Pasadena Politics

While driving home, I heard an interesting advertisement proposing to raise money to fight against Meg Whitman for California Governor.  It made me think of several things, one of them the recent Supreme Court Decision finally allowing US Corporations to enjoy their Second Amendment Rights and the Revelations that Anthropomorphic Climate Change is Junk Science at best and blatant fraud at worst.  Now, I don’t really know which Republican candidate is best at this point as I have been busy with other issues.  But any advertisement that claims you should oppose a candidate because they are a threat to State legislation built on the Junk Science of Anthropomorphic Climate Change catches my attention and rings warning bells in my mind.

So what is this Level the Playing Field dot com?  Good question.  WhoIs was unable to tell me as they chose to be anonymous.  Not a big issue there.   Following links through the site, it seems painfully obvious that the site avoids giving you contact information for a live person as well as mentioning sponsors.   Well, thankfully SFGate gives some information about the new site: Averell “Ace” Smith who handled the California campaign for Hillary Clinton and Chris Lehane, a former Clinton spokesman are mentioned as Senior Strategists.

“Level the Playing Field is one of three independent expenditure entities created to bolster 2010 Democratic campaign efforts in California. Such efforts, by law, are not associated with or directed by the Brown campaign. But they allow organizers to sidestep campaign fundraising limits with advertising that will assist Democrats.” – SFGate point.

This leads first to warning bell number two: Campaign Finance Laws.   This website is devoted to defeating a candidate.   Campaign Laws against corporations would have had no effect on this despite the Supreme Court Ruling, yet, how do you know who is donating money and even from what country they are from?  Where is the accountability on this site?   Oh, there is a check box to indicate you are a citizen, but it does nothing to verify that you are one.   Additionally, you see that the site the Donate link goes to is for www.actblue.com, or as their banner reads: ActBlue – The online clearinghouse for Democratic action.    The Fund-raising pages show John Edwards at the Top of the Fundraising Pages.   At the bottom of the section is a “Do it for Ted! Support Martha Coakley” link.   Poor link, it must be embarrassed.

So, we know this: leveltheplayingfield.com is supported by Clinton supporters who both happen to be Democrats.  We also know that ActBlue is a Democrat fundraising clearinghouse.    We also know that the site is geared towards asking Meg hard questions, questions such as: how do you plan to cut the budget, aside from cutting state worker jobs.  Of course this is actually a critical step towards cutting the budget – but as the SacBee reporter says this would be impossible and that: “Whitman has almost no contact with reporters who know something about the budget and could ask knowledgeable questions“   The irony about this is simple: Meg has enough intelligence to know these reporters only report based on agenda.  You can’t talk to them without having what you said and did not say, mean something grossly different and convenient to their world view.

I find it rather convenient that the SacBee article came out a day before the leveltheplayingfield.com radio blurb with both making the same accusation: she won’t talk to reporters and let the public know her.   Please note that the leveltheplayingfield.com site was registered Jan 20th 2010, which suggests the site was being planned before Feb 15th and that such radio spots take some time to put together and air.

Also along the theme is the: Don’t vote for her, she has money!  To which I should say: good for her.  She obviously got it from doing a better job than any Sacramento Politician.  Certainly e-Bay is more profitable than the State of California so her experience as an executive means a heck of a lot more than Jerry Brown’s experience.   If you follow the logic they apply, you should grab the homeless guy off the street and make him Governor.    But that is idiotic, you don’t vote for someone to pull you out of a fiscal crisis who has proven to be incapable or unwise in the handling of money, you vote for someone who has demonstrated wisdom and the capability to make money.   In the particular crisis we face in California, you should vote for the person who has the best record for making a profit and if the choice is between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman (and believe me, the whole point of leveltheplayingfield dot com is promoting Jerry Brown surreptitiously and in a most circuitous manner) you want the one with the best results.

Next is warning bell number one: “…special interests who want to roll back California’s bi-partisan law fighting Global Warming…“.   Now, I am all for that.    Actually, I am all for just about anything that contradicts the idiocy of Global Warming legislation and action.  That the press in the USA is pretty quiet about the whole collapse of Anthropomorphic Global Warming gives greater credence to claims that the Media is just a propaganda arm of Liberals in America.

Anyways my fellow Californians, watch out for the advertising.  It is already clear that the Media is against Meg simply because she was a successful business woman who does not view government as savior of the people.  It is now clear that the Democrat Party is starting to hurt in the Golden State and looking for ways to bolster their candidate any way they can – well, as long as it is not corporate money I suppose it is ok?

Edit: A short article pointing out the obvious: money buys advertising which does not automatically translates into votes.   This simple logic should have been obvious in the 2008 Presidential Election: McCain did not lose for a lack of money, but because he didn’t put enough effort into the campaign and getting the message out as to why he was the better candidate.   Plus he lacked something money could not buy: an ideologically sympathetic mass media.

“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.

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

Prepare for a rapid erosion of your rights.

They really need to take it back.  A Third Party will be useless.  Moderates will not save the Republican Party but Conservatives will.  The principles of Limited Government are what this Nation needs, not an expansive Government as the larger a Government is, the fewer rights and freedoms you have.

This last week with the Owens-Hoffman-Scozzafava race in New York’s 23rd we see a prime example of why Obama is in the White House.   Hoffman did not lose because he was a conservative.   He lost because the Republican leadership chose a Liberal (who then dropped from the race a few days before the election and endorsed the Democrat opponent).   One has to ask the only logical question possible: Why does the Republican Leadership insist on shooting itself in the foot with people like Scozzafava?   Did they learn nothing from the McCain campaign?

Perhaps instead of blaming Palin they should have done some soul searching and really looked at why McCain lost to Obama.    It is quite simple actually: why vote for the wannabe Democrat when you can vote for the real one?   The past 10 years Republicans have been morphing into Liberals and giving it the quaint name: Moderate.    I honestly cannot blame people for voting for Obama when the choice is rewarding Republican leadership for choosing a path of Liberalism.   Sure, if they really thought about it, they would have seen Obama as an extreme Liberal and either voted for McCain or sat it out.  But it never hurts to have the majority of the Media sharing your same ideology of anti-Americanism, liberalism, and a disdain for limited government to obscure the details of a Candidate so that all people really know about you is “Hope and Change”.

Yeah… What’s the hope?  What kind of change?

So what the Republican Party needs is a Conservative leadership and a very clear platform that extols limited government and why it promotes freedom over liberalism.

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?

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.