The more things change......

A political party describes their opposition as "rabble" and an "ignorant herd wedded to worn out ideas." The President denounced those who had "sowed the seeds of jealousy and distrust in order to destroy confidence in the federal government." The President utilizes the State of the Union to denounce certain "self-created societies". The President's supporters take it one step further and insinuates improper connections between those societies and the opposition party. The opposition cries foul and charges that this is just an attempt to suppress freedom of speech and publications. Sounds like it is ripped straight out of today's headlines, only it wasn't.....it was 1794 and the all of this political vitriol was centered around the Whiskey Rebellion. A federal excise tax on whiskey pitted the western farmers against the eastern establishment, pitted Thomas Jefferson against Alexander Hamilton. It was the beginning of political parties in this country.

Other than a fascinating and important piece of American history it is just one example of how the political vitriol of today isn't much different that what is has been for over 200 years.

Some other examples of such vitriol in the 1828 presidential election Andrew Jackson was described as a murderer and a cannibal. His wife was called a prostitute. In 1860 newspapers called Abraham Lincoln "stupid" and described him as an "ape". In 1948 Truman drew an analogy between the Republicans and Nazis.

When I hear journalists and politicians self-righteously intone that we need to "tone down" our political rhetoric all it shows is a serious lack of historical knowledge. Perhaps due to the internet there is more immediacy to what is being said today, but the level of "vitriol" is hardly higher now than it has been in the past. Rather than the internet, in the past it was newspapers. In the book Infamous Scribblers, Eric Burns notes that modern readers would be shocked at the vulgarity and partisanship of colonial newspapers. Instead of blogs and facebook, politicians such as Jefferson and Hamilton underwrote newspapers to insure their points of view were published. Burns wrote that "The golden age of America's founding was also the gutter age of American reporting. The Declaration of Independence was literature. The New England Courant talked trash. The Constitution of the United States was philosophy; the Boston Gazette slung mud, Philadelphia's Aurora was less a celestial presence than a ground level reek."

Besides treading on extremely dangerous grounds determining whose rhetoric is vitriolic, the current "debate" disappointingly exhibits a complete lack of historical knowledge and context.

Of Qurans, mosqes and double standards.

Some 31 or 32 years ago, the very first "Letter to the Editor" I ever wrote was to US News and World Report. They had an article about Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" that had come up with a list of books they wanted banned from all public and school libraries. Even as a high schooler, I found that completely offensive, so I sat down and wrote a letter to the editor. I don't remember it all, but I do remember the first line, "Now that we have the bible according to Falwell, he's trying to give us the constitution according to Falwell." After that article, I went out (with my parents' blessing) and promptly tried to read most of the books on the list. One of the books on that list, "Brave New World" probably is on my list of my favorite 20 or so books I've ever read. The idea of banning and even worse burning books of ANY kind is one of the most reprehensible acts that I can think of.

Unfortunately the world wide press has picked up on this poor pathetic fool of a minister in Florida that wants to burn Qurans on September 11. Now mind you, this guy has a "flock" of 50 people. Had the press ignored him, we wouldn't be having this whole controversy. The President, the Secretary of State and General Patreus among a host of others, have all spoken out against this move, and rightfully so. The general gist of these condemnations are that it is "unnecessarily provocative" and it has the potential of putting our troops in harms way. The president and the national press are all talking about how this isn't proper. What is missing in this conversation though is that fact that Terry Jones has a right to burn books. As deplorable as I find it, he can do it. This is very similar to the Phelp's cult here in Topeka protesting at funerals and churches. They have the right to act like fools and make grieving families feel even worse, no matter how inappropriate the exercise of that right is.

Some 1000 miles to the north of that poor pathetic preacher another controversy bubbles. The Ground Zero Mosque. (and don't let anyone tell you it isn't "Ground Zero", the the landing gear of one of the planes that hit one of the towers went through the top two stories of the building) As Thomas Sowell put it in one of his articles, the Ground Zero Mosque would be a "15 story middle finger to America." The vast majority of the people in this country feel that a mosque at site of of this country's worst mass murder, carried out in the name of Islam, would not be proper. In the view of the vast majority of the population in this country, the Ground Zero mosque is unnecessarily provocative.

What we get on the mosque is lectures from the President, Mayor Bloomberg and lots of the press is that we are being intolerant and insensitive to Muslims. They have a "RIGHT" to build the mosque wherever they want it. Very few, if any of the people opposing the Ground Zero Mosque contend that they don't have a right to build a mosque. There are over 100 mosques in New York City and some 2000 mosques across the country. They clearly have a right to build, what I and the majority of Americans feel that to build in that location is an inappropriate exercise of that right.

What bothers me in this whole controversy is the double standards being employed by the president and many of our liberal "betters" in the press and academia. On the one hand we are lectured about someone's "right" to build a mosque where the vast majority of people find the location patently offensive. We're told we need to be more tolerant and sensitive to the feelings of muslims. We are admonished that since someone has a "right" to do something, in this case build a mosque in an inappropriate spot, that we shouldn't dare oppose it. To oppose it is to just prove how "racist" or islamophobic we are. Apparently in this instance once that "right" is established we have no business questioning the propriety of the exercise of that right. On the other hand, Terry Jones has a "right" to burn a book, no matter how inappropriate that action is. Why then are the president and our moral superiors on the left so willing to jump in the fray and try to stop it?

I have a problem with both the Quran burning and the Ground Zero mosque. Just because someone has a right, the exercise of that right isn't always right. But probably what bugs me the most of both of these situations is the double standards being applied.

Who'd a thunk it?

Who would have thought that a special election for Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts would be making major national news? After all, this is the People's Republic of Massachusetts we are talking about. The entire congressional delegation and every statewide elected official in Massachusetts is a Democrat. The Democrats hold a 3 to 1 registration advantage. The Democratic candidate the party chose has won a couple of statewide races already and was the leading vote getter in the last statewide election, winning 73% of the vote. Despite all that the most recent polls show the Republican candidate, a state senator is leading the Democratic candidate, who is the state's attorney general. And it all boils down to health care. The Republican candidate has made this a referendum on the Obama "agenda" especially health care. And he is leading going into the weekend before the election. despite all the "numbers" being against him. It is almost funny to watch the Democrats scramble to keep this seat. "The One" is making robo-calls. He is going to make an appearance in the state on Sunday. Slick Willy is up there campaigning. And the polls are going south for the Democrats.

How will this end? I don't know. I'd like to hope that the Scott Brown will win. But win or lose I think this race will prove to be the demise of Obamacare. The health care bill is a loser. The majority of Americans oppose it. If it is such a good bill, why are they having to cut all these underhanded "deals" to buy votes? Just on the basis of this race in Massachusetts being made about health care and someone opposed to the current health care reform leading going into the weekend before the election, I think Obamacare is in deep trouble. How many moderate democrats who voted for the bill initially are going to look at what is happening in Massachusetts and not fear for their seat? If Obamacare is that unpopular in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, how are some of these Southern and Midwest moderates going to defend their votes? I personally think that no matter the result of Massachusetts, that there are going to be significant defections putting passage of the whole bill in doubt, at least that is my hope.

Who is the real enemy?

Some of the major news of the last week has been a concerted effort by the White House on Fox News. Axelrod, Emanuel and Dunn, and the "One" himself all took shots at Fox News that they weren't a "news" organization. They come to that conclusion because of two of the "opinion" shows on Fox. Specifically on those two shows, I've never been a real Glen Beck fan, but while I disagree with Sean Hannity on some issues, I've always thought his show was very informative and very good "news". As a side note, Beck used to work for CNN. Does that mean for several year while he had a similar show, CNN wasn't a news organization? In a similar fashion, the White House has gone after the US Chamber of Commerce. They "dared" to oppose the massive government takeover of health care in this country.

At the same time as this "war" on Fox and the Chamber, USA Today reported this week that a bipartisan commission came to the conclusion that the White House was neglecting the threat of bio-terrorism. While spending billions of dollars on pet projects, and "stimulus", the White House has not funded the defenses against bio-terrorism.


Similarly, at the same time as this effort to discredit any "opponents" of the White House policies and ignoring established threats to this country, they have been wishy-washy at best on their policy in Afghanistan. Despite candidate Obama declaring that the war in Afghanistan was a "war that must be won", and declaring it the "good" war, he has dithered on his military commander's recommendations of increasing troop strength in order to bring that war to a successful conclusion. His advisers have stated that they would allow the Taliban a role in any Afghanistan government. They tried to distinguish the Taliban from Al Quaeda. I guess they must have short term memory loss. It was the Taliban that gave Bin Laden refuge when the Clinton administration passed on the opportunity given to them when the Sudan government kicked Osama out of their country. Deciding that they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute Osama in a civil court, they let him go and he established training bases in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. Those training bases led directly to the terrorists who carried out the 911 attacks. But somehow, the Taliban have suddenly become not threat and not the target of the Obama administration.

You know, it certainly makes one wonder where the priority lies with this president. Fox News and the US Chamber of Commerce are enemies but the Taliban isn't. It makes one wonder when you spend more time attacking Fox News and the Chamber than you do legitimate enemies of this country. It makes one wonder where the priorities are when you spend more time talking to David Letterman than you have talking to your personally appointed commanding general in the "war that must be won" in Afghanistan. And then, you declare that the enablers of Al Quaeda are not the enemy either. When the president and the White House are more concerned with labeling opponents of their domestic agenda as enemies rather than being concerned about foreign enemies who have actually killed American citizens and soldiers it makes one wonder who they consider the real enemies.

Where's the Party for Me?

The other day I posted a link on my facebook page to an article calling for an American Capitalist Party. Within the last week, during a political conversation, I was once again called a RINO, (Republican in name only). This comment came in a conversation about abortion. Being pro-choice on abortion and very moderate on most other social issues championed by many in the Republican Party, I and many others, have been marginalized in my party activities. I believe there is a very "Republican", limited government argument in favor of abortion rights. I've never felt that government as the "morals" nanny was any better than government as the "economic" nanny, but that will be left for another blog. Over the last several years I've felt that if a 3rd major political party appeared on the scene in the US, it would be a split in the Republican Party between what I have called the "traditional" Republicans and the social conservatives. The social issues have never been the "holy grail" of politics for what I call the "traditional" Republicans. Their major concern has been the economics of government. Some of those "traditional" Republicans agree with the social conservatives, some do not. In any event over the last several years most of the Republicans, at least in elective office, seem to have gotten away from the economic conservative aspects which draws me that direction.

Although there are signs that the Republicans are moving back to the core values of fiscal conservatism which they seem to have abandoned over the last several years, it may be too little too late. None of the current political parties seem to stand for those values that I find important. I know over long years of my political involvement there are lots of people that agree with me on basic points of what I am viewing as needed in a new political party.

While I certainly am borrowing part of these values from the American Capitalist party article, I am adding some more of what I feel needs to be there.

On the economic front the government should be very limited. Both individual and corporate taxes should be low. There should be effective support of the infrastructure in order to promote economic growth. There should be a strong belief in and support of the freedom and meritocracy that has been the foundation of what makes this country great. There should be a recognition that the government may be called on for situational help when things get bad, but such help should never be institutionalized.

On foreign affairs and military issues, there needs to be a strong support for the military and for providing the military with the appropriate tools and weapons in the event their services are necessary. There needs to be a recognition and willingness to utilize that military power when necessary because we live in a dangerous world with lots of bad actors that would like to see nothing better than our destruction. We need to be engaged and work with other governments around the world on these issues, but recognize that to protect our interests we will act on our own if necessary. There needs to be a recognition that while not the first choice, military force is the only way to solve some situations. The military needs to be equipped and supported to fully do whatever job is needed, with the hope they aren't needed. Basically the old philosophy of Theodore Roosevelt should be in play, "Speak softly, but carry a big stick." The US must act to protect our interests no matter what.

The final issues are the "social" issues like abortion and gay rights. I've never quite understood how many of the people who contend, rightfully so, that the government fails miserably when meddling in economic matters are more than willing to let that same government meddle in private matters. Some of the same people that are arguing in the current health care debate that the government shouldn't come between a patient and doctor turn around and argue that same government should step in and regulate what happens between a woman and her doctor if she is considering an abortion. Unfortunately through the years, the 10th Amendment which reserves rights to the people not specifically enumerated to the government has been largely ignored. I believe that amendment provides a strong foundation for basic privacy rights. Similarly with gay marriage, the same people that don't trust the government on most things want them to step in and actively discriminate against a certain class of people. Not only do they advocate discrimination by the government, they want to enshrine that discrimination in law. Basically, if the government is going to be in the business of advocating marriage, through the passage of tax laws, inheritance laws and custody laws, etc., they shouldn't be in the business of denying those benefits to certain classes of people who would otherwise qualify.

Currently, the Democrats fail miserably on the economic and foreign policy/military aspects. The Republicans fail miserably on the social issues and for the last several years on the economic issues. The Libertarians, at least recently have failed on the foreign/policy aspects. They also fail with the lack of support of infrastructure and education that I find important.

So where does a anti-tax and spend, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-national defense person go for a political party? Certainly none of the parties that exist now fit that bill. It seems like every choice I am having to make forces me to compromise on a major factor that I consider important. Maybe, just maybe one of the existing parties will evolve into something I'm looking for, or a new party will develop. I'm hoping so.

Random Thoughts

Just a whole lot of things on my mind but don't feel like writing a whole blog on any of them. So I'm just going to give it the old shotgun approach.

Last week the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a $5 million verdict against the Phelps cult. A federal jury in Maryland had awarded the father of a slain Marine $5 million for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Phelps cult, as is their practice, protested outside the funeral of the plaintiff's son. Having witnessed first hand the vile, despicable things the Phelps have on their signs and what they say to people at their protests, I have lots of sympathy for the plaintiff. The Phelps cult has regularly picketed outside my church for years. Additionally I've been to funerals where they've protested. For those that haven't had the misfortune of crossing paths with these nut jobs, their pickets are repulsive and contemptible. However, I think it sets an extremely dangerous precedent to use the civil courts and something as slippery as the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy to try to silence free speech. The first amendment protects speech of even despicable people like the Phelpses. The 4th Circuit got it right, the First Amendment protects even distasteful and repugnant speech. That said, I also think that there are some reasonable "time and place" restrictions that are in place and could be passed elsewhere that limit how close to a funeral and time restrictions that can be used to prevent these bozos from interfering with other funerals.

I truly don't understand all the hubbub over the President going to Copenhagen to support the Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics. I have plenty of beefs with "The One", as anyone who reads my blog or my facebook page could attest. The other heads of states from the countries of the finalist cities are also going to be there. I think it is totally appropriate for him to go. I think making such a big deal out of it only serves to provide ammunition to marginalize Obama's critics. When they look foolish on issues like this, it is easier to contend that all of their legitimate concerns are just as foolish.

Isn't the silence of the left deafening? During the campaign Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. However, today it was announced that the Obama administration was limiting access to Guantanamo Bay. Previously under the Bush Administration,the reporters who covered the military beat were invited trips to the detention camps when they were covering the hearings. They could write about, film and photograph the camp and the conditions there. Those side trips have been halted under Obama. The left would be screaming bloody murder if that had happened under Bush, but I've hardly heard a whimper. Aren't double standards wonderful?

Got my flu shot on Sunday. The health ministries committee of the board of deacons at church offers the shots every year at cost. My arm is still aching. There have been stories recently about health care workers and the military being "required" to take the H1N1 vaccine. I don't have a problem with flu shots in general. I do have a problem with the government mandating certain people have to have the shot. That problem exists even ordering military personnel who are trained to take orders, that they have to take a flu shot. I don't know that even if I fell into the "high risk" category, I would get the swine flu shot. It seems that this was so rushed, I'm not sure I trust the safety of the shot. And having a government "require" personnel to take a shot goes against every fiber of my being.

The city council in Topeka passed a no-smoking ordinance last night. This is another example of a situation where I am extremely conflicted. On the one hand, I am very anti-smoking. I grew up in a house where my dad smoked for years and I think the second hand smoke I was around made my sore throat/sinus issues I had as a kid much worse. I avoid being around smoke as often as I can. As much as I hate being around smoke, I'm not sure a municipal government passing an anti-smoking is appropriate. If the majority of the population really were against smoking in public, let their pocketbooks do the talking for them. There are certainly restaurants and bars that already don't allow smoking. If the people truly support non-smoking public places, they should frequent those bars and restaurants, and let the owners know why. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is a much better regulator of conduct than any government regulation.

The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

English writer Samuel Johnson once famously said that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." The context of the quote was primarily directed at the British Prime Minister and aimed at what Johnson felt was false patriotism. Fast forward 230 years or so and I think the current version of this quote should be, "racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". And just as in Johnson's day, it isn't actual racism that the quote is targeted at, it is the false racism used by many of today's politicians. Jimmy Carter (you know the ex-president who penned an anti-Semitic book) lectured us that the strong opposition to the Obama healthcare proposal was based on racism. Several Congressmen and women and liberal columnists have raised the issue that the opposition to the Obama health care plan is based on race. What do these people think? That the American people didn't know Barack Obama was black when they voted for him? We suddenly woke up 9 months into his administration and realized he was black so we have to oppose him?

I believe that the major reason why we are hearing this charge now is that the liberals through the years have found crying racism is an effective political tool. It neutralizes opposition. It attacks presumed motives not actual actions or words. The idea they are attempting to propagate is since the "speaker" is operating from "hate" every possible criticism by that "speaker" is racist, and thus they don't even have to answer any criticism. It is easier to demonize the opposition with a bogus charge of racism than it is to argue the facts of the proposal that the majority of people don't want. The left is attempting to "shame" the white moderates who supported Obama in 2008 into supporting his healthcare plan or risk being labeled as a racist.

The numbers however, just don't add up. Like I wrote above, a large portion of the 69 million American people who voted for him last November just didn't wake up and realize Obama was black. In fact, Obama got 41% of the white male vote, the largest percentage of white males to vote for a democrat presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Race wasn't a major factor in the election, why is it suddenly the factor now? The latest polls show 53% of the country approve of the job Obama is doing as President while 44% disapprove. That doesn't strike me as racism. If racism truly was behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan, wouldn't those numbers be significantly worse?

An even more telling story of numbers is the comparison at comparable times in the process of Obamacare now and Hillarycare some 18 years ago. At about the same time in 1991, 44% of the population supported the massive federal takeover of healthcare. The latest poll I saw shows that 41% of the population support Obamacare. Those similar numbers show that the issue isn't race. The issue is, that despite being the holy grail of the left wing in this country for over 30 years, a federal takeover of healthcare is not something the majority of Americans support. It is that policy, not whatever race the proponent happens to be, that is the cause of the strong opposition.

Despite the ease which charges of racism seem to flow from the left in this country,they are actually doing more harm than good. By glibly charging racism on legitimate policy differences, the left is diluting the impact that any legitimate charge would carry. It is a sad day in this country when we can't criticize our president on policy issues without a bogus charge of racism being bandied about. It really has become that racism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.