Barack Hussein Obama is a Jewish Mother??

 A commentary on the average American's response to Arizona's new immigration law quoted poll results from Newsweek illustrating that Americans overwhelmingly support Arizona's position.  The question was phrased in several different ways.  In the different versions of the question, Americans' support of the law ranged from 65% to 78%.  The lowest positive rate was of the question, "would you support your state passing a similar law.  "Only" 58% answered yes.  So, why is everyone in the Obama administration criticizing the law, without ever reading it?  What is their goal?  In an already contentious mid-term election year, when most experts predict Democrats losing control of at least one branch of congress, why fly into the face of such overwhelming public opinion?


At the risk of sounding racist, I'm going to bring up the stereotypical Jewish mother.  You know how they are portrayed as using guilt to get their way with their children?  "No, son, you don't have to visit this Mother's day.  I know you are busy and all.  I wouldn't want to interfere with your hectic schedule.  I'm only 98, I'm sure I'll be around for many more Mother's days that I will be able to celebrate with you."


The president's big stick is our collective guilt over slavery, abolished about 145 years ago, by the way.  That's why he was never criticized or even challenged during his campaign.  Republicans were afraid of being labeled racist.  They couldn't question his choice of religion.  So what if he is a Muslim?  They couldn't question his choice of a pastor.  So what if he was a twenty year member of Jeremiah Wright's church that taught, among other outrages, that the 9/11 attacks were justified and even a message from God?  They couldn't question his relationship with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers.  His political career started with a meeting in Ayers' basement, but that doesn't mean Obama knew him.  They couldn't question his wife's opinion of America when she said "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of America."  They couldn't even question his habit of voting "present" as a senator.  Any question or challenge was immediately met with charges of racism.  Even now, when Tea Party supporters carry signs with slogans such as "I want my country back," they are charged with using racist "code words."  And like the Jewish son, we get defensive and give in.

Now immigration policy is the hot topic.  Anyone who has read Arizona's law knows that it is only a repeat of current federal law.  The law only empowers local and state law enforcement to aid the federal government in enforcing current law.  It goes to great lengths to make illegal any type of racial profiling, with strictly worded definitions of restrictions of who can be questioned and why, and punishments for violating those restrictions.  So immediately after the law, actually a state bill at the time, was reported on national news, the president publicly called it misguided and requested a department of justice review of its legality.  Without ever reading it!  He was quickly followed with public condemnations of the law by his attorney general, homeland security secretary, and numerous governors and mayors, most of whom still claim not to have read the law!

Now, last week, the president of Mexico was invited to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives.  His topic?  The racist components of the United States immigration policy and specifically the Arizona law.  His speech was followed by a standing ovation by Democratic members of the House!  And remember this is a policy overwhelmingly favored by Americans.  What is the progressives' purpose in making these comments.  The whole guilt over slavery thing is getting a little tired to most Americans, so if that's the plan, it's obviously not working.  Or are they trying to divide the country even further.  It is apparent that many Americans will blindly follow the Democratic party no matter what.  So they are inclined to believe the charges of racism.  Some legal immigrants and minorities are genuinely worried about harassment.  And admittedly some have read the law, know that it mirrors federal law, but believe that the federal law should be changed.  So at the very least, the progressives seem to be trying to widen a gap between the approximately 60% who oppose them and the 40% who support them.  What could be their endgame?  The possibilities are a little scary to think about.

Here's a video of Representative McClintock's, a Republican congressman from California, response to Mexican president Calderon's speech last week.  


Just to be fair, California gets slammed a lot, but it's obviously not all California that is so completely screwed up.  Just the cities, as the case in most of the country.  It's just that the rest of us that have to pay for their stupidity!  Hope that wasn't too racist.  I'm feeling a little guilty.

Would Reagan Recognize Us?

Ronald Reagan once said that he had hope for America because we were a nation of strivers, not of coveters.  He said that when an American sees someone succeed, they strive to achieve the same success.  Reagan's Americans do not covet the rewards of others, they strive to earn those rewards through their own success.  The rags to riches story is the story of America.  Or it was.

I told this story to a friend before last year's election.  His response was "you must be from somewhere different."  He was from California.  He said that where he was from, people just wanted to take what they needed from someone who had it.

One of my favorite tv shows is Survivor.   When the show first came on, everyone assumed it would be won by the contestant that performed best in the challenges.  From the very first season though, it was clear that it would be a social game.  Last season, a contestant named Russell probably played the game harder than anyone in the history of the show.  From the day he got on the island, he worked on alliances.  He worked alliances and manipulated players and basically controlled the game from the first day.   He also spent every spare moment searching for immunity idols.  He found all three, two without clues and before anyone else even looked.  He dominated the game and went to the final with a cute girl that basically rode his coattails to the end.

In the final episode, players previously voted out decide who will win the million dollars.  If I remember correctly, Russell only got two votes.  The other players resented the way Russell worked and earned his way to the end.  They chose to give the prize money to someone who just tagged along with a successful player.  

There was a similar outcome in the show's second season.  Colby dominated the game physically.  He won every individual challenge and took a nice single mother with him to the end.  The other players voted at the end to give the money to the single mother because she "needed" it more.  No one argued that Colby did not earn the reward, but they felt that the woman needed it more.

Survivor has become a metaphor for our country now.  As a rule, Americans no longer strive to duplicate another's success.  Now, we are guilty of coveting their rewards.  Instead of striving for a career that allows us to provide for ourselves and our loved ones, we want our government to take the rewards of success from others and give it to us.  Because we need it.

It will be hard for our society to survive when covetors outnumber strivers.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, "One of the problems with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of people whose money you can take."  Or to put in Survivor terms, when your tribe has more Sandras than Russells, you'll be spending a lot of time in tribal council.

Hometown and Roots

If you aren't familiar with Steinbeck's Travels with Charley:  In Search of America, it is his observations about America and Americans as he travels from Maine to California with his dog Charley.  From the very beginning of the book, he writes about his yearning to be on the move.  He also notices the longing looks he gets from both friends and total strangers when he talks about his plans.  He feels that Americans have an inborn need to travel and explore.

One of his observations early in the book is of the large numbers of mobile homes he is seeing on the interstates.  At one point, Steinbeck has dinner with a family whose mobile home sits alone on a hill near the highway.  He asks about the lack of roots such a lifestyle provides.  The man says that his family has never had roots.  His father came over from Italy and lived in New York apartments moving with the availability of work.  His wife's family had the same experience coming over from Ireland, where their "roots" tied them to a land during famine.  They welcomed the opportunity to cut the roots and come to America.

Steinbeck predicts that the mobile homes will become more popular, since they offer a nice, inexpensive home that is, by definition, mobile.  If work or opportunity presents itself in a new location, all the mobile home owner has to do is pay for a trucking company to move their home to a new location.  No more being tied to a specific area because of a home that you may not be able to sell.  Maybe that will be the next recycled new idea to come out of the current tough economy and housing market.  

Steinbeck also speculates about the previously mentioned American need to be on the move and to explore.  He thinks that maybe the need is genetic.  Other than the relatively small Native American population, all of us came here from somewhere else.  Our ancestors pulled up their roots and came to America.  Whether we inherited the desire to move, or we learned the behavior from our ancestors, it has always been there.  And, as Steinbeck points out, from the beginning of mankind, we have moved constantly in search of food or a better climate.  Today we do the same in search of better employment or business opportunities.

Another interesting observation is about communication.  He mentions calling home at least twice a week to get in touch with his wife during his journey and reconnect with who he is.  He uses the analogy of a comet.  His past and responsibilities are the tail he carries with him like a comet's tail.  Steinbeck muses that only 100 years prior to his cross country journey, families moved from east to west going years without communicating with friends and family "back home."  Today,50 years after Steinbeck's travels, with cell phones, we are rarely out of touch for more than an hour. Even in the unpopulated, mountainous area that I live in, I am very rarely in an area where I can't be reached by cell phone.  Does that make me more mobile, or just give me a longer tail?

  

 

Patriots

I've always enjoyed American history.  I never have been able to get interested in world history too much.  I guess I just don't have the imagination to be able to identify with Charlemagne, the Russian czars, or King Louis I-XXXIV, or whatever.  But I love American history.  I am currently reading A Patriot's History of the United States. Unlike a lot of history books, it is very readable. And very informative.  Just a trivia note, I learned today where Cajun originated.  At the beginning of King George's War in 1755, a group of colonists took it upon themselves to take Acadia (Nova Scotia) from the French settlers.  At the end of the war, the British gave much of the conquered territories back to the French, but kept Acadia.  They were concerned about having French loyalists in their Nova Scotia, so they deported them.  A group of the deportees relocated in current Louisiana and were called Cajuns, a slurred version of Acadians.  That also explains the presence of their French influenced dialect.  Impress your friends at the bar with that little bit of trivia.  

One side note, I am reading this book on the Kindle Reader for PC.  It seems that as I am getting older more mature, those evil publishers are printing books with smaller type.  With the free Kindle Reader,I can download Kindle books to my laptop and read them in a slightly larger font.  I can also read in a poorly lit room (i.e. any room in our built in the 40's house).  Another advantage is that the Kindle version is generally cheaper than the hardback and I get it within seconds of ordering it.  There are also a lot of free books available for the Kindle.  The only downside is the fact that they aren't books.  As a former bookstore owner, I really like the smell, feel, and look of a book.  So I will probably end up buying hard copies of this one and a couple of others I have read on the Kindle.