Pasadena Politics

Any claim that the first year of Obama’s Presidency and agenda was stalled by the Republican’s being Partisan or the “Party of No” is simply an untruth.    The reason is quite simple: even if the Republican’s wanted to obstruct, the Democrats in both the House and Senate held enough of a majority to blast any Filibuster attempt to dust.   Of course, the last month has changed a lot, but any excuse that blames the failure of Health Care reform or the failure of Cap and Trade on the Republicans is a blatant untruth.

It also reveals a very convenient short term memory or cynicism: The Republican Party being obstructionist between Jan 2009 and Jan 2010 is nothing compared to the Democrats obstructionism during the Bush years: Social Security Reform or Judicial Nominees anyone?

There is a certain irony in that Liberals claim to take from those with more to give to those with less and yet when they themselves have more give little of their own.

If there is one thing the Republican Party needs, must, has to learn from Massachusetts is that Conservatism is a winner.  If Scott Brown ran as a Moderate, ran as McCain ran, he would have lost.   Why?  Because people know that a man of conviction would not run as middle of the road; would not run as a Moderate.   Moderates may be flexible, but they are flexible because they bend in the wind are not reliable to stick to their convictions.   That is perhaps why Liberals love moderates and love telling the Republican party that they can’t win without them.

McCain is a moderate.
Bush 1 was a moderate.
Bush 2 proved a Moderate in his Second term.

What were the results?  McCain lost to Obama because Obama made more of an effort to appear less Liberal than McCain.   McCain did little to demonstrate why he was different from Obama and could not convince voters that he was a “Maverick” because, in truth, he was far from being one.   Voters recalled McCain-Feingold, that lovely legislation limiting freedom of speech.   Voters recalled the 2004-2008 period where Republicans… supposedly the conservative party, spent like Liberals, expanded the government like Liberals, and proposed legislation like Amnesty for illegal immigrants – like Liberals.

People wanted change from all that.  People were hopeful that Obama would give it to them.   And they were sorely disappointed.

Sure, there will always be moderates, but it is the responsibility of the voters to recognize who they are and not repeatedly vote them in.   The Republican leadership needs to be heavily filtered to expunge moderates from it’s ranks and in turn promote strong Conservatives who will stand on their principles.  Otherwise, 2012, 2014, and 2016 will see the complete demise of the Republican party as a party of Conservative principle.

The story from Allentown, Pennsylvania, is that volunteer work can get a city sued.   The SEIU is already noted as a bully and the percentage of Union membership in general may soon be surpassed by the unemployment number.   Oh course, Unions are hard at work to ensure they can use a few bad apples to spoil the entire barrel via Card Check, but there is currently enough attention fixed on Health Care reform that it has not come up again as of late.

Unions, as a whole, are much akin to Tape Worm.   It gets inside, absorbs nutrients from host, and in some cases released eggs can get into the blood stream and then into the brain.    While there are good uses for Unions, they are not well realized today and best represent where the employee is at the weakest: seasonal and short-term work.   In those cases, Musicians, Metal Workers, Farm Labor, etc. they can benefit the employee best by supplying the employee with benefits that would often not be realized due to the short term nature of much of their work.   Of course, Real, Genuine Health Care reform would take care of that last excuse to hold onto Unions beyond the occaisional need for an employee revolt against an oppressive employer.    Of course, then the Union is only necessary for a short period, not longer than the immediate need for employees to work together.

So… back to the point: Boy Scout helps a city by clearing a path.  The local SEIU threatens the City with a lawsuit for allowing someone to work for free when people in the Union could be employeed.  In a sane world, the good People of Allentown would give their City Council and Mayor another term for using their tax dollars wisely.  Somewhat to the SEIU’s credit, they did say the President of the SEIU chapter in Allentown was speaking out of place.  Still, perhaps they should think about unionizing the Boy Scouts?   Imagine the classic image of the Boy Scout helping the elderly lady accross the street then asking for his madatory tip?

Besides, wasn’t it Obama who said Volunteerism was a good thing?

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.

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?

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.

The President gave a nice speech tonight.   It was the normal pattern he used during the campaign and for the inauguration: Sound Conservative without promising to be one; sound Constitutional without meaning it.   Frankly, you take every word he said, package it up and toss it in a drawer because nothing he said means anything until there is an actual Bill to read.
Certainly we will hear and read plenty of clips from tonight’s speech, but it is necessary to pay them any heed other than to compare them to the text of the Bill itself and see with clarity the great expansive desire he and others in power have to gain and retain power beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
He is certainly not the only President and Congress to seek more power beyond the Constitution.   But this act will seal the deal.   Once Government so closely regulates and through that regulation controls your health (come now, if a Government plan is so affordable, why should anyone chose any other insurance?   Oh, wait, we already have government insurance plans as it is: Medicare and Medicaid – see how well they are managed) you will find yourself more and more dependent on Government’s largess.

- – -

A while back I wrote about Obama and wondered if he supports freedom.   Well, given the pressure Washington has been putting on Honduras to take Zelaya back and thus violate it’s own Constitution; given his odd support for a bill which would place government into more direct control of the lives of it’s citizens; given his eagerness to be able to ‘turn off the Net in an “Emergency”‘; given his increasing use of “Czars” who are no where permitted by the Constitution; given the overall makeup of those he chooses to lead with him; it does indeed appear that the President is not a friend of Freedom nor the Constitution.

At least, not a friend of Freedom as the framers of the Constitution viewed it.

He is a friend to totalitarian leaders.

He sees the government’s role in the daily life of Americans as an urgent need.

He does not think Americans as individuals capable of managing their own affairs.

He sees himself among an enlightened elite who know best how you should live.

He likes power but not the responsibility (voting “present” so very often and making grand but very vague demands).

The Citizens need to say clearly and loudly that the Constitution of Negative rights is what they want from Obama.   The Negative rights which limit government and it’s role in society.  The Negative rights of government which mean positive rights for the citizens of this country to go about their daily lives unmolested and free from busy bodies and do-gooders who would intrude thinking that they knew better how the citizen should live than the citizen living their own life.

I cannot help but ask this question in light of the ousting of a would be despot in Honduras (Zelaya) and President Obama’s support of him, the question has to be asked: Does President Obama support Freedom?

Obama seems to get along well with dictators, despots, and the unelected rulers of nations such as Venezuela, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.   Yet the freely elected leaders of Nations, such as England or Israel, are treated with a certain level of disdain better lavished on the former group.   The situation is quite clear cut: Zelaya wanted to ignore the Constitutional term limit on the Presidency.    Following his insistence that he continue to rule the Military kicked him out at the behest of the Honduran Congress andit’s Supreme Court.    Far from a Coup, it was a referendum on his attempts to extend his leadership beyond the rule of law.   Was it the best way to handle it?     Perhaps, given the nature of Central American rulers who decide they enjoy the power more than the law that granted them that power. 

It would seem very natural that Hugo Chavez would condemn the ousting of Zelaya, but our own Government?    President Obama’s support of Zelaya, his chumminess with Chavez, his want to drop the embargo on Cuba, his bowing to the unelected leadership of Saudi Arabia, and his long hesitation to give support to Iranians who want to live freely because it became politically expedient for him to support a ‘recount’ make me wonder if he truly values freedom.    

His own actions to expand the role of government in the USA, any expansion of which limits the freedoms of the American people, lends more support for him not being clumsy but being conniving.   While it would not be the first time a repealing of the 22ndAmendment was introduced, it would seem to be the worst time in History to relearn why we had it installed in the first place.   Any term past his second would not be to the benefit of this nation but himself – a man who already acts above the law he espouses to uphold and his own words when he and his family jaunts about the Nation and World on vacation while Americans lose their jobs and he tells executives to be frugal or else. 

His hypocrisy is astounding, but quite telling and quite parallel with despots who rig the system to ensure the status quo once they have mastered it following years of complaining about it’s “unfairness”.      Will he respect the Constitution or will do what he can to unfairly tilt the next election in his favor?