The Tea Baggers Stand for Bigotry and Extremism, Not Fairness

The historical "Boston Tea Party" of 1773 in which a group of colonists boarded three shiploads of taxed tea and destroyed the tea by throwing it into the Boston Harbor should in no way be confused with the recent "Tea Party" movement. The principal aim of the "Boston Tea Party" was to protest taxation without representation in the British Parliament. The Boston Tea Party was an iconic event in American history which led to the growth of the American Revolution. I tend to think of the new "Tea Party" protesters as the "Tea Baggers" because they are essentially carpetbaggers who share nothing with the historic "Boston Tea Party."

The "Tea Party" anti-tax movement revolves around fiscal conservatism and started as a challenge to the government bailouts of the banking industry. The movement expanded to include the wholesale rejection of the Obama Administration's healthcare reform bill. The rhetoric used at many of the protests is marked with venomous undertones and bigotry reminiscent of the reaction by southern whites to the civil rights movement. This clearly demonstrates that the protesters do not understand the purpose of the reform bill. Worse yet, with the passage healthcare reform bill on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, the protesters have resorted to physical violence against the Congress members who voted in favor of the reform bill.

I was in favor of a more comprehensive reform bill, one that would include a public option where all residents of the U.S. would be covered without regard for their citizenship status. But, the reform bill fell far short of what many Americans truly need and desire -- a true universal healthcare plan completely devoid of greedy health insurance companies. The reaction by Republican Congress members was mean spirited and despicable; they encouraged violent protests and threats against those who voted in favor of the reform bill. In my opinion, the violence and narrow mindedness demonstrated by the "Tea Baggers" is frightening and worrisome. What do you think about the "Tea Party" movement and the Tea Baggers?

Caracas Nine (YouTube clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxUNCqZoqMA

The Venezuelan cancer (aka: Chavez) continues its malignant growth. What are your thoughts on the matter?

U.S. Supreme Court Nominee

The U.S. Supreme Court nominee is an Hispanic woman (or Latina -- depending on where you stand on the Politically Correct pitchfork), and everybody is talking. But what do we know about her other than the fact she is 54 yrs. old and was born/raised in South Bronx, NY? We know she's a graduate of Yale Law School and has 16 years' experience in the courts. But is she really the best choice? Ask yourself where she stands on abortion or the Mexico City Policy and you may change your mind about her. Do we know where she stands on same sex marriage?

Perhaps a better choice would have been Cruz Reynoso, a native Californian of Mexican decent who worked in agriculture (fruit orchards) as a youth, and who rose to prominence as the first Chicano to serve on the California Supreme Court. Reynoso's father worked as a farm worker. Justice Reynoso is an articulate, intelligent, politically savvy and quick witted individual with a passion for justice. Unfortunately, he was not a supporter of the death penalty (a hot potato issue), and as a result was not reconfirmed in the 1986 Judicial-Retention election. Justice Reynoso teaches at UCLA School of Law & the UC Davis School of Law. We know exactly what Reynoso stands for, and of his passion for equality and justice. Can we say that about Sotomayor?

I'm not anti-Sotomayor. In fact, I'm as excited as everyone else that Obama finally recognized the Hispanic-Latino community and that he chose a Latina woman for the job, but I just wonder if she really is the best nominee for the job.

Smart Gun Control?

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is outdated and out-of-synch with everything a modern, progressive society should stand for. 1) Does the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms or is that right reserved exclusively for members of a "well-regulated militia"? 2) How can guns be better regulated? 3) Are "smart guns" the answer?