[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: YOUR TRUST IS NOT SOMEONE'S BIRTHRIGHT [why it's o.k. to not vote for Obama because of race] YOUR TRUST IS NOT SOMEONE'S BIRTHRIGHT By Mark Andrew Dwyer - Posted 9/28/04 Suppose you are looking for a baby-sitter for your little one. A candidate rings the doorbell, and when you open the front door, you see a beefy, gangsta-looking, shaved-head individual wearing a tank top, baggy pants, facial jewelry, and elaborate tattoos on his arms. Would you trust somebody like that with your child? Unless you were really badly brainwashed and indoctrinated with non-judgementalism, diversity, and multiculturalism nonsense while in high school or college, you obviously wouldn't. And you didn't even think that your negative decision was a result of prejudice and bigotry on your part. After all, we do judge individuals based on appearances when our personal safety and the safety of our children are at stake. Now, suppose you delegated your right to choose a baby-sitter for your kid to your government. When the above candidate applies for that position (of a baby-sitter for your child, it is) to the respective governmental agency that does the hiring, all of the sudden, how does he look and act doesn't matter anymore. As a matter of fact, it may be against the law for that agency to take such factors like the hairstyle, the wardrobe, or even the body language of the candidate into consideration as it could be construed by some as a racial or ethnic discrimination. (I am sure ACLU would threaten with an "anti-discrimination" lawsuit if such things were actually taken into consideration.) Chances are that in order to be non-discriminatory and fair to all applicants, the agency would not even verify if an applicant in question had a clean criminal record or was an illegal alien, nor would it try to check if he/she was a recreational drug user. If you find it hard to believe, just check for yourself what a public school administration can and cannot do while screening applicants for a school bus driver. You will be amazed, I guarantee it. You see, that's the pivotal difference between what you can do with your right and what your government can do with it. You can follow your instincts, your moral values, and your common sense, and base your decisions on truth and what's best for you and your child, while your government will have to obey all the politically "correct" doctrines of the kind "all people are equal" (not to be confused with "all people were created equal" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence) and "everybody wants to be good and deserves to be trusted unless proven otherwise" devised by a bunch of self-appointed social engineers and other wishfully thinking utopists that want to implement a Socialist paradise right here on American soil, if not on the entire planet. It's very much like with the burden of proof in a legal dispute, when the party that bears that burden faces an uphill battle and often loses the case just because of its inability to prove the supporting facts for its otherwise legitimate claims. You can refuse trusting anyone you choose so until a person in question earns your trust or otherwise proves to be trustworthy, and there is nothing racist or discriminatory in your refusal, while the government (except when security clearance or similar qualification is required) usually cannot. They can only distrust those people that they were somehow able to prove are not trustworthy (not an easy proposition), or they must distrust all, as they do in airports in order to avoid "profiling". And this makes a huge difference that can turn one's happy life into a nightmare. Therefore, I propose that you don't trust your government with your rights and liberties because you may be very sorry if you do. Our governments of all levels possess a rare ability of turning virtually every sensibly sounding postulate into a bureaucratic nonsense. The more power you delegate to them, and this includes the taxes you pay, the less truth, common sense, and moral rightness you will see in all things that affect you. And of all those rights and liberties that you need to be extra careful while granting them to someone else, the one that should make you particularly suspicious is the right to pass the laws on your behalf, the laws that all of us (well, most) will have to obey. So, don't vote for any candidate that you would rather not trust with baby-sitting of your child, never mind your country. If they sound or look as if they came from another planet, culture, or society, if they acted as if they were willing to sell America to the highest bidder, or if they appear as if they were taking orders from another nation (particularly, Mexico), by no means, don't trust them with your vote. It would be an idiotic notion for you to avoid taking all these factors, in addition to race, gender, ethnicity, national origin and cultural and socio-economic background, even the candidate's last name (particularly, if he/she has a Mexican-sounding name), into account while in a voting boot. For, as Robert de Niro put it aptly in movie Ronin, "if there is a doubt, there is no doubt". Remember this when you will be about to punch your ballot in November.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tauzero (#0)
Gotcha. I am going to see if any baby sitter around here is interested in taking the prez. job. Are baby sitters recommended for other elected offices? How about the supreme courts?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Perhaps they ought to be. People might choose more carefully. Have baby sitters invaded any countries lately?
No no, b-b-BOP-p-p-bop bop bop...
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||