Supreme Court Nominee

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/sotomayors-judicial-record-battlefield-critics-advocates/

Before the selection of nominee, I heard that President Obama was looking for a female, Hispanic judge to nominate.

Now, judge Sotomayor may very well be the best candidate for the position. (I doubt it, but for reasons of judgment, not skin color.) However, simply making the statement that one is choosing a Justice for the Supreme Court based on race or gender (or worse both) diminishes her perceived value. I must ask the question: Was she the best nominee, or was she the best female Hispanic nominee?

For the Supreme Court, I want the best nominee. I don't care about gender or race or religion. I care that the person will provide justice for this nation.

Which one of us (President Obama or me) do you think is living up to Rev. Dr. King's dream?

Also, let's review a critical case involving racism:

To quote from the article on one of Sotomayor's appeals court decisions:

"Perhaps Sotomayor's most controversial decision was in Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she was part of a panel ruling against a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. -- they objected after the city threw out the results of a promotion test because too many white firefighters, and not enough minority firefighters, scored high."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517074,00.html

Judge Sotomayor decided that it was OK to throw out a test because not enough black test takers would be promoted.

To refute that argument, I quote from the article:

"All were afforded the same notice, the same study period, the same exam syllabi, etc.," said Torre, who would only answer questions by e-mail. "The rest was up to the individual."

And again I quote:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The color of anyone's skin should not be used to make decisions. If you think otherwise, reread the last sentence until you change your mind.

Our President has just nominated a racist for the Supreme Court most likely because he himself was being racist. Stellar.

To test this theory, what if a white President came out and said he was looking for a white male to put on the Supreme Court. And he chose someone who had ruled in favor of separate but equal education for minorities. In this day and age, would that ever be allowed? Would anyone believe that was acceptable? The obvious answer is "Of course not." As well it shouldn't be allowed or be believed to be acceptable.

Aloha.

Memorial Day

First, go read the article and look at the picture, then come back. It is worth it.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=47507

http://www.blackfive.net/.a/6a00d8341bfadb53ef01156fa97022970c-pi

The picture is a card Gen. Pace left at the Vietnam Memorial on his last day as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Quoting from the article:


The lesson for Pace was immediate. “Regardless what you do in your life, hold on to your moral compass,” he said. “When you are emotionally least capable of defending yourself is when the biggest challenge will come. If you don’t have an idea of what you will let yourself do and what you will not let yourself do, you may find that you have done something that you would never believe yourself capable of doing.”

He said his epiphany came in combat, but it doesn’t have to. “I learned that day, to think through what was going to be happening each day thereafter, and to think through what I would allow myself to do and not do,” he said.

It could come in a meeting, a test, a temptation, whatever. “If you have thought through who you want to be at the end of each day, you will see that person,” he said. “But, if you have not, you may not like the person you end up being.”



This Memorial Day, remember the reason for the 3-day weekend and thank someone who risked everything to defend you, your nation and your freedom. Or, better yet, thank the family of someone who gave everything to defend you, your nation and your freedom.

Aloha.

An example of socialism

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/china.suicide/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quoting from the article: "A passerby pushed a would-be suicide jumper off a bridge in southern China because he was angry at the jumper's "selfish activity," Chinese media reported Saturday."

How selfish could the individual be to hold up traffic for 5 hours?

So what if that individual was contemplating suicide?

So what if the person PUSHED HIM OFF OF THE BRIDGE?

Wasn't that the best for society collectively?

Welcome to the logic of socialism.

Aloha.

Abortion and Obama

Watch the video, then come back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI67MuPwsX0

I've said it before and I'll say it again: When government views itself as caretaker of the populace, when abortion gets rid of economically disadvantaged people, when abortion limits the number of mouths for the government to feed, they view abortion as a good thing.

People who believe liberals are standing up for the individual right to do anything are wrong. Abortion isn't the right of a person to terminate a pregnancy, it is the way for liberals to reduce government spending (perhaps, the only way they know).

Now, reconcile these two statements:

"I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable," Obama said.

vs.

But Obama called for "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words" in the midst of such persistent debates.

So, one side thinks the other side is murdering millions. And, Obama realizes that this could cause a problem with trying to come to an agreement. But, with the belief that millions of lives are on the line, he is urging "open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words"???

If Obama were president during WWII, we would still be trying to convince Hitler that he should "understand our view".

Aloha.

Social Security, Medicare and Socialism

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Social Security:

In 1937, the amount contributed out of your paycheck was 1%.

By 1960, 23 years later, that rate was up to 3%.

Medicare was added in 1966.

By 1970, 10 years later, the total amount was up to 4.8%.

By 1980, another 10 years later, the total was up to 6.13%.

By 1990, we reached our current rate of 7.65%

Please note that this is the rate for employees AND employers each. So, for every 7.65% you are paying, your employers are paying 7.65% for you as well. That is another 7.65% that the employer could be paying you if there was not this tax. Combined, that's 15.3% of your pay that the government is getting for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/social-security-medicare-seen-failing-faster/

I am 35 and began working in jobs outside the home/farm around 1991. That means that my entire adult working life, the government is getting over 15% of my pay with the implied promise that Social Security and Medicare will be available to me. That promise is an empty lie.

According to the above article, as it stands now, Social Security will be broke 2 years before I turn 65 (current full retirement age). Please note that this is 4 years earlier than anticipated just last year. So, who knows how long it will really last, but the estimates keep getting worse.

Medicare will be broke 20 years sooner, in 2017, or 22 years before I retire. This estimate too is getting worse.


Other than my personal interest in the fact that I am getting the shaft on this program, why does this matter?

Great question.

Here's why it matters:



FDR, the man who "Beginning with his inauguration address, ...began blaming the economic crisis on bankers and financiers, the quest for profit, and the self-interest basis of capitalism", the man who tried to drastically change the Supreme Court when it didn't agree with his New Deal, and the man who sent 120,000 Americans to interment camps and deprived them of liberty and property, is the man who started the Social Security system.



This man started the biggest American experiment in Socialism that has ever been conducted...and that experiment is failing.

Let us all remember that as we think about "universal health care" and "fairness".

It cannot succeed. I'm not saying that it cannot be allowed to succeed, I am saying that the math says it is incapable of success.

Socialism doesn't work. All of the best intentions will simply lead us down the road to hell.

Aloha.



FDR References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court-packing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt

Here's what institutional discrimination will do

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7561561&page=1

So, they hire a minority who has driving violations to drive a trolley. They make this hire to discriminate for this person's minority status. Then, this person decides to text his girlfriend instead of drive while driving. This causes a 9.6 MILLION DOLLAR accident. And, this person is only a minority by choice, being "transgendered".

Overall, this person should not have been behind the wheel. There should have been a competent person driving. Instead, let's make sure that everyone has a job.

This form of discrimination is simply occupational socialism in action. We shouldn't hire someone based on ability, we should hire based on need or "fairness".

If you want to know what a socialist future looks like, look at this incident and know.

Aloha.

Greatness

Recently, our media and politicians have been proclaiming the need for equity. Everyone should have access to "basic" health care. Everyone should have access to "basic" education. Everyone should have access to "basic" home ownership.

In the 80's we didn't talk about "basic" anything. We talked about being the greatest nation on the face of the planet. We did that not through lowering our standards and making sure we were all equal at the lowest standard possible. We did that by striving for greatness and working our collective tails off.

When I get ill, I don't want basic health care, I want great health care.

When my children receive an education, I want them to have a great education, not a "basic" education.

When my children want to purchase a home, I want them to be able to buy a great home because they work for it and save their pennies. I don't want them to have to settle for a "basic" home because that is as high as the lowest member of our nation can reach.

We, as a nation, should not focus on providing the "basics" for all. We should focus on on providing the best for all who can afford it. This drive will reduce the cost of the same service for all of us in the long run.

We talk about the current cost of health care in this nation, yet forget to mention the advances we have made in this arena.

The average life expectancy of someone born in 1900 was 49.2. In 2008, that average life expectancy reached 78. We have increased our life spans by about 60% in the last century.

Do you think that happened because we aimed for providing "basic" health care in America? We achieved this by striving for greatness in health care.

Do you think that adding nearly 30 years onto everyone's life is free and inexpensive? Someone has to pay for all of that medication and all of that health care, all of the machines, all of the lawsuits, all of the hospital beds, all of the wheel chairs and "hover-rounds", all of the home nurses, all of it.

It is not free, in spite of what some might believe.

We expect to live 60% longer and do it for free. We spit in the face of reality.

We forget that we achieved these great things by striving for greatness, not by striving for mediocrity.

Aloha.

Did you hear the good news?

The President is looking to cut the budget. The video explains why I am underwhelmed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wretchedradio.com%2Fdaily_update_archives.cfm%3Fid%3D111&feature=player_embedded

This video says it all.

Aloha.

Theft

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519515,00.html

Theft.

Pure and simple theft.

One group of people decided to steal what other people owned.

Welcome to a very simple explanation of socialism.

Those in power, I'm sure, had a "good reason" why stealing was acceptable.

Let me be clear: Whatever "reason" they came up with is irrelevant. Stealing is stealing.

This is what the U.S. taxpayer, business person, property owner is experiencing to a lesser level now and will experience to a greater level soon.

Aloha.

What am I paying for?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/government-funds-study-gay-sex-argentina-bars/

That's right. To quote from the article, "The National Institutes of Health are paying researchers to cruise six bars in Buenos Aires to find out why gay men engage in risky sexual behavior while drunk -- and just what can be done about it."

Why does anyone think that this is acceptable?

This is what happens when government begins believing that it exists to solve all problems.

Aloha.

How much did we just spend again?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/07/seniors.stimulus/index.html

So, looks like we just spent another $13,750,000,000.

I hope everyone who receives this money enjoys the fruits of my labor.

I was going to say you're welcome, but you're not. You didn't earn it, you didn't work for it, you shouldn't be getting it. Any plan at redistributing wealth is bad.

Let's all sing a song as we take another step down the road to socialism.

Aloha.