If my views seem odd, it's only because truth is stranger than fiction. I just follow the facts. My personal site is at www.Bereawiki.com.
My name is Joshua David Zambrano, and I'm a resident of Illinois. A.A.S. in Business Management, Waubonsee Community College. For an example of my writing and sourcing, see my 2010 ebook, The Zambrano Report. Jzyehoshua is simply my initials, Jz, followed by the Hebrew name origin for Joshua ("Yehoshua"). I am a Christian who believes the Bible is literally true. While I do believe typos exist in some of the preserved manuscripts, I do not believe this substantially alters the preserved message of the Bible, and that the vast wealth of manuscript evidence is God's way of preserving His Word for future generations.
As a result of the Democrats' dishonesty I have moved fully in support of the Republican Party in recent years. I voted 3rd party for president in both 2004 (1st election voted in) and 2008, for Michael Peroutka and Bob Barr, respectively. Although I primarily vote Republican I also vote for 3rd party candidates and pro-life Democrats if they are the best options in a given race. My closest affiliations are to the GOP, DFLA (Pro-life Democrats), the NRLC, and the Constitution Party (conservative 3rd party). I am generally conservative on social issues and center-left on everything else. I have been a staunch opponent of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush since 2004, and can prove it (per my 2004 posting history at RenewAmerica's forum). For specifics, see the bottom of this page.
Guides and Lists
- I'll have a guide with some useful and practical advice for editing and researching at User:Jzyehoshua/Guide_To_Editing.
- A list of the evidence I see against Evolution will be kept here: User:Jzyehoshua/Evidence_Against_Evolution.
My favorite editing topics include Political Issues (including Evolution/Creationism and abortion), the Bible, Religion, History, Macroeconomics, Philosophy, and Sports. While I would like to discuss the issues, I would not want to join a listserv as my multiple email accounts are already packed, and it would make it much more difficult to find vital emails. I like forums, I do not like listservs.
As an editor I take pride in my sourcing, and go out of my way to use sourcing that even the most liberal of critics will have difficulty faulting; sourcing with peer-reviewed scientific journals (e.g. Science, Nature), major news sources (e.g. New York Times, National Geographic), or well-renowned fact-checking sites (e.g. FactChect.org, PolitiFact). It's not that I distrust Creationist sources like Answers in Genesis but I recognize such sources will not likely persuade anyone but those who are already Creationists! As such I make an effort to complement any Creationist sources used with mainstream ones; depending on the subject - if scientific then scientific journals, if news-related, then major news sources, if political, then non-partisan fact-checking sites or better yet, senate transcripts/source material.
My magnus opum for Creationwiki was previously created at Creationism2.
Articles I've contributed substantially to include:
Articles I've contributed somewhat to include:
- Don Stewart
- United States of America
- Free will
- Bible got water cycle right (Talk.Origins)
- Bible says the earth is round (Talk.Origins)
- Bible's accuracy on other scientific points shows overall accuracy (Talk.Origins)
Stub articles to work on:
Previous Wikipedia Involvement
I am an ex-Wikipedia editor who did not like the liberal bias occurring there. I now edit in hopes of helping other wikis replace Wikipedia and its blatant, hypocritical biases. For example, just look at the Obama page there and how many controversies (such as the Born Alive controversy caused by Obama's repeated opposition to medical care for newborn children) go unmentioned, whereas the controversies for conservative politicians are mentioned.
Political Views, Specific
I am now a conservative Republican, after formerly being an Independent. I suppose would be considered a 'Moderate' even though my views are a perfect mix of strong socially conservative beliefs and strong liberal/moderate economic/foreign policy beliefs. As such, I can discuss my views on abortion and evolution and be criticized by liberals as a hard-right conservative, but discuss my views on economics and foreign policy, and be criticized by conservatives as a far-left liberal; a fact that never ceases to amuse me.
- I oppose abortion save in rape and life of the mother, and lean against it in cases of rape also. I would only consider abortion moral if it could be shown beyond all shadow of a doubt that it's occurring at too early a stage to be murder - I do not support the right to kill others.
- I support Creationism. I believe life on earth is young although whether a specific date to it can be set I'm still deciding. I do not believe earth itself is necessarily young given Genesis 1:2. Again, I consider the Bible literally true and do not believe science has evidence to show that it is not on any given point. While I believe microevolution and natural selection are undeniable fact, I consider Big Bang theory and macroevolution (i.e. evolutionary theory) to be unevidenced, interpretive speculation.
- I oppose embryonic stem cell research not because I think embryos are human but out of alarm at human-animal cloning and that giving scientists power over the petri dish could to lead to misuse and devaluation of human life, growing humans for organ farming. Skin stem cells can be altered to achieve similar effects to embryonic without the moral controversy.
- I support religious freedom and frequently invoke the founding fathers and William Penn's early government to show we began a Christian nation. I believe that belief in God is the foundation of religious freedom, and that one can't believe in inalienable rights without believing in a Creator who gives said rights. I believe the 1st amendment was intended to prevent a religious institution like Catholicism or Anglicanism from usurping government power to persecute other denominations, and to protect freedom of religious expression and faith everywhere. I think progressive interpretations are actually leading to the religious discrimination the 1st amendment sought to stop.
- I support gun rights and the 2nd amendment as a protection against our government and empowering U.S. citizens. While I'm a bit unclear on whether a line should be drawn with assault weapons, I am a strong supporter of giving average citizens the right to protect themselves and be empowered with weapons. The original concept of "militias" was very different as proposed by the founding fathers to the one used today.
- I oppose gay marriage. I support homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else, which is why I think every homosexual man should be able to marry a woman. They have the same rights already, they want a new right and themselves declared a new demographic. I see evidence that homosexuality is not genetic such as polling showing younger Americans are three times as likely as older Americans to be LGBT, and xenoestrogens producing homosexuality in nature. I find the increasing attack on religious freedom by the gay rights movement to be disturbing and intolerant, as they sue photographers that don't want to photograph gay weddings, pastors that don't want to marry homosexuals, farm owners that don't want to marry homosexuals in their homes, etc. I do not hate homosexuals, I do not single them out as worse then anyone else, but their attack on the religious freedom of others and to legislate their beliefs in oppression of Christian beliefs necessitates that I oppose their agenda.
- I oppose no-fault divorce and point out it began in 1969, California, the same time and place as the gay rights movement. I do not support couples being able to nullify their vows of "til death do us part" for any reason or no reason when law otherwise holds contracts of lesser importance to far higher standards of accountability. If we are to use the Biblical standards on marriage as the basis for morality, we ought by all means to oppose divorce as strongly as we do homosexual marriage, as divorce is the more clearly wrong of the two, according to the Bible.
Moderate on Economics
- I support smaller government because complexity hides corruption, and I favor less overall intrusion into citizens' lives. However, I consider a basic level of regulation necessary to protect consumers from business (e.g. predatory lending), small business from big business (e.g. predatory pricing), and workers from companies. I favor minimal levels of regulation but not removal of all regulation as anarchic capitalists, many of whom identify as libertarians, would advocate.
- I oppose free trade save with countries who use decent minimum wages. If trade is not fair then it should not be free, and communist countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba use low minimum wages because (a) they don't care about their people, and (b) it means corporate investment flows to their countries for the cheap labor. I support free trade with countries whose minimum wages are above $4.00 an hour but not those who take advantage of their people in pursuit of power and steal jobs from Americans through free trade.
- I oppose socialism in favor of capitalism because government taking over industry ultimately results in less overall employment, as well as inefficiency and bureaucracy. Government employees are not held accountable like their counterparts in the private sector, so it is not uncommon to see poor quality of service in DMVs and other government agencies. A government agency gets funded regardless of the quality of work it performs. I believe it is typically better to encourage job creation in the private sector rather than public sector, unless it is a very simplistic, efficient, and well-tailored public works system. Government in my opinion is a danger to individual freedom, and allowing it to usurp too much power leads to a monopoly and inevitable tyranny.
- I support caps on executive compensation at publicly traded companies. I also oppose the Invisible Hand and Trickle Down theories. This is about worker's rights and workers should be paid fairly in relation to CEOs unless the CEO owns the company (private company) in which case it's the CEO's money and company to do with as they please. This is needed to ensure fair employment and prosperity for all Americans since otherwise CEOs will hike their own pay by reducing wages for everyone else via outsourcing, automation, illegal immigrants, and part-time or temporary workers.
- I support universal health care and welfare but oppose ObamaCare. I believe it moral for a government to provide services for the good of all and that both are necessary to care for a nation's weakest and poorest. Nevertheless, I abide by the rule the Apostle Paul said, that "if a man won't work he should also not eat" and that welfare systems should require work in exchange for services. I simply want the poor to have a chance to work for basic survival so they don't starve, not to give them a free ride. I believe our Social Security and Medicare systems have gotten out of hand, and rather than providing basic care are usurping private industry to the detriment of overall employment, but still support basic government systems for healthcare and welfare. I nevertheless oppose ObamaCare, because while I want to see a good healthcare system, ObamaCare was just designed to fund Planned Parenthood, and was a horrible bill.
- I support FDR-type Stimulus programs but oppose Obama's Stimulus programs. FDR's put people back to work inexpensively, paying little per worker hired, and having workers do inexpensive tasks like digging ditches, conservation, cleaning up public buildings, painting murals, etc. Obama's spend hundreds of thousands of dollars paying a single scientist to research ridiculous things, and his stimulus bills were essentially a blank check funding every liberal special interest project for the past 30 years. Thus I would support public works programs like FDR's but strongly criticized Obama's Stimulus even before it passed.
- I oppose warmongering as contrary to Christian ideals. I've opposed the Iraq War since 2004, the first year I voted. Not only did I criticize the Iraq War, but I also dislike prior U.S. wars/imperialism as well, like the Vietnam War, Mexican-American War, and treatment of Hawaiians/Filipinos/Native Americans. I am one of the biggest critics of Catholicism (including its warmongering like the Crusades, Conquistadors, and Inquisition) you will find as well, and believe that the real continuers of Christianity were those persecuted by Catholicism from 300-1000 A.D. like the Montanists, Arians, Donatists, Waldenses, Paulicians, etc.
- I oppose the death penalty, per the Consistent Life Ethic held by DFLA (pro-life Democrats). While I think some crimes are clearly worthy of death, I do not believe we as sinful humans, all guilty of death before God (the penalty for sin), can justly render this punishment - only if without sin can we cast the first stone according to the Mosaic Law. I favor life imprisonment and hard labor as an alternative, and recognize that while some crimes particularly call for death, our justice system has put too many innocent people on Death Row, and if we can't assure only guilty people are put to death, then noone should be.
- I support protecting the environment. I want our rainforests protected and land use optimized. I support regulations on pollution by corporate excesses. I think those who stand naked on icebergs are just posturing and attention-seeking buffoons, but reasonable steps to preserve and protect our Creator-given resources as faithful stewards I wholeheartedly support and endorse. While I recognize Global Warming is occurring, 'ClimateGate' made me more suspicious of the Green Energy movement, Al Gore, and the scientific community backing Global Warming. I personally think the main problem is deforestation, that growing global population is a contributor as well, and that pollution is often singled out for political reasons and Green Industry profits.