Pasadena Politics

Here is the list of all who voted For Government run Healthcare:

Here are those Democrats who voted NO – good for them:

Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Arcuri
Barrow
Berry
Boren
Boucher
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Edwards (TX)
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kissell
Kratovil
Lipinski
Lynch
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
McMahon
Minnick
Melancon
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Space
Tanner
Taylor
Teague

So what happened to Stupak?  We’ll, he and other “Blue-Dogs” must have taken solace in Obama’s promise to sign an executive order to not fund Abortion.   Of course, if this is like any of his other promises, promises such as closing Gauntanamo, then serious doubt about the sincerity of his signing such an order or any will to keep such an order in play should have kept those who were anti-abortion Democrats from voting yes.

Ah well, time to vote every Yes voter out of office in the upcoming elections and conduct better jurisprudence in the future when it comes to voting for Democrats.   In other words: America most likely should never vote for a non-Conservative again.

A Nation whose citizens refuse to accept responsibility for their actions and refuse to be self-sacrificing will accept a government intrusion into their lives depriving them of Individual Liberties and Freedoms in exchange for being coddled and sentimental Social programs.

Most everyone will be aware that this week, the Supreme Court recognized that Corporations are covered by the 1st Amendment.   There are some very good discussions here and here.   But I will add this: “As long as I’m your President, I’ll never stop fighting to make sure that the most powerful voice in Washington belongs to you,” President Obama.  Somehow, this statement ranks up there with: “Hope and Change”, “Back to our Founding Documents”, “Bi-partisanship”, “Open Process”, and others.    The man is already proved to be disingenuous and speaking from both sides of his mouth as seems fitting.

This is important.  McCain-Feingold censored corporations – with the exception of Media Corporations.  I cannot help but think of “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal” quote from Animal Farm.   I am also reminded of Proverbs 20:10 “Diverse weights and diverse measures, They are both alike, an abomination to the LORD.”  And what DOES the First Amendment say: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”   There was a lot of talk about Precedent being overturned with this decision.  So what?  Precedent is, at best, an informal guide as to what others think about a particular law.    Precedent is not the law itself and cannot be treated as such.   Otherwise, as others have noted, Segregation would still be legal or judgments such as Dred Scott.

Can Corporations have excessive influence?   Certainly, but then so can individuals as well.    To argue that a corporation has undue influence on the political process is to also argue that individuals have undue influence on the political process.  And what is a corporation except an organization run by people?   What is the real corrupting factor?   People?  Corporations?  No, it is Money and Power.    If one is to censor, it should not be based on whether one filed as an C-Corp. or formed a PAC, but on whether or not there is money and power?   Who decides how to quantify that?

The problem with government limiting anything is that it creates political power.    The problem with limiting corporations is that, if you are anti-corporation, you now have undue influence over them.   How is the censored supposed to protect itself from those who would ruin it?   Large corporations, wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals can have excessive influence over government and, via legislation crafted by those they sponsor, create artificial obstacles to prevent competition and protect their own gains.   But how to combat this influence?

Free markets and, more critically: the free flow of information.    If all political campaigns are required to disclose their funding sources and all advertisements required to disclose their creators and funders, the voters can see for themselves who is influencing what and make decisions from there.    The Internet is an amazing mixed bag of information.   But, and this is what is great about the Internet: you can cheaply have your voice heard.    It is one very good reason why government should be kept out and away from regulating Internet content.    It is a good reason to oppose the Legislation which allows the President to “turn off” the Internet in the event of a “National Emergency”.

Quite frankly, what should be turned off is the assumption that anything digital can be made hacker proof.   Nuclear power plants should not be remotely accessible via the Internet (whoever thought they should be and made them so should have been fired).   Then there are some freakish elected officials in Washington who think that Blogs and the Internet should be regulated for speech.  Worse, however, is the amorphous Hate Speech laws.   Certainly Hate Speech should be shunned, but it is protected by the First Amendment none-the-less.   Additionally, it is always good to know who the quality of a person you are dealing with and that is more difficult to know when Freedom of Speech is impaired.

Censoring Corporations, or large donors, or the Internet does nothing to purify the political process.   If anything, it makes the water murkier.

Complete list of the House members who voted for Health Care and it’s subsequent and logical tethering of freedoms.   Will update in the future with information concerning their districts and those running against them.

Obama is sure to sign it if it makes it through the Senate.

Prepare for a rapid erosion of your rights.

One of the methods government uses to restrict monopolies, apart from breaking them apart (think AT&T decades ago), is regulation.  Monopolies are dangerous – not because they are inherently bad, but because they can be abusive with the right leadership.   So how is Government, a monopoly by nature, managed?
“Government a Monopoly?” you might ask.  Yes, government is a monopoly.   Does it suffer any other governments to compete with it within it’s boarders?  The Founders of this great Nation knew Government abuse.   They knew that Government, without check, would micromanage the citizens under it to the point of despair – civilian despair mind you.   You can find a list of direct grievances iterated  in the Declaration of Independence by the Founders against the King of England.    As a result of careful reflection and knowing that corrupt and power seeking men would eventually attempt to take over a nation if given the opportunity, the Founders decided to restrict government with a form of regulation.  They called this the Bill of Rights.
Yes, that very same Bill of Rights and Constitution which Obama refers to as Negative Liberties and as flawed:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

I’ve never seen the connection between Civil Rights, which are based on the Declaration of Independence’s Inalienable Rights, and redistribution of wealth nor “political and economic justice”.  We have certain inalienable rights such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of (but not guarantee of) Happiness.   Too many people today seek out guarantees of happiness from the government.

The point is that the Bill of Rights and Constitution were to limit the power of government in order to protect the people it served from individuals or groups who would abuse the power the government can wield.   Incidentally, that is the point of Negative Liberties: the limitation in exercise of powers over others.    From my brief research on the subject, Liberals love Positive Liberties because it opens the door to government intrusion into the daily life of citizens.

Given all that, I can understand why Liberals such as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid love the majority power they currently wield.   They believe they can foist one over the American people and ‘get around’ the Negative Liberties of the Constitution.  They more than likely would have succeeded with Health Care “Reform” if it were not for the few major news sources that do not reflexively turn a blind eye to the administration’s goals and actions due to similarities of world view and to the “alternative” media thriving on the Internet and Talk Radio.    They would like to introduce a Second Bill of Rights, a one full of Positive Liberties, allowing them to take care of you the way they think you should be taken care of.

Regardless of your political affiliation, Government managing your life should concern and trouble you.   Unless you presume that the people in Government will always be interested in your best – the best you think of, you should worry and be greatly concerned whenever someone says, as Reagan famously said: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”   Government is a Monopoly and bad people; even ‘good’ people with good intentions, are drawn to the power government has.    But when they wield that power over you, what can you do?   What can you do when government controls your access to self-defence – ala Gun Control or to Health Care – ala Health Care “Reform”?  What can you do?  Who can you turn to?

Monopolies drive competitors out of business or buy them up.   Microsoft was greatly criticized for it’s business practices and has barely escaped a few episodes of being broken up by the Federal Government in the name of free enterprise and capitalism.    But what is to be done when Government itself, the ultimate monopoly, gets into your business?   It can regulate it’s competitors – something Microsoft could never do.  It can undersell it’s competitors to the point that the competitors go out of business for a lack of customers.  Certainly the Health Care “Reform” bills don’t outright eliminate the insurance industry, but the government is never a legitimate or honest player.  It can subsidize itself in a way no other insurance company can with money it never earned  and in so doing, drive customers to it’s door.

And what better climate to drive customers to your door than when they have limited incomes such as in a recession or in a depression?   What a better way to capture a Nation than to prey on and exploit their weakness?    The difference between self-governing and being governed can often mean little to people in seemingly desperate situations.  Socialism, as governed by the Government, dictates to you what you can do with your money and, in the end, your very life span.   You can already see the operation of Socialistic control being exercised by the Administration via Kenneth Feinberg.  Your worth is determined by a government bureaucrat: unelected and thus unaccountable to the people they are supposed to be serving.

Is this Freedom?  Is this what men and women have fought to preserve?   Was blood shed in the purchase of the Constitution and the form of government we have all in order for it to be thrown away because we are too lazy to take care of ourselves?  Too lazy to elect people to government who will serve the public and not their own re-election campaign or power hunger?  Too lazy to demand that their representatives change the laws and eliminate the bureaucracy that restricts and prevents them from having decent paying jobs, affordable health care, and freedom from government intervention in their lives?   Do we really want to throw that sacrifice away?
We need to elect people into power who will tear down the ever increasing edifice of Federal and State government before it falls under it’s own weight and crushes us.  We need to be wary of any hand that dangles a pretty thing before us because there is always a price to pay.  Nothing is ever truly free, not even Freedom which has to be purchased in blood.  The cost is always paid and eventually the people who think they would benefit the most will be harmed the most by a government that says it will take care of their needs.

Is “free” health care that important that we would give up our right to privacy, to keeping government out of our homes, to keeping our rights to teach our children, to keeping our rights to live long lives or to live at all; that we would give it all up to the Government to manage and oversee?  Do you trust government to always be benevolent when it has such power?    The Monopoly of Government must be regulated and we as stakeholders best exercise our vote to keep it limited in size, scope, and power.

A note about Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize: he won it based off of his ‘Good Intentions”.  Let us not forget what the road to Hell is paved with.

You gotta love this exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

You can watch the exchange here.

Sure, everybody in California, for instance, is required to have Auto Insurance.  However, California does not issue auto insurance.  If it did, there would be a significant conflict of interest because it not only would have the regulatory power over auto insurance, but it can subsidize itself and drive competitors out of the market.   Where Government is concerned, it competes unfairly as it does not have to make a profit while individuals and corporations must in order to sustain themselves.

The exchange is Orwellian because Obama rejects the common and accepted definition for one he finds convenient to his own agenda.

Very much like O’Brien as he tortures Winston Smith: “Two plus two equals five.”   One should ask about the direction our elected leadership is taking us; is the next to follow:  “Always, Winston, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

Jimmy Carter,  born in the early part of 1900,  has a peculiar perspective.   He lived during the Jim Crow era.  He lived through the the Civil Rights era.  He lived to be President for one term and he continues to make interesting comments following that term.   So he comes on national TV and in essence states that the Tea Parties and protest to Health Care Reform were rooted in racism.   Basically: protest to Obama contains racism.
Forget the arguments for or against Health Care Reform, Fairness Doctrine revival, Internet Control Emergency Powers, Bail Outs, Buy Outs, and further expansion of Government.   No, there is no pro-argument to support these expansions than saying your opponents are racist.

How nice.  How deep.  How truly knowledgeable that statement is.  Not really.

Carter is projecting himself on all of America.

A good portion of the American Populace today were raised in integrated communities.  Their parents may not have liked it, but in the end, they grew up with people not of their own ethnic background (sorry, there is only human race as far as I am concerned).  They did not grow up being told that the color of ones skin made them of more or less value.   Actually, they were, they were told white people were bad and everyone else was oppressed by the white people and that the color of your skin entitled you to privileges if you were not white because of what some white people you never knew or were related to did to non-white people.   Ok… there is a lot of the racism of White guilt.

Of course, one has to ask: what is racism?   Is racism the observation of one’s skin tone?  One’s nose, hair, or other physical features?  If so, is it possible for a blind and deaf person to be racist?  Or is racism an observation about someone and deciding that because of that observation they are inferior?

Don’t hire him, he is black.
Don’t hire her, she is female.
Don’t fire him, he is latino.
Don’t give him a raise, he has red hair.

That, plainly, is racism.   Is it?   If a black man said: don’t hire him, he is black, is it in the same caliber as if a white man said it? Can a person be racist against their own “race”?

How about this:

Don’t hire him, he didn’t go to Yale.
Don’t hire her, her family is poor.
Don’t fire him, he’s in the same club.
Don’t give him a raise, he is Catholic.

That is not racism.  But it stems from the same source as racism: elitism.    Racism is simply a sub-category of elitism.   I can’t think of many people who are happy about Elitism, let alone racism.   People don’t like being told they were not hired because they went to one school and not another.   The elitism of Education.  People don’t like being told that they were fired because of the color of their skin.    The elitism of ethnicity.

So why Carter?  Why bring up the elitism of ethnicity?

Well, if you have been paying attention to the pro-health care arguments they are often prefaced by ad homonym attacks such as stating the protesters are using Nazi symbols, or are white, or have threatening signs.    Forget the context.  Forget the argument.   It is all about slandering people with the most divisive slur possible: the elitism of ethnicity.    For months the pro-change-your-relationship-with-government supporters have been trying to shift the argument to one about elitism (racism).   Joe Wilson makes his true statement that Obama is Lying and so another man of the South is brought out of the dusty cupboard to comment on it with authority.   Well, regardless of what anyone says, if the argument is not about the actual substance of the Bills or Legislation, then the argument is merely a distraction.

So… why the Thought Police comment in the title?

Hate Speech.   Hate Crimes.  All revolve around assuming an act was committed because of an emotional thought.   A whole new way to try someone with criminal charges and not need to offer any other proof than the difference in their appearance or thinking.   That is un-American.   The very fact someone committed a crime against another is not because they love that person.    So adding an extra layer of Hate is redundant and a path to more lessening of Constitutional rights if left unchecked and a less scrupulous administration comes into power.

Forget what you say, that is protected speech.  It’s what you think they will come after.

Sometimes you run across something in which you realize you would do a disservice to put it in your own words, so here is a link to the 1930’s Germany Stimulus plan compared to our own.

I really would be interested in seeing the look on his face if he was suddenly transported from 1949 to today and read this story.  Rather surprised this did not get a bigger headline except from wired.com.

With all the talk about National Health Care in America, one should keep close in mind these very appropriate words: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” -Gerald Ford