Color Coded

About two weeks ago Jimmy Carter (or as Rush calls him, "The hemorrhoid of our country") said that the anger towards Barack Obama is a result of his being an African American. Why would he say that? What could his motivation be for ‘playing the race card’ now? There is the obvious reason of trying to silence the opposition. Since the democrats are having great difficulty in winning the debate on healthcare via substance, they defer to petty distractions. Also it has the added benefit of gaining a few votes from people who are scared that if they disagree with Obama they will be called racists. [Of course these people are indeed racists, and we call them ‘racistaphobes.’ Yes, I made up that word. Their fear of being viewed as racists stems from the fact that deep down they do have racist thoughts and they are trying to hide from them.] I, however, feel that ‘our hemorrhoid’ and all of those on the left say things like Carter did for another reason.

In order for me to explain this reason I must first discuss racism. A common misconception about racism is that it means thinking negatively or generalizing negatively about a certain person / group of people because of their race or ethnicity. In reality doing anything to a person because of their race is also racism. So, if for example one were to vote for someone because they are black this is an act of racism. Basically racism means viewing people as part of a race or ethnic group, instead of just as person.

This includes labeling people by their race or ethnicity. So when the media refers to Obama as the first black president, they are indeed committing an act of racism. Why is this a problem? Because by doing so they are keeping race an issue in our country. As long as people view others memebrs of a race they are working to keep racism an issue. (I do not mean solely as a way to describe someone. So if for example one would say to their co-worker ‘do you remember my neighbor Joshua? You know, the Latino guy.’ That would not be racism. For it would be used as one would use the descriptive word, tall or thin.)

In fact I believe that labeling is what leads to the worst part of racism. It causes the labeled group to feel that they are separate, in a way, from the rest of society. It makes them feel vulnerable - that at any moment their group can once again be singled out and treated differently. (I am of course speaking about present day America, where we have righted our wrongs and no longer have laws allowing legal segregation. In segregated America obviously the worst part of racism would be the segregation.) This mindset that is created by believing that the country views you as a separate group does a great deal of damage, and as long as big figures keep these ‘labels’ alive, this mindset will be present.

This being said, as long as people like Jimmy Carter, and Al Sharpton keep discussing race the way they do, their actions / statements keep racism a big issue in this country. Not only that, but they also are the ones causing the worst effect racism can have. When they make their comments about things being done only because of race, they get people into the mindset I was describing, that they are separate and vulnerable. So as these people come out ‘defending’ minorities, they are actually holding them back and preventing them from feeling like equal members of the society.

Now to get back to the original discussion. I believe that one of the reasons the left talks so much about race is in order to keep it an issue. Why? In order to make sure that the minorities still believe it is an issue, resulting in them having that feeling of vulnerability and separation. This allows the democrats to swoop in as the ‘defender of minorities’ and get their votes. I have said this so many times, it all comes down to votes. By constantly reminding minorities that they are minorities, and by repeatedly making comments about race they are able to make the minority feel that they need to be protected lest the country turn on them once again.

Will racism ever be eliminated from our country? On an individual level, unfortunately I would say probably not. But on a national level, I hope so. In fact, I believe that the main thing holding it back are those who pose as defenders, but in reality are doing just the opposite. So when Jimmy Carter comes out and says that people are opposing Obama because he is an African American, he is causing so much harm. Not because he is completely wrong, as there are certainly individuals who are opposing the President solely for that reason, just as there are those agreeing with him solely for that reason, but because he is making it an issue that hurts the whole nation.

(This article is obviously not adressing actual situations in which people are beaten, discriminated against or put down because of race, ethnicity or religion.)

PTP*: This one is really for Peanut Jimmy. Did Barack Obama tell Governor Patterson (D- NY) not to run for another term simply because he is black? And does Michael Steele oppose Obama because he is black?

* I know I said I would not define it any more, but since we just had a recent flood of readers due to my appearance on the Mark Levin Show, I will define it once again. PTP= Point To Ponder.

Weekend Showdown: President Obama vs. The Orthodox Conservative

I do not have 5 T.V. networks who will host me. Nor do I have a Spanish voice-over man to follow me around; so I am left expressing myself on this blog. (By the way, do you think that Obama’s voice-over guy had his own teleprompter?) In order to try to compete, however, I will respond to Obama’s tour of Sunday morning T.V. with 5 points. True, 5 points is a bit shabby when compared to appearances on 5 of the major networks, but hey, I am but a mere pre-med student sitting in my dorm room, so work with me.

1) Word Games: President Obama seems to be a little confused as to the meaning of the word ‘punish.’ We all remember he used it when discussing abortion, saying “if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.” Then yesterday he said that he would not want to see people who could not afford health insurance be punished. I think he has confused the word ‘punish’ with ‘face reality.’ I am not saying that I want to see people in need who can not find help, but I would not call it a punishment for them to not be GIVEN care. For him to say that it would be punishment for one to not receive care, is working with the starting point that all people are entitled to receive that care, and we would be taking it away from them. That is not the case. The care comes from someone, and is given to others. So if one was not able to get care, it is an unfortunate thing, (and we should, as individuals, find a way to help someone we see in need) but by no means are we punishing those who are not able to afford healthcare by not giving it to them for free. Nice try to make us who are against government overhaul of healthcare seem like evil people ‘punishing’ those who are in need. But it is going to take more than that to get by me, Mr. President.

2)The President also said that he did not view taxing the ‘Cadillac’ insurance policies as a tax to the middle class, even though there are people in the middle class who do indeed have these plans. I say who cares? There is a much bigger problem here then if he is sticking to his campaign promises or not. (We found out long ago that he would not be doing that.) To me the big issue is the way he is so openly speaking about taxing some in order to give to others. Now I know that he did not introduce this concept and that it has been around in this country for many years. But I feel the way he is speaking about it so up-front is not a good thing at all. [I will not even get started on why I feel it is morally incorrect to tax some to give to others, and how it is by no means allowed by the constitution.] He started it on the campaign when he spoke of spreading the wealth, and he has continued it now as he attempts to force through his healthcare reform (or is it insurance reform? You know what here is a blank fill it in whenever you are reading this and have heard his last name for the process of changing healthcare:_____ reform.) When you speak about it like this, you create a very distinct class system where the lower class envies and despises the upper class, and begins to feel that they have been stolen from. This creates a dependency on the government to go and take for them what is rightfully theirs. But this is a good thing for Obama and the democrats, for it creates a voting group who needs to vote for them in order to make sure they ‘get what they deserve.’

3)When asked about ACORN, Obama said that he was not really following that story. He also said that he was not aware that they were getting a whole lot of government money. I find this hard to believe, as he spent a whole lot of time with ACORN on the campaign. But regardless, the point I would like to address is how he blew off the question. He made it seem like it was a small little issue that did not deserve to be spoken about. This displayed to me that he was making it very clear that he is in charge of these interviews and that only the things he wants to speak about are on the table. Or maybe it was him not wanting to dwell on the subject, for we all know how connected he really is with them? Either way, as he keeps saying, he is the President, so when there is news like this, and Congress has just voted to defund ACORN, he should know what is going on. And you can not tell me that the reason he did not answer the question was because he was only doing a talk about healthcare, for he did speak about other topics. But his answer that there are more important things for him to be dealing with now, might have worked had he not proceded to answer a question about the fate of his favorite baseball team.

4)Fox News. Yes, they are still around. I know you were thinking they shut down since you saw the President on every other major news network except for them yesterday, but do not worry, they are still here. The President choosing to not go on Fox News disturbs me because the White House clearly said it was payback for them not airing the President’s press conference two weeks ago. This shows us just how the media is in the government's palm. Not only is the media biased for the left on their own accord, but they are almost being forced to be by the White House. The media is not supposed to be working for the President. The media has a very important job, and by being affiliated with different politicians they are not doing their job properly. (Which is allowed. They can choose to report any way they please. But when the President is involved, and the White House is working so closely with them there must be some form of proper journalism that is upheld.) So, when this type of relationship is displayed between the President and the different networks where ‘you show my speech, and I will give you an interview’ we see that the system is broken. But then again, each time the President goes on national T.V. it seems his ratings are dropping, so good for Fox News that they were able to stay clear of this, since the Obama administration like to call anything not going perfectly - a crisis.

5)On the very same day that we saw the President displaying for us how he expects the news to be catering to his desires and reporting the way he wants it to, with consequences for those who do not, there was talk about bailing out the newspaper industry. First off this is absurd. Just because the world is changing, and newspapers just might not be as effective as they once were, we are to bail them out? Today we have the internet, cable T.V., and satellite radio to compete with newspapers as a source of news. If they can not keep up, sorry. Find a way to be successful with your paper online, and if you can’t, then move along. Nothing lasts forever. Are we to begin bailing out the long forgotten world of radio soap-operas? They are having a great deal of trouble competing with T.V. let’s help them out. This would obviously be absurd, for after they ran out of the money that was given to them their troubles would resume. It is not like you could get the papers back on their feet and then move out, like with the auto industry (I am not endorsing the auto bailouts.) They are struggling now, because the world is changing, and no bailout can help with that. But what would really make me nervous about this is the government having their hands in the news industry even more that it already does. Yesterday Obama was mad at Fox News so he didn’t go on their channel for an interview, they will survive. But imagine if the threat was ‘report this story as we say, or no more bailout money for you.’ They would have no choice. They would shut down with out the money. I think it is pretty clear why the government should not have a hand in the news industry.

Well, I hope you enjoyed my 5 points. I think that even though it might seem small compared with Obama’s journey through the 5 major networks yesterday, if you analyze what we said, it might actually turn out that my 5 ‘things’ were greater. But then again, just like the networks President Obama spent time with yesterday morning, my opinion is biased. Oh, and for all of you Spanish speakers waiting for me to respond to the Univision interview, I apologize for all I can give you a simple hola.

Spender-Confused Government

If one would look solely at the way President Obama has been speaking about wanting to cut spending on our defense they would come to the conclusion that this is an administration that does not spend money easily. They would be under the impression that our government is going to be very careful about spending our tax dollars, and is very concerned with our national debt. This is what one would think if they only looked at the way Obama speaks about spending on our defense.

But then one might look at all of the debate about healthcare reform. One might see that there has been almost no attempt to cut spending and that the CBO has reported huge increases in government spending on healthcare, should any of the bills they had reviewed become law. One might look at all of the stimulus bill spending. One might happen to notice our national debt is indeed rising, and all projections show it will keep rising.

I find this to be very interesting. While the President plans to cut spending on one of the few things that the government is empowered to spend on, according to the constitution, he is speaking about increasing spending in areas that should have nothing to do with the government.

And it is not as if there is no reason to be interested in making our military strong at this time. Just look at the recent headlines in the news. You will see news about how Iran can now make a nuclear bomb, and about how Russia and Venezuela are becoming very friendly with Iran. You will read about China possibly being able to undermine our operations in the Pacific. And there is talk about cutting spending on our defense? This is one of the main reasons why our government exists.

The problem is that the government is slowly being molded with the community. The government’s job is to provide defense, a judiciary system and so forth; while it is the job of the community to deal with things such as healthcare. People should work together to take care of each other, and make sure that people who need help can get it, but that is not the job of the government, nor was it given the power to do so. That is the job of the community.

When the government speaks about less spending on defense, but more spending on things such as healthcare, it shows me that they are forgetting who they are; that they are switching from being the government to being the community. The community, however, is not able to become the government. And, the government is much too large to be a community, and brings along with its ‘community actions’ laws and restrictions that infringe on peoples private lives. One of the beauties of a community is that everybody pitches in optionally, and no one is forced to do anything.

So as the government becomes more and more like a community, we loose our ability to function independently in our own communities. This leaves us with a government that infringes on our private lives, and at the same time damages our ability to effectively take care of the very same things they are claiming to be helping us with. And all this, while neglecting to do the things they are supposed to do as our government.

SHOUT OUT: I would like to take this opportunity to thank The Great One, Mark Levin, for letting me plug my blog on his show last night.

School, Guns, and the Internet

Last week, as I am sure you all know, President Obama gave a speech to children in schools across the country. There was a great deal of controversy around this speech. As the speech was approaching, many parents were even threatening to keep their children home from school that day. Why? What was so upsetting about a speech to children in school that was causing such a response? I did not see such a problem with the President’s idea to give this speech. A President is supposed to be a leader, and hence should have the ability to inspire many. The children of the country are a great audience and certainly a body that can be inspired and motivated to do great things; especially if being spoken to by our president, who is looked up to by virtually every child in the country, and rightfully so. So, why would this speech not be seen as a good thing?

There were many parents complaining that this was not a proper use of school time. I did not see this as such a problem for a few reasons. First, because of what I just explained, that there is the potential for a speech like this to have a very positive impact on the children. Second, the time it would take to have this speech in the big picture of things is so small and negligible as part of the whole school year.

This being said, I was not happy about the speech. Well, the speech itself I was fine with, it was what the White House sent along with the speech that disturbed me. They sent a short email to schools providing suggestions for how the schools could deal with the speech. They said teachers should discuss the speech with children before and after it was given. They were even nice enough to give a list of suggested questions to ask the students, and this is what got me. The questions suggested, really showed me the true agenda of this speech.

Some of the questions that really stood out to me were: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? And Why it is important that we listen to the president and other elected officials?

To me, these questions were an attempt to get the children to think in a certain way, mainly that the government is who to turn to for everything. I see these questions as trying to lead the children to believe in big government as a way of life. By trying to get them to think about listening to elected officials and what they are telling us to do, they are leading the children to view the officials in a specific light. They are attempting to guide the children to view the elected officials as the heads of the country, and the ones who should be telling us what to do. True, the president is in many ways the head of our country but not when it comes to how we should behave, and certainly not when it comes to how we should think.

This is not an isolated event. I believe that there is a very strong push by the democrats to create this mindset in all Americans. It does many things for them. It makes it easier for them to pass controlling, and regulating legislation. I also believe it allows them to more easily further their agenda of ‘spreading the wealth.’ By making the people feel that the government is the true head of the country, it is easier to convince them the government has the right to take from one and give to another; for they would feel that the government is truly in control of everything anyways. This has been going on with the democrats for a very long time, and as I have said before has worked wonders for getting votes.

There are a few other things that have been popping up in the news in the past few months that I believe are part of this attempt to change, (and in some, enforce) the way people view the government: As the owners, and controllers of every aspect of the country. Two things that really stand out to me are gun control, and this recent story of trying to give the President the power to take control over the internet.

First I will deal with the talk about stricter gun control. It does not really matter if the government does indeed come along and take away everybody’s guns. As long as they have created a fear that they would, they have done enough to further this agenda. How, you might ask? Well, lucky for you I can answer that question. We must look at why ‘the right to bear arms’ is such a crucial part of the constitution. We must look at what the founders were taking into consideration when setting up our great country, and mainly to create a government that does not own, nor control its citizens (as had been the case in the land they were coming from.) By allowing the people to bear arms, they were making it clear that government’s powers did not include having any control over the citizens. That they would not be able to do things by force, and to take over people’s lives as they had been doing under the King. So keeping this in mind, [and I am not implying that the democrats are trying to use force to take over the country and control us and rule over the people,] but I am saying that they are trying to make people think of the government as a body that can do that. I believe that they want Americans to view the government as the owners of the country, instead of themselves as being such.

The same thing is with this talk about the president being able to control the internet. If the president is able to control such a public, free thing as the internet, where does his power stop? No where. And this is what they want us to think. They want us to view the President, and all elected officials for that matter, as true rulers. As people who are in control of the land, and even in control of the people.

Now many of the democrats get caught up in different ideas that can be further pushed by thinking like this, and can almost forget about what else it implies. They see for example, healthcare for everyone, and can see it as a feasible government option because they view the government as the true owners of all in the land, and hence a body that can take from some to give to others. They do not have the time to see that this also means that the government can take away what is theirs, mainly because they are too caught up in their goal.

But this internet thing specifically troubles me because of the recent events that took place in Iran. The government was killing and beating peaceful protesters in the street, and if not for the internet no one would have known about it. Imagine, the protests were nothing compared to what happened on Saturday in D.C (G-d bless those people who attended,) and the Iranian government was brutally murdering innocent people in the street. Imagine if not for the clever use of Twitter and Facebook , no one outside of Iran would have known about what was going on, and who knows how long it would have continued if not for the international pressure that was put on them. So, how would anyone talk about our President being able to stop us from getting out those Tweets if something like that were to occur in our country? Again, not that I am even in anyway suggesting that it would, but the fact that we would know that if it did, there would be nothing for us to do, would put people in the mindset that ‘the government is in charge here, and they control our whole lives.’

I believe that this was the true motivation behind the speech to the kids in school, and for the talk of giving the president to power to control the internet. I think it is all part of the attempt to make people think of the government as the rulers of the land. To slowly remove from our society the truth that our government is for the people by the people, and that the country is owned by the citizens. To flip the table and create a land where instead of us being in charge and the government working for us, where the government is in charge and we work for them.

More Speeches?

First kids in school. Now grownups eating dinner. Thankfully I had class tonight so I was only able to catch the end of the President’s speech. I did hear him say something though that really confused me though. He said that in order to keep things fair, if someone was able to afford insurance he would be obligated BY LAW to purchase a plan. He said that this was because otherwise it would make us all suffer because we would then have to cover his emergency room bills. That is absurd. It is like scratching your right ear with your left hand.

The correct way to deal with the problem the President mentioned is not by forcing all to purchase insurance; it is by removing the emergency room laws that require all emergency rooms to be open to all. These rules end up costing the hospitals and us millions of dollars a year, and do play a big part in the high costs of healthcare today. So if the President is concerned about the high costs of the emergency room, why not remove those laws? Why address it by forcing others to spend money? Those people might never even go to the E.R., but now they would have to spend money on insurance anyway. The problem would be solved by removing the E.R. laws just the same, without forcing people to spend money.

He also made a point to mention that there would be stricter rules forcing companies to provide health insurance for their employees. He said that those companies who did not would have an unfair advantage over those who do. I ask how? By making their company less desirable to work for? Obviously he means by saving on the extra cost of providing coverage for their employees. This would of course mean that they would have more money to spend which could lead to more people hired. Something you would think the President would want to see with the unemployment number where it is now.

I addressed this a few months ago. I said that if people, who otherwise did not want to, would be forced to buy insurance they will for sure go for the public option as it will be cheaper. This will force more people into the system and hence make the segue into a single-payer system easier. Same thing with the companies that did not plan on providing the coverage. If they are forced to, they would go for the cheapest thing they can, the public option. Ironically, the President cited the creation of a public option as a proof that the government is not really trying to take over the system. I would love for him to try to explain that one. Uh uh uh uh uh.

This is just another example of a government that has become so large and overpowering. If George Washington would see this government he would be very confused. Abraham Lincoln would be in shock. Americans being obligated by law to purchase health insurance? Obama compared it to the requirement to have auto insurance. Not a good comparison though, because the requirement of the auto insurance is that it covers the party you damaged. The comparison he could have made would be obligating all to purchase home owners insurance. That would not have worked though, as it is not (and rightfully so) the case.

Each time the President speaks about healthcare the polls turn more against him. It is clear why. The more he says, the more people realize that they do not want this. That while our system may not be perfect, no system is, and at least ours is the best.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "I prefer a thief to a Congressman. A thief will take your money and be on his way, but a Congressman will stand there and bore you with the reasons why he took it." -Dr. Williams

PTP: Why would Obama want to be able to control the internet? Could it have anything to do with how well the citizens in Iran used it while their government was making some changes that they did not like?