Pasadena Politics

Hope and Change vs A Chicken in Every Pot.

Sound bites are not the way to decide who you will elect, or, for that matter, should looks be the deciding factor.   The big warning flag people should have given everybody pause in their support of Obama was the simple phrase: “Hope and Change”.    The comment itself begs the question: what is the hope and what is the change?    The phrase is vapid; without real substance.   At least with “a Chicken in every pot”, you at least could sink your teeth into the meaning of the slogan.

State Laws Modeled on Federal Laws Violate Human Rights

Were not the Democrats talking about the USA being a “Nation of Laws”?  If you think the title is erroneous, please look here.  Basically, the Federal Government is boasting that it’s really looking out for Human Rights as the U.N. Defines them by suing a State who modeled an Immigration law on Federal law.  The point should be taken by anybody paying attention: Hillary Clinton cares more about what the U.N. thinks than about the security and integrity of the United States of America.   Something to remember next time she runs for President.

Where is the equal protection?

The First Amendment states:

“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.”

Yet children are being taught that Evolution is the only explanation for the universe and, by consequence, that there is no god.  The problem with this is two fold: The Declaration of Independence is based on the idea that our Rights come from God, not man, and therefore are not something man has a right to define.   The second problem is that Evolution, while sounding scientific, does not offer convincing proof and only offers one viewpoint of the facts, ignoring, evening condemning any viewpoints that differ.   This violates the First Amendment by treating atheism with preference over any other religion and establishes a foundation that undermines the integrity of the Constitution and our very rights.

Thank you sir, may I have another?

It seems that the “establishment” is under the delusion that it is a drill sergeant and the rest of us are the recruits, unworthy of respect until we have been broken and our thoughts reflect their own.

Anyone who places trust in government misplaces that trust.  The best job any government can do is protecting their nation from external enemies.   Those who are concerned that given power government would misuse it to abuse the rights of the governed do not have that concern without reason.

In Logic, the “Slippery Slope” Argument is considered a fallacy.   In Politics, it is to be expected that given an inch, miles will be taken.

So, with Health-care, I cannot help but think of movies such as Logan’s Run and Brazil.

What the Nation needed was reform and what it has received instead compounds the problem greatly.  Government running Health-care is antithetical to reform itself.   Bureaucracy breeds inefficiency and higher cost.  Certainly one can claim that leaving ones health care in the hands of a business full of bureaucracy is not a great thing, but at least the business has something Government cannot claim to improve service: it cannot survive without making a profit.   In order to make a profit, it has to provide services customers want.   The fewer competitors a business has, the less pressure it has to provide goods and services desired by customers at a competitive price.   Government, as I have mentioned before, is a monopoly.    Monopolies do not have competitors or, if there are a few, they are so weak that they cannot reasonably compete.   Combine bureaucracy with monopolies and you have a wasteful system that lacks any real accountability.

Regulation of industry hampers competition by creating barriers of entry.  If government runs health-care, you can be assured that private insurers will be unable to compete.   While a government’s resources are not unlimited it is able to forcibly take money in the form of taxes, fines, fees, and penalties to generate money, subsidizing their programs.   Barring a very productive population or the conquest of other nations, government eventually dries it’s resources up when sponging off of the population.

“I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we’re having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have.” – Margaret Thatcher 1976 TV interview

It is a fundamental truth.  The more you take to give to others; the more you “spread the wealth”, the less money you eventually have.   You end up with less money because the taking of it disincentivizes people and leads to less production.     After all, why should someone work hard to earn money of which most is taken away and given to someone who works less or in a commonly doable job?   If as a college graduate your net paycheck is only a few hundred dollars more a month than the non-graduate flipping burgers as MickeyDees, what point was there in putting forward the effort to excel?

Americans cannot trust government to look out for their interests.   Americans cannot be free and sucklings of Government at the same time.   Freedom and Large Government are antithetical to each other.

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.

“We have a separation of Church and State”

What, exactly, is the separation of Church and State about?  Does it mean that Law and where Government are superior to ones individual beliefs or that ones individual beliefs are superior to the Law and Government?  Does it mean that Government and the law are defer to religious beliefs or that religion is deferred to?  When one reads the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” in the First Amendment, one cannot reasonably deduct that religion takes a back seat to Laws passed by Congress.

Yet Coakley, someone who took the oath of office which includes no small promise to defend the Constitution, seems to have no clue what the Constitution talks about.   Such ignorance of the document upon which the USA was founded is inexcusable for someone attempting to represent their State.    But this is perhaps a sign of how entrenched the idea that the “Separation of Church and State” (which is an idea outside the Constitution not even found in the Federalist Papers but in a letter) means that Religion is shut out and disenfranchised rather than the State being shut out of influencing or managing Religion.   The gross perverting of the Constitution to mean something contrary to what the Founders intended had not been a slow process or even a new process.

It is a process that does not hold our Freedoms or our Liberties in high esteem yet it will unflinchingly hide behind those same freedoms and liberties in order to tear them down for everyone else.   It is as dishonest as it is hypocritical.

Here we have Coakley stating that because of the separation of Church and State, Catholic Doctors cannot decline to offer contraception and they should find other employment.  Our Nation happened to have been founded by people who fled from statists like Coakley.    The Constitution and Bill of Rights were formulated to combat them as well.     May Steve Brown beat Coakley hands down.

In true scientific inquiry data is collected from observation and experimentation resulting in the formulation and reformulation of hypothesis.  All data obtained from experimentation and observation is collected and taken into account.  None of it is tossed aside merely for the fact that it disproves or causes difficulty for the theory or preconceived belief.  In fact, those data elements are critical, for they allow accurate tuning of the theory and the methodology itself; not in order to obtain pre-ordained results, but accurately understand the questions that drive true science: what and why.  All science starts with out to solve a question and, in order to stamp out preconceived ideas; beliefs, it relies on repeated tests and observations as well as peer review.

The current problem with much of today’s scientific community appears to be that genuine scientific inquiry has been sacrificed on an alter of ideology.  But the worst part is the complicity of most of the major news organizations and politicians.  This is unfortunate in that genuine scientists will feel even greater pressure to not dissent against the teachings of the Roman Cath… no sorry: the likes of Al Gore and East Anglia.   This is unfortunate because science has been cheapened to “cooking the books” to please whomever will give you a grant.   I wonder if Enron should sue the press for not covering for them the way they are covering for “Climate-Gate” which will cost more money and more livelihoods than any failing of Enron could ever dream.

The issue is not a little ‘opps’.  The issue is not merely bad science but fraudulent science.  Nor is it like the genuine scientific debate that revolved around Geo-centricity vs. Helios-centricity until the Roman Catholic Church got involved.  It is much like the fraudulent effort of Ernst Haeckel to support his theory about Recapitulation in the embryonic stages.  Only this time, instead of being tossed out the theory has been embraced and any who dissent with real scientific evidence are silenced (ie: no publication of dissenting research).

Al Gore, a one-time Presidential candidate, after weeks of silence could only state “I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.  These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.”   Naturally, this is important to Al Gore since his livelihood depends on the notion of Man Made Global Warming.

Report here, here, and here.  Oh… and if you deny Anthropogenic Global Warming, you may want to see a shrink.

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.

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.

I recently read an article from the Economist that mentioned Homeschooling.   As a Home-schooling parent, I obviously found the article of interest.   It assumed that conservatives will pull their kids from school to teach them at home because of Obama’s liberalism.   While it is certainly true that some will, to say that it is simply conservatives and people who are religious who home-school does not represent the actuality: many people don’t think public schools do the job their tax dollars are put towards.

Most people who have looked at home-schooling have already started.   For others, the financial aspect will be prohibitive.   Either they are single parents who have little choice but to have their children in a school apart from home, or they are so financially bound to working that they cannot (or think they cannot) afford to home-school.  Secondly, it asserts that active parents would have as equal impact on their children in home or non-home-schooled environments.   There is certainly much to be said for being involved at one’s child’s school,  but it is not equal to the direct one on one attention a Home-schooler  receives.   Think about the Education establishment’s and Teacher’s Unions complaints (legitimate ones at that) that bigger class sizes deprive students of a teacher’s attention.   Certainly what is good for the Gander is good for the Goose?
Many parents no longer trust the Public School system because many see a great encroachment on their rights as parents when a school can medicate a child without parental permission or decide to take or teach them to special  lessons without prior notification.   Many parents also would prefer to have their children among like minded individuals (such as themselves) than those would influence them to behave contrary to their morals and beliefs.

Anyways, I thought the article was interesting, but not on target.  Well, after today’s news, I rethink that thought.   People are more likely to consider home schooling, and it won’t just be religious or conservatives parents.   See it here.

How about this song:

Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

And then this song:

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country’s economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue —- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick
So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

Well, at least they are being taught about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution which sets our Nation apart from so many others?  I hope?