Sunday, May 31, 2009

Deficit: "1984", Orwellian Speak

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner is quoted today (see Drudge) as saying that "no one" is more concerned than President Obama about the size of our deficit. This is a wrothy follow up to President Obama himself (see archives for blog entry) criticizing the deficits we are building by asyin that such deficits cannot be sustained withour ruining the country.

This really is the Orwellian nightmare of "1984", where "truth" is what Big Brother tells you it is.

Let me be as blunt as possible here: It is objectively as LIE--a bald faced, blatant lie--that "no one" is more concerned about the huge budget deficits of the Federal Government than President Obama. If lPresident Obama were as concerned about aout of control spending, and the incredible defiicts, he would NOT BE SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY. When he talks about "cnocern" about the deficit, HE IS CRITICIZING HIMSELF.

For example, I am more "concerned" about the deficit than Obma. I would NOT be spending this much money if I were President of the Uniteld States, and I would not be letting Congress spend so much money without a major fight. There are SOOME politicians saying this very same thing, and they are obviously MORE "concerned" about the out of control spending than Obama.

I am perfectly aware that Obama and Geitner would say that they are not "lying", because they really are "concerned" about the deficits. They jsut believe that the spending is NECESSARY to "save" our economy. That merely emphasizes how much we are getting "1984" style propaganda instead of truth.

What does it mean when you say that things are MORE IMPORTANT than the deficit? Right. It means that the deficit is NOT your major priority. To suggest otherwise, with this kind of outrageous language, is objectively a LIE. Every sinle person who believes that the deficit, and the amount of Federal spending, is the HIHEST "concern" we now have is "more concerned" about the deficit than President Obma.

President Obama, and his team, have this "1984" style habit of suggesting that what they SAY is more important than what is. Thus, Preisdent Obama virtually states that he has "sovled" a problem every time he SAYS something, or sets up a new organization or group to "sovle" a problem. For example, on Friday, President Obama announced a new "cyber czar", as if the establishment of such a position will "protect" the internet from cyber attack (not obviously a MAJOR problem in the first place). Did this "solve" the problem? Bull. It might or might not even help the "problem". I vote for "might not", because a new Federal bureucracy never "solved" any problem.

Geitner and Obama are telling you that merely SAYING they are "concerned" about the Federal deficit tells you that they are on the way to "solving" a problem they THEY CREATED (or at least accelerated beyond even what President Bush did). It is amazing how President Obama can talk about a "problem", while suggesting that he was NO part of the problem. On the deficit, he definitely IS a MAJOR part of the problem and not obviously part of the solution.

President Obama has DONE NOTHING about the deficit, except increase it into the trillions. He even voted for the Bush spending that put us on this track. He is heading toward a "solution" to the deficit "crisis" of RAISING TAXES--which will not only hurt the devastated economy, but which will NOT RAISE MUCH REVENUE. It is a myth that raising taxes necessarily raise revenue. Taxes NEVER raise the projected amount of revenue, because people AVOID the higher taxes (plus, the money taken out of the private economy reduces the income from which future tax money must come).

Real "concern" about deficits, and government spending, is ONLY shown by REDUCING SPENDING. President Obama, Geitner, and the Democrats in power have shwon little or no "concern" about that. To them "concern" is only a word, to be used in place of action--to be used, further, in a "1984" style perversion of the word.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Star Trek (Movie Review): Can a Fun Movie Have Anything To Do with Race and Feminist Big Lies?

From my point of view, the new "Star Trek" movie deserves a rating of 100 (on myu scale of 100) for one thing alone: They brought back teh MINISKIRT from the original Star Trek series (updated--the original garment was really a "skort"--shorts made to look like a miniskirt). I refuse to let bribery compromise my integrity, however, as the producers clearly tried to bribe sexist reviewers like me with this reversal of course. In addition, there are FEW women shown on the Enterprise in the new movie, which represents even further progress.

One of the problems with the way both science fiction generally, and Star Trek in particular, have evvolved is their promotion of the objectively FALSE idea that men and women are the SAME. Thus, in the Star Trek universe, you had women security officers able to handle SKILLED male fighters in hand-to-hand combat. What a crock. This false idea that men and women are the SAME (don't even THINK the same) is a radical feminist, leftist Big Lie--Orwellian", "1984" style. And science fiction in general has adopted this Big Lie as a matter of "politically correct" orthodoxy--even in the fiction of "military" science fiction authors like Davide Drake, David Weber, and John Ringo. Even Terry Pratchett--perhaps the best comic satirist who ever lived--worte a TERRIBLE, one joke book: "Monstrous Regiment." The whole, and ONLY, "point" of the book was that men and women are the SAME--again, a total falsehood. Terry Pratchett's comic fantasies are permeated by TRUTH in the form of satire. It was sad to see him fall victim to this same politically correct Big Lie, to the extent of even haveing a woman NCO in the hard drinking, hard firghting, mold of the hard bitten NCOs of John Ford westerns--"passing", of course, as a man (the whole "joke" of the book being that fully a third of the "men" in Terry Pratchett's "army" were really women disguised as men).

Star Trek has infamously (in my view) adoped this "Unixex" view of the world--the false view that there are no "real" differences between men and women beyond those society imposes. Thus, after the miniskirt looking, sexy outfits of the original Star Trek series, Star Trek reverted to "unisex" uniforms (albeit tailored in a form fitting way not common to a real military, or military-like organization). Exactly how "Star Fleet" differs from a military organization has, by the way, never been entirely clear. "Star Fleet" has always seemed responsible for the MILITARY, space security of the Earth, despite the suppposed "exploration" mission. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see Star Trek bring back the miniskirt for women crew--a sort of Scottish kilt looking garment--rather than continue the truly boring "unixex" look.

Still, my reviewing integrity must be mainstained. Therefore, the rating for the new "Star Trek" movie is 84 out of 100--still high on my scale of 0 to 100.

I will get to the falws. This is not a great movie--simply a very good one (especiallly for those familiar with the original TV series--there being numerous "inside" references that you will miss unless you are familiar with the original series).

The best thing about the movie is that it brings back some of the humor and light heartedness of the original characters. Star Trk, in its later incarnations without the original cast, had become humorless--almost dour, solemn and sullen (which tended to go along with the unisex look and attitude). The actor playing Jim Kirk brings welmome echoes of the "overacting"/lighthearted ego of William Shatner. And the actor playing the younger "Scotty" almost steals the movie with an exuberance totally missing from the solemn "political correctness" of recent Star Trek series (the only one of which I really liked was "Deep Space Nine").

The plot? It hardly matters, except to anoy me with mondern Hollywood stupidity. It is about a Romulan whose "supership" travels back in time after the destruction of the Romulan home world (which Spock failed to prevent), and decides to take revenge on Spock and the entire rest of the universe. Star Trek has become obsessed with time travel, and it is a FAULT (not a virtue--maybe more about this in a future entry). I will note just one thing which illustrates the problem (slight "spoiler", but occurs early on in the movie): If a ship goes back in time and destroys Vulcan, does that not CHANGE the future so that there is no longer either Spock (most likely) or a ship to go back in time and destroy Vulcan? It is the old "what if you go back in time and kill your own grandmother" problem.

Still, the time travel device is not obtrusive in this movie--just a device to set up the plot rather than a prime mover of the plot. There are other plot problems which are more serious, and seem to arise from the present Hollywood idea that viewers don't care about plot logic. For example, a class right out o fStar Fleet Academy--ijncluding 17 year old kids, takes over all of the important functons of a the FLAGSHIP of the Star Fleet mission to help Vulcan in a supposed "natural disaster" requiring major assistance. Kirk, in fact, virtually stows away on the Enterprise, after having his graduation from the Academy SUSPENDED (for chearing on that famous, "no win" test by reprogramming the computer). The captain nevertheless appoints Kirk "first officer" when he leaves the ship. ABSURD. I am not able to turn my mind off to the extent modern Hollywood wants me to do.

Then Spock (who himself is made captain of the Enterprise with NO apparent previous experience) says: "I want Kirk off this ship". He means IMMEDIATELY, in one of the most illogical acts a supposed "logical" being could ever order. Kirk is than EXILED--alone--in a shuttle to an isolated planet with a small outpost. No explanation as to why Kirk was not merely put in the brig. The real explanation is LAZINESS by the script writers. The OLD Spock (Leonard Nemoy playing his familiar character, and acting better than anyone else in the cast) has been dragged back in time with the Romulan ship, and has been exiled on the same outpost planet by the insane Romulan captain to observe the destruction of his home world (revenge). The ONLY purpose of the "exile" of Kirk was to arrange a meeting between the new Kirk and the old Spock. This is accomplished by an even more absurd scene--reminiscent of the totally absurd "dinosaur stampede" in the new "King Kong"--where Kirk is chased into Spock's cave by a chessy, bug-like creature. ABSURD is a KIND word for this lazy stupidity.

I went to see this movie with Sylivia--my only, if platonic, female friend. She thought the movie was "cheesy", and only "okay". She is not a regular Star Trek fan, although she has een some of the movies. I would amend one of my statements above, in that being familiar with the MOVIES with the original cast is probably enough to get most of the "inside" stuff in this movie, even if you are not that familiar with the original series.

Sylvia, to one degree or another, is RIGHT. The movie has a "cheesy" look to it--especially in scenes like the bug chasing Kirk. My personal opinion is that computer graphics NEVER look real. To me, they ALWAYS look "cheesy". And the Enterprise deliberately has the "cheesy" look of the original series, which is why they also brought back the miniskirt.

Still, the movie is fun--with the actors pretty much creating believable younger versions of the characters created by Kirk, Nemoy, and the rest. The humor is there, and it is often funny. The characters are what enable you to get past holes in the plot and the "cheesy" look of the movie. The movie is very successful in recreating the original characters tha made the series and movies with the original cast so much fun. That enabled me to ignore things like one plot hole that bothered Sylvia. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MOTHER? Kirk's mother gives birth to him in the--pretty exiting, and even toucing--beginning of the movie, and basically DISAPPEARS. She does not appear when he is in trouble at graduation from the Academy, and she does not appear when Kirk is honored for his actions. In the modern Hollywood, you just have to overlook these inexplicable lapses.

There is actually a relevant scene in "Star Trek" to the outdated racism of Sonia Sotomayor (see blog entries over the past week). Uhura--the black communications officer--is the girlfriend of Spock in the new movie. She makes a point of KISSING him rather passionately. Way back in the original series, Uhura was FORCED to involuntarily kiss Captain Kirk, played by William Shatner. There was actually a big story--"controversy"--in TV Gude about the INTERRACIAL "kiss". Of course, Spock is not supposed to be a human "white" male, but I think Uhura's kisses are deliberately meant, in this movie, as a comment on how far we have come. No one would think of creating a "controversy" over an "interracial" kiss these days, unless it was a LEFTIST (like Sotomayor) wondering why there were not black males in the cast for Uhura to kiss. Now Spock himself has an Obama type "look" in this movie--a somewhat differently appearing skin tone from Leonard Nemoy. And Spock IS a "multiracial" character. Think how truly absurd it is for Sonia Sotomayor, and leftists in general, to STILL be making such a point about RACE at a time when we should be PAST that. As Uhura's kisses show, as well as Obama being elected President, we truly are pretty much past the idea of treating race as a fundametally defining characteristic of people--all except for the left still deliberately living in the past for political gain.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Multiracial: The Lies of Racial Politics (How Scientific American Is a RACIST Magazine)

Yes, the mainstream media confirms what this blog says, even without realizing it.

I heard the "news" on CBS radio this morning (alarm set on that station). One of the lead stories was that the fastest growing "racial" group in this country is "multiracial". This apparently means that the percentage of people checkijng more than one box on questions as to race is growing faster than any other group.

What has this blog been telling you for five years or so? I have been telling you that we are a nation of MONGRELS, where it is ridiculous to discriminate against "white" males on the basis of race. See yesterday's entries in this blog about the racism of Sonia Sotomayor. I said the same thing in my "guest column" published in The Daily Texan (student nwespaper of the University of Texas) in approximately 1972. Almost all of us are "multiracial". There is NO adquate definition of what is "black" and what is "white" (much less which category "Hispanci" or "latino" falls in).

That CBS "news" report even labeled President Obama as "multiracial", as he is. So am I--with at leasst ASOME percentage of "nNative American" "blood". My daughers, of course, are 50% Mexican-American, along with whatever percentage of Native American "blood" they have.

You see what this means, don't you? It means that Sonia Sotomayor, and most leftists, are not only racist, but stupid. What ssense does it make to discriminate in favor of "multiracial" people, and against "white" males, when MOST of us are multiracial", with that category increasing every day.

Let us go back to Sonia Sotomayor, and her insistence that "latina" females are superior to "white" males. Latina femalses and males are WHITE (Caucasian), in some proportion or other. In other words, CBS News is STUPID (but we already knew that). "Latina" or "latino" is NOTG a "race". What are these people? Right. They are just like me and my daughters. They are of MIXED race--a mixture of white Eurpopean (primarily Spanish) and Indian ("Native American). It is acknowledged that Hsipanics are the fastest growing group in this country. Therefore, it has been OBBVIOUS for DECADES that "multiracial" is the fastest groeing group in this country. What people say on a from is irrelevant. In fact, I recoomend that my daughters not complicate matters by declaring themselves "white" AND "latina". They need to check "latina", because of all of the Sotoamayors and leftists in the country. I have no shame in recommending that EVERY "white" male and "white" female in this country--almost always of "mixed" race--check a "minority" box. Obviously, all kinds of "white" people identify with Obama (including the Republican "establishment"). If you FEEL "black", or "Native American", why not check that box? There is NO definiton of who is "black" nd who is "white"--much less of what "latinos" and "latinas" are.

We come to Scientific American? Am I going to call Scientific American a RACIST magazine, which you should avoid just like you avoid the Ku Klux Klan? Damn right I am, and iI did so to their face (in a letter) mroe than 5 years ago (making many of the same points I made in The Daily Texan, and have made in this blog.

Scientific American ran one of those stories about how "white' people are soon going to be a MINORITY in this country. I can't tell yo how RACIIST that kind of story is, and how RACIST the "scientists" are who publish that kind of junk.

That is because these stories specifically lump all "people of color" together, as if this country--not to mention the world--is in a constant struggle between "white" people and "people of color" for POWER. That is the racist way in which leftists, and Scientific American, look at the world. . They look at the world as a constant struggle between "epople of color" and "white" people. They assert, as did this Scientific American article, that "white" people becoming a minority in this country will TRANSFROM the country. Bunk Junk. Racism. Idiocy. I have not even LOOKED a a Sceintific American magazine since. It is just as RACIST a magazine as the Ku Klux Klan, and just as racist as Sonial Sotomayor.

Almost the least of the idiocy and racism is the idea that we can DEFINE discrete "races" in this country. "Latinas" (note to Sonial Sotomayor) are WHITE--albeit they may also have a mixture of Native American "blood". It is RIDICULOUS to talk about the percentage of "white" people in this country, when MOST people in this country are of MIXED race (to one degree or another). Factually, that is true of almost ALL "latinas" and "latinos".

And how racist is it to assume that all "people of color" think the SAME, and consider "white" people their ENEMIES and OPPRESSORS from whom it is necessary to claim poer? You can't get any more racist than that. I repeat as a fact: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN IS A RACIST MAGAZINE.

I am not done (no groans, please). WHY should this country be "transfromed" if "white" people become a "minority"? Are the people who claim this really saying that Hisapnic Americans and black Americans shoudl not share the principles that made this country the greatest country in the world? Should not adopt those principles as AMERICNAS, as the Ilatians, Poles, Greeks, and other Americans did after immigrating to this country?

Yep. You should see where I am going here. The fact is thqt Hispanics and African-Americans should be CONSERVATIVES. They should be conservatives not BECAUSE they are black or Hispanic, just like I am not a conservative BECAUSE I am a "white" male. I am not. I am of MIXED race, just like most of them. "Right" and "wrong" do NOT depend on race, and you are a RACIST if you think they do, or--worse--SHOULD.

Yes, I expect that the rising "minority" population, and rising "tolerance", will result in more "multiracial" people being elected to office. So what. President Obama is almost certainly MORE WHITE than he is black. My problem with him is that he is LEFTIST--not that he has some percentage of "black" "blood". There is NO reason for this country to change AT ALL because multiracial people become a "majority", and "white" people a "minority". The only way that is not true is if you egard society as a POWER competition amond and between racial and ethnic groups. If you believe that, you ARE a RACIST. Most leftists do believe that.

Don't I see how "fundamental" the change is when people like Obama and Sonia Sotomayor reach power? Nope. The "fundamental" change is because these people are leftist RACISTS. The fact that more Hipsanics, blacks and mixed race people achieve power, AS INDIVICUALS, should not change anything at all. They still need to govern the best way, and they still need to have the "values" tghat made this country so great.

Yep. It IS "progress" that the opportunity of people is not now significantly restricted because of the color of their skin, except by leftists. It IS a good thing thqat "latinos" and "blacks" can be lected to any political office, and achieve any political office. But to suggest that they should BELIEVE differently on the best course for this country BECAUSE of thieir race is RACIST. It is also a recipe for disaster, as these people are being told by leftists that they SHOULD take REVENGE on "white" people for discrimination by OTHER "white" people.

Don't I realize that blacks and Hispanics are voting in large numbers for leftist Democrats? Yes, I do realize that, and it is a mistake on their part. But to suggest that they should do that BECAUSE of their race/ethnic origin is RACIST. To the extent they are doing so because of that, or becuase Democrats are promising that the government will be their only salvation, that is the wrong reason for such a vote. If they really believe in the leftist message, fine. But that message has to stand on its merits, and leftist Democrats shoud NOT be able to get votes by encouraging a war for "power" between "while" people and "people of color". That kind of thing will merely destory this country, as so many leftist polices are destroyingn this country.

As this blog has shown, leftist Democrats--and complicit Republicans--ARE destroying this country, This absurd racism is merely one example of how they are doing so.

John Cornyn: Pompous Ass (As Republicans Continue to Treat Rush Limaugh as More the Enemy than Obama)

John Cornyn is an establishment, lpompous ass. He is one of the reasons I don't expect to vote for ANY Republican during the rest of my lifetime. I did NOT vote for him in November. (I think Rush Limbaugh got it wrong here, since--unless I am going senile--John Cornyn was up for re-electon last November, and not 2010.).

Yes, I have known John Cornyn is a pompous ass since he was on the Texas Supreme Court. I have NEVER liked him. As an attorney, I knew something about him. I tend to think he--like most establishment Repubicans--des not have a PRINCIPLED bone in his body. I saw his campaign commercials in Texas. They were NOT "conservative". Now these commercials did run in El Paso. Maybe he ran conservative commercials in more conservative parts of the state. But that would just show how little principle he had, would it not?

Now if conservatives controlled the Repubican Party, I am sure they would not drum Cornyn out of the party. He has a reasonably conservative voting record--a "big business" conservative voting record. But he is NOT a conservative "leader", or effective advocate for conservative causes. He is merely in it for the POWER, and his own interest. There was a time I held my nose and voted for Cornyn. I no longer do that kind of thing. I am too disgusted with the Republican Party.

What prompted this entry (although, in another example of how right this blog always is, I have mentioned Cornyn unfavorably before) is that John Corny attacked Rush Limbaugh--essentially telling him to shut up about the racism of Sonia Sotomayor--on National Public Radio. Limbaugh struck back today on his radio program.

Notice how Rush is FINALLY comeing around to my view on the Republican Party--that thePOLITICIANS in that party really stand for NOTHING except their own election and re-election. I have always been way ahead of Rush, and continue to be.

John Cornyn, of course, has attacked ME at the same time he attacked Rush, even though he probably has no idea who I am (although I argued before him in the Texas Supreme Court at least once). But read the blog entries this week. I have (accurately) called Sotomayor a racist--at least unless she can explain the racist words she said in a way anyone can believe. There is no dobut John Cornyn does not really like people like me. I return the compliment. I am honored that he would not like me. He probably feels the same.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi: Green Queen in China

Yes, the reference earlier today to the Drudge headline on the "Green Queen" was to Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi--perhaps the most dishonest, stupid hypocrite to ever walk the Earth (despite the extremely strong competition from other leftists, including Al Gore--who exceeds her on this particular issue but perhaps not overall). The Drudge headline was put under a picture of Pelosi, although you may ave been too lazy to check it out.

Is there any indcation taht "Total Failure" Peolosi has conducted an "invenotry" of "every aspect" of her life and changed her life in every aspect to "go green"? Don't be silly. She is married to a wealthy man. I would bet you that she has given up little or nothing of her own lifesylte (typical of leftists, including Gore). Doubt me? Remember the previous entry in this blog (see archives) about how "Total Failure" Pelosi was so angry when the military did not have IMMEDIATELY available to her the jet that she wanted--it being settled lpolicy that the Speaker of the House have access to travel in a military jet, when available? Nope. From her religion to her politics, "Total Failure" Pelosi is a total hypocrite.

That is, however, not what amuses me most about this story. "Total Failure" Pelosi said this to get applause in CHINA--in effect adopting the Chinese approach that "global warming" is totally an AMERICAN ({"rich country") problem.

Dirty little secret (although not really secret--just ignored): It does not matter what WE do on greenhouse gases. Chinal would like us to impoverish ourselves, while China goes its merry way. But almost ALL of the projected INCREASES in green house gases for the future are expected to come from China, India, and other Third World countries. They have no intention of remaining "poor", even though they are perfectly fine with US becoming poor trying to "fight" "global warming". This is one of the many reasons that the total "global warming" fraud is such a crock. If increased greenhouse gases are going to "kill the planet" (see today's previous entry on Sonia Sotomayor), then we are DOOMED no matter what. Places like China and INdia are NOT going to condemnt their people to permanent poverty because of "global warming". Now it is true that China is FORCING people to have no more than one child, which most leftist environmentalists would probably endorse for us (since freedom is one of those things in which leftists do not believe). But that is a PROSPERITY measure, and NOT because of "global warming" (albeit it has a direct "greenhouse gas" effect, since every breathing animal on this planet EXHALES CO2 (greenhouse gas). Indeed, there is a move to LIMIT fram animals like sheep and cows, because they BELCH greenshouse gases and otherwise cause emission of more greenhouse gases. As usual, this is partly a way to advance a leftist agenda, using "global warming" as only the excuse. Yes, we are back to PETA, which does not like the way we "use" animals.

It is still ironic that "Total Failure" Pelosi would go to China and say central planning things about controllling people's lives--concentrating on an area where even Joe Biden (during campaign) said China was deficient. Remember the "air quality" concerns during the Olympics? Nope. It is CHINA that is really on the front liines as far as the increase in greenhouse gases is concerned. What we in the U.S. do hardly matters (despite leftist GUILT over our "disproportionate" use of energy and emission of greenhouse gases).

Sonia Sotomayor and Abortioin (Guest Appearance by Sean Hannity--Guns Blazing)

It is leftist Democrats--NOT Republicans or even conservatives--who have a "litmus test" on abortion. They are fanatics on the subject, which is the only thing that explains their EXTREME attitude that it "infringes" on the sacred "right" to abortion to even prohibit abortionis in the last three months (where the country has ALWAYS disagreed with them). Don't dobut me on this. I know what I am talking about. Planned Parenthood, and most other leftists, have fanatically opposed ANY restrictions on abortion, even up to the moment of birth. Yes, that means President Obama, Pelosi, and th erest have supported INFANTICIDE. Nope. This is NOT a matter of "opinion". If you believe it is infanticide to kill a baby once the umbilitical cord is cut, you can argue a thousand years and not explain why a different creature is being killed right before the umbilical cord is cut. This is fanaticism--immoral at that--at its worst. (Yes, I know that SOME local democrats are allowed to be "pro-life" on a LOCAL level, so long as they do not threaten the national agenda of the left.).

Well, Sonia Sotomayor's only challenge on the left is proving that she meets the fanatical litmus test leftist Democrats have on abortion. She is radically left on almost everything, as far as I can tell (at this early stage), but her record on abortion is fairly unclear. No, it does not matter is she is Catholic (I don't know that, even after reading the Wikipedia entry on her, although I assume most Puerto Ricans are Catholic). Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi pretends to be Catholic, hypocrite that she is, and still is as fanatically pro-abortion as a person can be. Nevertheless, it makes the left a little nervous (think David Souter as a Bush 41 apponteee who made the right correctly nervous) that Sotomayor has not really committed herself on abortion.

Not to worry (you leftists out there). I am confidenct, despite the impropriety of it, that Sotomayor will affirm her commitment to Roe v. Wade. She knows, as well as I do, the leftist litmus test on abortion, and she knows that she cannot afford to lose any support on the left. At best, she will not be as fanatically pro-abortion as Obama or Pelosi. She did vote to uphold the Bush Administration rule against taxpayer money going to foreign groups who promote/perform abortions--even as taxpayer money continued to go to Planned Parenthood (perhaps the most evil, dishonest organization to ever exist in this country--at least outside the Ku Klux Klan, the Communist Party, William Ayers' The Weather Undergound, and similar orgainzations dedicated to undermining the very foundations of this country). From a leftist/Obama point of view, Sotomayor may be "moderate" on abortion.

I remind you that the "moderate" position on abortion that the left professed (liarsand hypocrites that most are--especially in Planned Parenthood) in about 1969 is regarded (by the media and the left--redundancy again) as the present EXTREME right wing position. Yes, and I lived through it and know, pro-abortion activists (most of them) were saying that only INSANE fanatics were proposing "abortion on demand". They were saying all reasonable persons favored some restrictions on abortion, so long as the "moderate", reasonable view prevailed that reasonable exceptions ("health of mother, deformity, rape, etc.) were put into the law. Indeed, if the left had not PROVEN that they oppose democracy, when it conflicts with their agenda, we would probably have arrived at some "compromise" in this country allowing certain things (morning after pills? Fairly broad "health" exceptions--sometimes including "mental health"?) . Now I would not have favored such a "compromise", since I rightly knew that the left was always trying for unrestricted abortion by having the "exceptions" eat up the rule. I said so (correctly), even as pro-abortion advocates were lying through their teeth claiming that NO ONE was advocating basically unrestsricted abortion--saying that even as they were pushing the courts to impose unrestricted abortion on the country by judicial fiat. In a recent speech, Obama used the leftist "party line" about how the propoents and opponents of abortion should reach "common ground"--by which he meant that pro-life people shoud accept unrestricted abortion (the EXTREME leftist position), while agreeing that "unwanted" pregnancies should be reduced. Leftists have argued that same thing from the beginning, and it is just a device to SHUTP UP pro-life people while pursuing fanatic pro-abortiion policies.

So Sotomayor MAY (don't count on it) be more "moderate" than Obama and Pelosi. So what. She is a radical leftist, with little intellectual depth, on seemingly everything else. For example, she is quoted as saying--from the bench in the course of a leftist attempt to force your electric bill up by forcing electric companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--that "glolbal warming is killing the planet, not over centuries, but in a short period of time". That is, of course, objectively a LIE. The woman is stupid. (Did I just call Al Gore stupid? Damn right, to the extent he is not dishonest for personal gain.)

Expect this to be the "defense" of Sotomayor: Things like her seeming lack of total fanaticism on abortion (which she may have, but has not yet exhibited) show that Sotomayor is "mainstream" and "moderate". Bull. All indications are that she is as radically leftist as they come. Even the most radical leftist may seemingly depart from leftist orthodocxy in MINOR ways.

If Alito or Roberts had said that the life experiences of "white males" made their judgment more likely to be right than the limited life experiecnes of African-Americans and Hispanics, they would have been HUNG (not just refused confirmation). Since Sotomayor merely picked on white males--otherwise saying the very same thing in reverse--she will get away with it (absent more revelations and/or a truly bad performance in the hearings).

That said, abortion appears to be one area--absent more information and/or caving to leftist pressure--where Sotomayor may plausibly claim to be a "moderate" (whehter she is or not, and even though "modrate" in this context only means that she MAY not suscribe to the fanatically extreme, pro-abortion position that now rules the Democratic Party on a natiinal level--a position very far from the "moderate" position asserted about 1970).

P.S. I heard Sean Hannity assert today, before I turned him off (as I always do after Rush), that Sotomayor has shown extreme leftist views on the Second Amendment. Now Sean Hannity does NOT know Constitutional Law and history (trust me on this). I do. What was Sotomayor's "crime? Well, she asserted that it is "settled law" that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, but only to the Federal Government. In a way (not the way Sotomayor meant it, since she only meant it as an argument to reach the result she wanted), Sotomayor was not only correct, but making a CONSERVATIVE argument. It is not just the Seocnd Amendment. The ENTIRE Bill of Rights (yes, the First Amendment too) originally only applied to restrict the Federal Government. This was true until the 1930's, when the Roosevelt Supreme Court began to incoporate the Bill of Rights (item by item) into the 14th Amendment--which DID apply to the states. However, before 1866, the 14th Amendment did not exist. Yes, before 1866, and really until the Supreme Court shoehorned individual Amendments of the Bill of Rights inot the Constitution, a state could Constitutionally (Federal Constitution) have a STATE RELIGION. Yes, and this is an absolute fact and not opinion, under our original Constitution there was no argument about "prayer in the schools". The whole First Amendment ("CONGRESS shall make no law") waws a restriction ONLY on the Federal Goveernment. Yes again, the ACLU LIES on our Foundres setting up a "total separation" of church and state. They did no such thing, as the whole thing was a matter of STATE policy, and the whole point was to keep the Federal Government from growing out of control. The people who insisted on the Bill of Rights were right about that worry--no people in history have been more right--but we have gone down that road anyway. "But", you say, if the Bill of Rights has been incorporated in the 14th Amendment, is not the Second Amendment now applicable to the states? Well, not exactly. It is NOT--despite Sotomayor--"settled law". What the Supreme Court did is incorporate the Bill of Rights in the 14th Amendment ONE BY ONE--although if one of the Bill of Rights were incorporated, it was dones so COMPLETELY, to the full extent it applies to the Fedreal Government, and will all Supreme Court interpretatioins that apply to the Fedeeral Government. Does that make any sense? OF CURSE NOT. That means the Supreme Court asserted the "right" to pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights were IMPORTANT, and which were not important enough to apply to the states. The whole thing never made any sense (incporporating certain of the Bill of Rights to aplly to the states to the same extent they applied to the Federal Government). Again, the First Amendment specifically says CONGRESS shall make no law. How can you twist that to apply to the states, even through the 14th Amendment? It was a naked power grap by the Supreme Court. "Okya", you say, "but it has been done. Is not Hannity right that logically the Second Amendment should be applied to the states just like the Firt Amendment? Yes, you coul d say that is a logical thing to say NOW. And Sotomayor surely did not mean to challenge the idea of "incoproating" the Bill of Rights in the 14th Amendment. However, as a "federalist" (which I do not think either Hannity or Limbaugh truly are, although they lean more in that direction than any leftists), I don't have nearly the problem with state and local regulation of guns that I have with Federal regulation of guns. That is why I say, IN A WAY, I agree with Sotomayor. The Second Amendment was NOT meant to apply to the tates originally. Neither were most of the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights--in fact the whole Bill of Rights was aimed at the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Am I saying that I would be perfectly fine with Texas limiting "free speech" (lefatists, of course, already do it on every level)? Well, it IS "settled law" --if WRONG--that the Firt Amendment applies to Texas, even though it was not originally meant to so apply. But I would have no problem going back to the original intent. Without the Civil War, there would never have been a 14th Amendment. Would that be so bad? I, personally, don't think so. I would have preferred a more specific Amendment: "No governmental authority shall discriminate against any person on the basis of race, national origin, or religion." Too bad it does not read that way. The opening that has left for the left is way too big. It has cost us dearly in terms of what the "Founders" intended.

"Global Warming" and the Obama Green Queen: Drudge Strikes Again!


You gotta love Drudge ( The above is the currrent screaming headline, with a link. If the link did not follow through to this blog, you can go to Drudge for a link to the full explanatioin of the headline. I have no intention of explaining the headline here.

What I think is the significance here is that "global warming" remains a device to impose a leftist, central planning agenda on us all--at the cost of destroying our standard of living. "Leftism" is the real religion here, and "global warming" merely a tool to get power over every detail of our lives.

Our country will not survive it (in recognizable form).

The massive ad campaign running now trying to use CHILDREN as a device to induce energy conservation (like a parent ranting at a child for not turning off the lights), and telling us wahat light bulb to use, is only the beginning. These people fully intend to control every detail of your life, and mine--at whatever cost. They are well on their way, and I am a pessmiist as to the fianl result.

Sonia Sotomayor, Racist: The Case of the "Murder" of the Dyslexic Firefighter

I was familiar with one of Sonia Sotomayor's decisions bEFORE she was selected to be Obama's first Supreme Court nominee. That was because the case had come to the attention of my brother (the one who was a co-owner of Shippers Transport--the now defunct trucking company NOT bailed out by Obama/the Federal Government). My brother regarded it as an egregious example of racism on the left. Remember, if you believe in GROUP rights, and that people have "rights" as members of GROUPS (rather than as individuals), that is the very essence of racism. You then believe that people should be discriminated against, or for, based on the color of their skin. The Ku Klux Klan believes no differently (than Snia Sotomayor and the left), except as to the skin color they like.

Segue to New Haven, Connecticut (home of Yale--no "hisotry" of "past discrimination" here, and where the "racism" is almost totally a matter of punishing people for their skin being white). Say you are a dyslexic firefighter studying for the promotion exam to be on the promotion list for lieutenant and captain. You put in many hours of effort, including having people READ to you the texts useful for studying for the test. You make the promotion list because of your INDIVIDUAL hard work. But you don't get the promotion, and are in fact no closer to getting the promotion than you were before. Why not? Because of the COLOR OF YOUR SKIN. You happen to be "white" (who says? Are my daughters "white"--50% Hispanic as they are? Is Obama WHITE, more than 50% Caucasian that he is?).

This is "group think" gone amok. New Haven threw out the test, because out of 19 people who made the promotion list, none were "black", and only one was Hispanic. There was no real indication that the test was designed to exclude those groups. To the contrary, every attempt was evidently made to make sure the test was not racially biased. The ONLY reason for throwing out the test was that it did not produce promotions for "people of color". In other words, the idea is that people NOT be treated as inidividuals, but as members of the racial group (skin color) to which they happen to belong. This is racism, pure and simple.

Wel, the syslexic firefighter who "aced" the test sued, basded on his INDIVIDUAL right not to be judged on the color of his skin--the right not to have an earned result taken away from him because of the color of his skin. The leftisst, racist (redundancy) trial judge ruled against the dyslexic firefighter (joined, of course, byt h e others discrininated against because of their skin color). Remember, these peple (leftists) cannot even DEFINE who is "blakc", "Native American", or "white". Like the Ku Klux Klan, they don't let that stand in their way (although, unlike the Ku Klux Klan, they are probably not "honest" enough to pass the Black Codes, defining a person as "blakc" if the person has 1/8 "black blood"--the blood, of course, being red so long as it is exposed to air).

The case reached Sonia Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Sonia Sotomayor is a racist (already established from her own words, as previously quoted in this blog). Therefore, what resulted was a ONE PARAGRAPH, "per curiam" opinion upholding the decision of the trial judge, who had reasoned that the city could face a lawsuit from the BLACK firefighters if the city did not throw out the test--something which is true ONLY if you assume that the judges deciding such question are the same racists willing to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin.

You need to understand what a "per curiam" opinion is. It is really no substantial opinion at all. It is a summary decision--usually by a unanimous court--based on the conclusion that the case is not worth the time for a full blown opinion. In other words, a "per curiam" opinion represents a statement by the court that the law (and facts) are so well settled, or the case so uninteresting and insignificant, that it is as waste of judicial resources to devote much time to the case. Sonia Sotomayor, as a racist ideologue, regarded the firefighter case as such an insignificant case. Or, more likely, she--and a majority of her three judge panel, were trying to BURY the case in the hope that treating it as worth only a "per curiam" opinion would convince others it was not a case worth further review. If the latter was Sotomayor's object, it did not work.

"Pe curiam" opinions almost never have a dissent. A dissent almost contradicts the very essence of what justifies a "per curiam" decision. In this case, there was a stinging disssent from a HSIPANIC judge. Further, the panel opinion (Sotomayor's panel) was requested to be reviewed "en banc" by the entire Second Circuit. My understnading is that such "en banc" review was turned down only on a 7 to 6 vote. It was that close. This is the case that racist ideologue Sotomayor thought INSIGNIFICANT. (For yuor information, every Federal Appeals Court has a number of judges comprising the whole court, but every case, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, is heard by a "random" panel of three of the judges--subject to "en banc" review of the panel decision, if the entire court deems it appropriate upon appeal/appllicationi from the "loser" of the three judge panel decision.)

Was this the end? Nope. The case that Sotomayor--esposing herself as a racist ideologue trying to bury a case she did not even want to get a serious hearing--was then accepted for review by the Supreme Court of the United States, where it is now pending with an opinion expected prior to the vote on Sotomayor. Thus, the case that Sotomayor though "insignificant", or pretended to so think, is going to be the subject of a "landmark" Supreme Court decision. Sotomayor hardly showed herslef to be a judge who looks at the real merits and significance of a case in her conduct in the case of the dyslexic firefighter. What she showed herself to be was a leftist ideologue with a POLITICAL agenda to impose her personal views--as she, herself, has described herself on more than one occasion in the past. That is, she has described herself as looking up the judiciary as a place to make policy according to a judge's life experiences and view of the world. See previous blog entries this week on this subject.

Do I think the Supreme Court will come down with a ringing opinion against "group rights", and for inidividual justice--for the right of a person not to be discriminated against based on the color of that person's skin? Actually, I don't. Leftist racism has become too embedded in the judiciary, and even some "conservative" judges are unwilling to make clear statements on the subject. I expect an AMBIGUOUS decision, which may or may not give the "white", dyslexic firefighter individual "justice".

I have said before in this blog than I had an "op-ed" column printed in The Daily Texan on this very subject ("reverse discrimination"), at the time of the Bakke decision (on discrimination against "white" males in law school admission). What is important about this is that I was writing in about 1972. As I have previously described in this blog, I had to write the Texas legislature to get the article published, as The Daily Texan was reserving its "guest columns" for leftist propaganda at the time. I was a law student at the University of Texas School of Law, and one of the few outspoken Republicans on campus at that time (a time of the Vietnam War, Nixon, Watergate, and McGovern getting 95% or more of the "student" vote, while the country gave Nixon 60% of the vote--meaning the public was smarter then than they are now). I digress (sort of)

The point is that discriminating aginst peoloe on the basis of their skin color (so long as it is some accepted facsimile of "white") was an issure FORTY YEARS AGO.

How can we still be arguing--as the left still is--that the rights of people should be determined by their skin color. For God's sake, we have a black (sort of) President!!!! Even if you think there was some justiciation for pro-active countering of rednect racism in 1970 (and, as I said in The Daily Texan back then, clear thinking would have shown you that assigning individual rights on the basis of group membership was always indefensible), it is not longer possible to argue that we shoud STILL be discriminating against people on the color of their skin.

Do leftists want us to do this FOREVER, on the grounds that it is group "rights" that is important and not individual rights? The short answer is "YES". That is exactly what leftist racists like Sotomayor want to do. They regard the world as a power struggle between "people of color", and sometimes women, against evil "white males" ("white Eurpopeans", in the language of Reverend Wright). Sotomayor's own statments make clear that is how she views the world. See, again, previous blog entries this week.

Let me be clear here. I expect to oppose Sotomayor on the grounds that she is a radical leftist, and racist. However--contrary to what you may think--I do have an open mind that she MIGHT be able to "explain" here previous votes and statements. You know that Obama is going to choose someone left of center, and he is President with a Democratic Senate. So it is possible that Sotomayor is not the worst we could get. My initial reaction is that she is as bad as they come, but I am open to changing that opinion. If you leftists out there think that an EXTREME leftist philosophy is not grounds for voting against a Supreme Court justice, you need to remember Robert Bork, and all of those others you opposed on exactly those grounds.

Now I do NOT intend to go into this kind of detail as to every questionable opinion of Sonia Sotomayor. I really only did this entry because I had long planned an entry on this case, before Sotomayor was nominated, and the case is instructive on leftist thought even without the participation of Sotomayor, and what it reveals about her.

Make no mistake. Sotomayor is NOT going to be defeated as a nominee because of an individual opinion, or even a few individual opinions. She is probably not going to be defeated at all. But if she is defeated, it will be because either her EXTREME, racist overall judicial philosophy is exposed or because some really disturbing personal misconduct (say a tape of a truly racist rant or not parying her taxes or whatever) comes to light.

That is what Repubicans need to do in the hearings, and time before the hearings: Try to turly confront Sotomayor on her radical extrmism and willingness to impose her fiews on the country as a dictator from the bench. This will give Sotomayor a chance to self destruct. The likelihood is that she will be confirmed, but Republicans have an obligation to at least try to force Sotomayor to reveal the details of her judicial philosophy, including challenging her on past statements. If Republicans fail to do that, they are worthless (a conclusion, of course, that I have pretty much already made as to current Republican officeholders).

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor: Supplemental Entry

This is a supplemental report of Sonia Sotomayor, since I did what I had left as an exercise for you to do. I looked her up on Wikipedia.

It is always amazing to me how mahny basic biographical facts Wikipedia often leaves OUT (lack of consistency perhaps being the price of the somewhat haphazard way Wikipedia is put togeter). However, you find out that Sotomayor was married, and then divorced in 1983--never, apparently, to marry again. Wikipedia quotes her as saying "my mother is my life". She has NO children. Thus, this "richness" of experience she brags about has MAJOR holes in it.

Now Wikipedia glosses right over the NAME of the person she married. Indeed, it does not even really state the full names of her mother and father--at least not in a concise biographical summary. I ma sure the references could reveal that informatioin, but I don't see any reason to leave basic biographical information out of the summary. You are talking no more than a single sentence or two to get every single factual detail (full names of parents, name and occupatioin of husband, etec.). Most of this info would naturally fit in a mere pharse or two in the appropriate place.

Never mind. My question is: Will the mainstream media question her EX-HUSBAND (if he is still alive). They would if this were a conservative. You can be sure leftist groups would, and would then tet any adverse information into the mainstream media.

Nope. I am NOT saying that Sonia Sotomayor should be rejected for the Supreme Court because she is divorced, or because she had no children. I will say that David Souter, who she is replacing, was a DISASTER on the Supreme Court, and he was unmarried. Still, you can't reject someone on that ground. Nor does it matter if she married a mafioso, and then divorced him (I have no reason to believe there is anything adverse about her long discarded husband).

Mitt Romney, of course, was asked on 60 Minutes if he had ever engaged in premarital sex, in spite of the principles of his religion. Is Sotomayor Catholic? If so, was did divorce violate the principles of her religion? Of course this is irrelevant. I am just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the mainstream media and the left--not to mention the religious BIGOTRY.

All in all, Sotomayor's personal life seems so limited, and her private acitivities so limited, that she is not too likely to have many personal skeletons. With Obama's appointees, of course, you can never discount the possibility of not paying her taxes or some such thing. But it seems most likely to come down to her judicial philosophy and real intellectual depth (a Nixon appointee was rejected on the grounds that he was not intellectually "strong" enough).

As previously stated, I expect to oppose Sotomayor on those grounds, but will wait and seee if those initial quotes in the New York Times sotry were misleading or not.

Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court Nominee

Sonia Sotomayor is a radical racist. In hter opinioins and public statements, she has made clear that she feels judges should deliberately write their opinions into the law--especially if those opinions are based on the "richness" of experience of growing up as a minority woman. You will hear the "1984" style Big Lie from Democrats and the mainstream media that she is a "moderate". As indicated, that is a "1984" style Big Lie. She is as radically left as they come.

Should Republicans opposes Sonia Sotomaryor to the extent of voting against her (the way many Democrats voted against Clarence Thomas totally on ideology, and against Alito and Roberts on the same ground)?

Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. See the previous entries today where I quoted her on "latinas" and then started talking about Mexican-Americans. As I stated, it is a major, racist error to consider all "latin" cultures as the same (Itlaly, Spain, Peru, Argentina, Mexico--they are all different). It is not me that is in error by talking about Mexican-Americans as "latinas" (which they are), but Sotomayor who is in earror, and racist, by suggesting that all "latinas" are the same, and superior to "white males". The one area where you might question what I said is where I suggested "Sotomayor" was not a "Mexican" name, although I hardly meant that very seriously. I have seen MANY Mexican-Americans with names I did not recognize as "Mexican", including (for example) "Lomeli". Is "Sotomayor" a Puerto Rican name? Is it her married name? Is it a married name from a "white male" in here ancestry? WHO CARES? I don't. Not even enought to go on Google/Wikipedia and find out (possibly). I leave that as an exercise for you (looking Sotomayor up on Google).

If I were in Congress, I would oppose Sotomayor, because she is a racist/sexist AND because she has a totally wrong view of "the law" as a way for a judge to impose her own policy views by dictatorial fiat. She flatly states this, and has been reversed many times for doing it.

That said, she is going to get confirmed unless the embarrassing things about her that come out are outrageous and overwhelming. I think the statement I quoted in my first entry today is that outrageous, but most of the country will not.

However, this whole question of Supreme Court nominees gets tricky. Yes, the people on the left oppose people totally on ideology. So do people on the right--usually not as virulently and widespread. Most of Clinton's nominees received in excess of 90 votes, while the left raised virulent opposition against all of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. The problem, of course, is that it is somewhat dangerous to reduce judicial confirmation votes to party line votes. The President is elected, in part, to select these people. "Advise and consent" was never meant to give the Senate the right to do the selecting. We are graducally moving in the direction of making judges totally political. More accurately, judges themselves, and the partisan fights over judicial nominees (primarily, but certainly not exclusively, on the left), have pretty much eroded the old fiction that judges are not "political". Still, it was a valuabe fiction, and we lose a lot if we discard it altogether.

In short, Sotomayor will be approbed, absetnt major revelations ("major" to the public at large, rather than to me). This is NOT a vote (such as the "bailout" votes) where I disown a Republican who votes to confrim Sotomayor. There ARE principles involved here where you can legito,ate;u vpte for a "qualified" (is she, really, when she is that wrong in her approach to judging?) nominee on the grounds that the judiciary should not be totally politicized. It IS useful, after all, to point to cooperation on Democratic nominees the next time we have a Republican President. That is, it might be useful if the left were not becoming so arrogant and political that they don't care about tradition. Leftists---more and more--only care about POWER.

Bottom line: Yes, I would probably vote against Sotomayor--albeit I would have an open mind in terms of the information that comes out about her. I don't think ANY Repubican Senator can afford to immediately say he is voting against her. The full facts of her record should be allowed to come out first. You might think my mind closed, and to a degree you would be right (based on the information I now have). No Senator can afford to give that impression. What you have to do is the Democratic/leftist tactic of "raising questions" and looking into her background. Even this gives me qualms to the extent we are turning every Supreme Court nomination into a Clarence Thomas/Bork style witch hunt. And Bork WAS rejected for his "radical" views no more "radical" (on the right) than Sotomayor's views are radical (on the left). Indeed, I think Bork was considreably less radical, in terms of objective jurisprudence (jurisprudence that does not simply impose your policy views on every decision, whatever "the law" says).

Make no mistake. This appointment is bad. It may even be worse than expected. But an appointment of this type was expected. That is what happens when leftists are in power, and it is the downside of McCain losing.

I have said before that Obama is dishonest abut gay marriage. He fully intends, and intended, to appoint people to the Supreme Court that impose their own policy views on the country. I don't know Sotomayor's polciy views on gay marriage (although I suspect Obama does). But if she supports gay marriage as a policy, then she will write it into the Constitution. That is what she has said she does--make decisions based on her own "wisdom" gained from her "rich" life experiences.

Her personal life story, and the results of recent elections, virtually guarantee that Sotomayor will be confirmed--absent enough ammunition against her being brought to light. That does not boter me, although her "philosophy" does. It is probably as it should be that Presidents should be able to get confirmation of judges over totally political opposition, even if the left is definitely NOT of that opinion.

We will see what surfaces on Sotomayor, and if she can do better than Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi in explaining herself. Republicans should, at least, make her defend her judicial philosophy and explain whether whe really thinks judges whould write their own opinions into law. Explaining some of those quotes referenced in the first blog entry today would be a start in terms of demanding that Sotomayor explain herself.

Sonia Sotomayor Is a Racist (Part II): Racist Headed for Supreme Court?

Now you may have noticed that I deliberately MISCONSTRUED Sonia Sotomayor's comment on a "latina" woman, with her "richness" of experience, more often than not reaching a "better" conclusion than a white male.

Sonia Sotomayor is obiviously a racist who regards herself as superior to every while male (admittedly, that may be true of every Mexican-American female, although I believe they also feel themselves superior to Mexican-American MALES--a conclusion supported by Sotomayor's emphasis on "LATINA").

For all I know, Sonia Sotomayor may have married an anglo ("white" male). "Sotomayor" is not, after all, an obviously Mexican name. But if "white males" are so deficient in understanding and judgement, compared with the "richness of experience" of "people of color", how can a "wise" latina marry such a deficient creature? Well, I gave you the answer. "Latinas" may marry anglos BECAUSE they are deficient (easier to dominate). So perhaps Sotomayor was making the same point I made abut the reason for Mexican-American females marrying "white" males.

My own reasons, of course, for concluding that "white" males have superior political judgment to ANY type of female has nothing to do with "richness" of experience. I simply believe men are SMARTER than women (in many areas, including politics).

What is the difference between me and Sonia Sotomayor? Easy. I could not be elected to ANYTHING, saying the things I do. Leftists like Obama and Sotomayor can say the type of things I say--only I say them HALF tongue in cheek--and the mainstream media lauds them.

Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. And the news today is that she is Obama's choice for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. Thus, we now will have a racist on the Supreme Court (and, by the way, a sexist).

Mexican-American Women and Anglo Men

Okay. You may think it is fairly easy to expain why Mexican-American (or Mexican) women might want to marry anglo men. After all, Mexican men are hopeless (froma woman's point of view--the rub being, of course, that ALL men are hopeless from that point of view). But WHY are anglo men attracted to Mexican-American, or even Mexican (any number of soldiers stationed in El Paso have married women who actually lived in Juarez, as I learned living in El Paso, and it was not limited to just soldiers).

I don't think it is just in El Paso (with limited other choice) that this attraction occurs. My friend, Sylvia (100% Mexican-American) cut a major swath through anglo men in Seattle and Portland, as she lived in the Pacific Northwest for more than a decade.

Yes, Mexican-American women can be very pretty. Sylvia, for example (pretty AND modest) has an explanation as to why she does not get hired when women are doing the selecting: "I am just too pretty". I assure you I am not making this up. I digress again (sort of, as this all go to explain just how tough Mexican-American women are).

Mexican-American women can also APPEAR more "feminine" than "anglo" women, and less overtly feminst. Therefore, you might get the idea that aglo men are being fooled. I don't think that is it.

Unless you marry a Mexican-American woman within hours of meeting her, you can't really avoid knowing that she is tough as nails. I knew it about my ex-wife. I married her anyway, which I think is true of most "anglo" men. We know about the fiery, volatile temper and dominating personality built by centuries of dealing with Mexican-American men. So why do we do it (marry Mexican-american women)?

I think it is the "moth to the flame" syndrome, or the same impulse that drove that guy (Icarus? Not sure, and not worth looking up) to fly too close to the sun with his wings held on with wax.

For an anglo man (many or most), Mexican-American women are the sun--or like a flame to a moth. They flare so brightly that they blind you to everything else. You KNOW you are likely to get burned (although my brother is still married, as are many other anglos I know who married Mexican-American women, and it may just be me), but you can't help yourself.

Even today, Mexican-American women probably attract me more than anglo women. However, this is basically an arms-length thing, as I have learned that women and I are pretty much like oil and water (something that seems to me to be true of more men and women than not these days). The attraction is still there. If I had ever married again, it probably would have been to a Mexican-American woman (albeit, again, in El Paso that is pretty much the only choice you have--85% of the choice, anyway).

Thus, Mexican-American women tend to see anglo men as easier to mold and control than macho Mexican men, and anglo men tend to see Mexican-American women as these exotic, exiting, pretty creatures--where those qulaties blind the American men to the incredible task they are taking on. Yes, the task of handling one of these creatures is a fromidable one. But their very fiery nature is an attraction in itself, even though you know you may get burned.

Thus, Sonia Sotomayor aside (stupid as she is--see previous entry), I am not surprised that there are so many marriages between anglo men and Mexican-American women. I am just surprised there are not more.

Sonia Sotomayor Is a Racist

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees."

The above is from a New York Times article, with the entire article now linked on Drudge (; and obviously on Sonia Sotomayor actually also is quoted as saying that judges judge differently depending on their sex and ethnicity.

Let me put it as bluntly as I can: SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS A RACIST. She is also about as stupid as Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi. This blog has proven long ago that most of the racists now living are leftists.

Now you might think that it is really fairly obvious that a person's sex and ethnicity would affect that person's judicial decisions. And I think it is obvious that a person's life experiences will affect how that person thinks. However, Judge Sotomayor is vitually saying that SHOULD be the case (in other words, that white males should never have given females the vote, or the opportunity to take their power away from them--a conclusion that may mean Sotomayor is smarter than I thought). If it is all a matter of race and power, "white" people should never let "latinas" (or "latinos") come to this country at all, or have any power once they get here.

Let us segue to the STUPIDITY. First, "latinas" are mostly WHITE. They can ordinarily "pass" for Greet, Italian or SPANISH (white Europeans). My ex-wife was f100% Mexican-American (the idea that "latinas" are all the same, whether from Cuba or Mexico is another RACIST view of leftists).

There is, of course, almost NO case that most "latinas" or "latinos" in this country have been discriminated against. That is because MOST of them are recent immigrants (since, say, 1965) to this country, or descendants of such recent immigrants, and are WHITE.

But, you say, Sotomayor believes in "diversity". Hell no, she doesn't. Read the top quote again Does she believe in "diversity" in marriages? What she believes in is racist power, pure and simple.

You still have doubts how stupid she is? Don't. As I say, I married a Mexican-American. Now she probably regrets ever marrying me, but NOT because I am "white" (am I, even though I had light brown hair and blue eyes with the name of a Scotttish noble family and half-Swedish on my mother's side, when family history indicates I am as much as 1/8 INDIAN--Native American).

What about my daughters? Are they "latinas"? Why not? They were raised by a Mexican-American mother, and are as much "latina" (or more) than President Obama is Mexican-American. You get the feeling that Sotomayor is advocating "purity" of the "race", even though she is talking about MONGRELS (as almost all of us in this country are). "Latinas" are mostly "white", with a mixture of "Native American" "blood" (the blood is red, in air) thrown in. "Latina" and "Latino" does NOT describe a "race", and covers a range of diverse cultures. Further, intermarriage has never been that much stigmatized between "whites" and "latinas" or "latinos".

Even though a judge cannot escape his or her life experiences, he or she should TRY to judge according to "the law" instead of personal prejudices--to the best of his or her ability--setting aside those personal prejudices to the maximum extent possible. Of course, this is just another leftist hypocrisy (worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs!). They don't believe in "the law". What they believe in is THEIR VERSION of "the law", and what are "important" laws and what are not. Leftists, like Sotomayor, CELEBRATE writing their own opinions into "law"--whether or not ttheir opinions are objectively "the law" or not.

Back to my marriage. Why did my wife marry me? Yes, you can talk about bad judgment, but that really has nothing to do with my being "white". The fact is that no woman in her right mind would marry me (see archives of this blog). But why would she be inclined to "misjudge" by marrying an "anglo"?

I have a theory on that--on why many Mexican-American women prefer to marry "anglo" men BECAUSE of the "riches" of their experience. One of my brothers--really two of them, although the other married a total mongrel like my daughters with "mixed" heritage--also married a Mexican-American woman (really a Mexican woman in that she was born in Mexico and came to this country when she was 7). But, in El Paso, there is really not that much choice (unless you circulate in the "country club" crowd, as I never did). Mexican-American women are all there are. Two of my "anglo" former law partners also married Mexican-American women. I digress (not really).

Back to my theory about why SOME Mexican-American women prefer to marry anglo men. What do you know about Mexican men, or Mexican-American men? Right. They have a MACHO tradition. My trheory is that they developed that as a defense mechanism to deal with Mexican-Ameircan WOMEN. I know. It is not like dealing with anglo women is EASY. But the point here is that Mexian-American women can easily DOMINATE many anglo men. They are used to dealing with MACHO Mexican men, with even more of an attitude of male arrogance than anglo men. Now my younger daughter chose to marry an anglo MARINE, but my younger daughter is so confident of her own "hell on wheels" personality that she thinks she can dominate even a former (now) marine. Needless to say, that marriage is stormy. I digress again (not really). My older daughter, by the way, has a boyfriend who fits more the anglo mode--a man she may think she can "dominate" (whether she can or not).

So why did my ex-wife's eyes light up when she saw she had an opportunity to marry me--even though I have so many obvious defects from a woman's point of view? I think it is because my wife (who had also married a different anglo man when very young) did not enjoy (when young) dealing with Mexian-American men. My only (platonic) female friend, Sylvia, also tends to date anglo men (although too tough for any man), for about that same reason. Mexian-Amierican men drive her nuts. Now my ex-wife presently has a Mexian-Amiercan boyfriend. So it may be that Mexican-American women are deluding themselves when they decide that their EXPERIENCE with Mexican-American men shows that they are better off with an anglo mate.

It may be that NO MAN is right for almost any woman. In other words, maybe those Mexican-American women who think anglo men will be so much easier to "mold" into shape than a Meican-American, macho man are mistaken.

However, I am sure I am basically right on this one point, and Sotomayor wrong. It is life EXPERIENCE with Mexican-American men that drives (some) Mexican-American women to anglo men.

One final note, which Sotomayor proves: Leftist ideology is a MUCH greater influence on judicial decisions than "sex and ethnicity". Now you may say that leftist ideology tends to be somewhat linked with sex and ethnicity, but that is a subject for other entires. This blog has long established, even while admitting that the idea would generally be regarded as kooky, that women should never have been given the vote, because they are incapable (in the aggregate) of exercising that "right" properly. Sonia Sotomayor is another example of this latter point. President Obama, and the numberous male leftist politicians, illustrate that leftism is hardly only a female disease. Females just seem to have fewer antibodies to combat it.

Friday, May 22, 2009

GM, GMAC, the Credit Rating of the USA, and Bailouts Out of Control in the Age of Obama

One of the financial headlines last night was to the effect that GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation, which used to be the financing arm of GM) was receiving 7.6 billion dollars in bailout money, and may receive up to 14 billion dollars. The bailouts just never end, even as it becomes more and more obvious that WHO gets bailed out is totally arbitrary, depending on who is in political favor.

The headline this afternoon is that the "clock is ticking" on the GM bankruptcy. Whehter in or out of bankruptcy, of course, GM is now controlled by the Federal Government (as, for that matter, is GMAC). Thre is no reason to believe the Federal Government is competent to run these businesses (the Federal Government itself being effectively bankrupt--with yet another story today being the PLUNGE in the U.S. dollar as the U.S. credit rating is in danger of being reduced, because of the excessive debt).

There is a radio commercial running in El Paso asking you to write your Congressman about bailing out mainly FOREIGN "record" companies, or some such thing. I don't even know if I got this one right, because I was not even aware that we were bailing out this kind of company. The bailouts are--intetioinally--now beyond any citizen's ability to keep up with.

I am fully aware that there is a move to bail out MINORITY radio stations, even as those radio stations sue to complain about a more accurate ratings system. The previous system "fudge"/"adjusted" for alleged unfairness to minorities in the previous system. The new Arbitron system was supposed to be a more objective, exact system. Surprise (not)! More accurate ratings meant exposing the previous overcounting of "minority" listerners to "minority" stations. Even apart from this, this is a business in considerable trouble (unless you are Rush Limbaugh), and there is a definite move to bail these people out (as there has been a move to bail out NEWSPAPERS--with some Democrats in Congress (who do not, of course, believe in free speech) wanting any such bailout to require such newspapers stay away from political endorsements (this also, perhaps, being a dishonest way of dfusing opposition to such a bailout by the total FICTION that newspapers are out of "politics" if they don't actually endorse a candidate, which is the LEAST of newspaper bias).

It is all out of control. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is purchasing the debt of the Federal Government to ARTIFICIALLY hold down interest rated--to the tune of 1.75 TRILLIONI dollars, and mabybe, eventually, up to 5 trillion dollars. Where does the Fed et that kind of money? Right? Furom the Federal Government (or simply printing it with an IOU). Yes, we are buying our own debt--nothing more than printing money. The only reason a credit ratioin organizsation would not reduce the credit rating of the U.S. is POLITICAL (fear). As a country, we are pretty much bankrupt.

Yep. It is totally out of contrl. The favored get bailed out. Others (with equal claims, like my brother's trucking company) do not get bailed out. But the idea that the Federal Government can adequately handle the entire economy this way is stark, raving bonkers.

These people should be in a rubber room. Yes, I mean Geitner and President Obama--not to mention Nancy Pelosi and most in Congress. But I also mean the newly minted economic fascists in Wall Street and our financial system--those people I have correctly labeled the Stupidest People on Earth. This also includes many of the heads of our "big" (too big, by merger) businesses. These people now consider themselves "partners" with the government (which makes them economic fascists)--so long as they get to at least partially dictate WHO gets bailed out. The government, and these fascists (along with the unions, which is really now another way of saying "the government") want to dictate the WINNTERS, and the LOSERS, in the Age of Obama.

We will ALL be the losers.

P.S.: Even while committing all of this money to the auto industry, and related business failures--not to mention unrelated ones, the Obama Administration is (at the same time) making it IMPOSSIBLE for the entrie atuo indistry to survive (with all of this "global warming" insanity). Don't you pity the oor? they depend more and moer on the government, and the government SCREWS them on a cross of "global warming" (as well as on such things as cigarette taxes, etc.).

GITMO and John McCain: Democrat Hypocrites and Republican Saboteur (Powerline Blog Proven Wrong Again)

I keep getting proved right. I explained to you less than a week ago that Powerline blog (or at least one of the main guys of that blog, appearing on radio in that capacity) was WRONG when it suggested that John McCain was the "best" candidate that the Republican Party could put up against Barack Obamaa. The case for that is so weak as to call into question the powers of analysis of anyone still trying to make that case. I gfave a detailed analysis of why John McCain was NOT the Republican with the best chance to defeat President Obama, although I admitted it was pretty much nothing but speculaion as to how Mitt Romney (the only logical alternative) would have done. My main point, however, was that John McCain was a disaster for the Republican Party because--win or lose--he did not set up the "debate" in the country in such a way as to give Republicans a head start on making their case against President Obama and Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi. Even if McCain had won (no chance, while Mitt Romney had a chance), a case had to be made against the Democratic Congress.

Yes, the Guantanamo dust up illustrates my point. In my previous blog entry, I correctly pointed out that standing FOR CIA (and other preople trying, in good faith, to protect this country), and AGAINST terrorists, was a WINNING issue for John McCain (or any Repblican). But John McCain resed to make it. Instead, he was almost on the other side (not quite, but almost, and he certainly said "me too" to Obama too much to make an issue out of any subtle difference between his position and Obama's).

The related issue of closing Guantanamo, and transferring detained terrorists to the U.S. for trial and --perhaps--imprisonment was another WINNING issue for McCain (or any Republican. Oops! McCain was strongly FOR closing Guantanamo as a terrorist detention facility.

How can you doubt me on this bafter last week. The Senate voted 90-6 against transferring terrorists from Guantanamo to the U.S. Democrats made SPEECHES about the DANGERS of that course of action. President Obama had to make a DEFENSIVE speech supporting his own actions and proposals--a not very convincing speech.

This shows much more than that Democrats in Congress are hypocrites, liars and political opportunists. It shows that Democrats perceived that the American people have no patience for this idea (insane idea) of treating terrorists as American criminals. Yes, the American people are right on tis--for many reasons. The thought of terrorists mingling with American criminals, with the opportunity to RECRUIT, is terrifying in itself. And it they are going to be kept segregated, how is it different from Guantanmo (which is already there, and where the segregation is automatic).

Nope. John McCain threw away a WINNING issue, and did much to undermine Republicans taking full advantage of the issue now. Indeed, as stated, McCain pretty much threw away the WINNING general argument that President Obama, and the Democrats, were more worried about the "rights" of terrorists than about the CIA personnel who acted--after 9/11--to protect this country. McCain had too much "integrity" than to raise that issue--thereby selling out the people who had acted to protect this country (not to mention selling out this country, in a significant way).

Q.E.D. Powerline blog was WRONG. John McCain was the WORST candidate the Republicans could have run, and the damage he did continues to undermine the Republican Party.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Stock Market Since October: The Stupidest People on Earth (CNBC, this continues to mean YOU)

The Stupidest People on Earth (Wall Street, Wall Street commentators, and really everyone in our financial system--including commodity traders) continue to get worse.

If you listen to those people you would think that significant things have heappened in the stock market since last October. You may even thinmkk the the rise in oil prices (futures) of some 80-90% off of their recent lows is "singnificant. This blog has told you the real story, and that people who bought oil futures at the top of this "bubble' rise in the price of oil really are the Stupidest People on Earth (matched by the people who assert that such rise is rational, or has anything to do with supply data--supplly basically remaining near a 35 year high in the face of declinining demand).

Yep. What has the S & P 500 done since it first (in recent times) went below 800 in October? Right (if you have been paying attention). It has merely been trading in a range basically between 800 and 900. Yes, it went significantly below 900--for a short while--in early March. But to a large degree that was because the Obama Administration was playing down the economy at that time for political reasons. Since then, the Obama administration has been playing up the economy for political reasons. Meanshile, Wall Street people have been doing what they do best: prove themselves the Stupidet People on Earth.

THREE TIMES the stupid people on Wall Street (now computer gamers all) have driven the S & P 500 above 900. In other words, the sick people (who have created a sick system) on Wall Street have basically created three "bear markets" since October, and three "bull markets". Back when Wall Street was not quite so sick, "bear" markets and "bull" markets lasted for YEARS.

Right before Obama was elected (up to election day), the stock market bounced violently off of its October lows--by "old" definitioins approximating a "bull market". Once Obama was elected (the economy remaining the same, or getting worse, as was obvious while the Stupidest People on Earth were driving the stock market up on computer trading), the stock market went straight down. We then reached a new LOW (for recent times) on November 20. The stock market then proceeded to go straight up again--reaching a new post-October high in January--again without much change in economic prospects.

Then Obama took office. the stock market went straight down again, to each that new low about March 9. In the meantime Obama had took office, and Rush Limbaugh (ignoring my advice that he was being an idiot) suggested that wall Street was voting thumbs down on Obama. These people are not nearly smart enough for that. It was all computer trading, helped along by the politically motivated pessimism of the beginning of the Obama Administration (a calculated pessimism designed to get Obama's programs passed and convicne everyone how bad the Bush Adminstration had left the country).

Since March 9, the Stupidest People on Earth have again driven the stock market into a "bull market" (by old definitions), up as much as 30%. Yet, where are we? Right. We are back at the same level representing the approximate top of the recent range. Yes, today the S & P 500 has again fallen below 900. Over this entire period, the economy has hardly changed, while the Stupidest People on Earth have gyrated the stock market wildly--in blatant computer manipulation. Nor have the PROSPECTS for the economy changed much--as far as visibility is concerned. Yes, you can say taht Armageddon has not happened, and that all of this government spending has "stabilized" some areas of the economy--at a cost of DERAILING any incipient recovery as soon as it starts. But there is no indication that any strong "recovery" is in the offing.

The GM bankruptcy is still ahead of us, as Obama proceeds with "green" plans to destroy anything that might be left of the auto industry--not to menation other "non-green" industries. Unemployment is guaranteed to continue to rise for some time. States are raising taxes, and asking for bailouts. They may finally be forced to actually lay off people-0government having been the only growth industry around. The Federal Government is in the process of raising taxes (the Bush tax cuts "expire" next year, and you have all of these other "sneaky" taxes being raised).

Was there any excuse for the stock market to go up 30%? Nope. Oh, you could see it going up 5 or 10%, but 30% merely shows that the Stupidest People on Earth have been at work.

It gets worse. As this blog has shwon you, oil prices and the stock market CANNOT go up together--in a logical world and in this kind of weak economy. All That does is DESTROY any recovery--resulting in LOWER oil prices (bursting of the present bubble in oil futures). For oil prices to rise 80-90%, while the stock market rises 30%, is INSANE. Yep. you could see oil prices stabilizing, and drifting slightly upward, on the economy "stabilizing" (for now). But you could argue a thousand years and not adequately explain the logic of a new "bull market" in oil while the economy is still this weak, and oil demand still falling (while supply has risen).

Could you not have "made money" since October? Sure you could have, IF you are a "riverboat gambler" (which I am--just not a very good one). You could allso have LOST moeney--a lot of it. If you bought near the top of these irrational rises in the stock market, you would have lost money THREE TIMES--a lot of money (coutning the initial big drop in October, where there were some irrational up days based on the Paulson "bailout" legislatoin). Yes, you could have made money three times, but ONLY by buying near the bottom. So who are th Stupidest People on Earth who bought near the top of these irrational rises? It is all a game of computer musical chairs, having nothing (or almost nothing) to do with economic reality). NO healthy markets should move this irrationally. As I have said, the stock market is as unhealthy today as it was in 1929, and speculation is just as rampant. In fact, the financial markets these days are nothing but speculationi. What do you think "derivatives" were? And computers (lol) were supposed to enable financial people to handle new financial instruments like derivatives, which would be too dangerous without computer technology. If you ever think the people in our financial markets are SMART, you might read that last sentence again, and then remember what happened between October of 2007 (when the stock market was irrationally high) and October of 2008.

This is why I have said--correctly--that sports bettors are more rational than Wall Street people (and there are few more irrational people on Earth than sports bettors). At least sports bettors LEARN, and trends are quickly destroyed. Does the home team always "cover the spread" when it is playing a team playing its second staright game on the road? Well, sports bettors will LEARN , and destroy that trend by betting on it--adjusting the "spread" so that the trend no longer works. It is only Wall Street people--the Stupidest People on Earth--who do not learn sufficiently to destroy trends, or keep from committing the same conduct over and over again (such as the new "bubble' in the price of oil).

Example. Since 1994 (basically 15 years), and maybe even before that, there has ALWAYS been a HUGE drop in the stock market in the late summter (late July, August, September, and extending sometimes into October). There is even a maxim: "Sell in May, and walk away". What would sports bettors do. they would start playing this trend. They would start selling in early May and April--ahead of the expected "trend" selling. The Stupidest Peoiple on Earth do not do this. In fact, there has often been a RALLY in Maym June, and July, despite this obvious historical trend.

Yes, it is built into the computers of the Stupidst People on Earth that we will have a sickening drop in the stock market in late summer. But how can people PUSH the stock market to ridiculous heights, when they KNOW what they have built into their computers for the late summer? The only explanation is that these are the Stupidest People on Earth, who trade totally on PRESENT HYPE (not actual economic prospects for the future)--basically running a computer gaming casino which is almost totally independent of the economy and logic (excepting only when events occur which cannot be ignored, such as the severe recession that resulted in establishing the new "trading range" after the decline between October of 2007 and October of 2008--note that the big drop again occurred in the September time frame).

In short, if you buy sstocks (except as part of a long-term strategy, which is no longer of interest to most on Wall Street--speculators all) at the TOP of these fictional rallies (buy high and sell low), you are one of the Stupidest People on Earth. That is especially true as we head for July, August, September and October. You can often get away with buyin LOW in those months. Since at least 1994, buying HIGH in the summer has been FATAL.

As with mainstream "journalism", I will keep repeating myself regarding the Stupidest People on Earth, because they keep repeating themselves. If they stop, I will

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 "1984" Style Leftist Lies (Are These People for the Return of Prohibition? Why Not?)

It is pretty bad when "public service" organizations and commercials are merely a tool for "1984" style leftists propaganda. However, that is a long-term trend of the leftist liars and hypocrites in this country who are experts at having the pubic fund their partisan efforts (even while attacking viciously--hypocrites that they are--any alleged "fudning" of conservative groups, such abstinence education"). Planned Parenthood (one of the most evil organizations to ever exist in this country, and I have cited chapter and verse to prove this in the past) is one of the pioneers at this leftist tactic of pursuing a partisan agenda with public money. For decades, ACORN (that leftist coalition of some 200 leftist ogranizations which committed voter fraud on behalf of Obama) has received Federal funding for decades now.

How can one object to a group using the website name " Well, I can, whe such group is merely a front for a radically leftist message using words that lie. "People's Republic of China", anyone? This use of words as a misleading weapon is a long-term tactic of the left.

Yep. I heard a commercial for "". The commercial had nothing to do with "cancer"--or at least very little. The commercial basically said that parents were killing their children with cancer and obsity if they failed to raise their children as VEGETARIANS. I could not make this stuff up!!!! It is a very short step from this outrageous commercial to the government FORCING people to be vegetarians. Is there real evidence that being a vegetarian prevents you from having cancer? Not really. But that is not the main point. The main point is that these people LIE. Their reason for wantiong OTHER people to be vegetarians has nothing to do with cancer, and everything to do witht he PETA style, leftist insanity that it is evil for human beings to eat animal flesh. I assure you I am right on this.

Perhaps Don Imus said it best (talking about his prostate cancer): "I was told I would not get cancer if I only stopped eathing hot dogs. They lied to me. I could have eaten all of the hot dogs I want and ended up exactly the same way." Yes, for decades (since his relationship with his present wife, and because of her influence, Imus has basically been a vegetarian (of sorts).

Is there evidence that too mcuh "red meat" contributes to cancer? Sure there is. Not as much as genetics. But there is some scientific evidence to that effect. So what?

If you want to be a vegetarian because you believe it is healthier, be my guest. Just don't tell ME that I contributed to killing my children because I did not raise them to be vegetarians, and don't LIE about what you are really doing. This is actually another example of "poltically correct" science, since there is little funding out there for scientists trying to show the ILL effects of a vegetarian diet.

Does meat cause obesity, which this commercial almost directly asserted? Clearly not. If America is becoming more obese, it is because of MORE FOOD, and less exercise. Or do you really think that there were many vegetarians in the 19th Century? Now there is something to be said for the theory that a vegetarian diet is so unappetizing that it makes starvation more attractive to people. But meat is clearly not the main culprit in obesity.

Don't doubt me on this. I live in El Paso. The Mexican culture is known for obesity (although there are, of course, MANY thin Hispanics). Is that because of meat in the diet? Don't be silly. There may be meat in the diet, but in Mexico (and, to a lesser degree, in El Paso) many of these people cannot AFFORD much meat. It is STARCH and cabohydrates in the diet that most causes the obesity in this culture.

That brings me to ALCOHOL. Does alcohol contribute more to obesity thatn meat? Of course it does. That is not to mentioin the massive other number of ways alcohol kills people in this country (including contributing to many of the 43,000 traffic deaths every year, and many of the 16,000 plus murders). Do you see taking on alcohol, or durg use? Don't be silly. For God's sake, if they were really interested in people's health, they would take on SEX (another killer, and destoyer of the lives of our children). These people are interested in a leftist agenda, and that is their true focus. "Cancer" and "children" are merely "button pushing" words to advance this agenda--basically with LIES.

Is there anything wrong with telling people to eat responsibly, and that obesity is bad for you? Of course not. But there is something wrong with USING this kindof message to advance a radically leftist agenda based on the concept that people should not eat the flesh of animals.

PTETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), by the way, is a vetran at this type of LIES and DECEIT. As I have often said: "Leftists lie. They lie routinely, and as a matter of course. They lie without guilt, in a "higher" cause than truth. They lie for perceived political advantage."

Don't beliefve the names of these organizations, any more than you believe China is a "people's Republic". Read, or re-read, "1984", and take it to heart.

P.S.: We know why these people do not take on sex. In the Age of Obama, sex is one of the ultimate gooods, with which we must not interfere (other than with condoms dropped from airplanes or distributed to 11 year olds in school). However, why don't these people take on alcohol? Surely many of these "vegetarians"--the ones reeally interested in "health"--don't approve of alcohol? Yep. I think this is true. But these people, whose main motive is POLITICAL, know that people who use alcohol are reluctant to give it up. No vegetarian freaks are going to convince them otherwise. Prohibition proved our attachment to alcohol. I have asserted--correctly--that the case against alcohol, as a NEW drug, is overwhleming. In terms of saving people's lives, the people who advocated Prohibition were on dead solid ground. More lives would have been saved by making Prohibition stick than by ANY leftist, "gegerain nonsense (or by any "anti-fat" Nazi limitations of choice). Prohibition was defeated NOT by noble argument, but by the greatest Civil Disobedience in history. That cvil disobedience wsa NOT for a "noble" cause, but solely because people were unwilling to give up their dangerous pleasure. I say that as someone who does drink alcohol. And I would not go so far as to advocate making alcohol illegal. However, I see clearly, unlike most of you out there, and the case for Prohibition being a Good Thing (if it had stuck) is BETTER than the case for vegetarianism, or anti-fat restrictions, being good things.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

James Carvelle and Nancy Pelosi: Liars and Hypocrites

It is always a bad mistake for me to pause flipping thrugh channels on CNN. I did so because I heard Nancy Pelosi's name mentioned, and I heard the followng 10 second sound bite from James Carvelle (in one of those 4 person palnes--this one including Bill Bennett): "Speaker Pelosi is a good Catholic, attending mass and receving communion every Sunday." This may, of course, prove there is no Bog, since a thunderbolt did not strike down Carvelle where he sat. Carvelle statement was, of course, a bald faced lie--the "good Catholic" part. In fact, there has been considerable sentiment that Pelosi should not be ALLOWED to receive communion because of her fanatic pro-abortion votes and views. If she were not in a leftisst place like San Francisco, she would probably face excommunication.

It is not me who says Pelosi is not a "good Catholic". I am not Catholic, and was raised Presbyterian (although I am agnostic with about the same position on religion--although not abortion--as Nancy Pelosi, with the difference that I am not a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE like Carvelle and Pelosi. In fact, Pelosi herself has effectively admitted she is not a "good Cahtolic". Pelosi's fantical, indefensible positioin on aborthin is that there should be no significant restrictions on abortion up to the moment of brith--and maybe, like President Obama, that an aborted baby born alive should be left to die (or at least abortionists should be allowed to leave such a baby to die). As I said, it is not me, but the Pope, who says that you cannot be a "bood Catholic" and hold this position.

Let us segue to many months ago (see archives of this blog), where I proved Nancy Pelosi was a liar and a hypocrite before she again proved it with her five or six different versions attacking the CIA people who merely tried to defend us from terrorists. Yes, the lie that Nancy Pelosi did not learn about waterboarding until recently is only part of the web of lies and distortions created by Pelosi on th subject of "harsh interrogation" of terrorists. But this blog had exposed Pelosi as a liar and hypocrite well before that.

It began, those months ago, when Pelosi asserted that her postion on abortion was perfectly consistent with traditional, long-standing "teaching" of the Catholic Church. That was, of course, a LIE. But, as with the CIA/interrogation matter, Pelosi epxosed the full extent of her dishonesty by digging her hole deeper.

An interviewer actually confronted Pelosi on her assertion that her fanatical, pro-abortion position was sqarely in the Catholic tradition, and within Catholic teaching. Pelosi was forced to admit that her parents did NOT "teach" her--one of he assesrtions being that her position was consistent with the Catholic "teachings" upon which she had been raisded--that the Catholic religion supported Pelosi's present, fantically pro-abortion position. In fact, Pelosi admitted, in effect, that she had LIED, and that Catholic teacing and tradition was NOT consistent with her position on abortion. But she went further, in the kind of outrageous admission of hypocrisy that only President Obama can get away with.

Pelosi tried to explain herself this way (I gave exact words in my earlier entry, but this is an accurate paraphrase): "The Catholic relition teaches you that you have a mind, and free will. I think God wants me to use that mind, and I am willing to face him when the time comes about the position to which my mind has brought me on abortion."

As I said--correctly--in those earlier blog entries, the above incredible statement shows more than that Pelosi is not a "good Catholic". It shows that Pelosi no more believes in faith and religion than I do. I amy not be now religious, but I can state flatly that I have forgotten more about the philosophy of religion than Pelosi has ever known. But you don't have to be my kijjnd of expert to see that Pelosi cannot claim to have any religious faith.

Is there a Christian religion that takes the position that "free will" means that you can DISAGREE with God? Nope. To say that is a repudiation of religion. As I said in my previous entries, it basically states the reason for MY agnostic position on God and rejection of faith. Again, the difference is that I am not a liar and hypocrite like Pelosi, and my thinking is deeper and more sophisticated. As I previously have said, it goes back to the question my philosophy professor in colleg once asked: "Are things right because God says so, or does God say so because they are right." As I previously said, this is less profound than it appears, because for a turly religious person (not me or Pelosi), God is the SOURCE of all goodness and rightness i the universe. That makes it a meaningless question for such a person. But if you take my position, and Pelosi's, that it is up to the human mind to develop its own opinions and decisions, and not simply accept direction from God, then the question of my professor becomes very relevant. Pelosi and I think that giving yourself over to the direction of God, even if He is right, betrays the reays a person's obligation to develop the person's own mind.

Note, however, that you CANNOT believe in faith and religioin, and take the position that Pelosi takes. If "free will" includes the freedom to reject God, then the whole rationale of religion (at least the Christian religion) is destroyed. Basically the "rree will" the Christian religion talks about is the free will to choose God, or turn away from God. It is absurd (she IS dumb as a rock) to suggest that you can be a "good Catholic" and assert the "free will" to reject the teachings of your religioin (the supposed teachings of God Himself).

Now I may be getting much further into the philosophy of religion than you want to go. Doesn't matter. You don't have to think about it the way I do to realize that Pelosi has REJECTED religion--the Catholic religion and any religion whose teachings contradict her real religion. Pelosi's real religion is LEFTISM, and if God disagrees with leftism, then she disagrees with God. I am conviinced that most leftists fell this way, but Pelosi is one of the few to take this position so bluntly.

Okay, we know that James Carvelle is a LIAR (on CNN, the official Liar Network). How is he a hypcrite. I should leave his as a trivial exercise for the reader, but I will lay it out for you. Carvelle was trying to DEFEND the credibility of Pelosi (would such a dvout person lie?) with his lie about Pelosi being a "good Catholic". Does Carvelle really believe that "good Cahtolics" are credible people? Does Carvelle regard the POPE as a person of unimpeachable credibility? Don't be absurd. Carvelle has shown repeatedly that he does not regard being a "good Catholic" as nearly as important as being a LEFTIST, or a LEFTIST CATHOLIC. That is the blatant hypocrisy behind the lie. Carvelle was trying to bolster the credibility of Pelosi with a lie, and Carvelle does not even believe that being a "good Catholic" lends ANY credibiliy to a person who says something which disagrees with what Carvelle believes. Q.E.D. Carvelle is a blatant hypocrite, along with Pelosi. However, if you read this blog, you already know that. This blog has established again and again that leftists are the worst hypocrites how ever walked the Earth on two legs--even including people who walked the Earth in fiction (Elmer Gantry) or as members of a different species (Neanderthal Man).

P.S.: Is the Catholic religion virtually designed for hypocrites? I am not an anti-Catholic bigotl--as is ture of the mainstream media and most leftists--as to the Catholic religioin itself. However, I admit that I was raised (Presbyterina, remember) with a somewhat negative view of the Catholic religion. This all goes back to the Reformation. Read Sir Walter Scott, who described one of the criticisms of the Catholic religion in the 19th Century, more than a century ago. He described one of his villains as embracing the Catholic religion because it enabled this villain to act as he wanted to act, and then "basolve" his sins by Confession. This is merely one of the long-standing complaints against the Catholic religion that led to the Reformation. Note that Nancy Peloisi (and other Catholic politicians who have rejected the teaching of the Church on abortion) has committed conduct that even the Catholic religioin says cannot be "resolved" by Confession--at least unless you truly confess and REPENT (it woulb be yet another hypocirsy for Peolosi to assert she has done that). I admit that it is ONLY the Catholic Chruch position on abortion that I approve of in the religion. As I said, this does not mean I strongly DISAPPROVE of the religion; just that I was raised with a negative view and pretty much agree that the Catholic religioin has way too many trappings in a religion whose members seem to have a remarkably elastic conscience (including on abortion, despite official Church teaching). I arrived at my negative view of mainline Protestant religions all on my own, without any teaching whatever. The only religious people I respect are those who make a good faith effort to LIVE their religion, instead of treating their religion as a mere conventional, socal club which does not affect their own conduct at all. Look at how "mainstream" religions have accepted the "modern" view of SEX so easily--leading to the concusion that ehy agree with Pelosi that they will argue the point with God, if necessary, rather than allow religion to interfere with their own inclinations. Yes, the irony is that fundametalist Christians make me somewhat uncomfortable, because I reject "faith" as a concept for living one's life. The further irony is that my actual POLICY postions are pretty much the same as those of fundamentalist positions--that is, "policy" positions on the kind of conduct in which people should engage. This leads tot he disturbing conclusion that I favor what almost ALL Christian religions once taught the Bible commands MORE than most mainstream religions in the country today. In other words, I have exercised my "free will" to decide that God is right, while those who profess to believe in religoin pretty much seem to have decided that God is wrong (or at least the traditional teachings of what God has told us are wrong). This is almost as disturbing as my discovery, in the last election, that I am MORE of a feminist than most leftists. All of this can be explained, of course, if you realize that LEFTISM is the real religion of leftists--in or out of church. And I don't suscribe to that religion, any more than I suscribe to any other. I may not believe in religion, but I do believe in truths that do not "change" just because we are now in the Age of Obama. That puts me solidly in opposition to leftists, and aligned with fundamentalist Christians on everything except the way we separely arrive at our conclusions of truths that do not dpend on present fashions based on the selfish appetites of people. Yep. I know this is more than you want to know. But I refuse to be the Pelosi/Carvelle kind of hypocrite. You should know where I am coming from. If you are "offended" by my view that oo many people do not "lieve" the religioin in which they profess to believe, ask yourself: "In what way has my religion CHANGED my conduct from what it would otherwise have been?" "Have I conformed my conduct to what I believe is the unchanging Word of God, or have I changed what I believe is the true Word of God based on what I want to do, and the changing mores of society?" That I can phrase these questions in that manner should indicate to you why I do not believe in religion. I believe generally that people conform their view of religious requirements to their own view of accetable conduct, rather than conforming their conduct to God's unchanging view of acceptable conduct. On top of that, I agree with Pelosi--without the hypocrisy and dishonesty--that we have a humand mind to USE---not to give over to a dictator (however benevolent nad PERFECT that dictator may be)--without abandoning the idea that there are universal truths independent of changing fads.