Obama’s “Economic Justice”

Standard

Conservative talk show hosts are jumping on Barack Obama’s words in a YouTube video of a 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview. Now Conservative talk show hosts are just like Legislators — you can’t trust them to tell the entire truth — don’t listen to them . . . listen to Obama: In this interview, Obama spoke very clearly of redistribution of wealth, how it was not addressed by the Warren Court, how he felt that was a failure of the court and how he felt it could best be accomplished through legislation.

That’s bad — very bad! Redistribution of wealth is a Marxist idea and should not even be a consideration in this country — yet Obama doesn’t say anything like that — instead, he seems upset that the court never got that “radical.”

Perhaps as bad (in the sense that it changes our entire way of life) Obama speaks of their failure to address “more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.” I’m not sure what he meant by political justice — it seems to me that political justice is the biggest success of the civil rights movement. His phrase “economic justice,” however, leaves little room for interpretation in the context of this discussion.

Again, economic justice (same as redistribution of wealth) is not what the United States is about. Americans work long and hard to bring a paycheck home — those who can’t or don’t work rely on the charity of others and there is LOTS of charity in the United States — that’s the way it always has been and that’s the way it should be. THAT’S economic justice!

Here’s the complete quote I’ve been talking about (just so you don’t think I’ve taken his words out of context):

“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay; but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties.”

There is more and it is all pretty much the same — the entire audio/video of his words can be found in that YouTube video HERE

If this doesn’t make it clear to you what Obama is all about you apparently just don’t want to know . . . OR maybe you like that idea — the idea of riding through life on the backs of others. Unfortunately a large portion of our society (certainly far from the majority) has devolved into the “give to me” generation. They feel that they have a right to government handouts . . . and, you know what? Many legislators (perhaps most) agree with that.

No, these legislators don’t really give a crap for poor people; what they’re after is more power over our lives and more government control of our resources (again back to Marxist ideology). These legislators are in both political parties and in the middle as well and they’re there because WE put them there. They promised us this and that and we fell for it — everybody loves a freebie and we, every two years, are promised lots of freebies.

It’s time to remake the Legislature and the only way we can do that is, in this election, vote out every currently seated Senator or Congressman who supports Obama and preaches the Obama mantra of “change.” Take your country back and don’t just look for change — look for candidates who want our country ‘changed back’ into the country we once lived in.

Change can be good or it can be bad — the Change Senator Obama wants is very unhealthy for America.

News Links:

New York Times: McCain Campaign Cites Comments in 2001 on Courts in Attack on Obama

AFP McCain reignites Obama ‘socialist’ claim over 2001 interview

Blog Links:

From the Left: Jonathan Martin at Politico.com: Right-wing machine seizes on Obama “redistribution” comment

From the Right: National Review Bench Memos: Obama’s 2001 Interview about Using Court to Redistribute Wealth

Advertisements

Ben Stein’s Movie: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”

Standard

Ben Stein’s new movie Expelled (see the trailer and other movie clips HERE) is basically about the war going on in scientific circles between pure evolutionists (Darwinians) and those scientists that feel that Intelligent Design (ID) should be considered a valid area for scientific study.

Stein’s movie uses the Berlin Wall as a symbol that represents the division between these two sides — that’s a rather over-dramatic metaphor but, considering the viciousness of the dialogue between the two sides in this scientific standoff, it’s not entirely inappropriate.

What IS inappropriate, however, is the lengths he (Stein) has stretched the metaphor. He continually brings images of Nazis into the film and even devotes one portion of the film to the Nazi Germany program where 15,000 mentally and physically handicapped people were exterminated after being judged to be “useless eaters.” This program of Hitler’s Germany, and indeed almost every atrocity of Hitler’s Germany, was based on his twisted interpretations of the part of Darwin’s Theory of the Evolution that speaks to ‘survival of the fittest’ (natural selection) in nature. While Stein may or may not have told lies in this movie, his overt attempt to ‘paint’ today’s Darwinians with the same brush as Adolph Hitler is far beyond the bounds of decency — bounds that Ben Stein claims to prescribe to.

The centerpiece of this argument between the Darwinians and the “Designers” is, of course, religion. The Darwinians automatically jumped to the conclusion that the “Designer” in the Intelligent Design Theory is God — the very same God that stars (albeit behind the scenes) in ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told;’ their conclusion is, however, flawed (at least in my opinion).

Personal Observations

The way I see it, Intelligent Design is not about religion or the Bible or about the God of the Bible. It is simply an exploration into the proposition that complex life forms like us and the other life forms found on our planet were not just the results of random acts of nature — that there MAY have been an intelligent force behind our creation (personally, I don’t see how it could have been otherwise). This is suggested in the movie but one gets the feeling that neither the scientists or Ben Stein fully understand it. I understand it and personally feel that ID is (or could at least lead to) evolution’s missing link. That will never happen, however, until Darwinians stop acting like the schoolyard bullies who own the schoolyard.

One person interviewed in Stein’s movie freely admitted that allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design Theory in our schools might open the door for the teaching of Creationism. He might be right but, more than likely, as Left Wing as our universities are, Creation theory stands little chance of even getting it’s virtual foot in the door and that’s fine with me — I am neither a biblical Creationist nor a Darinian).

Recommendations:

‘Google’: “Ben Stein’s Expelled”. On the results page you will see attack after attack on this movie. Attacks by Scientific American, attacks by avowed Darwinians, and even attacks by some of the people who were interviewed in this movie (I guess they either didn’t like the final result or they were bullied into refuting their role in the movie).

If you have heard Ben Stein’s radio advertisement for his movie; try to put it out of your mind. The hype and misdirection of that radio ad is shameful — instead, see the trailer page linked above.

If you have any interest (vested or otherwise) in either the Darwinian Theory or Intelligent Design, this movie is a must see. Also interesting is Stein’s interviews with avowed, fervent atheists who won’t even consider anything as valid if the word Creation is used.

If you are looking for a reason to hate Darwinians — this is also the movie for you. Darwinians are treating the Design advocates very shabbily and are acting paranoid (as evidenced by the results of that Google search); Stein brings these facts into a very bright spotlight. He also, as I said before, shamelessly demonizes them.

If neither Darwinian Theory or Intelligent Design Theory interests you, don’t even bother renting the movie. You’ll be asleep long before its over.`

Our Impending Attitude Adjustment

Standard

Whichever candidate finally leaps (or crawls) to victory on this election day you can bet on this: his presidency will look nothing like the picture he is painting today!

Reality will set in and the next four years will be driven not by the candidate’s plans, wishes, dreams or promises, but by the hard realities of our National debt, our depressed economy, International tensions, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the freak who acts as mouthpiece for the Ayatollahs in Iran, the less-desirable whims of Kim Jong-Il and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and the hundreds of other potential disasters that “ping” the White House every day.

After the massive bailouts, if the new president acts responsibly, there will be little or no money for the new programs and/or incentives he is promising today; on the other hand, if the new president is irresponsible out National debt may grow to a point that we will, for all intents and purposes, be owned by the countries who have loaned us the money to continue functioning — most notably China.

Who should Govern?

I am admittedly biased against an Obama presidency because of his socialist tendencies and because of the fact that, even as a Junior Senator, he has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate (BTW: that is a documented fact, not just an idle claim of the Republican Party. Under an Obama presidency, I’m firmly convinced, the next 4 years could get very ugly.

BUT

I also dread a McCain presidency because, besides being a maverick, he is also the great compromiser. John McCain can find the good side in any bad argument. I’m not saying that McCain is unprincipled, I’m suggesting that his principles are so broad that they will be able to encompass some unsavory choices. Under a McCain presidency, the next four years may not be too much better.

Attitude Adjustment

So whatever the next four yours bring, I’m in for an Attitude Adjustment because, whatever happens I have no choice but to accept it and try to make the best of it. That, however, is not to say that I will not protest loudly in e-mails, calls, letters and blog posts — I realize that government changes very slowly, but a good public outcry tends to speed it up.

I would bet that, after the January inauguration you’ll find yourself in the exact same position.

Just as a personal note: I’ve found that 12 to 24 ounces of my favorite malt beverage every night after work (never more than that) makes lifes little transitions much easier and some say that it’s even ‘good for you.’.

Here Comes That Damned Federal Marriage Amendment Again!

Standard

Sarah Palin — and people like her — make me so damn mad! She (and they) believe that every citizen of the United States should be forced by law to conform to HER OWN PERSONAL moral code.

Earlier this week, in an interview, she came out in support of the proposed (Proposed by “W” in 2004) CONSTITUTIONAL BAN on marriage between two people of the same sex.

I ask you, what the hell business is it of the United States government, Sarah Palin, George W. Bush or any state government for that matter, if two woman or two men want to get married to each other.

Does a gay marriage interfere with anyone’s rights?

NO!

Does anyone loose any property when two gay people decide they want to be married?

NO!

Does gay marriage put anyone out of work or take money out of their bank accounts?

No, of course not!

So is it anyone’s business?

NO!

I’ll tell you what it apparently does do — although I really don’t understand why — it apparently scares people!

Perhaps it makes them doubt their own sexuality; or perhaps it makes them doubt that what their mommy and daddy and their priest or preacher told them about marriage is true.

WELL SORRY ABOUT THAT FOLKS! You’ve been told a lot of lies in your life and its about time you start questioning them — and there are lots of archaic laws and customs being foisted on you — it’s about time you questioned them too.

Why Marriage Licenses?

According to Wikipedia: “The requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying.”

That “overriding right” is, of course, a presumed right and it has been questioned and challenged over the years but common sense will, unfortunately, never make a dent in judicial fiat.

Its interesting to note that issuing a license implies that no one has the “right” to marry it is a privilege given to you by your state. It is also interesting to note that throughout history the refusal to issue a marriage license was a weapon used by the church and later by the government to prevent marriages that were considered inappropriate — in the early part of the 20th Century in the US, the marriage license was used in this way to prevent interracial marriages.

What the hell good is all this talk of freedom and liberty if adults cannot legally make their own decisions regarding who they will share their lives with?

Sorry Sarah — I love you as a potential VP but you really suck as a marriage councilor.