How Could You Be So Stupid?!

With the launch of Obama's War on Health Care this week we get some more insight into quintessential liberal values that are often overlooked. This week was all about hubris. Hubris is a characteristic that says, “If you don’t think the way I do, you are too stupid for your own good!” Hubris naturally leads to power mongering. If you cannot be convinced to do what is good for you, then I need to take away your power to make the decision.

In the health care debate there are a lot of facts that can be discussed. Facts, such as survival rates for heart disease and cancer are 4 to 6 times higher in the US than in Britain or Canada. Or that the US is where the world comes to get medical care when their socialized systems fail to give quality, timely treatment. Or how about the fact that Hawaii implemented universal health care for its uninsured children in 2007 but abandoned it in 2008 before it bankrupted the state (Too bad California did not wise up in time). But liberal dogma ignores facts. If you do not eat right, exercise, or refrain from smoking, you need to be punished (We may even legalize spanking for such offenses). Liberal dogma says that socialism is good and we need universal health care. The love of socialism inspires stupid arguments such as “We need universal health care because we are the only industrialized nation without it.” This is said as if the US is supposed to emulate Europe. Europe, which is mostly incapable of defending itself, invents virtually nothing, develops neither cures nor new drugs while its citizens die waiting in line for health care and their governments march toward bankruptcy trying to provide it, is to be emulated simply because it’s industrialized (or do they mean because its socialized)?

Cap and Trade is another example of liberal hubris. This is a system where green house gases are capped at levels determined by the government (and I am sure the government will come up with the correct number free of any political bias) and if a company needs to exceed its limit, it trades credits with a company that has not reached its limits. The fact is that Cap and Trade was tried in Spain where electricity rates shot up 80 percent and 2.2 jobs were lost for every “green” job created. Their unemployment is now 18 percent and Obama is well on his way there without any “green” stuff (except possibly what Bill might bring to the White House from his trips abroad). But if you object or suggest that Global Warming is a hoax, liberals scream at you that the debate is over and they are determined to stop you from destroying the planet even if they have to strip you of all your civil rights to do it. Of course, they never explain what the point is of saving the planet if the only ones left with rights are spotted owls and the terrorists at GITMO.

But cramming Health Care Reform along with Cap and Trade down our throats has met with stiff opposition in the political arena. This is why confirming Judge Sotomayor is so crucial. Much of liberal dogma that cannot pass in legislation is thrust upon us by activist judges. Abortion, forced bussing, gay marriage, all are contrivances forced upon us by activist judges. No one in their right mind thinks our founding fathers ever intended any of these practice to be legal. But if you are too stupid to accept them through legislation, we won’t bother to convince you it’s good for you and we will force it on you through the judiciary. Sotomayor, and others like her, have stated that we need to look to foreign law in interpreting our constitution so we ensure we are in the mainstream of international thought. This is most certainly a reverencing of foreign socialism and when she was quizzed on this and other outrages liberal views she has expressed in public speeches, they were erased from history, as if from a page of Orwell’s 1984, as she simply disavowed them with the fervor rivaling Obama’s casting out of Rev. Wright. But when she is in power and free from the control of higher courts, you can bet you will see her liberal bias shine as brightly as Obama let his racism shine this week.

Of course, I refer to Obama’s taking the side of a black professor and would-be criminal over a white cop. In a speech reminiscent of his campaign speeches where he rambled on about nothing until my eyes crossed, the one specific thing he did say is that the cop acted “stupidly.” His natural view, without knowing the facts, is to assume the white guy was wrong (I guess Obama was paying attention in church all those years). His irritation the next day was evident that anyone would question the assumption that the white guy was being racist. How could you be so stupid as to think otherwise? And Officer Crowley had better gear up for a long fight. Just ask Joe, the Plumber, what happens when you cross the President. Next week it will be revealed that Crowley took drugs and while drunk had an affair with an office intern that he left to die in a river after driving his car off a bridge because she was going to rat him out for keeping $90,000 in cash in a refrigerator in his basement that he got from taking bribes from a bunch of rabbis from New Jersey. Now that really would be acting stupidly! Of course, if he lost his job, he could just announce he is a Democrat and run for Congress. With credentials like that, he would be a shoe-in.

Liberal Racism and the Golden Rule

Another celebration of the founding of the country has made me ponderous of how such a great nation rises. I have concluded that living by Jesus’ teaching now enshrined as the Golden Rule has been key to the nation’s success, it's violation a source of trouble. I have also realized that many of the core tenets of modern liberalism are a violation of the Golden Rule. Nowhere is this more evident than in the liberal approach to race relations.

The founders recognized that while there is much in man that is noble, there is also much that is not. Their genius lies recognizing that there is much in human nature that is ignoble and in combating it. For example, while it is in man’s nature to yearn for freedom, it is also in our nature to conquer. Therefore, they took the Federal government, split it in three, and set it at odds with each other and then made it accountable to us as the governed. But they violated the Golden Rule when they saw American Indians and Black Africans as subhuman, leaving an indelible stain on this great republic. This has created a great quandary for later generations.

Recently, I stayed in a hotel in Atlanta where there was a huge party going on in the ballroom. I was not invited but had occasion to pass the gathering on my way to a restroom stall. As I glanced down the hall I noticed the party goers were all black, not a single white face in the crowd. I recognized that it is human nature to notice that which is different. Whether it is a black face or a boy in a wheel chair drooling from involuntary convulsions, we can’t help but notice that which is different from us. But then do we follow the Golden Rule or do we enslave them or perhaps simply make jokes about them on a late-night talk show. Then in the seclusion of my stall I heard two of them conversing in a language to distant from English for me to understand until one shouted, “You havin’ a good time?” The other replied, “Ya, ain’t seein’ no white folk tonight!”

We all struggle with our ignoble nature to shun that which is different. Our forefathers have not handled this well and as we repair the damage, let us not forget a corollary to the Golden Rule from the Hippocratic Oath for physicians, “Do no harm.” Modern liberalism has clearly violated this in two ways. First, it has engineered a cultural shift whereby racist speech by whites is not ok but fine for anyone else. Second, it has promoted through law a system where white people are injured by discrimination to atone for the sins of white ancestors who are now dead.

Most liberals would not be offended by the conversation I overheard but if conducted by two white men about blacks, liberals would be appalled. And what of Jamie Foxx’s comment that Jackson belonged to black people and was “loaned out.” Can the same be said about Elvis? Typical of liberal lingo are the words of Joy Bahar of “The View,” "Only white people are capable of making racist remarks." The Golden Rule says no one should make racist remarks about anyone. This week the Supreme Court struck down a ruling previously upheld by the activist, liberal Supreme Court nominee, Sotomayor. Because not enough black applicants passed the fireman’s promotion exam, no one got promoted. This reverse discrimination (which is as silly a term as “hate crime”) along with affirmative action, in general, is an affront to the Golden Rule entirely. Why don’t we address the reason Blacks don’t do as well and that is because they are trapped in government run schools beholding to unions? And when we get a voucher program like the one in DC where children (of all races) were excelling beyond their counterparts in the city schools (which spend more per capita than any other school system in the nation), why do liberals want to shut it down? How would you like it if someone did that to you? If you liberals want Affirmative Action, while still keeping the Golden Rule, do as Bernard Goldberg suggests and resign from your job and give it to a minority. Don’t even worry if your replacement is qualified. I, however, prefer Thomas Sowell’s suggestion, “Racism has been shown not to work. So why don’t we abolish it instead of putting it under new management?”

So this year as we enjoy the colors of red, white and blue can we not also enjoy the different colors of our American society without having to check a box? And while I am thrilled that a mentally handicapped woman can become House Speaker and a black man can become president, next time couldn't we elevate the importance of qualifications and experience during the election campaign so we don't get six months into an adminstration before they admit they are totally wrong about the economy?