Pasadena Politics

I have been hearing a lot of Republicans saying we should support Sotomayor because she is Hispanic.   Excuse me?   Are you ignorant of what you just said?   You are saying you need to support a deconstructionist Judge because they are Hispanic?   Ever heard of Racism?    By supporting her because of her race and because they falsely believe it will garner them minority votes they destroy the Republican ideal that all men are equal and the ideal of the Great Leaders of this nation such as Martin Luther King who said a man (or woman) should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

!?!?

Republicans want to know why they lost so much control and power in 2006 and 2008?   This form of race pandering and tolerance towards Big Government.   That Republicans think they can win minorities by pandering to them with Amnesty or support of minority appointees regardless of their qualifications and suitability for the position  is a downright foolish.  People are smarter than that!  They know the difference between someone offering them a half-dollar and someone offering them a hundred dollars.   They will vote for the real Liberals and Socialists, not the fake ones.

And the wise answer of many in the Republican Leadership?  We need to be more ‘Moderate’.   We need to support Sotomayor because it will get us votes.  We need to look like the opposition… Perhaps, instead of being in the Republican Party you need to go to the Democrat party.   Specter already did.  What is the point of being in the ‘other’ party if you are not going to offer a real, solid difference?   What is the point of being a Republican if you decide that getting the vote is more important than the message itself?

Have you no integrity?

Have you no backbone?

Have you no confidence in what you say you believe – well, at least the platform the Party you are part of says it stands on?

Sotomayor should not be supported.  Not because she is one race or another or one sex or another – that is completely irrelevant to her character and ability to perform her job, but because she is racist and because she cannot be – by her own words and the words of Obama, be objective, impartial, and impersonal.   We respect her as a person, but reject her because of her stated lack – pride in it as well, of impartiality.

Heck, is it not good enough to oppose her because many of her own judgments were overturned by the Supreme Court?  Fox, meet the Henhouse.

Sure, some Hispanic voters will believe the mass media reports that the Senate Republicans opposed her because of her race or sex, but they were not going to vote for you anyways because: 1 – Republicans are not sending a clear message that can be distinguished from media reports and confusion with the Democrats message and 2 – they are not interested in the USA as it was founded but what the USA can give to them via handouts.

Dear Senators, by not opposing Sotomayor because she is Hispanic tells me, a Hispanic, that race matters more to you than character, than the rule of Law, or integrity of our Constitution.    Please, for the sake of the Party, our Conservative ideals, and the very fact that ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL: oppose her!

Sonia Sotomayor was an expected pick by Obama for the Supreme Court Nomination.   Also expected was the fact that she is a liberal.   What is not expected is that she is a sexist racist.   That last statement of expectation depends on your perspective of Liberals of course.  However, the assertion that she is a sexist and a racist is based on statements she and Obama have made.   Namely this one and this one.

Sotomayor has also stated, though she tried to obscure the statement after recognizing that she was being recorded, that the Judiciary is activist – that they form policy as opposed to strictly interpreting the laws.   This happens to espouse violating the separation of powers.   The Legislature creates the laws.  The Executive executes the laws.  The Judiciary interprets the laws.   Without checks and balance of power by the separations of those powers you have tyranny.

Sotomayor is not a good choice in any respect by the fact that she cannot be an impartial Judge.   The fact that she views the Judiciary as a policy making device shows her contempt for the law she is supposed to be interpreting and the Constitution by which she is obligated to uphold.  No judge is supposed to interpret the law based off of their race or sex – the law which might have been written from that perspective is not logically interpreted by that same perspective.  That is: logic and reason are not based on race or sex, the interpretation of law is irrespective of race or sex.   It is neutral in all respects which is why impartiality is required of Judges.   A good judge is one who is impartial, not one who says “my sex and race lend me this perspective and though the law says this, I judge this way.”

That she believes sex and race effect logic is as erroneous as saying sex and race effect math calculations.  No, anyone who supports her nomination is Now, on the other hand, if she can hold to “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it” and hold to being as unbiased as she possibly can be, then she will have done what is expected of any Judge.   If that is the case, I will eat my words.  But I have serious doubts given the statements by Obama that “her perspective” will impact the decisions of the Supreme Court – let alone her own statements which left doubt concerning her commitment to being unbiased.

May 20th, 2009 Voters of California rejected measures 1A-1E, all of which would have allowed Sacramento to ignore the needed buget cuts in favor of higher taxes and raiding of voter secured programs.    Given statements from the Governor and other elected officials, you would have thought that a formal letter had been sent saying California Voters don’t care about Democracy and would rather have the Legislature figure out how to do this on their own.    If you listened the link (27:35 into the recording), you will hear that Arnold thinks people may not like exercising Democracy by voting.  Really?   You will also hear Arnold give the typical trope about cutting Education, Police, and Fire services – AS IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY PROGRAMS the State of California funds.    If only.

One can only hope that sense will prevail in the State’s Legislature and they will stop playing to the Unions and Special Interests.

There are many choices we have and can make in life by benefit of living in this great Nation.   We can choose to have long or short hair.  We can choose who we marry.  We can choose the type of car we drive or the very light bulbs we use (at least until 2010).    We can choose what we do or do not believe.    While there are certain things we have no choice about (who our parents are), we have plenty of opportunity to choose much concerning the courses of our lives.

Emphasis on lives.   We cannot choose nor can we have opportunity without life.   The foundation of this Nation, the Declaration of Independence (the Constitution and Bill of Rights would come later) iterates three inalienable rights (they are a primacy): Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.   Without Life, no one has rights.  Without Liberty, one cannot exercise their rights.   Without the Pursuit of Happiness, one’s freedom means little.    So we have the right to Life.  An inalienable right.

Yet, that most basic of rights has, at times in our Nations history, been denied to people.   Not on the basis of action – such as those condemned by Capital Punishment, but by basis of birth; the color of one’s skin.  There are those who uphold the Supreme Court as the best defence in this Nation against Executive or Legislative abuse of our rights, yet if you look at the but a few examples (Dred Scott) you see that the expediency of appeasing financial and political allies overthrew the rights of many.   It took a bloody civil war to rectify that fault in America.

Today, we have a similar situation.   It was not born out of compromise in order to create the Union as slavery was.   This was born out of a mistaken ideology which does not value life for it sees no separation between man and common animals.    The very Supreme Court case: Roe vs Wade, relied on poor and debunked evidence to support the theory that a human fetus was not human.    When is a human a human if not at conception?    Certainly not prior to conception, there is zero potential for humanity in a sperm or ovum (* link may offend some).    Once conception occurs, regardless of the simplicity, there is 100% potential.  That is: you have human life.    The main differences are: size, intellectual capacity, self-reliance, communication, and maturity.

The premise that a woman has the right to abort her fetus is an erroneous argument.    It presumes that the rights of one individual outweigh the rights of another.    The only instances allowed are in cases of Capital Punishment and self-defense.  With regards to a mother’s choice then; with regards to a pregnant woman’s choice then, we do not have an instance where Capital Punishment of a Fetus is expected nor do we have an instance of self defence except for the case where a woman’s life is in direct danger due to the pregnancy.   Otherwise, what gives the right of anyone to take the life of another?

Where does that right come from except by dehumanizing the fetus; the unborn?   Only by assuming that our inalienable rights do not come from a higher power: not from God but from man – that we make the rules and rights.    All should be very much afraid for if man can pick and chose the rights to bestow on his fellow man, then likewise those same rights and more can be taken away.

There is a difference between seeking a middle ground between your ideas and the ideas of your opponents and seeking to move your ideas to that middle ground.     If you stand firm on your ideas you balance against the ideas of your opposition.   However for whatever reason, should you move your ideas to what appears to be the middle – the point of balance, you shift the point of balance further away.    Certainly you will eventually meet that middle ground, but only when your ideas are exactly the same as your oppositions.

This is the problem with those who say the Republican Party should move their ideas to the middle.    It is a middle that is mere illusion and transitory.  It can never be met until the Republican Party resembles the Democrat Party in all but name.

The Republican Parties best chance of success is not in moving towards that middle, but in making their ideas clear and moving their ideas back to the ones that won them elections: conservatism.

I recall decades ago, when I was less conservative, Reagan’s Big Tent appeal.   When contrasted against today’s Big Tent proposal, I am struck by their opposition to each other.  On the one hand you had Reagan drawing people together based on shared ideals.    On the other hand, you have politicians trying to draw a party together based on name.

With one there is definition, a certainty of what it stands for and an inclusiveness that sees no barrier based on political titles.   It did not care if you were Democrat or Republican; Green or Libertarian so long as you shared a common set of ideals.   It was, ultimately, the difference between Liberal and Conservative. Neither were truly tied to any one party other than a majority of either residing in each party. It was why Reagan appealed to more than just Republicans; he appealed to Conservatives.

With the other there is uncertainty, a lack of definition that only sees a vague outline called Republican.   It does not care if you are Liberal or Conservative, it only cares if you are called a Republican.    It sees the success of the opposition and does not take into consideration the totality of why the opposition is in control.   It does not think that they should define themselves more clearly but that the definition that once made the party so successful should be abandoned.   In so doing it clearly fails to see that the Republican take over in ‘80 and ‘94 as well as the Democrat take over in ‘06 were due to candidates espousing Conservatism. The Republican loss of the Presidency in 2008 to Obama was not due to conservative ideal, it was due to the lack of any solid ideal.   McCain’s appeal was to party and a vague sense of ‘togetherness’.    Obama appealed to non-liberals because he sounded more conservative after winning the nomination while liberals already knew he didn’t mean it because they knew what his real ideal was.

The Republican party’s success and failure are seen in Reagan vs. Bush (all three: H, G, and J).   Government as a problem vs. government as a solution. Ideals vs. party success. Certainly G. W. Bush was not a Liberal, but his approach was certainly less Conservative and in the end relied on government providing solutions to everyday matters. Certainly Reagan was a Republican, but only because the Republican party reflected ideals he cherished.    I think people forget that Reagan was once a Democrat and changed parties because the parties ideals shifted more and more towards Liberalism. Contrast that with Arlen Specter who changed parties because he realized he would not prevail in the senate primaries in his State as a Republican because he had become more and more Liberal.

When I look at Obama, I see a likeable man.   But his ideals, his values, are contrary to very foundation of this Nation.   When you listen to what he says, you hear a man who has little love for America except for how much he can make it reflect his ideals and his values.    Reagan, too, was a likeable man.   His ideals and values reflected strongly the ideals and values that founded this Nation.    What he said and how he acted demonstrated his love for this country and how much he wanted this country to better reflect that foundation.

Reagan’s Big Tent was successful because he had an ideal.   It was an ideal people recognized and understood as standing for America.   It was an ideal that welcomed you with open arms regardless of your political party.   It was uncompromising.

Today’s Republican party’s Big Tent is going to be unsuccessful because it seeks political expediency over ideals (see California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger – he is an example of political expediency over ideals).   It welcomes only those who abandon ideals, only those who will say they are Republican.   It attempts to mimic the opposition thinking that it will garner more votes yet by this compromise, makes itself a mere shadow of the opposition.   To that, people can only ask: why vote you when we can vote for the real deal?

You cannot build a political party on vagueness.   You can certainly run a political campaign on vagueness – Obama did so, but you cannot build a party on it and expect it to weather adversity.    Reagan’s Big Tent appealed to all because the ideas were clear, fundamental, and uncompromising. The Neo-Repub’s Big Tent attempts to be appealing by losing any sense of foundation and by so doing presents an unstable and thus unappealing party that appeals to few – even Republicans.

Here is to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. May the Republican party soon recall that most basic foundation upon which we declared our Independence and by its very nature necessitates a small and unobtrusive government dedicated to protecting those most basic and fundamental of rights from enemies both without and within our borders.     The alternative is at best the dissolution of the Republican party and at worst, it being a mere shadow of the Democrat party.

No, I am not lost in space or dead. Nor have I lost interest in politics (though I must admit I dislike politics as I have always disliked them for decades). I have been processing and thinking. Sometimes, however, my processing and thinking involves off topic subjects like this one

Cryptography is also a fun topic and this article is a fun one for those who enjoy cryptography.

Anyways, for those who desire to read a blog from me with any regularity: my apologies. I just finished off a second job which was consuming my week, mind, and family more than I expected it to. It was fun, but I am glad it is over (because now I have more time to read and write).