Sonia Sotomayor is being officially announced as the Obama appointee for the supreme court. Ms Sotomayor is the example of the American dream. Starting out poor with a father who didn't go to high school and then died young, she was raised by her mother with little money. She worked hard and changed her circumstances in life through that hard work. She worked her way up through the legal hierarchy to become a judge on the court of appeals. I respect her for that, but her appointment as a Judge should not be based on her personal stories but on her job performance.
Ms Sotomayor has what Obama wants and that is empathy. The one thing that our legal system is NOT supposed to have. Justice is blind. This means that the rule of law is applied without consideration of the ethnic, religious or financial background of the parties involved. Look at the rule of law not the individuals involved. But Obama wants the blindfold removed from justice, and Ms Sotomayor has a history of stripping that blindfold and making decisions based on the background of the people.
The most glaring example of this "empathy" is in the New Haven fire department case. The fire department told the firemen that promotions would be given based on the results of a test. However, they turned around and changed the guidelines when the test results didn't show them what they wanted. Unfortunately, the people who did the best on the test were white men and a Hispanic man. The New Haven fire dept decided they couldn't promote those people because of the color of their skin. An obvious and glaring example of racism and discrimination. When the firemen sued, Ms Sotomayor threw the case out with no explanation as to why. No legal standing for the dismissal. No constitutional basis for the dismissal. Based on other things she has said, it becomes apparent that she dismissed it because it was a bunch of white men bringing the case.
This same case is now going to the Supreme Court. How awful for the men suing to then have to present the case again to the same person who summarily dismissed it.
If she were to give her opinions based on the law with equal protection for all, I'd be all for her. But that's not what she'll do. She will do in the future what she has done in the past, and that is to favor some demographic groups over others in spite of the law. Not a good place to be.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Society Vs Government
In Common Sense, Thomas Paine lists out the difference between society and government. These are two very, very different things, and yet instead of our society dictating our government, we have switched to our government dictating our society.
Paine said "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
He also said, "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."
What Paine is really saying here is that if we behaved the way we should, the best we could be as a society, that we would not need government at all. This is the antithesis of what our government keeps telling us. Our government tells us, you don't need to take care of your neighbor, we'll do that for you. You don't need to worry about your mistakes, we'll take care of those for you. You don't need concern yourself with others, we'll take care of them for you. In essence, they are encouraging us to be our worst so that we need them more. If we stopped allowing government to usurp our best behaviors as a society, we would be much better off. This is not something government wants. By taking over the role of society, they ensure their own existence, and that's all they want to do. Government's first concern is the continuation of it's own power.
What would it be like to have a leader who inspired us to be better as individuals so we needed government less? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't focus us on our worst qualities but inspired us to show only our best? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't apologize for our past but embraced the accountability we used to have as a society? Does a leader like that even exist?
We are a great country and a great people. We pull together in tragedies and are among the most generous people in the world. We have incredible qualities that have become dormant and now only show in a crisis. Why is this? Because government has taken the need for our everyday expression of these qualities from us to increase their own power. Take it back from them. We long to be inspired. So where is the person to do it? I pray he or she appears soon.
Paine said "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher."
He also said, "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."
What Paine is really saying here is that if we behaved the way we should, the best we could be as a society, that we would not need government at all. This is the antithesis of what our government keeps telling us. Our government tells us, you don't need to take care of your neighbor, we'll do that for you. You don't need to worry about your mistakes, we'll take care of those for you. You don't need concern yourself with others, we'll take care of them for you. In essence, they are encouraging us to be our worst so that we need them more. If we stopped allowing government to usurp our best behaviors as a society, we would be much better off. This is not something government wants. By taking over the role of society, they ensure their own existence, and that's all they want to do. Government's first concern is the continuation of it's own power.
What would it be like to have a leader who inspired us to be better as individuals so we needed government less? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't focus us on our worst qualities but inspired us to show only our best? What would it be like to have a leader who didn't apologize for our past but embraced the accountability we used to have as a society? Does a leader like that even exist?
We are a great country and a great people. We pull together in tragedies and are among the most generous people in the world. We have incredible qualities that have become dormant and now only show in a crisis. Why is this? Because government has taken the need for our everyday expression of these qualities from us to increase their own power. Take it back from them. We long to be inspired. So where is the person to do it? I pray he or she appears soon.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Let's Focus On The Past - About 230 Years In The Past
There has been a lot of talk about letting go of the past and focusing on the future. I disagree with this. We need to look back. All the way back to our origins. We have already moved too far away from who and what we were supposed to be, and when leaders tell us not to focus on the past, they're telling us they don't want us to pay attention to how much further from our original purpose we're moving.
Obama doesn't want us to look back because he doesn't want us to really know these "principles and values on which we were founded" that he keeps quoting. This is due to the fact that he is violating almost every one of our true principles. Thomas Jefferson said to educate the people on their past, so that's what I am going to do today.
We talk a lot about common sense. That it's just common sense that a 50% tax rate is absurd. It's just common sense that government telling us what to do is bad. Well let's look at Common Sense, the pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and distributed in January of 1776. The Common Sense that rallied the colonists to revolution. The Common Sense that was the precursor to our Declaration of Independence. If' you've never read Common Sense, I highly recommend it.
Thomas Paine's pamphlet was incredibly powerful, and a past we should definitely focus on. All I will post today is part of the introduction, but that alone is a strong condemnation on where the colonies were at the time, and where the new nation has gone again.
"PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either."
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. How very true that statement is. We have accepted the growth and increasing power of our government as not being wrong, and as a result, current leadership is pushing the appearance that it is right. It is not right.
We have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of our government and to equally reject the usurpations of either. I don't think there's any question that our leaders have become pretentious, and that they are usurping our rights. But are we exercising our privilege of inquiry? Are we holding our leaders accountable for the usurpations of our liberty and independence? Or are we accepting the superficial appearance of it's rightness. That's a question that only you yourself can answer.
Look back. Focus on our nation's past. Know where we started and he principles on which we were built. Educate yourself and others. And most importantly, take a long hard look at where we are and compare that to where we were supposed to be.
Obama doesn't want us to look back because he doesn't want us to really know these "principles and values on which we were founded" that he keeps quoting. This is due to the fact that he is violating almost every one of our true principles. Thomas Jefferson said to educate the people on their past, so that's what I am going to do today.
We talk a lot about common sense. That it's just common sense that a 50% tax rate is absurd. It's just common sense that government telling us what to do is bad. Well let's look at Common Sense, the pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and distributed in January of 1776. The Common Sense that rallied the colonists to revolution. The Common Sense that was the precursor to our Declaration of Independence. If' you've never read Common Sense, I highly recommend it.
Thomas Paine's pamphlet was incredibly powerful, and a past we should definitely focus on. All I will post today is part of the introduction, but that alone is a strong condemnation on where the colonies were at the time, and where the new nation has gone again.
"PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either."
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. How very true that statement is. We have accepted the growth and increasing power of our government as not being wrong, and as a result, current leadership is pushing the appearance that it is right. It is not right.
We have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of our government and to equally reject the usurpations of either. I don't think there's any question that our leaders have become pretentious, and that they are usurping our rights. But are we exercising our privilege of inquiry? Are we holding our leaders accountable for the usurpations of our liberty and independence? Or are we accepting the superficial appearance of it's rightness. That's a question that only you yourself can answer.
Look back. Focus on our nation's past. Know where we started and he principles on which we were built. Educate yourself and others. And most importantly, take a long hard look at where we are and compare that to where we were supposed to be.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama Says - It's All Bush's Fault
During the Obama press conference, which I'm still watching while I type, Obama states that he has no plan to close Guantanamo, but it's all Bush's fault. He says he doesn't want to constantly relive the last 8 years, but it's all Bush's fault.
The denial of the funds for closing Guantanamo was not because people don't want to see it closed, but because they're silly enough to actually want a plan of how that's going to happen. So what does Obama do, he holds a press conference. How many has he held now? Isn't he averaging one press conference every 1.36 days in office?
The president holds up the constitution as the shining light for doing what he's doing, but on the other hand he's singlemindedly deconstructing the principles on which it was written. He's pushing an agenda that quadruples our deficit and expands the role of government in our day to day lives, and does it all with the justification that it's all Bush's fault. When will he start taking responsibility for his own situation? Ever? I doubt it. He'll continue to say that it's all Bush's fault. If it rains on your wedding day, it's all Bush's fault. If we are attacked again, it will be all Bush's fault. If you lose your job, it's all Bush's fault. Oil prices are rising again, and I'm guessing that's all Bush's fault.
And he says we must uphold the rule of law. Except of course for those pesky bakruptcy laws that interfere with his plans. He says we can't say the ends justify the means in national security, yet he himself was accused by strong armed debt holders for Chrysler as being the most frighteningly ends justify the means person they had ever encountered. The inconsistency between what he says, and what he does is glaring and frightening to anybody who pays attention. Unfortunately most of the press does not pay attention.
Even if it is Bush's fault, it is in very bad taste to constantly say so. That would be like Bush constantly saying that 9/11 and what followed was all Clinton's fault. There was logic and justification for saying that. The argument could have been made. The argument was made by many political pundits, but not by George W Bush.
For somebody who constantly says that he doesn't want to look back, he spends an awful lot of time looking back and blaming somebody else. It may be Bush's fault that we have Gitmo, but it is not Bush's fault that Obama doesn't have a plan for what to do with it now. So when his funding is denied what does he do? He goes on the campaign trail again.
Watching this and the blame game that goes on, I'm reminded of a quote by George Orwell. "He who controls the present controls the past. And he who controls the past controls the future." Obama is saying he doesn't want to look back, doesn't want to be stuck in the past, but he's using the present to control the past in order to control our futures.
The denial of the funds for closing Guantanamo was not because people don't want to see it closed, but because they're silly enough to actually want a plan of how that's going to happen. So what does Obama do, he holds a press conference. How many has he held now? Isn't he averaging one press conference every 1.36 days in office?
The president holds up the constitution as the shining light for doing what he's doing, but on the other hand he's singlemindedly deconstructing the principles on which it was written. He's pushing an agenda that quadruples our deficit and expands the role of government in our day to day lives, and does it all with the justification that it's all Bush's fault. When will he start taking responsibility for his own situation? Ever? I doubt it. He'll continue to say that it's all Bush's fault. If it rains on your wedding day, it's all Bush's fault. If we are attacked again, it will be all Bush's fault. If you lose your job, it's all Bush's fault. Oil prices are rising again, and I'm guessing that's all Bush's fault.
And he says we must uphold the rule of law. Except of course for those pesky bakruptcy laws that interfere with his plans. He says we can't say the ends justify the means in national security, yet he himself was accused by strong armed debt holders for Chrysler as being the most frighteningly ends justify the means person they had ever encountered. The inconsistency between what he says, and what he does is glaring and frightening to anybody who pays attention. Unfortunately most of the press does not pay attention.
Even if it is Bush's fault, it is in very bad taste to constantly say so. That would be like Bush constantly saying that 9/11 and what followed was all Clinton's fault. There was logic and justification for saying that. The argument could have been made. The argument was made by many political pundits, but not by George W Bush.
For somebody who constantly says that he doesn't want to look back, he spends an awful lot of time looking back and blaming somebody else. It may be Bush's fault that we have Gitmo, but it is not Bush's fault that Obama doesn't have a plan for what to do with it now. So when his funding is denied what does he do? He goes on the campaign trail again.
Watching this and the blame game that goes on, I'm reminded of a quote by George Orwell. "He who controls the present controls the past. And he who controls the past controls the future." Obama is saying he doesn't want to look back, doesn't want to be stuck in the past, but he's using the present to control the past in order to control our futures.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Another Government Agency - Oh Goodie
There was talk today about the possibility of a new government agency as the result of the banking crisis and credit card issues. What would this agency do that no other agency is already responsible for? Who knows. Probably nothing.
Being told that we need yet another government bureaucracy made me wonder just how many we already have. I couldn't find an actual count, but I found a listing of the agencies here, http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html. When I went through and counted them up, aside from blood shooting from my eyes, I found that we have 1,278 governmental agencies. These range from NASA to the office of the first lady. Then I started wondering how many people work for the federal government. More blood shot from my eyes. According to the Bureau of Labor And Statistics, the US government is the largest employer in the nation. Doesn't that give you a warm tingly feeling inside. The US government, not counting the postal service, employs 1.8 MILLION people. This is larger than the population of Philadelphia. And these are only the CIVILIAN employees. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the number is that big because of our fighting men and women because that's not the case. These are non-military personnel. If we add the postal service into the mix, then we exceed the entire population of Dallas. Reassuring isn't it.
So although we already have nearly 1,300 agencies and over 2 million employees, nobody can take on the additional burden of looking over credit cards. Hmmmm. How about we get some Industrial Engineers or Six Sigma specialists in there to see what it would take to get the existing staff to be able to take on these additional responsibilities. Unlike the private sector, the government just takes it's money so has not incentive to improve efficiency, and the bureaucracy just keeps getting bigger.
Is this the small federal government that our founding fathers envisioned? Somehow I just don't think so. And what is Obama's plan for creating jobs? Well, the federal government is hiring.
Looking at these numbers it's obvious that what this country really needs is one more government bureaucracy.
Being told that we need yet another government bureaucracy made me wonder just how many we already have. I couldn't find an actual count, but I found a listing of the agencies here, http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/index.html. When I went through and counted them up, aside from blood shooting from my eyes, I found that we have 1,278 governmental agencies. These range from NASA to the office of the first lady. Then I started wondering how many people work for the federal government. More blood shot from my eyes. According to the Bureau of Labor And Statistics, the US government is the largest employer in the nation. Doesn't that give you a warm tingly feeling inside. The US government, not counting the postal service, employs 1.8 MILLION people. This is larger than the population of Philadelphia. And these are only the CIVILIAN employees. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the number is that big because of our fighting men and women because that's not the case. These are non-military personnel. If we add the postal service into the mix, then we exceed the entire population of Dallas. Reassuring isn't it.
So although we already have nearly 1,300 agencies and over 2 million employees, nobody can take on the additional burden of looking over credit cards. Hmmmm. How about we get some Industrial Engineers or Six Sigma specialists in there to see what it would take to get the existing staff to be able to take on these additional responsibilities. Unlike the private sector, the government just takes it's money so has not incentive to improve efficiency, and the bureaucracy just keeps getting bigger.
Is this the small federal government that our founding fathers envisioned? Somehow I just don't think so. And what is Obama's plan for creating jobs? Well, the federal government is hiring.
Looking at these numbers it's obvious that what this country really needs is one more government bureaucracy.
Change Obama's Name to Abami
The nation that Barack Obama is trying to create, the nation that we were never supposed to be, is being called the Obama nation. It already sounds like what it really is, so why don't we just change his name and make it official. Let's change the Obamanation into the Abomination that it is. If we're going to cut through the crap and translate the rhetoric, why not do it right?
Wouldn't it be fun to start referring to him as President Barack Abomi. I think I will.
Wouldn't it be fun to start referring to him as President Barack Abomi. I think I will.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Is There Only One Way to Fight For Your Country
During a pretty heated discussion on Fox and Friends this morning, Jesse Ventura told Brian Killmead that because Brian did not serve in the military he is not fighting for his country. Brian objected to that indicating that there are other ways to fight. This raised an interesting question for me. Is there only one way to fight for your country?
I in no way diminish the service of those in the Armed Forces. I respect, honor and appreciate the service they do to our country. We would not be a country without those men and women out there fighting for our freedom and our sovereignty. There is no doubt at all that these men and women are fighting for our country. The question is whether or not those of us who have not served, can still fight for our country and what we believe our country should be?
Different people have different talents and approach the fight in different ways. Is the person who pays attention to what's going on, writes their congressmen and speaks out, is that person not fighting for their country? Are people who organize grassroots campaigns to advance a cause they believe in not fighting for their country? Are the people who take to the streets with signs and passion to make themselves heard not fighting for their country? Are bloggers, such as myself and many others, who seek to inform and educate and persuade involvement in the political process not fighting for our country? I like to believe that we are.
Different people approach the fight on different planes. I know that as I sit safely behind my laptop computer in the comfort of my own home that my fight is not the same as the men and women in the military. It cannot compare to the sacrifices that those in the armed services make for our country. I could not be in the military and I know that. I do not have the qualities required to make those sacrifices. Mainly, I can' keep my mouth shut and I don't run unless I'm being chased by something that plans to eat me. I admire and thank God for those who do have the necessary qualities. But does this mean that I do not fight for my country?
I would really like to know the thoughts and opinions of others on this issue. What do we consider fighting for our country. If you consider yourself a fighter, please let me know what your fight is and how you approach it.
I in no way diminish the service of those in the Armed Forces. I respect, honor and appreciate the service they do to our country. We would not be a country without those men and women out there fighting for our freedom and our sovereignty. There is no doubt at all that these men and women are fighting for our country. The question is whether or not those of us who have not served, can still fight for our country and what we believe our country should be?
Different people have different talents and approach the fight in different ways. Is the person who pays attention to what's going on, writes their congressmen and speaks out, is that person not fighting for their country? Are people who organize grassroots campaigns to advance a cause they believe in not fighting for their country? Are the people who take to the streets with signs and passion to make themselves heard not fighting for their country? Are bloggers, such as myself and many others, who seek to inform and educate and persuade involvement in the political process not fighting for our country? I like to believe that we are.
Different people approach the fight on different planes. I know that as I sit safely behind my laptop computer in the comfort of my own home that my fight is not the same as the men and women in the military. It cannot compare to the sacrifices that those in the armed services make for our country. I could not be in the military and I know that. I do not have the qualities required to make those sacrifices. Mainly, I can' keep my mouth shut and I don't run unless I'm being chased by something that plans to eat me. I admire and thank God for those who do have the necessary qualities. But does this mean that I do not fight for my country?
I would really like to know the thoughts and opinions of others on this issue. What do we consider fighting for our country. If you consider yourself a fighter, please let me know what your fight is and how you approach it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
