The next president will probably be nominating one and perhaps two new supreme
court judges. John Paul Stevens is 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. Add in the hundreds of potential nominees for the various federal courts and this becomes, in my
opinion, a major issue in the presidential race.
In remarks on the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, Barack Obama
stated that he was voting against the Roberts nomination. As near as I can tell, Obama
thought that Judge Roberts was qualified to sit on the highest court in the land but he was
concerned about the depth and breadth of his empathy and what was in the judges heart.
He felt that Judge Roberts had too often “used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”
In a speech given at a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007, Obama expanded on this
saying: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like
to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or
African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going
to be selecting my judges.” Excuse me, but what in the heck does that mean? I imagine that many of you, like me, don’t belong to any of the “special groups” he mentioned. Are
the people in his selected groups always the weak and the rest of us always the strong?
Suppose some poor, African-American, gay guy breaks into my house to steal my stuff.
Then suppose my guard dog attacks and injures him. Then the guy sues me for mental anguish or something. If this case gets in front of an Obama judge, I’m thinking I’m in big trouble. Middle aged, middle class, white guy against a guy with the “special group” trifecta. A judge meeting Obama’s criteria for empathy and heart is going to whack me pretty hard.
Now, a different scenario. Suppose , after going to church on Sunday, I decide to shoot
my guns. (I live in the Midwest, that’s what we do) Because I’m a knucklehead, I shoot
myself in the foot. I decide to sue the gun manufacturer for pain and suffering. Now here the dynamic changes. I’m sure that I would be considered the weak party because
how can a big, bad gun company ever be considered anything but strong in Obamaland?
So, regardless of the merits of my lawsuit, I should be in for a big payday with an empathetic, big hearted judge.
There are innumerable situations that don’t fit Obam’s template. What if an old guy sues
a disabled guy? Or a teenage mom goes after a gay guy? With Obama’s level of hubris,
I’m sure he would be comfortable being the final arbiter in these difficult cases. But that
is not how it’s suppose to work. Obama cannot be allowed to choose which “team” judges play for. Judges aren’t suppose to play at all. They’re job is to umpire and to hold both sides accountable to the same set of rules. We are a nation of laws, not of men.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
MARX FOR OBAMA
As I have discussed previously, liberals are full of wacky and often dangerous ideas. They have beliefs that are antithetical to the truly American philosophy of individual rights and freedom. Because most clear headed Americans find liberal ideas and beliefs offensive, liberal politicians need to be good bullshitters. And, if you are going to run for the highest office in the land, you need to be an expert. Barack Obama is a master of obfuscation and deceit. Sure, his challenge is made easier by a fawning media, but there is no denying his oratory skills. But, it’s a long campaign and even Obama screws up on occasion and we are able to get a glimpse of the real man. I’m not talking about routine gaffes, like his initial reaction to Russia’s invasion of Georgia. While their homeland was being overrun by Russian tanks, Obama encouraged the Georgians to “take it easy”. He issued several statements calling for the UN Security Council to pass resolutions condemning the Russian aggression and for economic sanctions against them. Apparently, Obama did not know that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia has veto powers. I’m pretty sure that the Russkies wouldn’t go along with those types of resolutions. For a man who wants to be president, this shows an appalling lack of knowledge in foreign affairs. Apparently, it hasn’t hurt him much. Knowledge can be gained with experience and it seems that many Americans aren’t concerned that Obama will be getting his experience while he is on the job, during a time of war, no less.
Lack of knowledge and experience is bad enough, but what concerns me even more is Obama’s underlying political philosophy as revealed during his brief moments of candor. In a debate with Hillary during the Democratic primary, Obama was asked about his proposal to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to the Clinton era level of 28%. Initially, he blabbered the standard democratic line about financing health care and education and the need for revenue sources. When the moderator pointed out the fact that revenues to the treasury go down whenever the capital gains tax is raised and that revenues increase when the tax is lowered, Obama finally admitted that he would raise the tax out of a sense of fairness. That’s right. Fairness is achieved when all are equally miserable. While helping no one, Obama wants to punish those with the audacity to take risks and the desire to succeed. He is appealing to the most depraved of human emotions, greed and envy. He is absolving all personal failure by criminalizing individual success. Hope and change my ass! He is the candidate of despair and bitterness. God help us if he gets elected.
Then, just last week, Obama stepped into the light again when he told “Joe the plumber” that “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”. I agree. The question is, how to best do that? Obama wants to spread the wealth through government tax policies. This is the essence of socialism. Obama proposes to use the coercive power of the state and ultimately it’s monopoly on the organized use of force to regulate and expropriate the wealth of those that produce it and redistribute it to those he deems as entitled to it. Socialism institutionalizes envy and class warfare and legitimizes government theft by calling it “paying your fair share”. It is a morally bankrupt system that has failed every time it’s been tried. It will be no different with Obama leading the way.
I would prefer that we “spread the wealth around” in the traditional American way. Not only is the free market, capitalist system morally superior to socialism, it actually works. It is morally superior because it enables free people, acting as individual moral agents, to trade or sell goods and services of their own free will and on the basis of mutual consent. As with any system, there will still be winners and losers, but they are determined by the actions of the individual, not by the favor of some government bureaucrat.
Lack of knowledge and experience is bad enough, but what concerns me even more is Obama’s underlying political philosophy as revealed during his brief moments of candor. In a debate with Hillary during the Democratic primary, Obama was asked about his proposal to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to the Clinton era level of 28%. Initially, he blabbered the standard democratic line about financing health care and education and the need for revenue sources. When the moderator pointed out the fact that revenues to the treasury go down whenever the capital gains tax is raised and that revenues increase when the tax is lowered, Obama finally admitted that he would raise the tax out of a sense of fairness. That’s right. Fairness is achieved when all are equally miserable. While helping no one, Obama wants to punish those with the audacity to take risks and the desire to succeed. He is appealing to the most depraved of human emotions, greed and envy. He is absolving all personal failure by criminalizing individual success. Hope and change my ass! He is the candidate of despair and bitterness. God help us if he gets elected.
Then, just last week, Obama stepped into the light again when he told “Joe the plumber” that “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody”. I agree. The question is, how to best do that? Obama wants to spread the wealth through government tax policies. This is the essence of socialism. Obama proposes to use the coercive power of the state and ultimately it’s monopoly on the organized use of force to regulate and expropriate the wealth of those that produce it and redistribute it to those he deems as entitled to it. Socialism institutionalizes envy and class warfare and legitimizes government theft by calling it “paying your fair share”. It is a morally bankrupt system that has failed every time it’s been tried. It will be no different with Obama leading the way.
I would prefer that we “spread the wealth around” in the traditional American way. Not only is the free market, capitalist system morally superior to socialism, it actually works. It is morally superior because it enables free people, acting as individual moral agents, to trade or sell goods and services of their own free will and on the basis of mutual consent. As with any system, there will still be winners and losers, but they are determined by the actions of the individual, not by the favor of some government bureaucrat.
Monday, October 13, 2008
THE NATURE OF RIGHTS
What are rights and where do they come from? Thankfully, as Americans, we have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to provide enlightenment on these questions. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” What a relief to know that our rights come from God, not the state, and that they are “unalienable”, meaning they cannot be taken away. They are not subject to the caprice of the legislature. All other rights flow from our right to life. If this right is to mean anything, then we must have liberty and the freedom to act to preserve our life and even to improve the quality of our life.
Jefferson said that all men have the right to life. Necessarily then, our individual rights can put no positive obligation on another, only the negative obligation of not violating ours. So, when the 1st amendment talks about freedom of speech, it means that others can not prevent you from speaking. It does not mean that others have to listen to you. That would be putting a positive obligation on them. It also does not provide freedom from the consequences of your words. If you call your bosses wife a big fat bitch, he can fire your dumb ass. As an aside, it’s a bad sign for this country when something as basic and straight forward as the 1st amendment can be superseded by the imaginary right to not be offended. It’s scary to see so many colleges and universities, those supposed bastions of free thought and intellectual stimulation, enacting speech codes lest some delicate mind be offended. The world is full of idiots that say offensive things. College students would do well to learn to deal with it on their own.
Like nearly all political campaigns, this years presidential race provides numerous examples of the wholesale violation of individual rights. With all the goodies these guys are promising, you would think they are running for Santa Claus, not president of the United States! After reading both the Democratic and Republican party platforms, it appears that Obama has a clear edge in the Santa sweepstakes. In talking about health care, the Democratic platform states: “…Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive health care.” There is no mention of the corollary to that statement: That someone is then obligated to provide affordable, comprehensive health care.
In the section on “Good Jobs with Good Pay” the Democrats say this: “In America, if someone is willing to work, he or she should be able to make ends meet and have the opportunity to prosper. To that end we will raise the minimum wage…” Besides violating the rights of both employers and employees to negotiate wages, it’s just stupid. How is a guy better off being unemployed from a job that pays $8.00 an hour than he is being employed at a job that pays $6.00 an hour?
Finally, from the section titled “A World Class Education for Every Child” there is this nonsense: “The Democratic party firmly believes that graduation from a quality public school and the opportunity to succeed in college must be the birthright of every child-not the privilege of the few.” Apparently, every time Obama takes a crap he discovers another “birthright” and this one really stinks. Public education is clearly not a “birthright” of anyone. This country thrived for 100 years with no public education system. Parents had the right to choose the length and type of education for their children. In fact, it is an indictment of 100+ years of public education that such a stupid and dangerous belief is now widely accepted.
When individual rights are marginalized by the state, society losses the ability to discern ownership. Does a man own the fruits of his labor? Are some men, by their birthright, entitled to wealth created by others? Justice is not determined by the rule of law but by who has the power and the guns. There is plenty of history that proves this. The socialist ideal requires that state or group rights supersede individual rights. Many in this country seem to be on a quest for “social” justice. It sounds like a noble goal and I’m sure many,especially the young, are idealistic in this pursuit. But real social justice is a by-product of individual justice. Without individual rights, ultimately, the only justice is the justice of tyrants.
Jefferson said that all men have the right to life. Necessarily then, our individual rights can put no positive obligation on another, only the negative obligation of not violating ours. So, when the 1st amendment talks about freedom of speech, it means that others can not prevent you from speaking. It does not mean that others have to listen to you. That would be putting a positive obligation on them. It also does not provide freedom from the consequences of your words. If you call your bosses wife a big fat bitch, he can fire your dumb ass. As an aside, it’s a bad sign for this country when something as basic and straight forward as the 1st amendment can be superseded by the imaginary right to not be offended. It’s scary to see so many colleges and universities, those supposed bastions of free thought and intellectual stimulation, enacting speech codes lest some delicate mind be offended. The world is full of idiots that say offensive things. College students would do well to learn to deal with it on their own.
Like nearly all political campaigns, this years presidential race provides numerous examples of the wholesale violation of individual rights. With all the goodies these guys are promising, you would think they are running for Santa Claus, not president of the United States! After reading both the Democratic and Republican party platforms, it appears that Obama has a clear edge in the Santa sweepstakes. In talking about health care, the Democratic platform states: “…Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive health care.” There is no mention of the corollary to that statement: That someone is then obligated to provide affordable, comprehensive health care.
In the section on “Good Jobs with Good Pay” the Democrats say this: “In America, if someone is willing to work, he or she should be able to make ends meet and have the opportunity to prosper. To that end we will raise the minimum wage…” Besides violating the rights of both employers and employees to negotiate wages, it’s just stupid. How is a guy better off being unemployed from a job that pays $8.00 an hour than he is being employed at a job that pays $6.00 an hour?
Finally, from the section titled “A World Class Education for Every Child” there is this nonsense: “The Democratic party firmly believes that graduation from a quality public school and the opportunity to succeed in college must be the birthright of every child-not the privilege of the few.” Apparently, every time Obama takes a crap he discovers another “birthright” and this one really stinks. Public education is clearly not a “birthright” of anyone. This country thrived for 100 years with no public education system. Parents had the right to choose the length and type of education for their children. In fact, it is an indictment of 100+ years of public education that such a stupid and dangerous belief is now widely accepted.
When individual rights are marginalized by the state, society losses the ability to discern ownership. Does a man own the fruits of his labor? Are some men, by their birthright, entitled to wealth created by others? Justice is not determined by the rule of law but by who has the power and the guns. There is plenty of history that proves this. The socialist ideal requires that state or group rights supersede individual rights. Many in this country seem to be on a quest for “social” justice. It sounds like a noble goal and I’m sure many,especially the young, are idealistic in this pursuit. But real social justice is a by-product of individual justice. Without individual rights, ultimately, the only justice is the justice of tyrants.
Monday, October 6, 2008
CONSERVATIVES & LIBERALS PART III
CONSERVATIVES
Characteristics common among conservatives include faith in God, honesty, self reliance, love of country and generosity. Unlike liberals, you don’t need a degree in abnormal psychology to understand conservatives. As an example, if you asked a conservative if it’s ok to kill an unborn baby they would answer no. Ask them if it’s ok to execute murderers and they would say yes. The whole conservation would take about ten seconds. Now, ask a liberal those questions and you’re in the twilight zone for an hour. They won’t come right out and tell you what they believe, that it’s ok to kill an unborn child anytime, for any reason or that three years in a bed and breakfast is sufficient punishment for murder. That would sound stupid! No, they will give you an intellectually “nuanced” response full of wild twists and turns, bent logic, situational ethics and inevitably some mention of “institutional” racism. You’ll end up with a headache and in search of the nearest tavern.
Conservatives are more difficult to categorize than liberals. While liberals tend to gravitate to certain occupations, like a herd of sheep to the easy grazing, conservatives are independent and self reliant. They can be found in all walks of life, predominately in the private sector, although not exclusively.
The overwhelming majority of those that own their own business are conservative. They understand the concept of providing quality goods and services in an efficient manner to generate profits. Liberals are confused by this. They understand profits about as well as they understand guns and they think both should be heavily regulated by the government.
Conservatives are also well represented amongst the employees of private business. They appreciate honest pay for honest work and enthusiastically support merit pay. Unlike teachers and bureaucrats, they are not afraid to be compensated based on their performance.
While the public sector employs hordes of liberal people, there are two government jobs in which conservatives thrive: law enforcement and national defense. It’s should come as no big surprise that conservatives are heavily represented in two groups that perform truly legitimate functions of government. Our police and military personnel perform heroic deeds on a daily basis. If not for a liberal judiciary and lefty politicians, these great men and women could solve some major problems in short order. They confront the very real threats facing all of us while liberals wring their hands and whine about our carbon footprint and obsess over spotted owls and caribou.
Even though conservatives do most of the real work and pay most of the bills, they are generally much happier than liberals. Faith in God and belief in the sanctity of human life are central to the conservative condition. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and conservatives are not ashamed of their birthright as Americans. Liberals can sing the praises of the workers paradise in Cuba or Venezuela or China.Conservatives just say “SCOREBOARD!”
Characteristics common among conservatives include faith in God, honesty, self reliance, love of country and generosity. Unlike liberals, you don’t need a degree in abnormal psychology to understand conservatives. As an example, if you asked a conservative if it’s ok to kill an unborn baby they would answer no. Ask them if it’s ok to execute murderers and they would say yes. The whole conservation would take about ten seconds. Now, ask a liberal those questions and you’re in the twilight zone for an hour. They won’t come right out and tell you what they believe, that it’s ok to kill an unborn child anytime, for any reason or that three years in a bed and breakfast is sufficient punishment for murder. That would sound stupid! No, they will give you an intellectually “nuanced” response full of wild twists and turns, bent logic, situational ethics and inevitably some mention of “institutional” racism. You’ll end up with a headache and in search of the nearest tavern.
Conservatives are more difficult to categorize than liberals. While liberals tend to gravitate to certain occupations, like a herd of sheep to the easy grazing, conservatives are independent and self reliant. They can be found in all walks of life, predominately in the private sector, although not exclusively.
The overwhelming majority of those that own their own business are conservative. They understand the concept of providing quality goods and services in an efficient manner to generate profits. Liberals are confused by this. They understand profits about as well as they understand guns and they think both should be heavily regulated by the government.
Conservatives are also well represented amongst the employees of private business. They appreciate honest pay for honest work and enthusiastically support merit pay. Unlike teachers and bureaucrats, they are not afraid to be compensated based on their performance.
While the public sector employs hordes of liberal people, there are two government jobs in which conservatives thrive: law enforcement and national defense. It’s should come as no big surprise that conservatives are heavily represented in two groups that perform truly legitimate functions of government. Our police and military personnel perform heroic deeds on a daily basis. If not for a liberal judiciary and lefty politicians, these great men and women could solve some major problems in short order. They confront the very real threats facing all of us while liberals wring their hands and whine about our carbon footprint and obsess over spotted owls and caribou.
Even though conservatives do most of the real work and pay most of the bills, they are generally much happier than liberals. Faith in God and belief in the sanctity of human life are central to the conservative condition. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and conservatives are not ashamed of their birthright as Americans. Liberals can sing the praises of the workers paradise in Cuba or Venezuela or China.Conservatives just say “SCOREBOARD!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
