"Advocate"

That is the word from last night’s Presidential debate that bothers me the most.

It was used, unsurprisingly, by President Obama in response to a rather curious question on equal pay for women (which seemed to be a sop to Obama as a selected question).

Special interest groups have always advocated to the Government.   For better or worse, it has been a common trend in Western governments for centuries.

However, when the Government itself begins to advocate for the rights of a particular group or demographic, it inevitably does so at the expense of everyone else.  There is no way around it.   It is the very nature of Alinsky’s identity politics that was a centerpiece of the Radical Left in the 1960s.  It is also corrosive to our Republic and to the Constitutional rights of all Americans (yes, eventually even those advocated for, as the next favored group may or may not erode their rights as well).

Government advocacy gives rise to a whole host of destructive trends.  Affirmative Action.  DACOWITS.  The Diversity industry.  The Attorney General refusing to prosecute “his people”.  Hate crime legislation.  Senior Officers in our military criticizing Constitutionally protected free speech of a private citizen because it offends one such favored group.

And then there’s that pesky 14th Amendment, which says in its very first section: “… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is also something in that Amendment about “due process”, but to this Administration that quaint notion seems as old-fashioned as crank-starting your flivver.

3 thoughts on “"Advocate"”

  1. I thought it was the height of hypocrisy for Obama to say that Romney has a different set of rules for those at the top, when the Obama administration obviously and blatantly has a different set of rules for friends, Chicago cronies, union members, campaign contributors and bundlers, than for the rest of us.

  2. This post causes one to stop and do a very dangerous thing, “think”. But the very thought about it, I find there is even a more dangerous term, “ponder”. It is this second one that I find myself doing. Neither of these “men” really impressed me as intelligent men. There are an infinite number of questions that should be asked of both of them. The term, “Advocate” has many aspects to it. Everybody believes either one of them will be an “Advocate” for each of the voters, I would suggest both of them will NOT be the “Advocate”, regardless of what they say. This would be especially true of the Military – Veterans Community. Of course, they are not going to come right out and say it. This is not the way that I think, but the way they think. The days of a large conventional military force are over. This would even be true in a follow-up to 9/11. I almost believe that it was planned that we would wear out the old F-16s during the First Persian Gulf War. Now, you begin to understand why I am so cynical. URR, I really believe this is a well-written post.

Comments are closed.