Sunday, July 13, 2014

How Left Tries to De-humanize the Right

History is replete with racists and bigots that have matured and grew spiritually to renounce their bigotry. However there is simply not a case for the reverse; one would have to look far and wide to find a group  that was a champion of civil rights and suddenly became bigoted toward the same group; the concept is absurd. But that is exactly what the Democrats preach when they claim the Republicans turned racist as a political ploy to take the South from the newly marketed champion of the black man during the 60's. But just prior to the 1960's is was the Democrats that eviscerated the 1957 Civil Rights Act, that was supposed guarantee blacks the right to vote. from Wikipedia;

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.

Even Johnson's 1964 Civil Rights Act,  was heavily contested by southern bloc Democrats; when the final tally was counted less than half the Democrats in the Senate and House voting for the Act while  80% of the Republicans voted yes.

It wasn't just enough for Democrats to claim they were now champions of the black man, they had to villainize the Republicans to make it believable and Saul Alinsky provided the frame work for this;  “charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting” this “with qualifying remarks such as ‘He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband,’” one convicts oneself of “political idiocy”.  The winning strategy is to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”; in this case Republicans are always the "establishment" regardless who is actually in charge; this is one reason the left can charge the right with racism, misogynism, homophobia with apparent impunity as they claim of ownership of victimism; where the right sees victimism a transitory stage to overcome, the left  fosters a permanent victim class from which it creates a power bloc. Alinsky says The reason for villainization of ones opponent is "Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition [is] 100 per cent on the side of the devil.” Even though the Republicans have had a 100 year head start in civil rights, the left must create a narrative fed by revisionist history to demonize them.

Do you notice the left never has a civil conversation with the right? This is also an Alinsky tactic, because any conversation with your opponent will humanize them. The end game of the left is collectivism and the real distribution of wealth is not to the middle class, but from the today's rich to the watchers of socialism. But collectivism is a hard sell, so instead they offer more than they can possibly deliver; later down the road when the left can not deliver on their promises, the right is blamed for obstructing the unattainable. The true weakness to Alinsky it is his tactics never leads to a solution; it's the unraveling the fabric of society solely for it's own purpose.

Friday, July 4, 2014

The Hobby Lobby Case and The Hierarchy of Rights

Many from the left claim the Hobby Lobby case and the striking down of buffer zones at abortion clinics were a loss for America and Woman; in reality it is a win for both. Both cases shows that there is a hierarchy of rights (aka a hierarchy of derivation). The right to an abortion is an entitlement granted by the State based on Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty. However the right to free speech (freedom of expression) trumps the right to have an unimpeded abortion. The arguments from the left on this matter is the result oft the left having their own hierarchy of rights were abortion trumps all. Generally this hierarchy is based on limiting government intrusion over impeding the actions of the people; this is the difference between laws based on individual rights vs laws based on collective rights. Most agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution sits on top the hierarchy of rights.  The idea that abortion trumps free speech or the practicing of religion would give the State a mandate to limit individual rights in the name of securing the general welfare of the collective (also termed the "greater good"). As I have written before, Resistance is Futile, You Will be Assimilated, the needs of a free state and a collective state run counter to each other. This is because the Collective State has it's own hierarchy of rights, as it determines the needs of the collective over the individual.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means government can't make a person or group violate their religious beliefs for the good of the collective and this was further affirmed by the codified Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). This law says "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" ("general applicability," meaning the regulation of free speech and/or religion) creates a hierarchy of individual religious rights over the States presumption of a collective need..  Today we have a State intent on imposing it's perceived needs of the collective, but our founding fathers had a different idea.

In order to maintain individual rights, the citizen must exercise those rights and not leave it up to the government to protect the citizenry form itself. The Democratic Republic built by our forefathers is not for the timid or uneducated; one is expected to know and exercise their liberty and freedoms. This means one has the right to stand on a public sidewalk, but if someone is blocking your path, you need to tell them to get out of your way, because this is a free country.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Hobby Lobby and the Scripted Lies of the Left

Well it's apparent the misinformation and lies were scripted before the Hobby Lobby case was decided. Starting with Sandra Fluke and followed by the main stream press, the line is

Sandra Fluke @SandraFluke

Supreme Court rules that bosses can deny employees coverage of birth control.

The truth is something entirely different so one has to ask as I read on the internet, is Sandra Fluke clueless or lying. I also see that Ms Fluke is running for the California State Senate; well she seems to have past the test of telling a bald face lie to vilify those who's world view differ from her world view.

Here is a typical letter where it reader has to wonder if the writer is a lying or clueless. From the Santa Cruz Sentinel;

Court ruling just lines pockets of corporations
July 4 is "Independence Day". July 11 is "World Population Day". There are over 7 billion people on Earth. Our species is facing drought, extreme weather, ocean acidification and extinctions, because we have over bred. The Hobby Lobby ruling by misogynist judges, on June 30 just annexed all "USDA" fertile female wombs for corporate profits. Stabilizing our human population requires that all females on Earth have access to birth control.
Future generations ought to know what it's like to live on a healthy planet, but at the rate human population is exploding we'll be passing on a dead future. Birth control pills are listing online from $37 to $162 per month if purchased without insurance. The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling just made all fertile female wombs in the USA into a cash register for corporate profits. Rescind Citizen's United now and remove justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito from the Supreme Court Bench.
— Connie Troupe, Aptos

and my response, 

Apparently someone has been drinking the Sandra Fluke koolaid. Let see if I can set the record straight; Hobby Lobby never protested paying for women's contraceptives (defined as inhibiting ovulation and fertilization); if Hobby Lobby has always agreed to pay for contraceptive birth control pills, why check the internet for retail prices? What Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for are 4 out of the 24 FDA approved birth control pills or devices (refereed to as "emergency contraception"; which as I explained is a misnomer) that work by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus; ie aborting a fertilized egg after contraception. Also, the ruling was so narrow that even if it had blocked the use of all birth control by other "closely held corporations", it would have no real effect on availability of employer paid for birth control; so the apparatus needed to reduce the useless eaters of the world is safe. Hobby Lobby actually won the case based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), championed by the Democrats and signed into law by Clinton in 1993; it was written to allow American Indians to smoke Peyote. There is a simple solution for the pro abortion alarmists and the Hobby Lobby case; all that needs be done is Obama change the law (something he was already done many times already), to allow these handful of closely held corporations to be treated like the non-profits already exempted under the Religious Employer Exemption (REE). In these cases a third-party administrator (TPA) pays for the birth control exempted by non-profit religious organizations.

I am also curious how it came to be that quality healthcare is defined by birth control and any company wanting an exemption is immediately tagged misogynic. It should be noted that over half the adult population of the US define themselves as pro-life, believing that life begins at conception. Rather than being misogynic, the pro-life crowd belief that an optional abortion is no different than the after-birth abortions championed by medical ethicist and population alarmists. The real issue here seems to be left's refusal to acknowledge that those that take a pro-life stand believe in every fiber of their being that an abortion is killing a fully alive baby. Instead, it has been my observations that when the left plays the racist or misogynic card, it's the sound of someone with nothing intelligent to say on the subject..