Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Values vs Rules

If you were going to design a perfect society where would you begin? What characteristics define a perfect society? In futuristic movies you see a multicultural (sometimes multi species) caricature of society all getting along, all perusing peace, all with what may seem like the same values.
Is a perfect society founded on values or rules?
That question is easily answerable with the example of California. California is a state that is practically founded on “Progressive” ideas some of which were actually progressive for their time. However, California legislators have made a dangerous substitution, exchanging values for rules.
California legislators continue to stand between parents and children in their upbringing with the liberal agenda being pushing in the public schools system. Beyond that California and the federal government in some cases have minimized the role of parents and even more father in the family unit to such a degree that we now find legislation that mimic morality. Like a prostatic limb legislators have passed and forced laws that common sense was made for. More often than not these laws defy common sense.
That very inconsistency is the mud that law creates when values are absent. Abortion is legal but there is a limit to when you can abort? This inconsistent idea is a slap in the face of rational thought. Lawmakers are defining when life begins arbitrarily though legislation. This sends a mixed signal that right and wrong is completely subjective to who can afford a better arbitrator.
We now see moral issue after moral issue completely blurred because the legitimacy of those issues is up for debate. The irony, for example with same sex marriage is that people who want to maintain the sanctity of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman come from a moral and practical standpoint. How it is ironic is because advocates of same sex marriage declare that their opposition are bigots and homophobic. How can the accused moral down fall of a side by not acknowledging some twisted idea of equality even be relevant when this issue is up for debate only because the morality that was once universal is now obsolete? Obviously if morality is subjective to the majorities ideals then right and wrong, morality, or even ideas of equality are completely subjective and nobody has any rational base to stand on…
So again we have to defer to legislation to decide through deliberation.

Monday, August 9, 2010

Gay Marriage, Black Americans, and The Democrat’s Weapon of Mass Disparagement
(If you'd like to read the ruling)

What is one to say about this over turning of the will of the people with the recent ruling by Judge Walker concerning California's Proposition 8? Should I begin by listing the friends I have that are homosexual to absolve myself from bigotry? Should I site the list of dishonest associations to the past civil rights struggles of black Americans that supposedly legitimize the claims of the proponents of same sex marriage? The very mention of the black American's struggle for civil rights as if this is history repeated makes a dishonest comparison that not only discounts the history of black Americans, since their claim in no way elevates that of black Americans but also the comparison asserts homosexuals a supposed "minority group" status in America. We see yet again, that the plight of black Americans being used for the benefit of the political Left... It begs the question why would any Democrat in leadership want to help the black Americans of this country? It's obvious that the disposition and victim status of black Americans serves the Left without end.

(In case I didn't say that clear enough; if the Democrat leadership actually got out of the way of the needed healing of this country for the status of black Americans, they would forfeit their most valuable weapon, i.e. black victimization and social unease.)

There is an underground movement in this country by a loud fringe minority that comes from the abandonment of common sense. People have rewritten The Declaration of Independence from, "all men are created equal..." to read, "all groups are created equal". Which stands as the first victory for the same sex marriage movement. The status of "minority group" gave homosexuals an association, which they use to their advantage. It is because of that 'slight of hand' that we are forced to have this discussion explaining the difference between the struggle for black American's civil rights and homosexuals right to marriage. Yet again, we visit a reopening of that old wound of black Americans suffering, which serves its purpose for The Left. It does the job it has done for similar Leftist issues. It plants the seed of guilt for those who would object to homosexual marriage by making the association with the black American’s history of discrimination, which in-turn becomes silence by those who would speak out against it... which basically equals support for homosexual marriage. Evidence of that is the number of witnesses both sides of the case brought to the stand. Witnesses 'for same sex marriage': 16, witnesses protecting The Constitutional Amendment: 2...

Every advocate of same sex marriage knows that America does not agree with their self-proclaimed minority status, nor do Americans empathize with the actual issue of the "right" to marry. But, they know that they don't need the support of Americans... The advocates of homosexual marriage only need to control the conversation. To insure that and because of those two facts the advocates of gay marriage tie themselves to the much larger universally accepted issue of civil rights for black Americans. This wound is left festering in today’s politics by fools like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; adding insult to injury, more recently by our President in his silence. Barrack Obama if he put America first he would be condemning the idea that attacks on his administration are based in racism. The racial divide in America serves Obama’s agenda as it serves the Left. Again, The Left understands that their power comes from the unease of black Americans so they make sure to fuel that whenever they need any reinvigoration in their party.

Advocates of homosexual marriage need to deliver guilt to their opponents. They have successfully created a false premise saying that it took courts to legalize the right for interracial marriage and desegregation; comparing that to California's overwhelming support for Prop 8, which is intellectually dishonest (to use nice words)... (The Prop 8 bill was rewritten by California's Attorney General, W. Brown. His revision read that voting "Yes" for proposition 8 was saying that you "want to TAKE AWAY the rights for homosexuals to marry. This ballot measure was created due to the 2008 California Supreme Courts over turning of the year 2000 ballot measure Prop 22, defining marriage between one man and one woman.)

The false premise is asserting that courts were the reason desegregation started not to mention, implying that they were ahead of the moral curve compared to main stream Americans in its desire to make it federal law that no state can make any laws that racially discriminates. If you didn’t know better you would think that the integration of black Americans into public schools on the news in the 60’s were the first to desegregate, when in fact they were some of the last.

Still, The Left tries to own the title of “people’s champ”, when in fact they have been on the wrong side of history in almost every case they pretend to champion. It’s almost unbelievable that Democrats use imagery of past black American injustice to promote their future initiatives, when in fact; the past injustices they claim to abhor were prolonged as well as endorsed by their own party’s obstructionism. Historically if Democrats did not stand in the way of Conservatives, slavery would have ended sooner, desegregation would have happened faster, and we would be that much closer to the dream where men would be measured by the content of there character not by the color of their skin opposite of what this present administration would like with its reinvestment into racial quotas.

Judge Walker, who delivered his verdict, ruled that the defense of Prop 8 did not show sufficient evidence to support the claims that homosexual marriage would undermine traditional marriage, or that same sex marriage was in anyway harmful to the developing psyche of kids brought up in that environment. (I have to digress yet again...ironically, the Left would seem to be masters of predicting calamity, from cel phone brain tumors, breast implant seepage, a heterosexual AIDS epidemic, widespread homelessness, over population, to man-made Global Warming™. Why this is ironic is because the arguments for these hysterical issues are always left to Conservatives to 'prove the negative'. Conservatives (for the most part) have to, "prove the world will not end by toxic levels of man produced carbon emissions in the year 2050..." Yet, when it comes to our ability to have them prove a negative that is much more likely, proof that this will not damage traditional marriage, the foundation of our civilization or the developmental psyche of kids into adulthood... we get an unwavering, very objective response from Judge Walker saying that Supporters of traditional marriage "did not supply sufficient evidence" to prove that their will be damage to society with the legitimization of same sex marriage... Shouldn't advocates of gay marriage have to prove that their desires for same sex marriage will not serve as a detriment to society? Not in this backwards world. But widespread destruction by man-made emissions... this is practically a "fact"... (We are told that there is consensus on the issue when only a fraction of scientists adhere to such claims).

It is of note that the unique situation of Judge Walker (who was a Reagan appointee) is in fact homosexual. Why this is of note is because striking down the claim of advocates for same sex marriage puts him in a potential conflict of interest. The reasons stated earlier in this piece for his judgment (of not finding sufficient evidence that gay marriage would damage two pillars in America, one being traditional marriage and the second, being future generations)... If he had ruled in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as ‘one man, one woman’, it could be interpreted to himself that he would be admitting that their may be a moral issue at hand, further that a society is handicapped by his own personal core desires... Could it be understood that a homosexual man declaring that same sex marriage is not beneficial for a society cause him to question the root and legitimacy of his sexual orientation?

How can this possibly be reconciled? Ah... the magic question... Judge Walker declared that "morality was not the issue but legality is..." (paraphrased)

If one is to a measure of all the double standards of The Left, that person might find that those double standards are innumerable. Leftists do not believe in logic or morality or reason... Their values lie in emotion. It is not a double standard to The Left to capitalize on the historical moral mistreatment of black Americans to further their cause but then declare that morality plays no role in the governing factors of the right to marry.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Power To the People

I find myself wondering about death every now and then... You see on the news or read in history, or even see in movies of some historical event of some way someone died... I think about the soldiers on D Day or the passengers of the Titanic... people who knew death was coming well before it came... what thoughts went through their heads... did they find some peace in knowing there was nothing they could do? Did they struggle?

Today we watch our country take blow after blow against the very foundations of what the United States has stood for... We see a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the very court that will be interpreting The Constitution, completely disregarding its principles... Evading every question, lying about her beliefs... We see a Republican Party more dedicated to decorum that the future of this country.

We have a president, sitting on his hands during disasters, continually blaming capitalism and low taxes for the recession that his administration is prolonging and making worse. We see him bypassing our Constitution, race baiting immigration issues, pulling at the loose threads of our society as if he is a righteous cancer inflicted on the villain...

Where are we today... Those who rise up are called racists (Tea Party)... We have a bold spokesmen in Sarah Palin who is completely shut down by media, debased as a fool while our Vice President Joe Biden seems to be weekly competing for "America's dumbest leader"...

From extreme left wing, socialist, anti capitalist, anti-American political leaders, unions, educators, journalists... Where do we go as a people?

It is not enough to win in November! It is a fight for generations ahead of us. There needs to be a movement that creates commissions to investigate "climate change", the Governments involvement with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, Goldman Sacks. A commission investigating Barney Franks involvement with the housing crisis, a commission investigating exactly where the stimulus money went. A commission on the response time of the Government's reaction to the Gulf spill... And a commission on the seizing of the bonds of GM from private owners and the handing over of ownership to the auto workers union.

We cannot say that Barack Obama sitting on his hands in crisis is offensive if we do the same without acting to change this corrupt government...

Friday, January 22, 2010

Social Justice Versus the American Dream

There are some phrases in pop culture that we hear but never take any moments to consider or digest. Like a blemish or scar these phrases slowly become commonplace in conversation by public leaders used without any real definition but instead to just convey a general negative happening that the speaker is describing… We saw that with the term “climate change”… it was introduced as an alternative to the much too specific descriptive “Global Warming” so not to be bound by any specific language like “warming”. That little parsing of words allowed for the fanaticism of the environmentally religious to ascribe any noteworthy meteorigical event to be yet more examples of the “damage” being done to the Earth by expansion of the free market.
In the spirit of slippery language (brought to you by Liberals/Statists, known more commonly as Democrats) we come to yet another divisive phrase to be added to the newspeak of the Liberal’s lexicon… As always this new phrase has been made to be stretched and bent, pulled and pushed to mean just about anything so that Democrats can prop up one more fabricated dragon to be slain. However, in using addition by subtraction we are able to define the latest and greatest from the anti–American crowd’s phrase “Social Justice”…

Like any well thought out political phrase it has its positive sound… After all how can “justice” be associated with anything negative? The word justice implies that there is some objective gage in which to measure an issue, and, that gage is a universally shared value. Ironically when Liberals use word like “justice” they are betraying their core ideology of relativism… For them to assert anything like an objective moral truth would cause them to abandon the whole of their thinking…
Yet “social justice” is the new buzzword among the harbingers of victimization.

Social justice is Communism just the same as environmentalism is. The idea implies that you (the individual) are victims of the wealthy, of industry, and you haven’t been given the opportunities that you’re entitled to. The antidote (according to Democrat leaders) is to use your vote to tax (take by force) from industry and the “rich” so that the Government can then create programs that give the downtrodden the chance to take the life that was stolen. Implying the victimization of individuals, further asserting that need for government in each person’s life.

So what happens if you do take that government hand out and you then become part of the enemy (also known as) “the rich”… I’m sorry my friend… you are then a “social criminal” and you get penalized for your success. Somehow lost is the fallacy in the premise of the entire assertion. Democrat leaders vilify the success of privileged-individuals and industries, accusing that their successes were only found by taking from you the unprivileged-individual and its up to the government to regulate and steal from them to offer a hand to the unprivileged-individual to reach that same success.
Simply put, Liberals motivate their constituents with the dreams of becoming who they also demonize.