Has the Democratic Party Ever Changed?

When I see the people defending the "mostly peaceful" rioters destroying our cities I see exactly the same people who were part of the Democratic Party in the times of the Ku Klux Klan.  People who use fear and racist violence to intimidate the voters into submission.

The idea that Black Lives Matter is, on its face a reasonable one, except as you look around it is usually voiced by a group of anarchists and Marxists (often exclusively white) who are raging against people and businesses who have no history of violence against blacks.  They will memorialize individuals whose lives have been filled with drug abuse and violence while ignoring the innocents killed within the inner cities.

Some will claim this is a social movement, but the reality of their actions is political.  The fact one political party and its group of liberal/progressive activists all refuse to condemn their violence until polling numbers suggest they should do otherwise is telling.
If we are ever to unite as a nation we need to accept that change can only come from the hearts of our citizens and with the entire history of man it is unlikely a universally agreed to answer of racial discrimination or equality will be reached anytime soon, the best we can hope for is to protect the young and the innocent and help them understand love rather than hate.

We've spent almost 60-years attempting to overcome discrimination through social welfare and social advantage programs and what has that achieved?  We have a generation of people who believe they are owed something for the wrongs done their distant ancestors and since the election of Barrack Obama, the issues of race have gone from the back burner to the front.  It looks to me we are no better off today than we were at the start of the Great Society.

Revolution version 3.0

The nation is embroiled in a civil war, well kind of.  It’s not a great struggle, which comes to mind when you think of Abraham Lincoln’s remarkable Gettysburg address, but it is a real civil war.  It was started decades ago and just as with our original one it has taken years to ferment and fester to this point.

In the last Civil War, we had a class of American’s who sought to maintain their privilege and position in an economy that was about to transition from agrarian to industrial.  The economics of slavery was on the verge of proving cost-prohibitive, but still, we had those who demanded their rights must be maintained and the rights of the slaves dismissed.

This belief that one class of humans was superior to another class was not new or unique to the South.  Quietly it was shared by many in the North and it traces itself through the history of mankind where one people would enslave another at the drop of a conquest.  Egyptians, Babylonians, Hittites, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, Huns, Chinese, Japanese, Samoans, the list includes every culture known.  It seems to be a foundational human trait, which is passed along generation to generation until supplanted by a different moral choice.

As the voices for secession grew louder in the South, they chose to argue the rights of the States were more important than the rights of the Federal.  This had been a long-standing debate within the colonies and states, it was one of the leading reasons for the Federalist papers and the counter-arguments of the anti-Federalist groups.  Since the majority of Southerners didn’t own a slave the argument over States’ Rights was a much more persuasive one to rally around.

We are now in a different time, and as a nation, we hear different voices.  What strikes me as the most significant difference between then and now was history has shown the South had a unity of purpose, which I don’t see in the fragmented anarchists leading today’s revolt. 

We have dealt with identity politics and political control of the debate so long that today everyone believes their cause is more important than someone else’s cause.  It is clearly a struggle for power and domination in the political arena.  When the legitimate politicians abdicate their responsibilities and roles in leading the city, the county, the state, or the federal governments, they leave a void to be filled by whatever power block chooses to step in.  It could be Antifa, BLM, LGBT, or Hell’s Angels.  But, just as in a Parliamentary form of government no single identify group can command enough authority without coalition or brute force, and so far, no one seems willing to tolerate opposing views.  This does not bode well for the sustainment of the revolution.  Today those voices have the support of the media, but otherwise, it’s not too different than the attempted revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s when the anti-war protesters attempted to take over control of the civil rights movement. 

Eventually, leaders in both groups were co-opted into the mainstream political parties with the most radical moving to the Democrats who promised them the loudest voice. I assume the same will happen today, but nothing is certain except the human traits of greed and ambition will dominate the uprising.

An Opinion on 29 October 2018

-->

The Government is Neither Moral or Immoral

“Morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality.”  Mahatma Gandhi

We gather today in outrage over the massacre of eleven people, killed because of their religion.  On a global scale this senseless violence is small and perhaps insignificant, but within our culture it marks yet another step in the polarization of the politics of incivility.

Today’s society demands we assign blame for these immoral acts to specific people whose life, political views, or access to power we disdain, rather than the individual who commits the offense.  The need to score political points, display political outrage and demand the government improve its moral approach outweighs any sense of grief, real or imagined.

In a very real sense, it is this society, not the government, which has created the conditions which foster the public violence we see.  The government is an entity, it has no morality, it has no sense of justice, it is an infrastructure and a vehicle through which our society functions.  I think this article from the Foundation for Economic Freedom written in 2011 captures my sentiments as they have evolved over the past decade or so.  As George Washington is credited with saying, “Government is not reason.  It is not eloquence, Government is force; like a fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

The young have willingly bought into the identity politics and rhetoric of those who are unhappy with the current reality of government and are seeking, through whatever means possible to overturn the choices made in the last general election.  Many have been led to believe President Trump through his social media and personal approach to celebrity has created the “toxic” environment we see today.  At the same time, they discount the personal attacks, vilification, outright falsehoods, and slander used by his political opponents as having any contributory impact at all.

It should be noted the idea of personality politics is nothing new for this nation.  We can trace the role of personality all the way back to our first president.  The difference, at least it seems to me, is we’ve found it more reasonable to attack the person who challenges the status quo than accept policies that fail.    As an example, let’s look at the success or failure of major metropolitan cities where unemployment, crime, and social disparity are the worst.  Most, if not all, have had an unbroken chain of Democratic Party Mayors and City Councils, all making promises they failed to keep while driving their cities into deepening debt.  Where their choices moral or immoral?  No, they acted in what they perceived to be their self-interest.  Unfortunately for many within the cities, their self-interest was really THEIR personal self-interest as in personal and family enrichment.

Perhaps sometime in the near future, we will ask our individual selves, "what can I do to alter the course of society and advance a course that reflects the desired moral standards we had believed to be the foundation of this country?"  Will our political outrage actually have a positive effect if we continue to apply it unevenly to the political parties and allow the social media to control the debate through limiting speech?

We are a nation of some 328 million and if we want society to improve it will take all 328 million to develop an intolerance to those who advocate for a one solution fits all society.

I Guess It's Okay

Following the horrific attacks on New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001 the federal government responded in two ways.  In the first case, they began a military operation to end the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan that had sheltered Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaeda.  The second response was to create the “Patriot Act” to protect America by increasing the governments right to spy on its citizens.  This was clearly a bi-partisan decision passing the House by a margin of 357 to 66[1] and the Senate 98 to 1[2] (with one abstention). 

It has been renewed (in the key provisions) under President Bush in 2006 and President Obama in 2011 and 2015 (modified by the Freedom act).

Despite warnings from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the government and its intelligence and law enforcement agencies have successfully argued for the need to spy on citizens to keep them safe.  The voices for this power usually drown out those who believe the government has become self-serving and this capability will only protect their political interests.

It was shown during President Obama’s administration various agencies were “politicized” to go after the opposition.  For example, the Internal Revenue Agency’s work to restrict “tea-party groups” is well documented.[3]  Yet we are to believe the integrity of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are beyond question.  I think it is ironic that an organization housed in a building named for a director who was known to keep derogatory information on his bosses (the Presidents) to ensure his continued role in the agency would claim they never have a political agenda at the very highest levels.

With the drama associated with the release of the partisan memo from the Republican’s on the House Intelligence Oversight Committee, I believe we clearly see the consequences of a politically affiliated DOJ and FBI.  I imagine this is only Act One, of what will undoubtedly be a multi-act play.

For me, the real question is  “Has the government’s right to spy on its citizens actually kept us safer?”  Considering the assaults in LA, Orlando, and Las Vegas I have to question the value of my lost civil protection.  Unfortunately, I don’t see that question being asked very often, or very loudly by most politicians on either side, so I guess it’s okay we give up that safeguard.

---

[1] https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289#.WnW7aIJG2i4

[2] http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

[3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/5/irs-reveals-list-of-tea-party-groups-targeted-for-/

Reflections on Civil Rights (1/15/2018)

Today marks the national recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a federal holiday.  It seems only appropriate to spend a few minutes in reflection of his legacy.

Reverend King was both the face and moral courage of a movement towards the civil rights and hopeful equality for the negro in America. (I use that term because that was the racial description in use when Dr. King was alive).  We, as a nation, had fought a civil war over a state’s right to enslave its population, but in the 100-years that followed, bigotry, discrimination, and racial separation had still held the negro as something less than a full citizen. 

While the South was most infamous in their treatment, the discrimination of African-Americans was quietly and not so quietly going on all across the nation.  It might not have been quite as obvious as in the Southeast, but it was there in the types of jobs available, promotion opportunities, or places where African-Americans could live.  Up until President Truman, the African-Americans of this land could not fight alongside his white brothers-in-arms.  Integration in the military came at a begrudging pace as life-long prejudices still remained, hidden by the very men who were charged with implementing the President’s orders.

Dr. King, was the most vocal and visible voice of both the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as they confronted the discrimination and second-class treatment of the negro population.

I believe it is safe to say without Dr. King’s activism and leadership we would not have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Without either, it is reasonable to assume we as a nation would have continued to repress the rights of African-Americans to the point where the election of an African-American President would be an impossibility.

The question I struggle most with is what has happened to us, and our nation following his assassination on that April night in Memphis?  Of course, this single thought leads to many other unanswerable questions.

I often wonder, would Dr. King agree with those who accuse half this nation of being racist because of our political disagreements? 

Would he agree with the tenants of Critical Race Theory that hold the white man and his institutions are incapable of equal treatment of blacks under the law, and will forever marginalize the black man? 

Would he accept the exploitation of race as a central defense of urban decay in major cities like Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington? 

What would he say about the loss of family and the increase in black on black violence that accounts for the staggering number of African-American deaths in urban America?

Using the tactics of civil disobedience developed by Mahatma Gandhi in his fight for Indian self-rule, Dr. King set the conditions for the civil protest that would ultimately gain the fundamental rights promised to all men by the U.S. Constitution for most of a disenfranchised minority. 

Today, almost 50 years after his assassination, the racial protests flourish in the NFL, are exploited by a BLM movement, and are cited in a number of other venues to make political statements.  For example, when Congressional Democrats are offended they will stay home from work to protest the President.  My question now is, are they just reactive as a political tool, or do they still become a proactive effort to improve the conditions of the average man and women?  Do they actually serve as a vehicle for constructive change, or have they become contra-productive?  Does anyone really think the NFL “take a knee” effort, where millionaire athletes attempt to mimic the courage of Tommie Smith and John Carlos in the 1968 Olympics carries the same risk?   Is it truly about racial equality, or is it about pushing for a particular agenda's political domination?

If Dr. King was still alive he would be 89 years old today.  Consider how far we’ve come, how far we’ve yet to go, and whether is it possible to have true equality when one side begins with a belief equality is impossible.

In the Darkness.

Yesterday, June 12, 2016, was a milestone day for the US.  It marked the largest mass shooting (by a lone gunman) in our history.  The targets for this were the revelers at a popular LGBT nightspot in Orlando.  I am writing this approximately 24 hours after the horrific event.  It is dark outside, and my thoughts like the night are dark.  In the hours following the event the political leadership of the nation and the state have spoken, the entertainment and television news industries have spoken, the internet has spoken and various LGBT communities have spoken.  Each with their own take on this act.  As I listen, attempting to sort out the facts from the agenda driven rhetoric, I am struck by how locked into denial we are.

It really doesn’t matter if it is the President of the United States, or the President of the National Rifle Association.  Each has their position and nothing that happened can alter their language.  The event must be shaped to support the narrative.

What is terrorism and what is a terrorist?  The Oxford dictionary defines a terrorist as “a person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.[i] 

After 9/11 the US Government passed the “Patriot Act” and created a broad definition of  domestic terrorism.  The definition is found in 18 U.S. Code § 2331, which reads in part “activities that –

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”[ii]

In this particular event 18 U.S. Code § 249 – Hate crimes acts, has also been used by the government to classify the actions of the shooter.  Section 249 identifies a special class of offense when the acts are targeting, or are perceived to target, “individuals based on race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”[iii]

Here is where the words really do matter.  The President has been reluctant to ever link Islam with terrorism, and his supporters are on-board with the idea that radical Islamic terrorist organizations like ISIS/ISIL or Al-Qaeda are not likely to be in the US, and if they were we would be able to identify them before they acted.  The idea of a few radicalized individuals acting as “lone-wolfs” without guidance is a much more palatable answer.  So we see in the Presidents statement yesterday the reluctant use of the word terror, from some unknown source, and the use of the word “hate” since the specific targets were largely, if not exclusively, from the LGBT community.  I don’t believe this was accidental and if he had been able to avoid the use of the word terror he would have.

While we could debate whether the terrorist organizations reflect the fundamental philosophy of Islam there is, in my opinion, little to be gained in that discussion.  There is enough evidence to show a tolerance for violence by all concerned to call into question the near impossibility of determining a "radicalized" individual from the larger church.  As a person familiar with the problem stated, the 98% of law abiding individuals are irrelevant.  They have little to no ability to stop the violent 1-2 percent.

Of course the President pointed out this violence was done with guns and if we had greater control this might have been prevented.  All the reporting yesterday brought to light the shooter had “assault weapons” or “assault like weapons like the AR-15” and the gun rights supporters were quick to respond with accusations the President is seeking to take our rights away, and of course the old chestnut, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

ABC news on their 20/20 coverage was able to find the shooters wife who said she had told authorities about his violent outbursts, he had been investigated by the FBI at least twice for potential terrorist links, and yet he was still able to buy the guns he used to kill 50 individuals and wound another 53.  Clearly, the laws we have today are failing us.  The question is why?  Is it because we are not enforcing them, or is it the more likely reason we don’t have the resources necessary to implement them?

Mental illness seems to be an increasingly prevalent thing in today’s world.  We have Psychiatrists and Clinical Psychologists struggling to help people cope with all the problems their patients face.  They are guided by a complex and ever-changing medical landscape and the philosophies of patient care.  They must balance the rights of the patient against the larger needs of society, but at the same time are often restricted by their profession’s ethical standards on what they can and should do to report potentially dangerous individuals.  Then, of course, there is the legal problems associated with incarcerating an individual based on a professional’s judgement.  It seems to me the dilemma in the mystic arts of Psychiatry is for every professional opinion there seems to be an equal and opposite professional opinion.  You just need to find the right professional.

So suppose Omar Siddiqui Mateen had been identified as a potentially violent individual with a desire to kill gays.  What should the government have done while protecting the rights of the individual?  Unfortunately, that debate is unlikely to happen since everyone is certain they are right in their beliefs.

---

[i]  The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition, Oxford University Press, 1996

[ii] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

[iii] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

On Respecting the Office.

-->

I saw a posting on Facebook today that reminded me of some lines from the HBO Movie, Band of Brothers. In the scene Capt. Herbert Sobal, who had once served as the Company Commander when Lt Winters was a platoon leader, is walking by and purposely tries to avoid recognizing his former subordinate who now serves as a Major. Major Winters calls him to task with the admonishment "We salute the rank, not the man."

The posting I saw was from someone I assume to be a supporter of the President, commenting on some post about the President and his agenda.  The comment went along the lines of being tired of the disrespect for the office of President and it is ignorant to be that way.  These kinds of things give me something to consider and from time to time form the basis for my observations on the nature of man.

I guess I’ve been aware of how our nation treats the office of President since at least the mid-1960s when I started to understand our government and watched as the anti-war movement grew to oppose first Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon.  But if you look at political cartoons you can see parody, ridicule and disrespectful sentiments as far back as you care to research.

The ability to question, criticize, condemn and ridicule is, I believe, inherent in the fabric of American politics.  The office of President is an elected position, not an anointed one.  The only thing different with this President is the issue of race as both a cause and a defense. 

And then we have the advent of social media.  Over the past 15 years we have seen an explosion in the vitriolic tenor of so many average people who believe they can hide behind some avatar or pseudonym and cast racial, ethnic or sexual slurs with impunity.  It is not limited to just the President, ask Curt Shilling.  In his blog 38 Pitches he is dealing with some degenerates who’ve threatened his daughter.  

So, if you are concerned with people posting disrespectful things about the President I suggest you look first at what you post about those who you disagree with.  I see a great number of liberal mimes talking about conservative politicians who may take a position they find distasteful or wrong.  There is much to be learned from those mimes on how to belittle, or disrespect the individual.  Ad hominem attacks seem to be the style of the day.   If it is okay to support their approach then you must accept the same approach from the right.  Of course we have an amazing ability to rationalize why we are right and they are wrong so I don’t hold out much hope we will all become civil any time soon.

There was an individual a couple of years ago to took great umbrage with an acquaintance who posted a picture of President Obama in a pose and poster that resembled one of Hitler, he was outraged that anyone could post that calling it a racist act.  When it was pointed out that George W. Bush had the same thing done to him by the left when he was President his response was that Bush deserved it since he was a war criminal.  I’m sorry if you’re outraged over criticism of one President, but not another, based solely on your political beliefs, then you don’t have a leg to stand on and your rhetoric is purely political with no moral basis.  To borrow a phrase from my mother “look at the pot calling the kettle black!”

In conclusion, I too agree it would be nice if we respected the office of President, but I don’t hold out much hope as long as we enjoy the protection of the first Amendment.  The one thing I worry about is as the government's ability and desire to track and attack those who criticize it expands we will see the end of our rights and the nation I’ve lived to defend.  We have on a number of occasions come close to this, and with new technologies we are closer still.

I Wonder What He'd Think?

As we remember Dr. King this Monday, I wonder what he would think of us as a Nation, as we approach the 46^th anniversary of his assassination in Memphis?  He struggled against the real apartheid that existed in America, and labored to achieve equality of treatment for people of color.  These conditions were obvious in the South, but existed with subtlety throughout the nation.

There are a few words from his speech, given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, in 1963 that will be celebrated and remembered by all.  We will all remember the phrase “I have a dream…” where he shares his vision for a South where intolerance and injustice are long forgotten memories, and where our nation will truly live up to its creed that “all men are created equal.”

But his 1963 speech was much deeper than just the inspiration from those words.  As a minister he spoke to his audience, composed mostly of the blacks that had come to voice their dissent with the status quo, to fight for change and the rights of full citizenship.  I would like to take other, lessor remembered, paragraphs from this speech and ask you to think about them for a brief time.

“But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone.”

And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.

We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: “For Whites Only.” We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until “justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

In these past 46 years the nation has continued to transform, sometimes for the better and other times not.  The 1960’s were a decade of change and transformation with the rise of the civil rights movement to national prominence, and the beginnings of an anti-war movement that would ultimately lead to the messy end of US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.  It was a time where my generation was coming of age, and the veterans of WWII were becoming the leaders of industry and the nation.

So here we are in 2014, as a new generation comes of age, and my generation is now being replaced as the leaders of industry and the nation.  Have we, his audience on that hot August day, helped him achieve his dream or have we like our fathers continued on the path of a nation divided?  It is easy to blame others; we do it all the time.  That worthless so-and-so in Congress, those darn Democrats, that arrogant President, the pig-headed Republicans, illegal aliens, welfare, the 1%, etc., the list is endless.  We have so many others we can blame we stop looking in the mirror at our choices and ourselves. 

We are America, a nation of individuals each with his or her own mind.  Society reflects who we are, and what we tolerate or do not tolerate.  Some would have us believe the problems we see come from big business, big government, the media, the rich, the poor, the religious right, the liberal left, the uneducated, the over-educated, the elite, the masses, or some other outside influence.   It seems to me, if we each have our own mind then it is up to us as individuals to decide the America we want. Do we continue to accept those who take polarizing positions to tear apart this nation or do we as individuals make a personal choice to stop the polarization?  Do we continue to encourage violence or do we advocate for humanity?  To we accuse those with whom we disagree to be racists or some other term, or do we consider their rights and opinions to be as important as our own?  Finally, do we make a simple choice as Dr. King asked of his audience to help make America free or do we continue to blame others?

On the Issue of Rights

For at least the last 151 years we have seen an increasing position on the part of the Federal government to usurp the rights of the States. 

So my question is what rights should the states maintain?  With the Federal Government getting into the debate over marriage, should this right be taken from the states so the Federal Government can set a single standard?  For example, before Utah was admitted as a state the Mormon Church had to renounce polygamy a life style enjoyed by the faithful.  Now that gays and lesbians seek state approved marriage, wouldn’t it be easier for the Federal Government to mandate it?  Why not amend the Constitution to just pull that right from the state as so many seem to want?

How about the Major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Philadelphia?  Should they become autonomous entities responding directly to the Federal Government and have their own representation rather than be a part of a state delegation?  Perhaps they can be funded as the government funds Washington DC?  Hasn’t that worked well?  Isn’t DC a shining model of how a city should be run?

With the decision on Roe versus Wade the Supreme Court took control of the reproductive decisions and made them a Federal issue.  Shouldn’t we go that extra step and amend the Constitution so this is clearly no longer within the States prerogative?

And control over Woman’s rights, wouldn’t a constitutional amendment put all this debate to rest?  Why is it I don’t hear a push for this from those so concerned with the loss?