Vice President Joe "Plugs" Biden, in rather obvious support of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, stated emphatically that Mubarak is NOT a dictator.
Stated Biden, "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with - with Israel. ... I would not refer to him as a dictator...".
Consider:
According to the U.S. State Department, Mubarak has the ability to transfer any criminal case from the civilian judicial system to a military court, and the use of torture by his officials is common. In recent months journalists have been jailed for “ insulting the president.” The U.S. gives Egypt $2 billion in aid a year, including $1.3 billion in military assistance.
Consider:
While in office, political corruption in the Mubarak administration's Ministry of Interior has risen dramatically, due to the increased power over the institutional system that is necessary to secure the prolonged presidency. Such corruption has led to the imprisonment of political figures and young activists without trials, illegal undocumented hidden detention facilities, and rejecting universities, mosques, newspapers staff members based on political inclination. On a personnel level, each individual officer can and will violate citizens' privacy in his area using unconditioned arrests due to the emergency law. Transparency International (TI) is an international organization addressing corruption, including, but not limited to, political corruption. In 2010, TI's Corruption Perceptions Index report assessed Egypt with a CPI score of 3.1, based on perceptions of the degree of corruption from business people and country analysts, with 10 being very clean and 0 being highly corrupt. Egypt ranked 98th out of the 178 countries included in the report.
Consider:
Egypt is a semi-presidential republic under Emergency Law (Law No. 162 of 1958) and has been since 1967, except for an 18-month break in 1980s. Under the law, police powers are extended, constitutional rights suspended and censorship is legalized. The law sharply circumscribes any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organizations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners run as high as 30,000. Under that "state of emergency", the government has the right to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for virtually no reason, thus keeping them in prisons without trials for any period. The government continues the claim that opposition groups like the Muslim Brotherhood could come into power in Egypt if the current government did not forgo parliamentary elections, confiscate the group's main financiers' possessions, and detain group figureheads, actions which are virtually impossible without emergency law and judicial-system independence prevention. Pro-democracy advocates in Egypt argue that this goes against the principles of democracy, which include a citizen's right to a fair trial and their right to vote for whichever candidate and/or party they deem fit to run their country.
A couple comments:
- The body of evidence, demonstrating conclusively (to normal, sentient people) that Mubarak IS indeed a dictator, reads like the list of crimes Liberals regularly ascribed to President Bush. Their conclusion: Bush is a dictator. But, somehow, the Uber-Liberal Biden doesn’t find this body of evidence convincing enough to accuse Mubarak of being a dictator. Hmmm….how about that!?
- Veep Biden, during his 10,000 years career as a US Senator, held a position on the Foreign Relations Committee. (Of course, this is also the idiot who, as a Senator for all those years, wasn’t aware that the Vice President of the United States also acted as the President of the Senate). One might wonder what the heck he was doing all those years, since it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t paying much attention to his jobs…..
Folks, Biden is simply being both “a Biden” and a Liberal; supporting dictatorships’ efforts to crush democratic movements.
Shameful.
Hirota: OUT!
Friday, January 28, 2011
Did you ever notice......
...how Obama never compares himself to Jimmy Carter?
Jimmy, I always thought, was a HERO to Liberals (I thought this because Liberals keep saying it...and praising him to no end)? According to Liberals, Carter is a GREAT man. So, I really don't get it...WHY won't Obama campare himself to Carter!?!? Instead, he compares himself to Kennedy (failure in foreign policy, addicted to prescription meds, lots of prostitutes parading through the White House, etc...BUT...ALSO loved by Liberals).
Most astonishing is his comparison to President Reagan, who is HATED by Liberals.
It is breathtaking to me that Obama, along with his media lapdogs, would even attempt such a comparison, since Reagan and Obama are as opposite as two people can be.
Can you imagine Obama as a tax cutter? A public sector shrinker? A FEARLESS foreign policy leader? A strong military supporter? A fearless protector of the unborn? A supporter of democratic movements around the world? A staunch supporter of ANYONE who risked their own lives to rise up against oppresive regimes?
No, there's no real, serious, comparison here. In fact, it's very difficult to refrain from laughing hysterically...
In fact, the only thing I can really do, with regard to Obama's attempt to apprear "Reaganesque", is to quote the great Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers' character in "Murder by Death"), in reaction to a theory posed by Nick Charleston (David Niven). Said Wang, giggling in reaction, "Is stupid. Is most stupid theory I ever heard!"
Hirota: OUT!
Jimmy, I always thought, was a HERO to Liberals (I thought this because Liberals keep saying it...and praising him to no end)? According to Liberals, Carter is a GREAT man. So, I really don't get it...WHY won't Obama campare himself to Carter!?!? Instead, he compares himself to Kennedy (failure in foreign policy, addicted to prescription meds, lots of prostitutes parading through the White House, etc...BUT...ALSO loved by Liberals).
Most astonishing is his comparison to President Reagan, who is HATED by Liberals.
It is breathtaking to me that Obama, along with his media lapdogs, would even attempt such a comparison, since Reagan and Obama are as opposite as two people can be.
Can you imagine Obama as a tax cutter? A public sector shrinker? A FEARLESS foreign policy leader? A strong military supporter? A fearless protector of the unborn? A supporter of democratic movements around the world? A staunch supporter of ANYONE who risked their own lives to rise up against oppresive regimes?
No, there's no real, serious, comparison here. In fact, it's very difficult to refrain from laughing hysterically...
In fact, the only thing I can really do, with regard to Obama's attempt to apprear "Reaganesque", is to quote the great Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers' character in "Murder by Death"), in reaction to a theory posed by Nick Charleston (David Niven). Said Wang, giggling in reaction, "Is stupid. Is most stupid theory I ever heard!"
Hirota: OUT!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Healthcare waivers???
I thought the new healthcare law was the "bees knees"? I thought Obamacare was the cureall for our "broken" healthcare system? I thought Obamacare was going to be "revenue neutral"? I thought Obamacare was going to save Americans TRILLIONS of dollars???
If that is the case, then I guess I have to wonder why this ENORMOUS list of companies (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html#state_mandated_policies) is being granted waivers?
If ALL of the above is true of Obamacare, there can be only ONE conclusion: these mean-spirited companies are out to SCREW their employees, by preventing them from having the new...GREATEST....healthcare!
To me, this list is a shopping list of "who not to support"....
Hirota: OUT!
If that is the case, then I guess I have to wonder why this ENORMOUS list of companies (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html#state_mandated_policies) is being granted waivers?
If ALL of the above is true of Obamacare, there can be only ONE conclusion: these mean-spirited companies are out to SCREW their employees, by preventing them from having the new...GREATEST....healthcare!
To me, this list is a shopping list of "who not to support"....
Hirota: OUT!
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
"Idiot of the Week" award
On occasion, I award special honors to folks who richly deserve the recognition. One of those awards is the "Idiot of the Week" award, which is given to individuals or groups who display a breathtaking level of stupidity.
So, this particular "Idiot of the Week" award goes to.....
ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT OBAMA WILL BREATHE A SINGLE WORD OF TRUTH IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS TONIGHT.
Folks, SOTU addresses are NOT about the truth. They are an extended campaign speech which, if you haven't figured it out yet, has nothing to do with truth. These speeches, ESPECIALLY in an idiot like Obama's case, are simply words he thinks YOU want to hear.
So, you'll hear about our recovering economy, the new direction in civil discourse, bringing both sides together to get America out of recession, blah blah blah....
So, if you are waiting with baited breath for "Christ's Second Coming" ("Blackie O's" husband, according to Joan Rivers) to say ANYTHING that will matter, you may include yourself in the list of recipients (all Liberals) of the "Idiot of the Week" award...
Congratulations!
So, this particular "Idiot of the Week" award goes to.....
ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT OBAMA WILL BREATHE A SINGLE WORD OF TRUTH IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS TONIGHT.
Folks, SOTU addresses are NOT about the truth. They are an extended campaign speech which, if you haven't figured it out yet, has nothing to do with truth. These speeches, ESPECIALLY in an idiot like Obama's case, are simply words he thinks YOU want to hear.
So, you'll hear about our recovering economy, the new direction in civil discourse, bringing both sides together to get America out of recession, blah blah blah....
So, if you are waiting with baited breath for "Christ's Second Coming" ("Blackie O's" husband, according to Joan Rivers) to say ANYTHING that will matter, you may include yourself in the list of recipients (all Liberals) of the "Idiot of the Week" award...
Congratulations!
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Where are the champions of "keep your laws off my body!"?
Where is NARAL? NOW? The ACLU? The ENTIRE Democratic Party? Barack "ok to kill them after delivery" Obama?
In the state of Colorado, legislation is being proposed (by a Democrat, go figure), which would automatically register ALL persons applying for ID's, registrations and licenses for organ donation. The applicant would have to check an "opt out" box to not be an automatic "volunteer".
So, here we have an ACTUAL example of government's intrusion into the sanctity of the "person", yet the breathtakingly ignorant groups who CLAIM such are nowhere to be found...
(btw, the difference between this case and the pro-abortion groups: in this case, an organ IS, ACTUALLY, part of the body; a child is a genetically separate entity and a genetically unique individual).
Once again, folks, here come the Liberals, who, with this effort, reduce persons to harvestable body parts factories....
Inhuman? Well, certainly, that's the intention...
Hirota: OUT!
In the state of Colorado, legislation is being proposed (by a Democrat, go figure), which would automatically register ALL persons applying for ID's, registrations and licenses for organ donation. The applicant would have to check an "opt out" box to not be an automatic "volunteer".
So, here we have an ACTUAL example of government's intrusion into the sanctity of the "person", yet the breathtakingly ignorant groups who CLAIM such are nowhere to be found...
(btw, the difference between this case and the pro-abortion groups: in this case, an organ IS, ACTUALLY, part of the body; a child is a genetically separate entity and a genetically unique individual).
Once again, folks, here come the Liberals, who, with this effort, reduce persons to harvestable body parts factories....
Inhuman? Well, certainly, that's the intention...
Hirota: OUT!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The New Slavery (A History of Legislated Discrimination)
Tim's note to readers:
You would think that this anniversary would be cause for celebration by Liberals. With each act, within the scope of the law, advocation of “individual, fundamental freedoms” and a triumph of “Women’s Rights”.
Yet, 51 MILLION abortions go unheralded; uncelebrated. Why?
January 22nd marks the anniversary of “Roe v Wade”: the Federalization of abortion law and wide-open door to the indiscriminate butchering of the most vulnerable in our society.
Happy Anniversary, Liberals. You must be VERY proud…
The New Slavery
Throughout the history of the United States, pieces of legislation have been drafted in direct violation of the Constitution and the other founding documents. These violations, almost always, come in the form of legislated discrimination. The Constitution itself seemed to support the rationale for some of these laws, which included (but were certainly not limited to) women, blacks (and other non-whites) banned from voting, the legality of slavery, etc.
But, in truth, the Constitution neither legalized nor advocated any of these.
Contrary to what is claimed by Democrats, there is no justification for slavery to be found in the Constitution. But, there is a very important reason for their claim: throughout American history, the greatest proponents and defenders of slavery (and other forms of legislated discrimination) have been…the Democratic Party. Rather, the Constitution merely recognized that slavery was “stare decisis”: settled, existing law.
The “3/5 Compromise”, as it is called (“…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”), does not discuss the race, creed, gender, etc, of those to be counted as “3/5 of a person”, directly conflicting with the Liberal claim to the contrary. In fact, it states SPECIFICALLY, that “…the whole Number of free Persons…” were to be counted for taxation and apportionment. This “whole Number” INCLUDED free blacks, living in non-slavery states. In their argument against the relevance of the Constitution, Liberals fail to mention this fact.
With regard to women not having the Right to vote, Liberals glom onto the phrase, stating that “…all MEN are created equal…”. But, in truth, this is like the bible verse, found in Matthew 18:21-22 “Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus said to him: I say not to you, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.” By similar interpretation, a Liberal should conclude that forgiveness need only happen 490 times. Obviously, this is not the case. Rather, “seven”, in biblical times, referred to an infinite number….Jesus saying that forgiveness must happen an “infinite times infinity” times. So it was in the early days, when “men” referred to ALL people…not just men.
It is therefore no real surprise to know that, even today, Democrats continue to pursue fundamental, legislated discrimination. Variously, issues from “hate crime” legislation and “Affirmative action” to our modern day progressive tax code and embryonic stem cell research and funding comprise merely the latest efforts by Democrats to continue their legacy of Democratically-legislated discrimination, seeking to qualify the citizenry, separating them based on race, creed, gender, gender-identity, stage of life, etc. In the most recent times (since 1973) the primary target of Democrat hostility and discrimination is the unborn and the partially born. In the case of our President, Senator Barbara Boxer and (shamefully) a few others, this hostility extends to some who are newly-born. (In the remarkable case of Boxer, hostility extends throughout a newborn’s stay in hospital.)
Any way you define it, abortion is The New Slavery.
A LEGACY OF LEGISLATED DISCRIMINATION
Our founding documents (The United States Constitution, Declaration if Independence and Bill of Rights), with regard to “equality”, are VERY clear:
“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.”
- The Declaration of Independence
Beyond the fact that the CLEAR intent in these words is to make clear, without question, that these rights are a) “unalienable” (unable to be taken away), b) begin at the moment a person is “created” and c) “endowed by our Creator” (“Creator” with a capital “C”). This statement also makes clear that “happiness” is NOT guaranteed. Rather, the “pursuit of happiness” is guaranteed. This is a critical distinction and lies at the root of not only the equality issue but also the Liberal pathway to legislated inequality.
I know of no one who makes the claim that racism, sexism or homophobia doesn’t exist. They do exist. To deny this truth is to express one’s ignorance of reality. However, whether these “-isms” exist is NOT the relevant issue here. What IS relevant is whether they are “institutional”. By that, I mean legislated.
Throughout the history of legislative action in the United States, laws have served as a reflection of the ideological mix of Congress. Belief in the interpretation that the Constitution guarantees happiness, Liberal ideology requires legislative action which supports and enforces their idea of “equality”, vis-à-vis “happiness”.
TSA PROCEDURES (Discrimination, based on “Right to privacy”)
Although Justice Harry Blackmun, in drafting the “Roe” decision, identified a “Right to privacy” in the Fourth Amendment, Liberals do not, for whatever reason, regard the same Right as applied to body scans and physical pat-downs. As is absolutely consistent with Liberalism, the “Right to privacy” is not equally applied. Rather, “Privacy” is granted to whomever Liberals deem “worthy”. “Privacy”, Liberals contend, in THIS case, is not an “unalienable Right”.
SLAVERY (Discrimination based on ethnicity)
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, slavery was a legally accepted reality in the United States. In today’s terms, it’d be considered “stare decisis” or settled law. The two majority parties at the time, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party, held somewhat differing positions with respect to the issue of slavery; Democrats being staunch supporters and defenders of slavery law, the Whigs somewhat against it (but unwilling to fight the battle to abolish it). (It is a popular Liberal claim that the Constitution legalized slavery. In fact, no such legalization is to be found in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution simply recognizes the existence of slavery and clarifies it in terms of taxation and apportionment for representation).
HATE CRIME LEGISLATION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
Whether race, religious or gender based, hate crime legislation provides for greater levels of punishment based on the motivation for a particular crime.
As recent as this month, with the tragic shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona, Liberals IMMEDIATELY pushed for special legislation, which would levy heavy penalties to anyone threatening an elected official (never mind that America already has such a law, applicable to ALL: assault).
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
The practice of hiring based on race, gender, gender choice, etc, serves to favor one group (minorities, etc) over another (Caucasians).
TAX LAW (Discrimination based on income, gender, marital status, etc)
The United States Constitution provides for the collection of various taxes by Congress (for those who argue that taxation is “unconstitutional”, this simply is not the case). The argument, appropriately, is a) the degree of taxation levied upon the citizenry and b) the discriminatory actions with regard to “who is taxed what”. Liberals choose to favor certain groups (the poor, minorities, etc) over other groups (the wealthy and successful).
THE “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” (Discrimination, based on creed)
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists penned, “…believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. Although this language is not found in the Constitution, the notion that the Federal Government is forbidden from meddling into a citizen’s personal religion of choice, is clearly contemplated (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…). The inspiration for this part of the First Amendment came from Merry Olde England, when the King, having been disallowed his divorce, rejected the Catholic Church and established the Church of England; the official state religion.
According to our Constitution, with respect to religion, the Federal Government has two responsibilities:
- It is specifically forbidden to establish a state religion
- It is specifically forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise of religion
In their relentless pursuit of legislated discrimination, Democrats twist the intent of the first part of this clause (no prayer in public schools or public places, no religious symbols in public places, etc), while ignoring the other.
In public schools, it is against the law to pray. In fact, a student is not even allowed “a moment of silence”, in the event that someone might take offense. Liberals, in defense of this law (wholly written, supported and defended by Liberalism) claim that this law is in keeping with the first part of the establishment law in the First Amendment. The Liberals are wrong; for in fulfilling their interpretation of the first part, they grossly violate the second part, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
THE NEW SLAVERY (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
In 1973, a Supreme Court decision ushered in the latest iteration…incarnation…of Liberalism’s drive to legislate discrimination. Roe v Wade, which became Federal Law in January, 1973, provided Federal legislative protection to any woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy. Although originally constructed with strict limitations with respect to the age of the fetus, the new law disregarded a fetus’ “humanity”, defying 100% of biological and genetic absolutes with regard to the definition of “human”.
To date, approximately 51 MILLION unborn children have been sacrificed on the altar of Liberalism, with no end in sight. Defended now as “stare decisis”, Liberals claim that Roe CANNOT be overturned. But, as with slavery, history will prove them wrong. Again.
UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATION
Upon review of the above-listed examples of a clear history of legislated discrimination by the Democratic Party, one would be right to ask, “Why”? “Why would Democrats…Liberals…Progressives…encourage, protect, defend and generate ever-more…discrimination?
To truly understand the answer, a broader view, encompassing other Liberal agenda items and beliefs, must be taken into account. Specific examples of these include Darwinism (reducing humans to “merely an animal” status, Kelo vs New London decision (2005) which severely reduced the right to private property, etc.
The intent of legislated discrimination is to lessen the value, or render valueless, humanity; to reduce humans to “just a species of animal”, thereby stripping human beings of “unalienable Rights” and removing the notion of a “Creator” from which fundamental Rights derive. After all, when one group, whether classified by race, creed, gender, gender preference, stage in life, etc, is deemed unworthy of equal protection and not “...created equal…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”, then no race, creed, gender, gender-preference, stage in life, etc, is safe from discrimination.
Translation: fundamental, “unalienable Rights”, are endowed at the discretion of Government, not God.
And the battle is FAR from over. Consider current pursuits of Liberal legislators:
- Embryonic stem cell research (and the Federal funding of…). (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
- “The Fairness Doctrine” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
- “Net Neutrality” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
All of these, if enacted into law, would create and legalize discrimination.
BOTTOM LINE:
Conservatives believe that ALL people are created equal and endowed, by the Creator, with certain unalienable Rights. Therefore, no law, designed by humans, has the ability to supersede the Rights endowed by our Creator.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that THEY, the Government, may decide which people are considered equal and that THEY, the government, determine who has Rights.
And truly, both these belief systems are held for the same reason.
Both sides KNOW that either EVERYONE is equal (the Conservative view), or NO ONE is (the Liberal view).
Tim Hirota
Santa Ana, California
You would think that this anniversary would be cause for celebration by Liberals. With each act, within the scope of the law, advocation of “individual, fundamental freedoms” and a triumph of “Women’s Rights”.
Yet, 51 MILLION abortions go unheralded; uncelebrated. Why?
January 22nd marks the anniversary of “Roe v Wade”: the Federalization of abortion law and wide-open door to the indiscriminate butchering of the most vulnerable in our society.
Happy Anniversary, Liberals. You must be VERY proud…
The New Slavery
Throughout the history of the United States, pieces of legislation have been drafted in direct violation of the Constitution and the other founding documents. These violations, almost always, come in the form of legislated discrimination. The Constitution itself seemed to support the rationale for some of these laws, which included (but were certainly not limited to) women, blacks (and other non-whites) banned from voting, the legality of slavery, etc.
But, in truth, the Constitution neither legalized nor advocated any of these.
Contrary to what is claimed by Democrats, there is no justification for slavery to be found in the Constitution. But, there is a very important reason for their claim: throughout American history, the greatest proponents and defenders of slavery (and other forms of legislated discrimination) have been…the Democratic Party. Rather, the Constitution merely recognized that slavery was “stare decisis”: settled, existing law.
The “3/5 Compromise”, as it is called (“…Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons”), does not discuss the race, creed, gender, etc, of those to be counted as “3/5 of a person”, directly conflicting with the Liberal claim to the contrary. In fact, it states SPECIFICALLY, that “…the whole Number of free Persons…” were to be counted for taxation and apportionment. This “whole Number” INCLUDED free blacks, living in non-slavery states. In their argument against the relevance of the Constitution, Liberals fail to mention this fact.
With regard to women not having the Right to vote, Liberals glom onto the phrase, stating that “…all MEN are created equal…”. But, in truth, this is like the bible verse, found in Matthew 18:21-22 “Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus said to him: I say not to you, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.” By similar interpretation, a Liberal should conclude that forgiveness need only happen 490 times. Obviously, this is not the case. Rather, “seven”, in biblical times, referred to an infinite number….Jesus saying that forgiveness must happen an “infinite times infinity” times. So it was in the early days, when “men” referred to ALL people…not just men.
It is therefore no real surprise to know that, even today, Democrats continue to pursue fundamental, legislated discrimination. Variously, issues from “hate crime” legislation and “Affirmative action” to our modern day progressive tax code and embryonic stem cell research and funding comprise merely the latest efforts by Democrats to continue their legacy of Democratically-legislated discrimination, seeking to qualify the citizenry, separating them based on race, creed, gender, gender-identity, stage of life, etc. In the most recent times (since 1973) the primary target of Democrat hostility and discrimination is the unborn and the partially born. In the case of our President, Senator Barbara Boxer and (shamefully) a few others, this hostility extends to some who are newly-born. (In the remarkable case of Boxer, hostility extends throughout a newborn’s stay in hospital.)
Any way you define it, abortion is The New Slavery.
A LEGACY OF LEGISLATED DISCRIMINATION
Our founding documents (The United States Constitution, Declaration if Independence and Bill of Rights), with regard to “equality”, are VERY clear:
“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.”
- The Declaration of Independence
Beyond the fact that the CLEAR intent in these words is to make clear, without question, that these rights are a) “unalienable” (unable to be taken away), b) begin at the moment a person is “created” and c) “endowed by our Creator” (“Creator” with a capital “C”). This statement also makes clear that “happiness” is NOT guaranteed. Rather, the “pursuit of happiness” is guaranteed. This is a critical distinction and lies at the root of not only the equality issue but also the Liberal pathway to legislated inequality.
I know of no one who makes the claim that racism, sexism or homophobia doesn’t exist. They do exist. To deny this truth is to express one’s ignorance of reality. However, whether these “-isms” exist is NOT the relevant issue here. What IS relevant is whether they are “institutional”. By that, I mean legislated.
Throughout the history of legislative action in the United States, laws have served as a reflection of the ideological mix of Congress. Belief in the interpretation that the Constitution guarantees happiness, Liberal ideology requires legislative action which supports and enforces their idea of “equality”, vis-à-vis “happiness”.
TSA PROCEDURES (Discrimination, based on “Right to privacy”)
Although Justice Harry Blackmun, in drafting the “Roe” decision, identified a “Right to privacy” in the Fourth Amendment, Liberals do not, for whatever reason, regard the same Right as applied to body scans and physical pat-downs. As is absolutely consistent with Liberalism, the “Right to privacy” is not equally applied. Rather, “Privacy” is granted to whomever Liberals deem “worthy”. “Privacy”, Liberals contend, in THIS case, is not an “unalienable Right”.
SLAVERY (Discrimination based on ethnicity)
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, slavery was a legally accepted reality in the United States. In today’s terms, it’d be considered “stare decisis” or settled law. The two majority parties at the time, the Democratic Party and the Whig Party, held somewhat differing positions with respect to the issue of slavery; Democrats being staunch supporters and defenders of slavery law, the Whigs somewhat against it (but unwilling to fight the battle to abolish it). (It is a popular Liberal claim that the Constitution legalized slavery. In fact, no such legalization is to be found in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution simply recognizes the existence of slavery and clarifies it in terms of taxation and apportionment for representation).
HATE CRIME LEGISLATION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
Whether race, religious or gender based, hate crime legislation provides for greater levels of punishment based on the motivation for a particular crime.
As recent as this month, with the tragic shooting of a Congresswoman in Arizona, Liberals IMMEDIATELY pushed for special legislation, which would levy heavy penalties to anyone threatening an elected official (never mind that America already has such a law, applicable to ALL: assault).
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (Discrimination based on race, gender, etc)
The practice of hiring based on race, gender, gender choice, etc, serves to favor one group (minorities, etc) over another (Caucasians).
TAX LAW (Discrimination based on income, gender, marital status, etc)
The United States Constitution provides for the collection of various taxes by Congress (for those who argue that taxation is “unconstitutional”, this simply is not the case). The argument, appropriately, is a) the degree of taxation levied upon the citizenry and b) the discriminatory actions with regard to “who is taxed what”. Liberals choose to favor certain groups (the poor, minorities, etc) over other groups (the wealthy and successful).
THE “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” (Discrimination, based on creed)
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists penned, “…believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”. Although this language is not found in the Constitution, the notion that the Federal Government is forbidden from meddling into a citizen’s personal religion of choice, is clearly contemplated (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…). The inspiration for this part of the First Amendment came from Merry Olde England, when the King, having been disallowed his divorce, rejected the Catholic Church and established the Church of England; the official state religion.
According to our Constitution, with respect to religion, the Federal Government has two responsibilities:
- It is specifically forbidden to establish a state religion
- It is specifically forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise of religion
In their relentless pursuit of legislated discrimination, Democrats twist the intent of the first part of this clause (no prayer in public schools or public places, no religious symbols in public places, etc), while ignoring the other.
In public schools, it is against the law to pray. In fact, a student is not even allowed “a moment of silence”, in the event that someone might take offense. Liberals, in defense of this law (wholly written, supported and defended by Liberalism) claim that this law is in keeping with the first part of the establishment law in the First Amendment. The Liberals are wrong; for in fulfilling their interpretation of the first part, they grossly violate the second part, “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
THE NEW SLAVERY (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
In 1973, a Supreme Court decision ushered in the latest iteration…incarnation…of Liberalism’s drive to legislate discrimination. Roe v Wade, which became Federal Law in January, 1973, provided Federal legislative protection to any woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy. Although originally constructed with strict limitations with respect to the age of the fetus, the new law disregarded a fetus’ “humanity”, defying 100% of biological and genetic absolutes with regard to the definition of “human”.
To date, approximately 51 MILLION unborn children have been sacrificed on the altar of Liberalism, with no end in sight. Defended now as “stare decisis”, Liberals claim that Roe CANNOT be overturned. But, as with slavery, history will prove them wrong. Again.
UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATION
Upon review of the above-listed examples of a clear history of legislated discrimination by the Democratic Party, one would be right to ask, “Why”? “Why would Democrats…Liberals…Progressives…encourage, protect, defend and generate ever-more…discrimination?
To truly understand the answer, a broader view, encompassing other Liberal agenda items and beliefs, must be taken into account. Specific examples of these include Darwinism (reducing humans to “merely an animal” status, Kelo vs New London decision (2005) which severely reduced the right to private property, etc.
The intent of legislated discrimination is to lessen the value, or render valueless, humanity; to reduce humans to “just a species of animal”, thereby stripping human beings of “unalienable Rights” and removing the notion of a “Creator” from which fundamental Rights derive. After all, when one group, whether classified by race, creed, gender, gender preference, stage in life, etc, is deemed unworthy of equal protection and not “...created equal…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”, then no race, creed, gender, gender-preference, stage in life, etc, is safe from discrimination.
Translation: fundamental, “unalienable Rights”, are endowed at the discretion of Government, not God.
And the battle is FAR from over. Consider current pursuits of Liberal legislators:
- Embryonic stem cell research (and the Federal funding of…). (Discrimination, based on stage of life)
- “The Fairness Doctrine” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
- “Net Neutrality” (Discrimination, based on ideology)
All of these, if enacted into law, would create and legalize discrimination.
BOTTOM LINE:
Conservatives believe that ALL people are created equal and endowed, by the Creator, with certain unalienable Rights. Therefore, no law, designed by humans, has the ability to supersede the Rights endowed by our Creator.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that THEY, the Government, may decide which people are considered equal and that THEY, the government, determine who has Rights.
And truly, both these belief systems are held for the same reason.
Both sides KNOW that either EVERYONE is equal (the Conservative view), or NO ONE is (the Liberal view).
Tim Hirota
Santa Ana, California
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)