Pasadena Politics

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?

The first one deals with fathers in the delviery room.  A rather interesting article due to its linking the rise of men in the delivery room with the decline of men being fathers.    An interesting observation.   Perhaps more or less a subliminal recognition in the culture that men need to be there as fathers?

The other article just lends more fuel to my general: “I hate Unions” sentiment.    Essentially detailing how the unions and their political supporters once again attack their competition via regulation if not outright decimation of the competition’s funding.    The irony that “professional educators” claim they want children to succeed with one hand out for more money while bludgeoning Charter Schools, Free Choice/Vouchers, and Home Schooler with a bat in the other hand is rich.   In the end, it all boils down to greed and envy.

The Unions are greedy for more members (cries for smaller class sizes and unionization of all educators) and thus greedy for more money (see how the Teachers Union in California has done an amazing job of grabbing money while increasing the idiocy of the youth lending to more cries for funding).    Poor performing teachers are not weeded out by the Unions – it doesn’t matter if the teacher gives other teachers a bad rap, harms the children, or fails to educate, all that matters is that the Union maintains it’s membership and thus income.  Leaches seems the most appropriate word.

Then there are the enlightened educators and politicians who view children as the future for their sustained power in politics and societal views.  Thus children are not taught Grammer, Logic, or rhetoric.  Nor are they taught essential math and the soundness of the Scientific Method lest they learn to think logically.   No, they are taught to perform based off of their feelings.  To expect promotion despite poor performance, and otherwise coddling by the Institutions and latter on Government.    These ‘enlightened’ people seek to usurp an Uncle  for a Mother.   If the last election were any indication of their success in this arena, I can’t think of what else may be.

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

!?!?

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

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

Have you no integrity?

Have you no backbone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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