Matters Of Opinion

The “Why’s?” Vs. The “Why Not’s?”

Politics is so very often categorized into the “Have’s”, versus the “Have Not’s” in an attempt to make politics into a “class warfare” type of deal, however from everything I’ve seen and read that is more often than not both an exaggeration at best and plain disingenuous at worst.

However, through out the past couple of weeks, I’ve noticed a trend when arguing with people of a liberal tendency or that have a leftist over all nature: the statement “Why not?”

I don’t know if I’ve just never paid attention to the terms in usage, or if this is a new development, or what, but it seems to be the over arching theme with just about any ideological or systemic argument over political and cultural issues.

On the subject of economics: “Why not raise taxes for the rich? They don’t pay their fair share anyways.” Of course this is historically inaccurate and has been proven time and time again that raising taxes on the upper crust of society (speaking strictly on a financial basis here) mostly only hurts the middle class and the poor, but that’s besides the point. The point was, when I asked, “Well, why do it in the first place? What are you trying to solve with raising taxes, especially when it has been proven (like I said above) that it doesn’t really help?”

On the case of gun control, amnesty, you name it, the argument is almost always the same. Historical data and figures trump many liberal arguments regarding reform, while the conservative minded individual will acknowledge that sometimes some form of reform is needed, however sweeping changes are most often detrimental to the over-arching goal and amount to hurting one group to help another. Which is why right leaning people are most often the “Why’s?”

Why pass an amnesty bill? What will that do to stop illegal immigration, which most conservatives and liberals will agree is a problem? Won’t that create incentive for illegal aliens to continue to come over our borders? Why pass more gun reforms? Hasn’t statistical data, which shows that major cities that have hand gun bans as well as larger European countries that have similar bans haven’t seen a drop in gun violence in the least, shown to the intelligentsia that such efforts are futile and only help the criminals by disarming those that follow and obey the laws?

Unfortunately, there aren’t enough conservative intellectuals to make these cases. Sure, we have many that write for the National Review and the Weekly Standard, and we have Thomas Sowell and a handful of other great conservative thinkers, but I miss the Buckley’s and the Kissinger’s and the Kirk’s that helped to make the conservative movement a strong, intellectual base of intelligent arguments and legislative ideas. I hope that there are some out there, writing and forming ideas and working behind the scenes, because I would hate to think that we’ll never be in the position to ask “Why?” again, but only to rebut the “Why Not’s?” and seem like sniveling children. Not saying that that is what we are, sniveling children, but only that when we aren’t in any position of power that sniveling children is what the media and many so called moderates perceive and label us as.

Am I to be so bold as to place myself into this category? Not yet. I have much more schooling and reading to do (not to mention the process of living life instead of just writing about living life in order to put a few gray beards on my face) before I’ll consider myself a conservative thinker and philosopher (and even then I’ll never reach a level that Burke and Addams reached as innovators and intellectual explorers). The point of this? Sometimes yelling is needed, sometimes it’s good to get pissed off, but it doesn’t always accomplish the ultimate goals of expanding conservative thought. It’s always good to be level headed, calm and collected, in order to properly convey one’s message. Hell, this is advise that I should try and take more often, to be honest.

Illegal Immigration Ideas Indeed Intensify

So Phoenix, Arizona has become the second largest kidnapping hub in the world. So what!? That’s no excuse to pass legislation to allow policemen and women to do their jobs! Come on now! That’s just racism, pure and unadulterated racism!

Or so says the Reverend Al Sharpton and dozens of others on television.

This actually amazes me a little (but not a whole lot, I’m used to seeing stupidity everywhere around me). For those of you that don’t know what I’m talking about, let me explain. The state of Arizona has passed a law that allows police to ask people for their identification cards (green cards or visas, basically) if the person is acting or seems suspicious. With Arizona being run over by the drug trade and having very real security problems with illegal aliens crossing over into their state, the law makes sense.

Is it profiling? Will the majority of people who are stopped be Hispanic? Of course the majority of people being stopped will be Hispanic! The majority of the people that are involved in the Mexican drug cartels are, der, Mexicans! Just like, although it doesn’t happen this way, the majority of people being stopped at the airports should be young Muslim men. Just like, when they are looking for a serial killer, they should be going after middle-aged white men. Or, in the case of rape, men of any color. If the suspect of a crime is identified as a black male,then yes, black males will be stopped, as with any color. Come on people!

I understand that people want to avoid profiling at any costs (unless that profiling is being done to a person riding a motorcycle, in which case they’ll get pulled over and harassed as if they were a Hell’s Angel, but I digress). But in this instance, if the people that are committing these crimes and are proving to be a problem happen to be Hispanic, then yes, a majority of the people being stopped will be Hispanic. If the IRA were causing problems in New York (which does have some Irish illegals, yes), I would say the same thing. If Canadians were kidnapping people and holding them for ransom in exchange for Americas far superior health care, yes, I would say the same thing. Let’s all take off our “sensitivity goggles” for a minute, change the setting from “Anyone that isn’t an American”, and put that setting on “Those who are in this country legally” for once, put them back on, and reassess the situation.

The Mexican drug cartels are a major problem, and are becoming increasingly more so. Americans are being kidnapped and held for ransom, drugs are easily flowing into the hands of our children, and Arizonians are fed up, understandably. The fact that these protests against this bill have in so many instances escalated to violent degrees is another thing that burns me. MSNBC actually had the gall to say that “While there are some kooks, the majority just want what they feel is right.” WHAT?! Flashback to two weeks ago and talk about the TEA Parties, and analyze what they said. Just tick off the list: racists, check, terrorists, check, lunatics, check…the list goes on and on!

But since this is a “sensitive” issue, you don’t see the footage of the policeman holding a baby being pelted by protesters with glass bottles flying all over the news. The media has always had a bit of a double standard, but this time it’s just WAY too apparent. How does one say something like that with a straight face? Really!

Thankfully, Arizona is leading the way towards amending a problem that has needed to be fixed for a long time. Illegal immigration isn’t a matter of ones race. I could care less if a person is Hispanic: Hell, work out at the mills sometime and see how hard a 65 year old Hispanic man will work, and how he leaves a 23 year old white kid in the dust. Amazing work ethic, amazing people, amazing food. But if a person of ANY color or ethnicity is here illegally, and on top of that doing things that are illegal, I have a problem with that and so do 70% of Arizonians (which happens to be the number of those that support the bill). Don’t label me a racist because I don’t want to just ignore the problem.

Christian Hypocrites

If any of you out there have been following the news at all, you have seen the unfolding of the courts decision to allow the morons to the left (which belong to an anti-America, anti-gay, anti-…well, just about everything) to protest at a funeral of a fallen soldier waving signs just like you see here.

The Westboro Baptist Church (whose website happens to be www.godhatesfags.com, please don’t visit the site, I really don’t want to give these people any more traffic than they may have) has been the epitome of stupidity and intolerance and gives all of us that are right leaning a bad name. In 2007, they lost a large court battle when they were sued by the father of the fallen soldier. They had showed up at the funeral, of course, and reveled in the death of this mans son. If it was me? I would have taken a few of the bastards out as they ran away screaming until the police stopped me. BUT it wasn’t me, and so papers were filed and the judge ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church (here on out WBC for convenience reasons) was to pay the father $11 million dollars. They challenged the ruling, and amazingly, the next judge overturned the ruling and ordered the FATHER to pay WBC’s court costs! Amazing.

Regardless, the Supreme Court has said they will take the case on, and it will be interesting to see what the final ruling will be. My knee jerk reaction would be that the First Amendment would be upheld, however, there are plenty of precedents that limit free speech because the speech incites violence. The often cited example would be yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there was no fire.

However, this case brings up a larger issue: the hypocrisy of so many that call themselves specifically “Good” Christians.

I consider myself a Christian, in the sense that I believe in God and Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and try and live a decent, honest life. Have I been to church lately? No, because I work 21 turn and often I work on Sundays. My main point is that so many people that tag the word “good” to the front of “christian” are often times anything but. In the news recently we have the Christian Militia (who were coming up with a plan to kill police officers and government officials) and the WBC, not to mention the scores of people I have met in my life who claim to be “good” Christians, but don’t act very Christ like what-so-ever.

I know, I know. “But Travis! You swear all the time, you haven’t been to church in a while, and you’re very judgmental (just read any of your opinion pieces)!”

Here is where I draw the difference: I don’t CLAIM to be perfect. I’ve done plenty of un-Christian like things in my life and will probably do plenty more before I die, but you will never see me hide behind God or put on a false front when I do go to church. There are plenty of people out there who, while they drive to church, yell and scream at each other, call each other names, talk badly about the people they are about to see…and then as soon as the car door opens, *BOOM!* Out come the “Good” Christians.

Being a person who believes in God should not be something you hold over your friends’ heads. It’s a lot like being an alcoholic, making a big show about beating your addiction, and then drinking a bottle and a half of NyQuil every night just to fall asleep. It’s pointless, and it’s a term that is used so very often by people who are just trying to make themselves feel better, or it is being used as a moniker in order to do hateful things (like the groups mentioned above).

By all means, believe in God, Allah, Jesus, or the flying spaghetti monster. Whatever faith you truly believe in and feel strongly about. But being a Christian, or a Muslim, or whatever, is not something that should be used AGAINST others, and not something that should be used to cover up illegal or heinous acts.

Supreme Court Decision: Attend State of the Union?

“The first woman to sit on the nation’s highest court (Sandra Day O’Connor) said Tuesday she wouldn’t be surprised if fewer justices attend State of the Union addresses after President Obama criticized a recent ruling at this year’s address,”-Associated Press line.

You know, I wondered about this on my critique of President Obama’s last State of the Union speech, where he criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn large parts of the McCain-Feingold bill that that created major restrictions on campaign financing. I wasn’t sure at the time (and still can’t find any hard information) about how unusual a practice this was, for a sitting President to speak out against the Supreme Courts ruling on current issues, at least in the State of the Union. But what I did notice was a look of shock on many of the Judges faces, and in some a look of annoyance.

I hold, personally, a higher respect for the Supreme Court than perhaps any other branch of government. While there is a degree of politics in decisions regarding Supreme Court Judge appointments, once the Judge is appointed the politics in that branch are usually scarce, if there at all. The Supreme Court has the final say on constitutionality, and their decisions echo through time in the form of precedents. This is also why I get so irritated when people throw around the words “rights” and “Constitutional” so often without checking to technically see if it is a “right”. It’s a different story (and maybe this will seem like nit-picking to some on here, but it’s just how I feel) to say “I think such and such SHOULD be (un)Constitutional”, or “I really hope the Supreme Court overturns (blank) bill because I’m morally against/for (blank)”. Semantics? Yeah, I’ll admit it. But it’s one of those little things like a buzzing mosquito that won’t go away. Am I always the most…elegant in my responses? No, but hey, nobody’s putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read my ramblings, now are they? And if they are, tap your mouse three times, I’ll send help.

Granted, I’m no Constitutional scholar (and quite frankly I don’t have the time or energy to know every case and precedent off the top of my head like some lawyers I know), whenever I get a chance to read up a little on Constitutional law I leap at. Let me put it this way: the reason I decided to go back to school in the first place is because I picked up a boat load of text books on a variety of topics (Economics, Law and Politics, Political Science, etc.) and my wife said, “If you’re going to read all that crap anyways, why not just get a piece of paper out of it?” Thanks again to my beautiful wife, by the way, for the recommendation. My point of this interruption? While I’m not an expert on the matter, I have a pretty coherent grasp on the different procedures and processes that different judges have when interpreting that great old, ever relevant, living, breathing document, and I hope that you all will think twice before exclaiming something a “right” or a “liberty”.

Anyways, former Justice O’Connor continued:

“It is not much fun to go because you put on a black robe and march in and you’re seated in the front row, (you) put your hands in your lap and have no expression on your face throughout the proceedings. You can clap when the president comes in and when he leaves and that’s it. It’s very awkward,” (again, from the AP line).

Because of this, combined with the recent criticisms, she believes that fewer and fewer Justices will continue to go through the hassle of being in attendance.

One woman asked her if she thought women process things and think differently as judges.

“No, I don’t. I think at the end of the day, a wise old woman and a wise old man are going to come to the same conclusion,” she said.

I’m still thinking about this statement. Was this meant as an off the cuff jab at Obama’s Supreme Court Justice pick, who had said a similar line about latino women coming to different conclusions about the interpretation of the Constitution? I don’t know, I don’t want to read into it too much, just something that I thought was curious.

Again, I want to bring attention, however, to the quote from O’Connor above about being a Justice and not being allowed to clap except for the President’s entrance and exit. THAT is why I like Constitutional law. It’s not supposed to be about having an axe to grind, about whether an R or a D appointed you. It’s about studying, examining, and interpreting our great nations Constitution and being the final word on the supreme law of the land.

Also, in case any of you haven’t noticed, my comment section is completely messed up. One day I actually logged in and there were no comment sections available at all, under any of the posts! I’m in the process of figuring out whats going on, and to those of you who have emailed me about comments not showing up, if I can find them, I’ll try and find a way to post them. I apologize for the inconvenience, I hope this in no way deters anyone’s readership in any way.