Pasadena Politics

Well, as if the Government in California does not have enough to do, they have decided that you, yes you, are not intelligent enough to decide which TV is best for you.    Actually, it is more of a matter of which TV is best for the environment… well, the commission’s conscience more than the environment itself.    The absurdity, as with the majority of any regulation, is that they assume an informed buyer should chose a certain way.   They assume that they know what the wise decision is and so, by their regulation, imply that you are unwise; that you are not capable of deciding what is best both for yourself and the world around you.

Well, given disclosure, given access to knowledge, people can know what is best for them and without government regulation.  Which, coincidentally, is why keeping government from regulating the Internet is as important as keeping it from regulating Freedom of Speech:  knowledge is power.  

Now, personally, I have always been conscientious towards the power consumption of the equipment I use.   When LCD monitors in 1999 were affordable enough, I purchased one because I knew they used less power and they took up less space.    Note: my knowledge was executable when the price was more in line with my budget.    People buy Plasma TVs, not because they are energy efficient but because the image is superior.    As a consequence, they pay more money in electrical bills for that increased power consumption.   

The market is self-regulating in that regards.   So long as people’s rights are respected and information is made available concerning a product, they can be trusted to make informed decisions.   The offence of regulation is that it steps on the rights of the individual while treating them as children.  

Oh, did I mention California was considering steps to regulate the color of your car?   While not a ban, it would certainly have the effect of limiting your choice.   Not because you were informed, but because you were regulated. 

Think about the Incandecent bulb ban (’phase out’). The idea is to save the environment by using less electricity which will in turn require less fuel to produce said electricity.  Of course, this effort misses the important point that the Mercury in CFLs is a hazard to the environment and man and I can attest from personal experience that CFLs do not last as long as claimed.   I have never had one last longer than 12 months, let alone 60.   Again you have the issue: government regulation interfering with your right to make an informed decision and worse forcing you to chose an option that is more hazardous.

An excellent article on the punitive AIG tax. 

From the article:

“Never mind, too, that such punitive laws were expressly deplored by America’s Founders. In Federalist 44, James Madison warned that “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

In 1827 in Ogden v. Saunders, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a similar warning about legislative limits under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution: “The states are forbidden to pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law, by which a man shall be punished criminally or penally by loss of life of his liberty, property, or reputation for an act which, at the time of its commission, violated no existing law of the land,” wrote Justice Bushrod Washington.”

While this bill may not strictly fall under a bill of attainder category as far as courts are concerned, the intent behind crafting the law was very clear when it was voted on despite current repudiations that it was not meant to be just for AIG employees.    

Now… if those AIG employess had donated that money, say… to the DNC?

After such a good start this year at opposing the bloated “Stimulus” Bill which made me think they might stand a good chance at coming back into the House Majority in 2010, they reached for the ball and stumbled.    It would appear that only half the Republicans in the House know how to tell the difference between a road Apple and an Apple.    

Of which apples do I speak?  Well, this past week anyone paying attention to the news will have noticed that a tempest in a teacup brewed over AIG’s bonuses.  Bonuses that, interestingly enough, were approved by TARP.    It seems the more loudly you decry the bonus, the more likely it is that you knew about it before hand.    The Road Apple?  This: HOW DARE THEY GIVE OUT BONUSES!  That, my friends, is a political road apple.   Mind that you wash your hands after handling it and please don’t try to eat it.   

This decrying the bonuses is purely what it is: manure.   It is a duplicitous maneuver, one meant to divert attention from the real issue: the Apple.  More specifically, this one.    Why are some Republicans going with the road apples?   Voting to tax people who worked for their money and who AIG was contractually obliged to pay?   Are they Liberals?  No, really: are they Conservatives or Liberals?  Do they really think that going with whatever media sensation will bolster their voters?   More important: did their votes actually support the Constitution; support limited Government or did they just vote to use the tax code as a “political weapon” .   

Really, this is too bad.  I was actually starting to think that the Republicans would hold tough and not be swayed by nonsense.    Certainly, there is still hope that they will remain constant in support of Conservative ideals, but considering the RINO population in Washington D.C., I am skeptical.

Fear for the day if Soccer is made the National Sport of this Nation.

The short answer is “No”.   The long answer explains why: 

 

If you define helping people without regard to their race as racism, then I suppose you could say the answer is yes.  But then, how can you be racist if you don’t regard race?   I am quite against any attempts by government to catalogue, measure, define, or otherwise monitor the race of citizens.   Why?  Well, why should ones race matter?   Why should government care if someone working for them or another company has a different shade of skin than another person or that their ancestors came from one Continent or another?   (Side note: I prefer the term heritage rather than race which can imply a biological rift since the differences between various groups of people are more cultural than simply genetic variations within mankind).  

 

Once you begin to catalogue race you state that their race matters.

Once you begin to help people based on race you make a statement that it is their race that needs help.

 

In both cases the individual loses out as it no longer matters what the content of a man’s character is, but the color of their skin.   This is wrong, morally.   It also happens to go against the idea that “All Men are Created Equal”.   Liberalism can be summed up as such: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other.”  In other words it is white supremacy.  It is racism guised as caring, masquerading as equality.   This form of equality is not rooted in the concept that “All Men are Created Equal” but that some are equal only when allowed by their “superiors”.   

 

Where is freedom to be found in that?

 

Conservatism seeks equality of all men, not because they are or are not a particular race, but because they are men; mankind.    The United States is here to protect Freedom.  It cannot grant it as it already exists.   This, in the end, is why the Civil War was fought: Maintaining the Union to protect Freedom rather than see the Union split with the continued denial of Freedom to a group whose only ‘crime’ was having darker skin.   Today people are under the mistaken impression that Government grants freedom.  No, Government takes it away – when we let it. 

 

I view Conservatism as seeing mankind akin to a single human body.   People make up various parts of that body but they are equal despite their heritage and all serve to make the whole function.   However, Liberalism views mankind as separate bodies by matter of race.   It does not view them as equal since they are a ‘different’ body so only the superior, more evolved race can then grant the inferior ones equality.    Where is the opportunity, the freedom, in that?

 

Liberalism’s action in government appear, on the face, be good, noble.   Conservatism’s inaction, appears the opposite.   Yet these appearances are deceiving as the former views the role of government as needing to grant while the latter views it as needing to protect.   One does not view freedom and equality as inherent while the other does. 

 

This is something I have thought for decades and was prompted to write about it after seeing the title of Shelby Steele’s article in the WSJ.  

Now, while I am against people stealing (I view downloading software/music/etc. that one did not purchase as stealing) and am all for idea originators to get their due, I strongly oppose attempts by various organizations and governments to stamp out your ability to legitimately share and acquire information (ideas, music, video, etc; you understand: conveyed thought).   If ACTA is simply an agreement on how to handle International IP infringement, then why is it being treated as National Security? 

What methods will be used?  What is considered IP infringement (in their minds)?  What recourse does the accused have?  What limits are there in place to keep this from expanding, say to infringe on freedom of speech similar to China’s attempts?

Where is the Transparency you touted Mr. President?  This does not strike me as National Security anywhere near the level of Gitmo Detainees or specifics on eavesdropping on non-US Citizens.     Yet more broken promises.   You should recall what happened to the first President Bush when he broke his campaign promises.   Or will your method to remain in office also be a National Secret of sorts? .

One of the reasons cited for ceding from Britain was the fact they quarted troops in private residences.    In other words: government was in your home, watching you to ensure that ‘peace’ and ‘law’ were maintained.    This treaty cannot simply be protected from review by claiming ‘National Security’ unless there is far more to it than figuring out how to deal with International IP infringement.

Is the US Government resorting to treaties to bypass the Constitutional protections we enjoy?

There is a definite ripeness to Liberal’s crying foul over Rush Limbaugh (yes, I do listen to him and you would discover, as I did, that he is sound in reasoning if you actually listen to him) saying “I hope he fails.”  Of course, they take the quote completely out of context – Rush hopes Obama’s liberal policies fail which is very clear when you listen to the segment in which he makes the statement.    Anyways… suffice it to say that I would not have brought this up at all if it were not for Fox News having THIS interesting tid-bit.

So James Carville wanted Bush to fail (as did anyone calling for the end the war in Iraq without our first winning it).    But today, when it is a Liberal in the Oval Office, it is not OK to wish for the failure of the President.    Wasn’t it H. Clinton who said it was patriotic to disagree?

I can hear certain people thinking: “oh… you listens to Limbaugh.  No reason to listen to you.”  All I can say that is: “So?  And what of it?”  I am a free thinker and enjoy a good conversation with people I may disagree with, but just because I listen to one particular radio host (full disclosure: I also listen to Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, some NPR and occasionally John and Ken from KFI) rather than the radio host you prefer does not suddenly mean I use a dribble cup and lapse into a hypnotic rapture at the sound of their voice.    I chose to listen to the people I listen to because we agree and because I sometimes find they are able to convey certain concepts and ideas better than others or even myself.  There is another reason I listen: I know I am not alone in thinking the way I do.
That is one reason why I find the revived talk about the Fairness Doctrine and “media diversifaction” discussions offensive (let alone contrary to the Constitution).   There is valid truth to the old saying Divide and Conquer and that is exactly what such measures effectively try to do.    Maybe the reason you hear more Conservative voices on Radio is not that there is a lack of Liberal voices, but that more people would rahter listen to the former rather than the latter?

EDIT (March 12th 2009): Wanted to add a link to a Rove article.

What is the source of our Freedoms? The source of certain “Inalienable Rights”? Is it Man whose fickle and obstinate nature produces complex and contradictory rules and laws? Is it a higher authority, outside ourselves, that we may not see daily but from whom one of two very fundamental laws are not objectionable to even atheists? That would be: Love your neighbor as yourself or, more commonly: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our Declaration of Independence lays out three certain inalienable rights and the Constitution itself is a limiter to government’s power.

My topic today and most likely for next time as well revolves around the Declaration of Independence. Ethics, and Morality. The recent lifting of the Stem Cell research Ban has prompted me to grouse about it in relation to the main topic. And now, my reasoned rant:

The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal”. This phrase has been controversial with regards to slavery and women’s voting rights. Men or man, in English, can refer to both male and female; to mankind as a whole without distinction of sex or heritage. So it was the pro-slave owners hated the Declaration of Independence (or at least that phrase) and Abolitionists touted it as a primary reason for expunging the nation of slavery. I side with the latter.

We can have a very narrow view of “men”: white and male to wider: all mankind. Chew on that for a moment.

We have pro-fetal-stem cell research advocates stating that politics and ideology should not be used to hamper scientific research. But what of Ethics and Morality? They should always be a constraint to any scientific endeavor for scientific inquiry is otherwise hideous. What is it that warrant the use of human beings in a scientific experiment conducted against their will? Lack of Ethics… Lack of Morals… Humanity is conveniently ignored by those who consider life expendable next to their goals.

Obama, for shame! Do you not recall that the debate once raged about the humanity of Africans as justification for the continuance of slavery? Now you would create a whole new industry that thrives off of the lives of other people. There is a difference between being a willing organ donor and being an unwilling organ donor and no difference in Size, Intellectual Capacity, Independence, and Location should be used as justification to deny people their inalienable rights. Those four aforementioned are the only things separating a fetus from the same rights you, Mr. President, enjoy.

The Declaration of Independence, without which the Constitution would not exist, does not give Government the right to take away Life, or Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness – save only when criminal activity has been proved to have been committed by the individual. Is it a crime to be conceived? Where is the due process for the fetus? Fetus, such a clinical term, as a title does not remove one ounce of humanity from that ‘clump of cells’ growing that should they be born enjoy the protection of the Constitution. (We are not talking about eggs or sperm having rights *link may offend some* – do understand the difference between the two and conception – unless you somehow think of yourself as a walking, talking sperm and egg.)

Government has no right to finance the destruction of the unborn and certainly less to fund an industry that would perpetuate the ‘need’ for more sacrifices samples. Stem cells from non-fetal sources have been proven, scientifically, to work. Why is money not better spent in those areas? Or is there a need to justify keeping an abhorrent practice? To make people feel guilty should they oppose fetal stem-cell treatment for a disease and oppose abortion at the same time?

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Copied from here.  Why?  Sometimes we need to recall certain Founding Documents alluded to in Obama’s Inauguration speech. 

http://www.russianews.net/story/474915

Igor (or is it eye-ghore?) Panarin made the news a few months back with his interesting prediction concerning the fate of America.   

Finally there is some news of dissent from his fellow scholars which, it being Russia, is always a good thing to hear about.    

 

Igor thinks that the USA will break apart into 4 separate areas, each controlled by near and far interests such as Russia, China, Canada/EU, and Latin America.  All this due to financial and ideological stresses.   The analysis is actually quite interesting whether or not you agree with his conclusion.   In any event, that other Russian scholars discount is conclusion as being more applicable to Russia itself is interesting.   One then has to wonder if Igor is doing a little ‘projection’ of Russia onto the USA.  

 

Now, I personally think Obama’s ideology and that of the majority in Congress are diametrically opposed to the Constitution – a document they all, ironically, are sworn to support and defend.    I am sure that there is some rationale they make in their own conscious minds to defend themselves from the stunning disparity of their promise and actual execution of offices.  But the evidence is quite clear that they either hold the Constitution in contempt or are ignorant of its contents and history.    If Rahm Emanuel thinks that you “never want a serious crisis to go to waste”.  Then one can easily understand The Legislature and Executive branch prodding the economy into further crisis and use it, again, to further their own private grabs at power; sacrificing this Nation’s core values: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  

 

The Constitution was meant to limit Government.   Lets get back to our Founding Documents (which Obama mentioned at his inaugeration) or in some fashion Igor’s prediction may come true with a Second Civil War by “We the People”.