide immigrants and their children who have become citizens since 1965 with generous grants to assist their voluntary return to their respective countries of origin.
6 We will also eliminate birthright citizenship, chain migration and asylum."

1 -4 is not anything all that different from most anti-immigration stances. However, 5, 6 are. To be honest here number 5 would affect my parents and it seems like it would be rather costly and confusing. Since there are many children who have one parent that was a citizen and other than was an immigrant. Moreover how would country of origin be proved.

Also, the elimination of birthright citizenship would affect just about every American, other than those that passed a citizen test. I do not know if they mean that very American must pass a citizen test in order to be an American or if this only applies to those that are not white. Bear in mind no distinction is made.

There next stance is on National Defense.

It is just a rehash of their foreign policy. The only difference is this stance "We should, in no way, share our technologies and operational plans with other nations." and an error was made "As President, I will implement these policies and strengthen our national defense." This is the party's website not the candidate. So that is a little slip up on their part.

Moreover America is the biggest arms exporter and I do not know if  technologies applies to arms and armaments.

Now for they last position to quote the A3P:

"Race Issues

A nation’s character is determined by its people – and racial demographics are a primary determinant... we have been undermined by internationalists seeking to destroy the “liberty, sovereignty, and identity” of America.

American values, heritage, and even language are under massive assault and we are quickly degenerating from a predominantly White, Christian nation — which led the world by its positive example — to a third world “tower of Babel”.

This is bizarre and not happening by accident. During the 20th century, socialist global elites hijacked American institutions and media, and began indoctrinating our people into accepting “cultural Marxism” and “political correctness” — complete with multiculturalism, miscegenation, radical feminism and unnatural characterizations.

A3P stands to protect White American interests, since no other political party has shown interest in doing so. This does not make us racist, but protective of our rights – which every other race or group is encouraged and praised for doing. Discriminatory “affirmative action” programs and the invasion of illegal immigrants adversely affect the welfare of all Americans, but especially the White majority.

The goal of A3P is therefore to restore and preserve the legitimacy of White identity, White heritage, and expressions of White interests. We want to stop the divisive, orchestrated destruction of America and restore her to greatness."

For those that have been waiting for the evidence of the A3P being a White Power group there it is. While they do go out of their way to state that they are not  racist, it does fall a little flat.

So there are the American Third Position polices and  positions. On their website they have Position Papers which go into more detail on there views and goals.

Mr. Kunza Podcast 1: Those Other Presidential Candidates

http://mrkunza.podbean.com/feed/

Another election year for America and a presidential one at that. Doesn't it seem like these things are happen every four years?  

I know it is a bad joke. But cut me a little slack here. I am just trying to break the ice.

Anyway, for this election year, 2012 for those of you living the in future, I, Mr.Kunza, have decided to take it upon myself and at the request of no one, to list, give a little information about, analyze, and give my opinion on the Presidential candidates. However, I am going to do something different. This Podcast is going to completely avoid the major party candidates, the current President Obama and the presumed republican nominee Romney.

To be honest there is just so much information out there on them that adding my voice to the melee- that would be no different than adding a drop of water into the ocean.

Instead, I will focus on what are commonly called the third party or independent candidates. You may even hear these people referred to as an 'other' candidate. As if they are some type of other worldly being. Hey they may as well be. Odds are that these people and parties are completely unknown to the general public. With little hope of that changing between now and the election.

Due in part to that. It is not very likely that these people or parties will have much affect on the general election. In past Presidential elections third party and independent candidates have had an impact. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are the most recent examples of this.

But this current crop of Presidential hopefuls are no Ross Perot or even a Ralph Nader. For many of these candidates simply getting one to two percent of the vote would be beyond anyones expectations. To the frank, for the 2012 Presidential election at lest, third party and independent candidates are non factors.

This is nothing new for America. You can find some debate on the matter, yet general consensus is that no third party has ever won the American Presidency. There has been two independent American Presidents, George Washington and Andrew Johnson. However, George Washington was by choice and Andrew Johnson was by political necessity.

There are a few simple reasons as to why Independents and third parties do not win they Presidency.

The first reason is ballot access. Each state has there own laws, meaning that no standard exists. One state may ask for costly filing fees and thousands of signatures. While another may ask for the same number of signatures but the signatures can be declared invalid if the signer votes in a primary.

Moreover one state may require a residency requirement for petition circulators. Also, a state may require that this petitions can only be circulated on odd number years before the election. To say that the system is easy to understand, democratic, and fair would not even be a good joke.

A massive investment of resources both money and people is needed just to get on the ballot. It is not a simple matter. Unless the candidate is knowledgeable on the ballot laws for every single state one can only imagine the lawyer fees.

Which some what nicely brings me to my next point, and that is money. Now you cannot necessity buy an election. Ross Perot gave it a good college try. But money is must for an candidate and the more of it the better off they are.

Money means a campaign can hire people on, it can buy ads, and it can support a infrastructure dedicated to getting the candidate elected. Third Party and Independents simply do not have the same money that a major party does. According to the Federal Election Commission almost Half a Billion dollars has already be raised by the two major parties for the 2012 Presidential election. The most a Third party has raised is a little over 700,000 dollars. Only around 428 times less than Obama has in his war chest.

But all of that money is for not if a candidate does not get media coverage. The National media overlooks third party candidates.

I can only guess this is because they do not see them as legitimate candidates.

There in-lies the problem. If the national media does not cover a candidate the public will not easily know that a candidate is even running for office let alone what they stand for.

While the internet is helping in the matter. It still requires the will of the individual to look beyond the major party candidates.

One would think that with 24 hour news networks more time could be given to third party and independents but this is not the case.

Exposure is essential for a candidate and the national media evidently does not want to give it to anyone outside of the major parties.

Those are just three reasons as to why third parties and independents do not win. A whole host of more exist but I do not want to get to bogged down. As I said before this is nothing new. The Anti-Monopoly Party, Know-Nothings, Populists, and the Progressive Party. Are just a few examples of past third parties that suffered the same fate that Independents and Third Parties of today.

For some reason appears that Americans just like having two choices.

Yet, despite this third Party and Independents still run. Election after election they are to be found on the ballot.

I can only assume that this candidates are not fools. After all Running for President is time consuming, costly, and very exposing for the candidate. They have to know that the odds are against them and that many ways on a fools errand.

But they still do it. They put in the same time and effort to into their campaigns as other candidate. These people deserve respect it would be easier for them if they simple sat it out however they try. It is almost poetic. The lone hero against the intrenched hordes.

Before I begin going into detail on the Candidates I want to make it clear that I will try to be as objective as I can be.

But when it comes to the opinion podcasts on the candidate, well no asked for it so skip it over if you want. Just bear in mind I will try to be honest and yes I swear like a sailor.

I will try to use reputable sources for whatever information I can. However this may not always be possible due to the obscurity of some of these candidates and parties. Be skeptical of anything I say, I know that I am

These podcasts are by no means a comprehensive guide to every candidate. I will only cover a select number of candidates, right now 27 in total likely to be around 30 when all is said and done.

I used Federal Election Commission, FEC filings and Wikipida to find third Party Candidates.

All the of the third party candidates had to fit a simple criteria:

They had to be parties nominee. Those that are currently undergoing primaries I will cover on a later date.

Also, the Party had to have a official website.  

As for the independent candidates I only used Federal Election Commission filing to find them. The Candidate had to have a website and they had to have at lest one dollar on their FEC report.

So without further delay here we go on our third party adventure...

Changes

Cue David Bowie. Cha-Cha-Changes.

Because I am now working on a Podcast, Mr. Kunza Speaks. A lot of the old content here will no longer fit the direction that I am going in. Read it and laugh at all the bad writing and half thought out posts.

I hope that you will enjoy my new podcast. I may write something from time to time but for here on out the focus of this blog will be my Podcasts.

Thanks for the support everyone.

Mr.Kunza Looks at the news for you: Obama supports same sex marriage

Here is a new thing I am going to try. I will look three English language news sites and compare and contrast their reporting on breaking news story.

Here is the topic: Obama supports same sex marriage. An easy enough topic and here are the sites that I will be look at.

ABC News

BBC News

Fox News

I tried to find the report that came out around the same time that the story broke. However, a lot of these pages have been and likely will continue to be updated so this applies to around 19:15 GMT or 2:15 pm EST.

We start off with the guys and gals that broke the story. ABC News, we get the video of interview in which he made his support of same sex marriage know. Well what is he says is: "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married"

You know what is nice about this we get the full transcript of the video. Right after the little blurb that sums up the story and tells who did the interview. It's nice then they go and say hey we got more of this interview airing on two of our other shows. A nice plug. Likely nothing as juicy as the as the lead but one should expect some good ratings for these two programs (I will look up the ratings on a later date to see if this happens).

Also right below the plug for the other shows we get a summary for parts of the interview that has not aired yet. Nothing shocking just some nice political back tracking that says more or less that he is cool with the gays but it still comes down to the states to make the effort. 

"The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states' deciding the issue on their own."

Well okay maybe not as bold of statement as some would like. A bit like past American politicians saying "I think slavery is wrong up it is still up to the states to decide for themselves." So its really just a personal statement on how he feels on the issue. He has no plan to make sex same marriage legal.     

Carrying on then we get a link to same video at the top of the page but this one is two the ABC News on-line video archive. Well okay thats a little odd. Maybe they expect to change or take off the top video at some point. Just so you know if you do click on it you get an ad before every video and plays a play-list of news videos by default so better pause or exit out after you have the video you want.

Okay really it's fine for all I know it could be some type of ABC News text ad that leads you to related news videos based on news you are reading now.

Then another video say how is kids helped shape his views. Then the rest is more or less about what he has said in the past about same sex marriage. Then right at the bottom we informed that Obama's 2012 opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage. The closing quote is from him: 

""My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," Romney said. "That's the position I've had for some time, and I don't intend to make any adjustments at this point. ... Or ever, by the way.""

Okay that is ABC take on it and they should own it after all they have the interview. ABC just went with the hot topic and kept talking about it. 

On to the BBC 

Well they keep updating it so thats nice.

We get a longer video then the one that ABC News has (57 secs to 2:12 mins). Nothing new just more of how he changed his mind on the subject. They point out that "He has become the first sitting US president to back gay marriage." Furthermore, right off the bat they point out that  Romney is against it.

So right away it is cast with the upcoming election in mind. They go as far to highlight that a lot Obama's side is for same sex marriage. Making very clear that in this election we have one side for marriage and the other against.

Thats what the story is about. It has a poll that says half of those poll are fine with same sex marriage and 48% of those polled said no.

All of this story is about how it relates to the upcoming election. They state how 31 states have laws against it and how NC is just the latest one.

The BBC news is for a British market so it makes sense that this how they would write the story. The sitting President said he is for marriage, the other guy is not, and here are some states that have banned it. So it is really just analysis.

Alright analysis but nothing more. 

Fox News. Oh Fox News honestly I expect something awful from them. But what to get. Well nothing really all that bad. All in all we end up with about the same stuff ABC news and hint of BBC report. However, for about 1/3 of the report Fox keeps point out that hey those Republicans are all against same sex marriage. Also, we get something new. The Black vote. They point out that conservative blacks will not like this and may not bother to vote because of it.

Which is a fair point to make. However, it seems a little pointless. It comes across more as a moral boost for the Republican faithful. You know what this is how Fox's story comes across. Hope for the  Republicans that they guy they are not all that crazy about may really have a shot now and that if you do not like the idea of sex same marriage never fear the  Republican are not about to change their mind on the subject. 

In closing. This is quick little post I would have gone to more sites but I did not have the time and I wanted to get this done as quick as I could.

But here is my input for what it is worth. 

I do not care. Yes it is nice that Obama is cool with same sex marriage but it is just him talking. Nothing more than that. It give hope to those that want to see same sex marriage legalized. Those may in turn give their support via money, time, and/or vote to Obama now. But I tend to think that those people where going to vote for him anyway. While at the same time to those that care a lot about keeping it illegal well here is another reason to not vote for him. But I do not think that they where going to anyway. Furthermore, I do not think that this will mean that they are going to crazy for the other guy. 

So to sum it up. Obama energizes some of his supports and maybe gets some more involved. He does not really lose much since after all it is just his opinion and he can always fall back on that.

All this news over a subject that in a Pew Research Center survey came in last as a "very important issue" for this election year.    

Abortion Part 2

I googled Pro-Life in order to understand by people are against Abortion. I looked at only the first page of results. Since this is the most popular information available. 

Here are the sites that I looked at:

Prolifeinfo.org

Nrlc.org/abortion/index.html

Prolifeaction.org

Lifenews.com

I really could not find a list of reasons for them wanting to outlaw Abortion. While the Prolifeinfo has information on it and the best I can find as to reason to be against abortions was this: 

"Pro life movements support the life of the child in the womb, with the understanding that life begins the moment the child is conceived. In the eyes of the pro life movement, each child that is aborted has been murdered, which is a child in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of many religions."

And on life news I found this:

"So you can see why I am disgusted when I hear of abortion being propagated as a’ woman’s right’. Abortion is an unnatural act; it goes against every protective instinct a mother has towards her child. Abortion is also the most horrendous violence that can ever be perpetrated on a woman."

My first reaction to the person that wrote that was was 'well you are an ass hole'. Why do I say such a thing because for lack of a better word you have to be such a big dick to say about another person that you have never met. It is a cold lack of respect that this person is showing to their fellow humans. The most   horrendous violence, I fail to see the point. But I will get more into this later on.      

So on to the Pro-Life Action League which states the following:

"The Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion because abortion kills an innocent unborn child, a human person at one of those early stages of human development through which each one of us passes before birth.

We fully appreciate the many pressures and crises which may lead some parents to believe they have no choice but to abort their child. That is why we work to offer abortion-bound mothers and fathers the help they need to overcome their difficult situations and choose life when faced with an untimely pregnancy.

However, killing an unborn child is inherently wrong, and therefore can never be justified regardless of circumstances. It is no more just to kill an unborn child in order to avoid hardship than it would be to kill a toddler to avoid hardship. Because the unborn child is unseen, it is easier for society to condone killing him or her, though this is morally indistinguishable from killing any child at any stage of development.

In addition, abortion does not solve the deeper problems that have contributed to having an untimely pregnancy—problems such as low self-esteem, sexual exploitation, unchaste sexual behavior, poverty, lack of education and absence of moral guidance. In fact, the negative effects of abortion can actually compound these problems.

Because abortion kills innocent children, wounds mother and fathers and dehumanizes our society, the Pro-Life Action League opposes abortion under all circumstances."

I know a lot of text to sum it Abortion is murder. Alright I am going to say that is big reason why you should be against abortion, to put it crudely, is baby killing. To those that want to make abortion illegal an abortion is equal to murdering a child. At lest that is the point I got after reading their publicly made information found of the listed popular anti abortion site. They believe that thing growing the womb is a 'human person' and that having an abortion is killing a person.

Okay point taken. So if abortion is murder then so a miscarriage or a still birth. Furthermore, it is murder if a twin dies early in the pregnancy and the other twin grows and absorbs it. Point is anytime a pregnancy does not yield a healthy child it is murder according to the anti-Abortionist. No they do not say that but it is the same logic. If it is murder when a doctor ends a  pregnancy how is not murder when mothers body cannot support a baby.

I understand a Doctor has to follow a medical procedure to a end pregnancy. That is why it is murder. But if a womans own body does the following it must at lest be called manslaughter the end result is the same. If a pregnancy ending with the aid of Doctor is murder then a still birth is also. 

It is a crude and aggressive statement to fault out call abortion murder. It is just mean, if someone thinks that way that is fine. However, the issue is when that becomes the single point of the augment.

All an abortion does is end a pregnancy. That is it. It does not take much of a detailed look into pregnancy to understand what is going on during a pregnancy. A  pregnancy is fertilization and development of one or more offspring. What needs to be pointed out is that under the child is born exists in a state of potential human life. It is not human life in and of itself. To make this claim is a failing to understand the prenatal development.

Here is a simple way to think of the subject. A woman tell you the following "I have one child" you reply "How old is that child" and she says "Around Four months since I am 4 months pregnant". I believe must people would find it odd to claim you have a child when you have not yet given birth to it. But if that woman has a abortion is it killing a child.

Often these groups are married to the idea that life begins at conception. Even foolish law makers have passed laws saying as much. Again the words 'ass holes' come to mind. Again I am going to have to be rude but they are saying that the moment when a man cums into a womans vagina a human life begins.  So saying that life beings at  conception is saying that life beings when the sperm mets in the vagina and then the egg.     

Now that is just a silly thing to say. One just because a woman had sex with a man does not mean that she will get pregnant. Yes, sex is how babies get made the old fashioned way but it does not work all the time. Even if ones does not use any from of birth control sex simply a man via is penis placing sperm into a vagina. After that the sperm tries to make it to the egg and then the sperm tries to get inside of  the egg. 

If that is when human life starts then once again anyone that has ever had sex has killed a lot of people. Because under this logic human life begins prior to conception. After all each sperm and egg cell is existing before and for quiet sometime after sex. So saying that life beings at conception is foolish. 

Sperm is made by millions, eggs are made more or less by the month. If a woman has her period does that make her a kill of life after it is a wasted egg that can be a person. The same goes for sperm only one sperm needs to make to the egg. Are the rest dead people? Furthermore it means that male masturbation is a war crime for all the human life that is killed.      

When sentience comes these issues for some. However much of it seems to be clouded by the veil of bad logic. When was reading this websites I often found that they speak about sex in general often under a very ill light. The often say no sex outside of marriage and so on.

Now I am going to go a little off topic for the rest of this post. Because I think that these groups are really about sex at the end of the day. Many how, when, and why a person should have sex.

First off sex was around long before marriage and will carry on so long as their are people. To say sex outside of marriage is wrong is simply foolish and a outdated idea. Marriage is at its core about men, inheritance, and power. For a patriarchal society to work one must always know who a child's father is. After all one always knows who the mother is. The father on the other hand some doubt can be cast on it. Thus for inheritance of wealth or power it matters a lot. After all a man does not want leave his stuff to a child that is not his own.

Thus we end up with marriage a contract that says to the woman you can only have sex with this man and no one else for the rest of their life or until the man dies. Women were are still are killed or harmed if they break this contract or are even suspected of doing so. Marriage in America has changed with the times but the idea remains the same.

It is a bad idea. If you want to be someone and just that one person great enjoy your time together. However, if you longer want to be with them so what that happens. No person by law should be bound to another person for the rest of their life.

I often think that the reason why people are against abortion is that they see it as something of a tax on sex. Oh you had sex outside of marriage that pregnancy is the price that you pay for doing it. I often think that those that want to make it illegal think that it will stop sex and for lack better word 'whoring'. Oh you where a whore now you have to responsible because you are now a mother. Forgetting the key point that people love sex and that having a child will not stop a person from doing so.

Here is the simple reality of it all making something illegal does not stop it from happening. Abortions carry on because the simple fact is that people want and need them. Driving underground makes it unsafe and unaccountable.

Furthermore, Abortions mean that women can have children when they are ready. Meaning that they can offer their child a better life then they could otherwise. A unwanted child by mother that is too young or simply does not have the means to raise a child is already at a massive disadvantage. Moreover because of this abortions lower crime. "It's a very simple theory. Unwanted children are a tremendous risk for growing up and having criminal lives," said Levitt. "With the legalization of abortion, many fewer unwanted children were born, therefore, the children who were most at risk for being criminals -- they were never born."

Here is my point. Hate abortions if you want but damn it stop it. Just do not get a abortion. It is very easy thing not to do. But do not for moment think that it is a moral stance because it is not. Having or not having a child is not moral issue but a personal one.   

Abortion Part 1

I hate to say it right off the bat like this but I have a penis between my legs. Which in the abortion 'debate' is really important. Because I am male I cannot, no matter how hard I try, get pregnant. Meaning that I am in no way affected by the abortion debate. After all I am already born. Yes, I can get a woman pregnant however my addition is only so genetic information my body brews up by the thousands. Furthermore, I am person fully capably of loving another child even an unborn one. 

I cannot overlook the simple fact that it is not my body at risk nor is it my body that bears the joys and horrors of carrying a budding potential human around in them for under a year. All men are like me in this regard. In baby making men are nothing more than spectators. Our part in the creation of human life is short and sometimes fun for both parties involved. However, when it comes down to it the creation of life can be done with a turkey baster and some well kept semen. The truth is other an semen men are not needed much for a child to be born. Many children have and will be born by methods crudely named 'test tube'.

Point is that creation human life still needs semen but it really needs a woman to work.

So when it comes to abortion I have to bear in mind my biological place. Yes abortion can touch a man's life. Not in any direct bodily way. The only way a male is affected is by not having a  potential biological child. Granted this can have a deep psychological impact on a man. However it should never be forgotten that pregnancy always directly affects the life and body of a woman. Even if that woman has an abortion her body is still changed. A man can leave a pregnant woman. He can leave behind any and all responsibility for his part. But a woman cannot just walk away from being pregnant. To just walk away in the same way that a man can is not possible for a woman. Her body is altered her life changed.

Simply put a man can never know what it is like be pregnant nor can we understand what an Abortion means to a woman.

Because of these simple biological truths I have always thought that men have little to no place in the  abortion debate. As men we risk little to nothing if Abortion ends up legal or illegal. We can flee from our responsibilities rather easily. Sure we made end up having to pay child support but that is just money. It is not our bodies on the line in any way.

So male politicians against abortion, sorry but yeah shut up. There is little to no place for men in this issue. We cannot get abortions so saying your against something that has no role in your life. Even someone like me that is for legal abortions I only show my support knowing that I risk nothing. I do it only because we all have to get over ourselves.

Abortion is not debate it is not something that should be democratically handled. A person has the right to their own body and right to make their choices for it. The body is the dictatorship of the person. It is not up for vote or political debate. It for the person and the person only to do what they think is best. We can judge but we do not have to live with the choice.

Part 2 coming soon

I may just join the two posts together once I get it done. Just bear with me.