Literal Interpretation

Racism....... Redefined

          Obama and the Democrats are proposing the largest expansion of government since FDR’s New Deal. Their government-run healthcare system would cost more than any social program to date. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the plan would send our already sky-high national debt to unsustainable new levels. Citizens would be forced to surrender more of their income to supplement those who can’t afford health care or simply don’t want to pay for it. Free market choice would be significantly stifled and government bureaucrats with no knowledge of patients’ conditions would be making personal medical decisions from 3,000 miles away. So, why is Obama facing so much opposition? Obviously, it’s racism.

          If you couldn’t taste the sarcasm in my last statement, I’ll pause to allow everyone to catch up and gather their thoughts.

…..

               

Now that we’re on the same page, does anyone else detect a distinct aroma of absurdity? The left’s golden boy is facing major opposition for the first time of his life. Obama skated through the political battlefield his entire life, winning primaries and general elections while opponents either dropped out or faced massive political obstacles. Look it up. And in 2007, he rose to popularity at a time when Republicans were at an all time low.

          But, now that Obama faces his first political slap in the face, the left has pulled out their secret weapon, one that they’ve kept tucked away since Obama came on the scene. In a nutshell, here’s the message: If you disagree with a liberal president who happens to be half black (but also half white), you are a right-wing racist. The concept is so ridiculous, it’s almost inarguable. But I’ll give it my best shot.

          Not long ago, the health care debate was about, well, health care. It was about how much the public wants or does not want the government to run their lives. But, as soon as Al Sharpton heard there was fight involving Obama, he began to hint at how some are still ‘uncomfortable’ with a black president. Then, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee told the media that some people don’t support government run health care because the President ‘looks like’ her.

Then CNN and MSNBC picked up their microphones and went into battle. They started asking guests if race was an underlying reason for the opposition. Never mind that this battle raged on long before anyone knew who Barack Obama was. But, that doesn’t stop anyone in the news from throwing ‘racism’ around like the catch phrase of the week. And it has spread like wildfire ever since.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, however, wins the award for incoherent argument of the week (as she often does) for her article ‘Obama Opponents Can’t Accept a Black President.’ No Maureen, opponents can’t accept Obama because they’re OPPONENTS OF OBAMA. By her title, I can infer that she must be arguing one of two things: (1) that Obama’s opponents oppose Obama (ya think?), and Obama is black or (2) anyone who doesn’t support President Obama’s policies is a racist who doesn’t like any blacks at all. Then, Dowd goes on to say that when Rep. Joe Wilson yelled ‘You lie!’ at Obama, she heard ‘You lie, boy!’ So, what I gather is that, in addition to her inability to craft a philosophically logical title, Maureen Dowd has paranoid schizophrenia that projects nonexistent words into her ears.

I use Dowd as an example of the gross paranoia plaguing the American left at the moment. Something with no racial tone, overtone, undertone, or side tone somehow becomes a racial attack because we have a President who happens to be black. I, for one, am proud that our country was able to elect a black man as President. But that becomes tainted when race is infused in every issue. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamt of a day when men would ‘NOT be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ Crying ‘Racism!’ at every turn does nothing but move further from that goal. I disagree strongly with Obama’s healthcare proposal, because of the plan itself, not because of skin color of the man who presented it. 

          I fully understand that there is a large element of racism in this country; whites toward blacks, blacks toward whites, and the list goes on and on. Did this play a part in the 2008 election? Absolutely. I recently had a ‘wise’ and ‘highly educated’ college professor point out that 9 of 10 white southerners voted for John McCain. I didn’t check this statistic but I took him at his word. But, his wisdom conveniently faltered as he failed to mention that over 90% of blacks, nationwide, voted for Obama in 2008. So, would Obama have won by a greater margin had he been white? Probably not. He likely would have lost votes.  So, does racism play a part in politics? Yes, but it plays heavily on both sides.

          But calling someone a ‘racist’ because they disagree with a policy, that happens to be proposed by an African American, is nothing but a scapegoat. It is scapegoat for a failing plan that proposes the most radical shift in American capitalism we have ever seen. Why would anyone be surprised that there is heavy opposition to the policy? But then again, why would anyone be surprised that some members of our society would be quick to infuse racism in the most unrelated of issues.

          As I wrap this up, let me just remind everyone that Bill Clinton, while he was renting the White House, tried to pass the same legislation that Obama is attempting. It was met with the same opposition, if not more. So, tell me this… Was America, then, just uncomfortable with a white president from Arkansas?

Call Me A Skeptic

                The White House and their media are just simply confused. Hold on, I know what you’re thinking. But, even more than usual.

They can’t seem to understand why Americans are so distraught, why they feel the need to attack perfectly reasonable politicians with dangerous words and malicious finger pointing. Why are these bitter Americans disrupting a perfectly civil form of democracy with such uncivil behavior? They are bewildered as to why their town hall meetings aren’t going off without a hitch.

Why must people start yelling and screaming so loudly? It’s just a government takeover and a seizure of freedom.                

                If these town halls have done anything, they have shown us one thing: the American people are angry. They are angry that an overwhelmingly opposed imposition of government is being rammed down their throats. They are scared to death that government is taking over their lives. And they have reason to think so.

Since Obama was sworn in, the federal government has manipulated the private banking industry, bought out the private auto industry, and set up a watch list of Americans that appear skeptical of the President’s policies.

                Yet, somehow, our elected officials can’t seem to understand why they weren’t welcomed with open arms and a pancake breakfast back at home. They write off socialist medicine skeptics at town halls as a disrupting minority, fueled by Republican websites. Harry Reid called protestors ‘evil-mongers.’ Nancy Pelosi called their actions ‘un-American.’

So, at what point are Americans allowed to be angry at their government? Because, according to our leadership, protesting a government takeover of an industry is simply taboo. Should we wait to yell at Senators until they eliminate term limits? Should we wait to speak up until they are actually arresting government critics for treason? Should I be a good quiet citizen when my paycheck is sent straight to Washington and government officials in black suits are searching my home for remaining coins? When, exactly, are we socially permitted to be angry at this growing tyranny that is the Federal Government?

Interesting, though, is how protesting is ‘American’ when you’re a self-proclaimed liberal, but ‘un-American’ otherwise. A younger, less conformed, more anti-government Nancy Pelosi once stated ‘I’m a fan of disruptors,’ to a group of San Francisco war protestors. ‘Your advocacy is very American,’ she told them. And, finally, she made an excellently articulated plea to President Bush. ‘Mr. President, if you think our troops in Iraq are there to fight for democracy, don’t destroy it at home by cutting off our freedom of speech.’ Hmm… But we have to remember that those statements came from her more radical days, way back in 2006, before she had been educated about the importance of federal government dominance. So, she probably gets a pass from MSNBC.

Washington politicians are sitting on the hill and taking over the valley. A handful of northeastern, university-bred, elitist thugs are running the lives of every average man and woman. They, in just the last few months, have put government in places it should never have been and hinted at more. Health care is simply another step toward total dominance. And, when their constituents stand up and raise a single question, they are thwarted by the media and the officials themselves as angry and bitter ‘disruptors.’

That same practice was a key component to dictatorial control in Nazi Germany. Control the people and destroy the opposition. That’s not what America is about. Our democracy lives and breathes on debate and compromise, not dominance and censorship.

Whether or not you support government health-care, I would hope that all of you support the right to debate and speak out against an out of control government. Americans are free to voice their opinions. Don’t allow the government to silence dissenters, for that is the path to tyranny.  

A prominent Obama Administration figure once laid it out perfectly. “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.’” – Hillary Clinton, 2003

 

Memo to Washington: Start governing with civility and your constituency will act with civility. Until then, keep your judgments to yourself. Thank you and good day.

 

'Czar' Power

                Over the past six months, as my senses become steadily dulled, I have grown accustomed to daily unveilings in Obama’s House of Horrors. But beyond the Moral Tilt-A-Whirl, and tucked behind the Press Corps Hall of Mirrors, lies a project still under construction. It is known to the public by only a mysterious name, Land of a Thousand Czars.

                While most Americans eat, sleep, and go about their business, an anonymous group of men and women are running their lives. They have infiltrated government sectors, private industries, and even societal mores. But, most frighteningly of all, their actions and sheer power go unnoticed by apathetic national media and oblivious citizens. They are Barack Obama’s czars.

                And there are more than handful. Actually, there are thirty one, to be exact. Twenty six positions have already been filled. Some of their official titles include Technology Czar, Economic Czar, Afghanistan Czar, and Border Czar. Among the more humorous are Great Lakes Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Guantanamo Closure Czar, and Middle-East Peace Czar. Yes, these are actual government positions.  

                So if, due to the tight job market, one were interested in one of these jobs, how might he go about applying? Well, he can’t. What, then, is the criteria for a selecting a Czar? Nobody knows. So why do they exist? We can only speculate. America’s unfamiliarity with their new leaders is apparent by the implied hand quotations that go up every time the word ‘czar’ is uttered on television.

                What we do know is that these czars are essentially unregulated regulators of our society. They are appointed by President Obama to oversee different industries, issues, etc. But unlike department secretaries (Treasury Secretary, Education Secretary, etc.), they are not subject to congressional confirmation. This process was put in place so that the legislative branch, the branch closest to the people, could limit the power of the executive. But these czars are accountable to only one man, Barack Obama.

                That, in itself, is a frightening proposition. These czars have powers not regulated by the constitution, or even by federal law. This might, just maybe, be due in part to the fact that such positions have never existed in America. Yet, oddly enough, they are paid by taxpayer dollars and given immense power over those very same taxpayers. Taxpayers, however, were curiously absent from the hiring interview. These czars do the bidding of a single man, with absolutely no checks on their power. No Washington Rent-A-Leader can claim such massive authority with such little scrutiny. Whether you are liberal, conservative, green or purple, that should scare you.

                Now, I understand that government must adapt and change for a new generation, and new departments are sometimes necessary. For example, when America was attacked on September 11, 2001, it magnified a glaring problem in our intelligence community. Separate governmental departments could not communicate efficiently enough to coordinate a defense plan. In response, President Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and appointed Tom Ridge as Secretary. But, as a secretary of a department, he was subject to confirmation by the Senate, an elected body of the people.

                With the utilization of czars, Barack Obama is sidestepping the constitution and further toying with America’s civil liberties. The President is stretching, bending, and breaking the limits of his own administration while the public turns a blind eye. And since the media has thus far displayed a general unwillingness to raise a question toward Carnival de Obama, I leave you with a short list of my own.

 

1.       Will the Science Czar consider doing away with Systemic Physiology? (Because I find it largely unnecessary and potentially harmful to my GPA.)

2.       How far down the food chain can the Pay Czar regulate salary? (I was thinking about a promotion, but I might reconsider.)

3.       Does the Great Lakes Czar have jurisdiction over Brett Favre contract negotiations?

4.       Will the Guantanamo Closure Czar be given ample time to find employment before his position is eliminated? (Or maybe his position will simply be renamed Alcatraz Reopening Czar.)

5.       Has the Stimulus Accountability Czar been given his annual performance review? (Because I have some comments and/or concerns.)

Inside Obama's Mind

                Since it became clear he would be our 44^th president, I have carefully studied Barack Obama. And let me tell you, he is no simple specimen. A well-studied orator, President Obama is a master of his own words. His intentions are easily lost in captivating speeches and eloquent explanations. So, to find my answers, I had to look beyond his flowing rhetoric.

I diligently examined his voting record and found a mixture of evidence. On one hand, his record is almost nonexistent. Only a United States Senator since 2005, Obama has only a small sample of votes to go by. Of the roughly 1300 bills that came through the senate since his swearing in, Obama missed 314 of them. This, though, is not uncommon for a presidential candidate. But, then again, most freshmen don’t run for Student Body President, either.  On the days Obama did show up for class, he did little more than sheepishly raise a hand when his name was summoned at roll call. Not only a master of words, he is a master of neutrality.

But, through his vague words and lack of voting, it is clear that President Obama has lofty goals in mind. That became abundantly clear when he spoke to the Muslim world in Cairo last week. In a speech intended to appease world Muslims and end all holy wars, Obama slipped. He let the world too far into his mind. One simple statement offered a glimpse into that mind of the President, showing the observant public what he wants, what he believes, and what he will do. Not one time since his campaign was announced has Obama been so candid in his words.

‘Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.’ With this one line, tucked in the middle of a broad message, Obama opened his soul to his constituency. Here, he told us that American exceptionalism is a false premise and will undoubtedly fail.

Barack Obama apparently believes that the United States is no better than the authoritarian dictatorships of Iran and North Korea. He sees capitalism, not as an advancement of human potential and individual liberty, but as an equally functional alternative to fascism or communism. While this does satisfy the elementary school notion of ‘nothing is better or worse, just different,’ it does run contrary to the mindset of most Americans.

Past presidents have promoted the idea that America is the greatest and most powerful nation on earth, and have taken steps to preserve that place. I believe that most Americans, even those who routinely degrade this country for its ‘flaws,’ fear the day we do not hold that status. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, at the core of most Americans is the fundamental belief that we are something special. Barack Obama simply does not share this belief. Of course, he would never say so. But, the echoes of his actions fill his hollow words.

Obama has affirmed that no country is, or deserves to be, better than another. Based on his first few months in office, he appears to be working hard to make that utopian ‘equality’ a 21^st century reality. He has spent entire weeks touring the world, apologizing for America’s actions and downplaying its power and influence. Economically, he has multiplied the U.S. debt to China with breathtaking speed. He has printed currency like never before, setting the stage for a massive meltdown of the American dollar. He has thus furthered this ‘interdependency’ he spoke of, lessening the American control over world trade and currency.

On a domestic level, Obama’s statement in Cairo is telling of his general feelings toward capitalism. Stating that the elevation of any group of people over another ‘will inevitably fail’ displays Obama’s lack of confidence in a free market system, hence his socialist leanings. His tax and spend policies echo those of socialist Europe, rather than the democratic principles of our own Constitution. He has villianized the wealthy, implying that their status is failure of capitalism, rather than a product of their ingenuity and work ethic. He believes that the poor are poor because they are victims of the system.

President Obama bases his domestic and foreign policies on simple ‘fairness.’ That would all be well and good if everyone bought in, but they don’t. The world is not fair. There are evil people who cannot be talked down. There are good people who can’t change a thing. There are people who have more than they deserve. There are people who have less than they deserve. Barack Obama, in his arrogance and naiveté, somehow believes he can change that fact of life in a 4-8 year sprint.

In his Cairo speech, Obama confirmed what I had long suspected. That he considers capitalism an enemy of utopian, ‘fair’ society, where rich get richer and poor get poorer. Despite the fact that he is ‘rich’ (after being poor) and is a product of a capitalist society, our current president believes that socialism is a more ‘fair’ societal system. Obama, in addition, has conveyed his animosity toward general American exceptionalism. He would have the United States pay reparations for its ‘transgressions’ while other nations, many with evil aspirations, flourish and thrive.

But, I never thought I would see the day that the American President would be actively campaigning against the principles that built this country. The guilt-driven policies of Barack Obama are destroying America’s place in the world and weakening its influence. His political and social ‘fairness’ is not only unachievable, but utterly absurd in today’s world. Collectivist utopias of communism and socialism are routine failures because they contradict human nature. Voluntary disarmament, diplomacy among dictators, and other efforts to equalize nations have never succeeded because we don’t think or believe the same things.

What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that America is what it is today because we fought for what is ours. We promoted our interests, just like other nations work to promote theirs. It’s not unfair, it’s life. Capitalism works the same way. All people vying for their own self-interests create a functioning society, which has lasted longer than any collectivist system. These principles are at the core of America and are shared by most all Americans.

 From what he’s displayed in his first few months in office, Barack Obama fundamentally disagrees with much of what America stands for and thinks he can make it right. Years of university brainwashing have seemingly convinced him that all things can and will be equal. More astoundingly, he is naïve enough to believe he can make that happen. If any American wants to believe that this country is the evil of the world and its greatness must be compromised to ensure a ‘fair’ society, fine. But that individual has no business anywhere near the Oval Office.

 

Race Realizations

                Thousands of scholars and millions of citizens will tell you, with an arrogant scoff of intellectual superiority, that the 1960s were the greatest era of civil rights. That they were and forever will be the most defining years for race relations in the United States. With unabashed confidence, I profoundly disagree. The most influential years, the ones that will characterize race relations in America forever, are ahead. Race may be, albeit quietly, as much of a problem today as it ever was. But a rapidly evolving political landscape may force us to evaluate ourselves sooner, rather than later. The book on race in America might just be nearing a critical climax, at a point when most of us had put it back on the shelf.

                We live in the golden age of political correctness, where honesty is demonized for its indecency and vague neutrality is praised for its compassion. But, seeping through the holes of double-speak, that masks the raw emotion we aren’t allowed to show, are those deep-seeded feelings about race that we all knowingly possess. Among the fray of sentiment are anger, envy, retribution, and hatred. Even through the watered down rhetoric toward ‘controversial’ topics, such as race, glimpses of unrefined feelings can be found, but only by those willing to look.

                Some thought, and still think, that the racial problem in America was solved with the adoption of the 14^th Amendment or the implementation of Affirmative Action. After all, they were the great ‘equalizers’ of society. This, though, was an inherently open-ended conclusion to draw, for the definition of equality is so generally relative. Are we all equal spiritually? Emotionally? Politically? Physically? What? I can look at any one of those explanations with serious objection. For example, I am not physically equal to a pro athlete or politically equal to a U.S. Congressman. But, I am not bitter about it. People have different strengths and weaknesses. That is what makes them unique individuals.

Nonetheless, Affirmative Action and its associates have done little to improve the underlying racial sentiments in this country. In reality, they may have done more to fuel the fire than put it out. They have proliferated the cultural phenomenon known as ‘reverse racism.’ While I acknowledge the existence of the trend, I take issue with the term itself. Racism is racism is racism. Referring to white on minority discrimination as ‘racism’ and minority on white discrimination as ‘reverse racism’ is mildly racist in itself. Why, even, should there be a racial distinction? Is that not counterproductive to a goal of a colorblind society?

Barack Obama’s appointment of Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, has put the issue of race under the microscope once again, and put a mirror up to the face of America. Without a single word spoken, the speculation of her appointment stirred up racial questions. Will he choose a Hispanic? Will he choose a Hispanic woman? Is he doing it to solidify the Hispanic vote? Will it solidify the Hispanic vote? Then, she was appointed. Now we know where she went to school, what her record looks like, everything she’s done and all she’s ever verifiably said.

Among her most controversial resume bullet points was a 2008 ruling against a group of Connecticut firefighters who were denied promotions based on race. The firefighters, who were white, were the top scorers on a promotional exam. Because no black firefighters achieved qualifying test scores, the city threw out the tests completely. Sotomayor and two colleagues backed the city’s decision. And in a 2001 speech at U.C. Berkeley, Sotomayor stated ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’

Not surprisingly, the comments and rulings conjured up strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Some conservatives called her comments ‘racist.’ Then, some liberals called conservatives ‘racists’ for calling her comments ‘racist.’

 For the sake of argument, let’s build a foundation. Racism is defined as ‘discrimination or prejudice based on race.’ Liberals and conservatives, majorities and minorities, one fish, two fish, red fish and blue fish would all reasonably agree. Now, that sounds a whole lot like the actions and words of a certain Sonia Sotomayor. First, she denies whites a promotion because no blacks qualified, even though they were all given the same standardized test. So, from my humble perspective, the only determining factor in the decision was skin color. Discrimination based on race? Just maybe? Then, she proclaims that a Latina woman can make better decisions than can a white male because all Latina women have rich life experiences that are not possibly had by white men. Prejudice based on race? Possibly? Looks that way. Or maybe she thought the dictionary was an instruction manual, not a reference book. But, then again, I’m just a white male who hasn’t had experience necessary to make that kind of distinction.

So, when white men, like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, call her actions and words what they plainly are, they are heralded for speaking the truth. Aren’t they? Nope! Instead, they are accused of racism because they are criticizing a Latina woman. Calling her words and actions ‘racist’ is seen as sacrilege of Affirmative Action. Plus, minorities can’t be racist. Remember?

And there lies my issue. We are not a ‘post-racial’ society. We are not past the most significant racial problems America will ever see. Have we come a long way? Sure we have. Have we benefitted from contributions and sacrifices made by the likes of Martin Luther King Jr.? Absolutely. But King sought a society where men and women are judged ‘not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ And, obviously, we are still judged by the color of our skin. Just ask the qualified firefighters who were denied a rightful promotion because they didn’t meet the skin tone requirements for the position. Or the white men who will never get to make the sound decisions of Latina women, because they were not born with enough melanin.

I am not discrediting those who have suffered through decades of discrimination and prejudice, with the hopes that the next generation will not have to. Nor am I ignorant of the horrific atrocities that occurred in the name of race in our country. But, so many in America seem to believe that it is all in the past, that true discrimination just doesn’t happen anymore. On the contrary, it happens every day, and much of it is legal. Racism may look different than it did in the early 20^th century (and before), often with different victims and offenders, but it is the same beast.

The unfounded racial hatred responsible for the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. is the same hatred responsible for the ethnic cleansing during WWII. The discrimination that once denied blacks education in the south is the same discrimination that denied firefighters a promotion in Connecticut just last year. Whether it be minority on white, white on minority, minority on minority, or white on white, widespread discrimination exists. The day we move beyond that, in law and society, is the day we can claim the greatest victory for civil rights.

 

(Em)pathetic Reasoning

                To put it simply, I don’t empathize with the empathy-driven decision to appoint an empathetic judge, on the basis of her empathy, to a branch of government that is supposed to rule free of subjective feelings, such as empathy. Oversaturated with empathy yet? I thought so. You had better get used to it, though.

Change was Obama’s catch phrase for the election, but empathy is apparently his new catch phrase for selecting the Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. The man is a marketing genius, I tell ya. Too bad he didn’t go down that road, instead.

 In its heyday (circa 2008) ‘change’ was paraded around on backpacks, t-shirts, car windows, and shiny buttons (frequently by those not old enough to vote) without any real examination of what it meant. Likewise, the ‘empathy’ standard seems to be accepted without significant objection. But, I don’t ever mind being a dissenting opinion.

As an advertised ‘scholar’ of constitutional law, I’m surprised Obama isn’t more of a ‘scholar’ of constitutional law. Let me explain. As outlined in Article I of the Constitution, Congress is granted the authority to create law, so long as it falls under the (not so wide) umbrella of that same Constitution. In Article II, the President is granted the power to administer and enforce that law. And, in Article III, the Supreme Court is given the authority to review those laws for constitutionality, right? No? Really?

Actually, the Supreme Court is never given the power to review laws for validity under the Constitution of the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall took it upon himself to establish that precedent in Marbury v. Madison (1803). In truth, the only role of the Judicial Branch is ruling on cases brought to them, under the strict guidelines of the Constitution.

Now, I don’t expect that Barack Obama went to every single class, every single day, while attending Harvard Law. Everybody takes a sick day now and then. But, I’m almost certain the role of the judiciary would have come up at the lunch table, sooner or later.

Still, his primary criterion for selecting a Supreme Court Justice was empathy. The sole purpose the Supreme Court, even when reviewing laws (which is now common practice, thanks to the all but illegal maneuver by John Marshall), is ruling under the strict guidelines of the written Constitution. That being said, Obama’s logic on this matter is severely flawed. If the goal of the Supreme Court is to rule as objectively as possible, why would a subjective personality trait be touted around as credible resume material for a potential justice?

Obama and his media (yes, I said his media) repeated profusely that Sonia Sotomayor has ‘life experience’ and has ‘overcome hard times.’ While that makes for a great humanities piece on Oprah, it doesn’t add anything to her ability to rule objectively from the bench. If anything, it makes her more susceptible to ruling against the proper, constitutional choice in favor of her own sympathy.

President Obama, for such a decision, should be selecting someone who can prove a documented history of ruling by the law, without promoting a personal agenda one way or the other. If they happen to be an ‘empathetic’ person (which Sotomayor might very well be), that’s great. But they had better possess the skills to do the job, first and foremost.

I am not condemning empathy in general, because it’s an admirable quality in a person. Nor am I arguing that it should disqualify a person from such a post. So, if empathy is the President’s best sales pitch for Sotomayor, he might want to consider a new product.  

Pelosi on the Hot Seat

                It seems as though Nancy Pelosi is stuck in a game of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” that she wishes she had never begun. Everything was rolling along smoothly, until she stumbled on a million dollar question. She eliminated two of her options, but the question just got harder. When she asked the audience, they pointed back at her. And when she phoned a friend, he called her a liar. On the hot seat and out of lifelines, Madame Pelosi now gets to decide whether to take her check and walk away, or risk catastrophic failure and take a 50/50 shot.

                I can seldom remember a public statement made by the Speaker that did not feature the name George W. Bush in some derogatory fashion. This holds true, even today, a solid 4 months since he hitched up the wagons and went back to Texas. I have always been curious as to what lies at the core of Pelosi’s feelings toward former President Bush. It is more than political opposition, more than disagreement, more than rivalry, but a pure and profound hatred for the man himself. Not about any other political opponent does she speak with such disdain and anger; not even John McCain, while he was running head-to-head against her poster boy in 2008. All the while, she continued her effort to defame and embarrass a lame duck president.

I’ve long thought that there would come a point where Pelosi’s one sided war on George W. Bush would come to fruition, one way or another. When would the tension break the point of containment? Answer: It just did.

                Speaker Pelosi just committed the cardinal sin of politics, letting emotion overshadow strategy. She was been blinded by her self-induced hatred for George W. Bush, so much so that she may have incriminated herself in the process. When the Obama administration brought up the possibility of prosecuting former Bush officials for ‘torturing’ terror suspects for information, the always loveable Speaker of the House jumped at the opportunity. She figured this was her one big chance to smear Bush, once and for all.

She began ranting and raving uncontrollably about waterboarding and torture, calling for a “truth commission.” More importantly, I wish someone could explain to me what, exactly, a “truth commission” is. Because, to me, it sounds like a kind of “morality police” or the “Love and Friendship Division of the Pentagon.” Actually, the term comes from dictatorship regimes in South Africa, but I like my explanation better. Plus, the current administration gets somewhat irritable when you mention the word dictatorship. Hmm…

                But in all of her moral righteousness, the Speaker forgot to tie up a few loose ends. First, she was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee at the time, meaning she was briefed on the matter. Second, if she was not present at the briefings, why not? She obviously was not doing her job. Third, if she was briefed on the matter and raised no objections, what makes her any different from those who authorized the techniques in the first place? So, Mrs. Pelosi is caught in the middle, stemming from a lack of strategy. Alex Castellanos put it best on CNN’s State of the Union, “… if Speaker Pelosi were still capable of human facial expression, we would see she would be embarrassed because right now she is in a very Nixon-like position.”

                So, the political runaround began. First, she denied being at the briefings. False! Multiple sources, including an aide of hers, said she was properly briefed on the issue of waterboarding (before it took place). No one, not even her own party, has defended her denial. Next, she says she was misled by the C.I.A., hoping the current director, a friend and colleague of hers, would come to the rescue. He denied her claim and said that they were very clear about the techniques. After that, she accused the Central Intelligence Agency, made up of some of the nation’s most respected individuals, of lying. The director defended his employees again, leaving Pelosi out to dry.

The C.I.A. has no reason to lie about this, especially considering that Leon Panetta, the director, is a Democrat (Obama appointee) who would like nothing more than to defend his party’s congressional leader. Why would he devastate Pelosi’s career to defend President Bush? For this, I must commend him for not playing the politics, but playing the facts. And if anyone knows the facts, it is he, who has access to the records of all intelligence briefings. If Pelosi continues to call out him and his agency, he may be forced to reveal incriminating documents that would destroy Pelosi politically. How is that “truth commission” sounding now?

Nancy Pelosi wanted so bad to further harm Bush’s reputation that she failed to recognize her own involvement. This political mistake could very well cost her the third-ranking position in the United States. And it was all her doing. Had she ignored the issue and continued on under the new policy (Obama has since banned waterboarding), letting the Justice Department decide what to do about Bush, she wouldn’t be backpedaling right now. Nobody would have noticed that she was ever involved. But, since she waived her arms and brought attention to herself, it’s her turn in the hot seat. So what’s it going to be, Madame Speaker? Will you take a chance or take your check and walk away?

A Winning Recipe

                The concept of America being the great “melting pot” has been drilled into all of our heads from the second we first opened our eyes in the delivery room. Elementary school textbooks, with flags, ships, and wagons on the covers, overwhelm us with the idea of diversity and heritage. They tell us how men and women of all shapes, sizes, and colors came together to build this nation and guide its brilliance. Because we all know America is, in fact, a “nation of immigrants.” But, then again, so is just about every nation, right? The depth of that concept depends on just how much you want to inconvenience yourself with pesky genealogy and history.

                In a class during my junior year of high school, a group of us were discussing heritage and what nations our families come from. One said that her father was Mexican and her mother was Caucasian. Another said he was 100 percent Chinese. I told them that I am mainly Scotch-Irish, with a mix of other European influence. A friend of mine, who was only slightly paying attention to our conversation, was asked, “What are you?” “I’m American,” he stated firmly. When his answer didn’t satisfy the inquiring individual, she reworded her question. “No. I mean, where are your parents from?” Mockingly, he responded with the name of the local cities in which they were born.

He proceeded to tell the perplexed group that he didn’t really care where his family was from. All that mattered was the fact that he is American. He was not born in a foreign country, nor were his parents. He does not share the cultural practices of his great great great grandparents somewhere in Europe. He doesn’t live in their land or even speak their language. What he knows of his distant heritage is irrelevant in contrast to his being an American.

I walked away from that conversation with a new level of respect for my friend. I was surprised by his statement, but astounded by his pride in America. He is one of the few people I know who are more enamored with their American citizenship than their vague ties to distant cultures. It is a remarkably impressive attribute, but not often glorified in our society. Not surprisingly, this friend of mine chose to serve the country he loves in the most dedicated of ways. He is currently a United States Marine, and somebody who has my utmost respect.

With the novelty and unfamiliar curiosity that comes along with foreign culture, we tend to forget that we have a culture of our own. People come from all over the world to observe it and experience all that is America. Our way of life is unique, in its own way, and should be credited for its originality and greatness.

In the constant celebration of differences, we often forget the very ideas that inspired the greatness of America, unity and a shared vision. Early immigrants embraced their origins, but recognized that, in order to build a strong and successful nation, they had to develop their own shared way of life. When the ingredients are placed in the melting pot, no one expects them to sit idle, separated from one another. They expect them to mix and blend until a brand new recipe is created. And in the end, the final dish is all that matters.

                Sure, we come from different places and believe different things. And it is okay, even beneficial, to highlight these unique aspects. But, we must do so in conjunction with a shared pride in our primary allegiance, the United States of America. We should find satisfaction in knowing that our culture is the culmination of many great influences, all coming together to form one final product.

Health Vs. Politics (Round 1)

                Without question, there is a health care problem in this country. Law-abiding citizens are extorted by insurance companies who get away with slashing coverage behind the scenes, leaving their members out to dry. Some who know they cannot pay simply refuse to seek medical attention, sacrificing their health to the system. This is surely a sticky situation with limited alternatives. So, like every other contemporary issue in America, people look to the almighty government to bail us out, and save us from the sins of capitalism. According to Obama and Pelosi, this is not only the best option, but the only option. Not only do I oppose their agenda-driven assertion, I hold that government-run health care is blatantly unconstitutional. But, more importantly, it is the worst option for America.

                Being as the issue is split almost directly down party lines, it is hard to imagine that socialized (Sorry if the word shocks or offends you, but that’s exactly what it is.) health care is the only option for America. If I’m not mistaken, we’ve survived, and prospered, for 233 years without it. Also, the Republicans would be hard pressed to fight a Democratic proposition that had no conceivable alternative. However, the current power nucleus in Washington has done an excellent job convincing the public, and the media (Granted, that last one is not as difficult.), that there is no other way out.

In reality, that is simply not the case. But, the Democrats would love for us all to believe that, though. Just think about it. A constituency that relies on their government for absolutely everything, even their properly functioning bodies, is a dream for big-government liberals. How could you ever tell the government ‘no’ if they get to decide whether you get medicine or no medicine, get treatment or no treatment, and even if you live or die? You are at their mercy. Sounds just a bit like tyranny to me. And they accuse Republicans of “fear-mongering.”

                If stretching the Constitution to fit a Democratic platform was not enough, how about outright defying it? That’s exactly what government-run health care would do. Though it’s not ever discussed, the Constitution specifically lists every power granted to the federal government. Politicians don’t like to tell us that because it would essentially undo all their hard work, all but eliminating most of their power. Any item not granted to the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branch is an invalid role of government. Health care falls into that category. It, or anything remotely related to it, is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Though we generally accept that this is ignored repeatedly, socialized health care would be one of the largest (if not the largest) oversteps of governmental power since the New Deal. And yes, I believe that most of the New Deal was unconstitutional, and largely detrimental to the long-term sustainability of society.

But, if we simply ignore its unconstitutionality or the sheer tyrannical nature of the concept, we’re all good, right? Not so fast. We forgot one very important fact. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE DOES NOT WORK! If there’s anything we can learn from our buddies around the globe, it’s that government-run healthcare programs have failed miserably. Any average citizen of Britain, Canada, etc. will tell you that medicine and health care are monstrous disasters in their country. It is nearly impossible to see a doctor at a clinic. Emergency Rooms are forced to deny significantly sick and injured patients because lines are too long. Life-saving treatments are eliminated because the government says they are too expensive. Vital medicines are eliminated because the government already spent too much money on something else. These nations are only able to claim higher percentages of “insured” citizens because they can count everyone. This doesn’t mean that everyone, or even most, will be treated. Why do you think foreign citizens of socialist nations so often come to America for treatment?

When government runs health care, bureaucrats and elected officials, with no background in medicine, decide exactly what medicines you can have, what treatments they are willing to pay for, and how long you can ultimately live. Every aspect of health is politicized and lobbied, by self-serving politicians, at the expense of citizens. And when has the government ever succeeded after taking control of any industry? Education, you say? Since private schools are all but non-existent in this country, government has unlimited power over the education sector. Yet America (one of the wealthiest nations in the world) doesn’t even break the top 15 in global education rankings. What about social security, the crown jewel of liberalism? Oh, you mean that system that will be bankrupt before the next generation retires, barely 100 years into its existence?

The figures in Washington want us to believe that millions are dying because of capitalist health care. This is simply not the case. Sure, rates are expensive and work could be done to revamp the system, but the situation is better than ANY other nation on earth. There are thousands of free-market options to insure yourself in our system, with flexible ways to pay for treatment. Hillary Clinton made a case of telling stories about uninsured people dying because they were refused treatment. First off, all of her stories were either wrong or completely made up. This has been researched and proven. Secondly, in this country, it is illegal for doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. to deny treatment to anyone based on their health insurance. If an uninsured child comes in with a runny nose, the attending medical authorities will be shut down if they refuse treatment.

The socialist class of politicians consistently tries to sell the plan as “universal health care,” implying that if you oppose it, you oppose health in general. That you don’t care about the welfare of children, the elderly, or anyone at all. This is a ridiculous distortion and they know it. The fact is that socialized medicine simply does not work. The logic is flawed and history shows that it is a failure everywhere it was ever tried. Government control of the system would do nothing but decrease the number of people covered and the quality of coverage. There is no perfect solution to 100% health care coverage for everyone, but we have to do our best. Socialist medicine will surely not cover everyone adequately, and will undoubtedly be an immense detriment to the health of American citizens. Sure, if you think government knows best, then by all means, let your elected officials establish this system. But, it will cost thousands of lives before anyone realizes the toll it has taken. And by then, it will be nearly impossible to reverse the failed experiment. I know that we are in an age of government expansionism, but don’t let fear and distortion silence the truth while politicians have their way with our freedom and welfare. Please, for the sake of your family’s health and lives of millions, I beg you all to consider the full consequences of such a concept.

A Savage Mistake

                A white supremacist, a preacher who protested at funerals of AIDS victims, terrorist sympathizers, and…. Michael Savage?!?!?! Apparently those in charge of our beloved motherland have decided that a conservative radio host from the Bronx fits into the same class as a child murdering terrorist and Russian gang leader who slaughtered 37 people. Or at least they see enough of a resemblance to stick them with the same penalty for their crimes, lifelong banishment from the shores of America’s closest ally. That’s right, friends! Everyone who values their taken-for-granted freedom of speech had better bottle it up, lock it up tight and bury it 30 feet below the earth because the powers at be are coming for it.

                Last Tuesday was just a typical day for Michael Savage. That is, until he opened the newspaper to see that he had been blacklisted from one of the most powerful nations on earth. Nothing like a little top of the morning pick-me-up from the S.F. Chronicle, eh? (That “eh” was for all of my Canadian friends, by the way.)

More so than being banned from an entire country, imagine the feeling of having your name listed among murderers and terrorists. The “Home Secretary” of Britain says that Savage (a.k.a. Michael Weiner) is “Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.”  

And for what exactly, Madame Secretary? Is it for openly speaking against illegal immigration into the United States, which more than 80% of Americans oppose? Last time I checked, illegal immigration is, well….. illegal! How dare that radical Michael Savage support enforcing 250-year-old laws? Or is it possibly for openly opposing same-sex marriage, which the majority of Americans also oppose? Obviously, I’m a bit confused. (Maybe it’s the culture gap. I happen to not care for soccer either.)

Since Britain claims to be a fellow nation of free speech, they restrict only rhetoric that incites violence (not unlike the U.S.), or otherwise aims to. That is how they justified the banishment of Savage. They say that his words have led to hatred and violence in America, and they don’t want that in their country. I would be curious to hear which violent criminals in San Quinton cite Michael Savage as their inspiration. I would like to know what murders were committed over information provided in a Savage broadcast, or what terrorist acts were justified in a Savage book. Really, I would. If the British government could please provide me with that information, I would be eternally grateful. If they oblige, and prove me wrong, I will apologize for what I am about to say.

Michael Savage was nothing more than a lab rat for the British government, an experimental specimen, of sorts. They wanted to see just how far they could strangle free speech without being called to the carpet. And what a cowardly move on their part, I might add. Anyone who has ever tuned into a Savage radio show knows that he is blunt, honest, and unafraid to say what needs to be said. He is a conservative, but not a mouthpiece of the Republican Party, being that he is not a Republican at all. This makes him poison to other conservative media figures. He doesn’t respect their scripted rhetoric and they don’t acknowledge his existence. In laymen’s terms, he has no allies to speak of. For this reason, he may has well have had a big red target on his back when the British began their social science project.

Instead of looking to toy with societal norms for lazy afternoon entertainment, the British “Home Secretary” would be better served focusing her attention on something other than American talk radio. The G20 protesters who terrorized her largest city just last month might be a good place to start. I don’t have a college degree yet, but I’m pretty sure throwing bricks at police officers and through windows of private businesses constitutes actual violence. Or maybe she thinks that was Savage’s fault, too.

In terms of this “radical behaviour” they speak of, Michael Savage is far from it. Sure, his Brooklyn accent and his New York attitude may come off intense at times. Yes, he’s a tad eccentric. But, at the end of the day, he is an entertainer. He is paid to attract listeners. And he does so while conveying a message he believes in. His unconventionally delivered, yet refreshingly sensible, words are a stark contrast to any anarchist rebel. Savage is undoubtedly on the right-wing side of the political spectrum, but none of his opinions are far from what most Americans believe. How British leaders view him as a threat is inconceivable to me.

Even Jon Leibowitz (a.k.a. Jon Stewart), no ally of Savage, mocked the ridiculous decision by Great Britain. He pointed out the imperialist history of Britain and the bloody, but acceptable, violence at each and every soccer game. Yet, somehow, Michael Savage is a threat to their “civil society.”

All satire aside, this egregious intrusion upon a basic human right is a terrifying proposition for all freedom-loving inhabitants of planet earth. It shows the willingness of Western, democratic nations to test the boundaries of their power. And don’t think Americans are somehow exempt. Barack Obama has repeatedly expressed his fondness for European policies and Nancy Pelosi is in openly pushing for government control over the content of media. Ever hear of the Fairness Doctrine? If not, you should go take a look. It’s a terrific horror novel. We can only hope it stays fiction.

And this is not just a problem for “Radical Right-Wingers.” In fact, this is not a conservative issue, or even an American issue. It is a human rights issue. Those in power are ALWAYS looking for ways to expand their power. Any voice of opposition is another voice they desire to silence, conservative, liberal, or in between. Anyone who values their right to speak their opinion should be watchful and cautious of moves like these, for each infringement of freedom is a step toward tyranny.

A Note to Great Britain:

I believe your nation once attempted to limit human rights in this region. If I recall correctly, that didn’t exactly work out well for you. I would hope that you wouldn’t make the same mistake twice.