Our Racist President

Another subject deserving a post: Everyone's read about the dustup between the Cambridge, MA cop and the Professor of African American Studies at Harvard. And also the off the cuff response of our president. Here is a pretty good summary of events.
You all know how Professor Gates, you know, the elite super-genius professor at elite Harvard University, who is doubtlessly way way way more intelligent than you or I, spouted off to the cop who was investigating reports of a break-in at the house. In fact, Gates had been breaking in because his lock was broken from a previous break-in. I can see how someone's natural reaction would be to get pissed off by a cop asking for your ID in your own home, but the supergenius should have known to just cooperate and get it over with, and then sue the cops later if necessary. Instead, he showed who the racist was by being a great big one himself. Calling the cop a racist for doing his job, making jokes about the cops mother, etc. In either a fit of stupidity, or in a desperate ploy by this elitist to 'be real' he kept mouthing off until the cops were forced to haul him off. Note the black cop in the forground. He completely backed up Sgt Crowley's actions, as did another black cop on the scene. So, we see that Professor Gates is a racist Race Hustler, just like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright. No real big surprise there. No real big surprise that an elitist would act like an idiot in a real world situation either.

The real surprise is the response of our scary smart, post racial president,

"Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. ...Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly."

So our post-racial president's first reaction is to think that race played a role in what happened. He then went and accused the Cambridge police of acting stupidly, even though he admitted he didn't know the facts. Two humungous WOWs there. His natural inclination is to think racism. And is stupid enough to say so publicly, and blame the cops. Our president. Beyond disgusting, but not terribly surprising, seeing that...the racist Race Mongering professor is his friend. Wow, whoda thunk? Professor Gates, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers. Nice group of friends and mentors you got there. Good to know their own professed beliefs had no affect on you, that you are above all that. Behold our Racist-in-Chief:


By the way, the black cops who backed up Sgt Crowley are probably the real heroes in this incident. And I hope Crowley demanded apologies from Obama and Gates while they had their beers together today.

Health Care Debate

RTP has been pretty quiet about the health care debate. It's a complicated subject requiring lots of research to really comment intelligently. There are many blogs out there doing a great job of it. I am not motivated to do an in-depth report on it, but my feelings are summed up like this

(and no, I'm not going to provide link-backup to what I say!):

85% of the US has health care that is adequate if not good, and much better than most countries in the world, including those like the UK and Canada that have universal healthcare. A large percentage of the remaining people are illegal aliens, who are owed absolutely nothing by taxpaying Americans. Another large percentage of the remaining are young adults who choose not to have healthcare. Melkor is an example. They don't have a permanent job at this time, and are having fun, going to school, adventuring, whatever. He could have a job right now, but chooses not to, and that's fine. But, nobody should owe him healthcare because of his own decision. That leaves a small percentage of America without healthcare who do want it. This is unfortunate, but it is not right to supress the economy by increasing taxes and bloating government beauracracy, and lower the quality of healthcare for the vast majority of Americans for a small minority of people. And, though this is somewhat crass and cruel, those without healthcare can go to an emergency room if it comes to that and they won't be turned away.

My opinion. That's all.

Belated Independence Day Wish

I saw this a while ago; sorry for the late posting!

Never disrespect the ALMIGHTY!

Is Sarah Palin, the shinning beacon of conservatism, a conservative or a modern day progressive similar to Theodore Roosevelt?

(I know the theme is old, but it is coming from a new source.) This was sparked by hearing Sarah Palin stating in her farewell address that America is a democracy and her earlier remarks and actions about returning the oil wealth back to the people of Alaska. Democracy means people rule; the belief that America is a democracy has helped to destroy freedom and helped to bring about a larger government and, ultimately, leads to tyranny. Roosevelt was a big progressive that helped carry America towards bigger government. Her statements fit within the shift in the nature of our government that Theodore Roosevelt helped to implement and has been occurring these past one hundred years. Read Roosevelt's speech _the Right of the people to rule_. Roosevelt remarked once, " to hell with the constitution when people want coal." You have to read some of his speeches, some are motivating, to see the shift in the nature of our government that he helped to bring about in order to be able to see how Palin might carry on the same shift in our government as shown by her remark about America being a democracy beliefs regarding oil companies in Alaska.

Some excerpts from Roosevelt's speech that illustrates the shift in the nature of the American government, "Mr. Taft again and again, in quotations I have given and elsewhere through his speech, expresses his disbelief in the people when they vote at the polls. In one sentence he says that the proposition gives "powerful effect to the momentary impulse of a majority of an electorate and prepares the way for the possible exercise of the grossest tyranny." Elsewhere he speaks of the "feverish uncertainty" and "unstable determination" of laws by "temporary and changing majorities"; and again he says that the system I propose "would result in suspension or application of constitutional guaranties according to popular whim," which would destroy "all possible consistency" in constitutional interpretation. "Well-meaning, short-sighted persons have held up their hands in horror at my proposal to allow the people themselves to construe the constitution which they themselves made...
"Until within the last sixty years they were treated as having specific meanings; "property" meant tangible property; "liberty" meant freedom from personal restraint, or, in other words, from imprisonment in its largest definition. About 1870 our courts began to attach to these terms new meanings. Now "property" has come to mean every right of value which a person could enjoy, and "liberty" has been made to include the right to make contracts[read the appendix: Man's rights in _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for a better explanation]...the political history of man may be grouped about these three terms, "life, liberty, and property." There is no act of government which cannot be brought within their definition, and if the courts are to cease to treat them as words having a limited, specific meaning, then our whole government is brought under the practically irresponsible supervision of judges[ this statement is aimed at destroying the foundation and basis of judicial review which is necessary to maintain the rule of law which this in turn is necessary to prevent an arbitrary rule of some leader, see _The Constitution of liberty_ to better understand this]."
(William Draper Lewis supporting Roosevelt):[ If a persistent majority of the people of New York State want a workman's compensation act, they should have it...."I would have been very proud to have been the author of that plan, although I want to emphasize the fact that it involves no new principle, only a new method....
"Friends, our task as Americans is to strive for social and industrial justice, achieved through the genuine rule of the people. This is our end, our purpose. The methods for achieving the end are merely expedients, to be finally accepted or rejected according as actual experience shows that they work well or ill....
"We stand for 'the rule of the many in the interest of all of us,[collectivism]
for the rule of the many in a spirit of courage, of common sense, of high purpose, above all in a spirit of kindly justice toward every man and every woman."
(This is a deep topic and I want to read some books that were written about this. Hopefully from these quotes one can catch the drift in the change the Roosevelt proposed--a larger more active government.)

This is a transcript of the Hannity and Colmes show showing how Palin wants to return the oil wealth back to the people. I first heard this a while ago and it sparked my interest.
HANNITY: The average citizen — if I was a resident of Alaska, you would write me a check every year for $2,069?
PALIN: Well, depending on how the stock market is doing. Over the last five years — an average.
HANNITY: And then you also gave recently an extra check for $1,200?
PALIN: I did. Because the price of a barrel of oil is so high right now that state coffers are growing, but the family's checkbook is being decimated because of the high cost of energy.
HANNITY: I have to move to Alaska. New York taxes are killing me.
PALIN: Well, what we're doing up there is returning a share of resource development dollars back to the people who own the resources. And our constitution up there mandates that as you develop resources it's to be for the maximum benefit of the people, not the corporations, not the government, but the people of Alaska." Who determines if it is being developed for the maximum benefit of the people? The government will determine this. The government can use this "benefit of the people" excuse to control a energy source and increase the its power and influence.

Palin talking about oil companies developing Alaska's oil resources in her farewell address said, "we now insist that those who hold leases to develop our[Alaska's] resources that they do so now on Alaska's terms." A business operating on the government's terms. This was a big theme in _Atlas Shrugged_.

According to the Alaskan constitution the oil does belong to the people. The question is if that is the way things should be? An interesting fact is that the more oil companies have to pay the government to develop oil the more they charge for it. So those "checks" that are given to the Alaskan people just cancel themselves out and increase the cost of oil for everybody else who buys the oil. So the government owns a resource and demands that a business develop it according to its terms and charges fees for it that is passed on to the consumer.

The problem is that the developed oil doesn't belong to the people. It takes a private oil company to come along and develop these resources using private capital and private knowledge. Without the efforts of the oil companies, the oil just stays in the ground and is of no use to the Alaskan people or anyone else. Ayn Rand on talking about the property status of airwaves in _Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal_ chap 10': "Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort should be private property--by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort."

Although Palin is certainly more conservative than just about any other elected Republican, the main point of this is to illustrate that she will continue the big government tide that has been advancing and occasionally receding these past 100 years or so in our country--she has a streak of progressivism, and if elected to a national office she will continue the progress of the shift that our country and the world has been and is headed towards. The shinning beacon of conservatism holds these progressive beliefs. Whether under conservatism or liberalism, the slow and gradual direction that we are headed does not change. I could be wrong about this. I just don't agree with her premise about telling oil companies how to do business and returning the oil wealth back to the Alaskan people. I also don't agree with her statement about America being a Democracy. I know the theme is old but it is worth noting, in my opinion. It seems to me that in order for one to be elected to the Presidency they must hold certain beliefs.

Fair Weather Fans?

Baseball season is getting interesting and I'm happy to report that RTP's very own Seattle Mariners are still in the thick of the post season hunt. My wife and I are so excited that we are actually going to a REAL LIVE GAME at Safeco this upcoming wednesday.

This season though, has made me realize that Connolly's accusations of me being a fair weather baseball fan were true. A couple years back Connolly said that you are only a true fan if you can name your starting lineup and all your bull pen. Not to mention have just as much passion for those shitty seasons.

I used to think that I was a real fan but now I am feeling a little doubt. I can name the Mariners starting line up and the bull pen but this is the first year that I am confident in doing that. This along with the fact that this is the first year in a long time that we are in the position that we are in makes me believe that I am only a fan when the Mariners are doing well. Maybe my new passion for the team will carry over to the inevitable bad seasons that will follow and redeem my fanhood.

I can say, however, that I am a true fan of the Blazers and the Seahawks. I stood by the Hawks during every pathetic game last year and never faltered. I will also give the new Timbers an attempt.

I understand that some people have different lives and don't meddle in worshiping millionaires playing a game. But can anyone else on RTP say that they are a real fan of any sports team? And if not, were you ever?

Are the American people turning against President Obama's agenda.

I read an article stating that President Obama approval numbers are lower than Jimmy Carter's were at the same point in Carter's Presidency. And I read an article from Dick Morris stating that Obama is loosing power due to the lost of support from the American people. People's opinion might be changing.

Maybe Obama has tried to push his big government agenda too far and people are stopping to take a closer look at the legislation he is trying to pass. I think the Democrats are trying to throw a lot of stuff at the wall and hoping some of it sticks. The health care and cap and trade bills will definitely have a major impact on Americans' lives and are both a major step towards a centrally planned economy. This might be some signs of hope, but Obama and the Democrats are still in control and are still capable of enacting most of their agenda. The public support might force them to limit some of the things they can do. I continue to believe that the Republican will take back power but only after some major changes have occurred in the fabric and structure of our Country. The things done by this President will have forever changed America, much like FDR did. Overall, some glimmers of hope.