Clarification

As is turns out, I have to clarify the context of a quote from the President.

I said that he called the Constitution "deeply flawed". That's not exactly what he said, but it was close. Even so, to simply say that without the context of the entire interview is not doing him justice, and therefore, not doing me justice.

So, what exactly did he say?

From Newsmax.

His "deep flaws" comment was directed at the Framers and the colonial attitudes at the time. It's pretty clear he's referring to racist colonial attitudes towards Africans. Now, I don't have the Constitution memorized, but I know that the Civil War Amendments were intended to bring African-Americans under the umbrella of citizen status, and as such, protected by the Constitution (but by no means ended racism). So my problem with his statements here are when he used the words, "the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day". The blind spot being racism, I think I can safely assume. To me, his comments here reflect his wish that the Constitution should somehow set right the issue of race relations. What he apparently believes is that morality can be legislated.

Here's an interview he did in 2001, which is a bit more revealing. He refers to the Warren Court and their inability to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" when it came to the issue of "redistribution of wealth". What??!!?? He's saying here that the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" because it failed to clarify what the government should "do on your behalf", or redistribute wealth (in other words... Marxism?).

Here's one last quote from Obama and his views of the Constitution. From The Audacity of Hope: "I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Granted, the Constitution is amendable, and in the case of most Amendments, it has been justified (Prohibition excluded). But to say that it should be read in the context of an "ever-changing world" is appalling to me. The Constitution is the basis of everything that makes the United States the greatest country on the planet. To say that it can be read differently in 1950 as you would today is absolutely rediculous. You might as well throw it out.

So, to sum up... although he did not exactly say the Constitution was "deeply flawed", in my opinion that's exactly what he thinks.

Peace.

Hypocracy?

"I would hope that a wise white male, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who has not lived that life."

Racist? Sexist?

Would that depend on who you ask?

Hmmm...

How about this?

"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."

Pretty arrogant either way, isn't it?

The first quote wasn't really a quote, if you haven't figured that out, but the second one was. The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor seems to think that justice actually knows color and gender. Granted, I'm sure that being raised in the Bronx is a vastly different experience than being raised in Alaska, but shouldn't the law be interpreted the same for ALL Americans? Is the Constitution a dynamic document? Are my legal rights and freedoms under that document less than that of someone who has had what might be considered a "harder" upbringing? I'd like to see someone from the Bronx actually survive a Valdez winter, by the way. (sarcasm alert!) What about that, Sonia? Ever had to shovel your way out of your house?

Judge Sotomayor also said, "a court of appeals is where policy is made". Sooooo, Your Honor... what exactly is Congress for then? Did you NOT read the Constitution when you went through law school?

She'll be confirmed, no doubt, so my hope is that she doesn't end up being yet another judge who thinks it's their responsibility to MAKE law, not simply INTERPRET it as the Constitution requires. I've seen just a glimpse of her rulings, and some sustain that hope. Yet when she says things like I've quoted here, that hope weakens. But that isn't surprising considering the guy who nominated her called the Constitution a "deeply flawed" document.

How Obama got elected

I thought for sure that I wouldn't be doing any political entries between the election and inauguration, but I couldn't resist this one.

John Ziegler performed a poll on election day to try and gauge how much people were truly informed of the facts behind the candidates. The results? Astounding to anyone who didn't get Howard Stern's interviews, but reinforcing to those of us who did.

How could anyone with any sense defend this? Any Obama followers out there want to take a stab at it, feel free to leave a comment.

There's an estimated 4 million people planning on going to the inauguration in January. How many of those actually know what it is that we've done here? We've put a Marxist in the White House, and the sightless and uninformed are absolutely thrilled.

Your 401(k)??

Well, it may turn out that I was wrong after all.

I said earlier that Barack Obama would tax your 401(k). As it turns out, it's looking more and more like he's going to take it away altogether and turn it into a federally run guaranteed retirement accout (GRA). Turns out we Americans are too stupid to run our own lives, including our own savings.

More freedoms removed...

Masks no longer required

Didn't take long, did it?

Speaking on the Fairness Doctrine, Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

"The airwaves are public"


What on earth does that sound like?

The sixth tenet of The Communist Manifesto:

"Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state."

Why I voted for John McCain

I voted absentee today, and I voted for John McCain.

Even if I don’t change any minds, even if not one person reads this, it was a worthy little project putting this all together. Many know what they believe, but how many of us know why we believe it? In order for me to know why I believe what I believe, it’s every bit as important to know what I don’t believe. Too many of us simply follow the path we’ve been told to follow. By our spouses. By our parents. By our professors. By our pastors. Ones education is ones own responsibility and every source of information should be tested. Professors have their own slant, as do pastors, parents, and spouses. Listen to them, but listen with a grain of salt. Listen to me, if you choose, but listen with the same grain of salt. Then make up your own mind. And for goodness sakes, get out and vote!

I’ve heard what Barack Obama has to say – and I don’t like it. In fact, he scares me. So in reality, I didn't really vote for John McCain. I voted against Barack Obama.

“Change we need”, he says. Change to what? In order to change something you have to keep two things in mind: what you’re changing from and what you’re changing to. We already know that Obama and his followers hate George Bush. Big surprise. So we know what they’d change from. That’s pretty straight forward. But what are they changing to? What will Barack Obama implement as President?

For starters, Barack Obama received a “liberal rating” of 95.5% from the Americans for Democratic Action. This country doesn't need another Jimmy Carter. The MOST conservative Senator received a conservative rating of 93.5%. Obama is more extreme than anyone in the Senate.

John McCain will appoint judges who will interpret the law, not make it. Barack Obama will do the opposite. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this! The Supreme Court is almost perfectly balanced right now. Four conservative, four liberals, and one moderate (Kennedy). John Paul Stevens is basically on deaths door, and Ginsberg and Kennedy are in their 70's. If all three of these end their terms one way or another, that would amount to three Obama judges, extreme liberals all, who would shift the balance of the court to the far left. Barack Obama thinks the Constitution itself is "deeply flawed". Does he want to have it amended? He stated, concerning the Constitution, “it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.” Basically, he thinks the Constitution can be adjusted to the times. Might as well just throw it out if you believe that crap.

EDIT 11/19: OK, maybe that came off a bit harsh. It is not to say that Amendments to the Constitution are unwarranted. Certainly there's been the need, but one could argue that the Bill of Rights is simply part of the original document, leaving only 17 amendments in the last 220 years. Two of those 17 were prohibition related - count those out. Now we're down to 15 meaningful amendments. The 27th was initiated along with the first 10, but wasn't ratified until 1992 (200 years later if you can believe that). This leaves us with 14 meaningful amendments in 220 years, so it's not as if amending the Constitution is taken lightly. As well it shouldn't be.

John McCain supports the 1st Amendment. Barack Obama favors the freedom of the press only when it suits him.

John McCain served in the US Armed Forces, including graduating from the US Naval Academy, a proven training ground for leaders. Barack Obama has led… what? When?

Barack Obama favors giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. John McCain does not.

Barack Obama favors the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, another blatant stab at the First Amendment. "Freedom of speech" includes conservative radio. Liberals are being beaten horribly on the radio airwaves, and it scares them. Reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine would simply be the Liberals way of showing us how insecure they really are. If you think you're right, Liberals, Rush Limbaugh shouldn't scare you at all. In fact, you would welcome his voice!

Barack Obama not only refused to support the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois state senate, he worked to undermine the efforts to pass the bill. This bill prevents the killing of babies born alive from a botched abortion. Say what you will about “life” before the baby exits the womb, but when that child breaths fresh air – NO ONE can deny that it is a life, and ending that life is murder.

Barack Obama is relying on the ignorant and uninformed to get to the White House.

Barack Obama said he didn’t know Bill Ayers. And yet… Notice not only the date, but that his wife was there as well. I’m just sayin’…

John McCain favors drilling for oil here in the US to help relieve our dependency on foreign sources. Barack Obama does not. Concerning ANWR: As an Alaskan who works in the oil industry, I have seen first hand the improvements in the minimization of land used for drilling operations. There is currently the largest horizontal drilling operation in the world taking place right up here where I work. The Liberty project will drill for oil from a land based drill rig to a reservoir that is 8 miles offshore. 8 miles of horizontal drilling means that from one drill site, companies can theoretically reach an area of over 200 square miles. (Area of a circle is PI*radius squared, for those of you mathematically disabled). This is light years ahead of where we were in the 70’s when Prudhoe Bay construction first took place. I was raised in Valdez, Alaska and worked out in Prince William Sound during the summer of 1990. I have seen the devastation of the Exxon Valdez oil spill first hand. I believe they should have been held accountable for their ineptitude of the oil spill and was disappointed with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the matter, but do you punish them for their profits when they aren’t the ones who set the global price for crude oil? Would you force Bill Gates to pay a windfall profits tax if you were tired of paying $400 for Microsoft Office? Neither would I, and you shouldn’t force the oil companies to do the same. Barack Obama would. Speaking of energy, I really like this T. Boone Pickens fella. Natural gas and wind energy, along with drilling for our own oil will ensure our independence from foreign sources. Alaska, from what I’ve heard, has huge potential for geothermal energy as well. We should be exploring EVERY viable option!!

John McCain’s father was an Admiral in the US Navy. His grandfather – yeah, he was an Admiral, too. They were the first father-son combination in US history to both reach that rank. That’s what I call an inheritance.

Barack Obama will institute socialized healthcare. I would encourage anyone who thinks the Canadian healthcare system is a model for the US to follow to read these articles: city-journal.org, wordpress.com. I know a few Canadians, and they all say that when it comes to the simple stuff - flu shots, broken bones, etc. the Canadian health care system works well. But when it comes to complicated medical issues, anyone who can comes to America. Why? Because although there are flaws in it, our healthcare system is the best in the world.

And what does Obama think of white people? Check this out. I highly suggest people educate themselves on Black Liberation Theology. It isn't good.


Obamanomics

In 1980, the top 1% of wage earners in this country paid 19% of the tax burden. In 2000, that number was up to 37%. Today, that number is 39%. Anyone who claims that George Bush has lowered taxes on the wealthy is either ignorant or a liar.

Housing crisis? Some think that once again, George Bush is to blame. It’s all too easy to blame him these days, isn’t it? Not this time. I address this in a blog earlier this week.

Barack Obama used to say that people earning under $250k a year wouldn’t see a tax increase. Well, in his infomercial he’s lowered that to $200k. His running mate has said that the number is actually $150k. Gov. Bill Richardson put it down to $120k. The proof is in the pudding, however. Barack Obama twice voted for tax increases on people who make just $42k a year.

Obama has now called those who don’t want higher taxes “selfish”. Income redistribution, or “spreading the wealth around”, as Obama puts it, is straight from the mind of Karl Marx. I’ve read The Communist Manifesto and I would encourage others to do the same. This is really the crux of why I’m voting for McCain. Simply put, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Of course, if you’re not a Christian, what the Bible says probably doesn’t matter. But I am a Christian, so it matters to me. Christ said, “You will always have the poor among you…” (John 12:8a). He didn’t say “you’ll have them for a while and then you’ll solve poverty”. He used the word “always”. When you look through the scriptures and see how we are to treat the poor (James 2 in particular) is there any reference to Rome, the government of the day, taking your money and then giving it to the poor? The point of giving to the poor is the act of giving out of free will. When a gift is given out of free will, it provides not just for those who receive the gift, but for those who give as well. When you are forced to give, how much satisfaction comes with it? How much compassion would one put into a “gift” for the poor when it’s the taxman that’s taking it?

Barack Obama will restore the inheritance tax and dividend taxes. And he’ll tax retirement accounts. That’s right – your 401(k) will no longer be a pre-tax deferment under Barack Obama.

I would contend that Barack Obama’s policies aren’t “change” at all, but retooled tenets of past socialistic efforts that didn’t work. I could probably write tons more on this, but I’ll stop here.

I think I’ve made my point.

Marxism, Part II

Earlier, I listed the first five tenets of Marxism. I'd like to now add the last five:

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State
8. Equal liability of all labor
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.

I want to briefly talk about number six and number ten.

When the "means of communication" is in the hands of the state, "Big Brother is watching" become more than just a punchline.

Well, number 10 seems harmless enough, doesn't it? When you read The Communist Manifesto, it becomes a little scarier. Here's how it reads:

"Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social."

Marx fully admits his disdain for parental rights. He believes the state can educate children better than parents and replaces "home education" with "social". Leon Trotsky said in 1932, "The majority of proletarian parents reconcile themselves to the loss of part of their parental authority the more readily as the state takes over the greater part of their parental cares."

If Obama is elected, you can count on home schooling to go by the wayside. You can count on private schools being regulated by the government and told what to teach and how to teach it.

More freedoms removed...

Doom and Gloom

In a typical Democrat manner, Barry Obama has predicted the next president will inherit a “significant recession”. Oh! Whatever shall we do? Well folks, in order for you to survive, you must – MUST – vote for Barack Obama, the savior of the world!! The Messiah. (Cue dramatic music) THE CHOSEN ONE!!

Well. Let’s get back to reality. Two years ago, the economy was fine. We, and I say “we” loosely, voted in a Democratically controlled Congress. Today, my 401(k) is in the shitter.

Let me share a few insights about the economy. If you were worth millions, and a perfect stranger came up to you and said, “I’ve got $1000 to my name, my credit rating is 400, and I want to own a home. Will you lend me the money?”, would the color of that person’s skin have any bearing on how fast you tell that fool to take a hike?

Me, neither.

The New York Times reported in 1999 that the Clinton Administration was pressing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into giving loans to people who couldn’t afford them.

And don't forget. Franklin Raines is one of Barack Obama's financial advisors.

And then there’s the one and only Barney Frank. Congressman Frank had himself a boyfriend, one Herb Moses. Herb Moses was the assistant director for product initiatives for Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, while his boy toy Barney was on the House Banking Committee, who has jurisdiction over Fannie. Conflict of interest, anyone? Republicans, and even President Clinton, tried to get more regulations on Fannie in the 1990’s and they were blocked by none other than Barney F-ing Frank. And he now has the balls to try and tell us that this mess is the Republican’s fault? Hats off to the Boston Globe for getting it right!!

Summing this all up quite brilliantly is Orson Scott Card… a Democrat.

Four days left, folks. Four days. If you haven't been praying yet, start now.

Constitution

With just about a week to go before the election, I'm going to hammer on some things I care deeply about.

First and foremost is the Constitution of the United States. One candidate calls it "flawed", which would lead me to believe that he wants to re-write it.

Guess who...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

Marxism, Part I

“Spread the wealth around”

With those four words, Barack Obama has revealed exactly what his plans are - income redistribution.

From The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx:

“…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.”

He continues…

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.”

Finally, the first five of his ten tenets of society:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.



What concerns me the most is that this class warfare that has been stoked for so long is going to lead us straight down a path that’s been tried before, with miserable results.

Marxism doesn’t work.

It never has.

Underwater sightings

Saw an octopus on Saturday. Just hanging out at the bottom of the ramp in Whittier. No one had any cameras, so we didn't get a picture, but it was cool to see. Chalk it up to another "hadn't seen that before" for me.


Here's an interesting article from the NY Post.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm

The Dems are planning a full frontal attack on the 1st Amendment. They can't win on the radio waves, so they'll just shut people up in the name of "Fairness". If we applied "Fairness" to the publicly funded PBS, publicly funded university classrooms, and your nightly news, I'd be in favor of it.