Let me set the record straight. I’ve been as critical of Sen. John McCain throughout the presidential primary as the democrats are of him now. He has suppressed freedom of speech with campaign finance reform, which has ended up hurting his own party and helping his opponents across the aisle. He has opposed efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and enforce existing laws against unlawful border crossings. He has supported what amounts to amnesty for those residing in the United States illegally and taking advantage of America’s good graces. He has embraced the man-made global climate change propaganda, as well as opposed efforts to drill and produce the vast reserves of petroleum product in ANWAR.
He is a compromiser. He is a self-described federalist, who believes in a strong central government. He’s a moderate and centrist on government spending: You never know what side of the fence he will come down on.
And yet, in spite of the fact that he’s a rhino and not a true pachyderm republican, I find myself daring to support the senior senator from Arizona for president of the United States.
Why? Let me count the ways.
But first, I’ll preface my argument by itemizing the issues most important to me, then comparing them to the two major party candidates.
1. National defense. I believe the first duty of the president of the United States is the same as any other service man or woman: To uphold the United States Constitution and preserve, protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the sum of the oath that every member of the armed forces, the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government take upon entering into public service. In fact, the Constitution stipulates the first duty of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief of the military, so having a person in the office either who has military experience or who whole-heartedly supports the military is crucial.
That isn’t to say that every war hero or politician with military experience would make an effective president. Certainly, history is ripe with examples of presidents who were more effective in uniform than in the Oval Office. And some of the most effective presidents have come from as diverse backgrounds as small-town lawyers, orators, authors, inventors and even actors.
But in a time of war, as we have found ourselves in for the past seven years, a president who has the highest regard for the military and endorses a philosophy of a strong national defense is critical to the survival of our country.
2. Life. If freedom can be summed up by “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights, then abortion is the antithesis of freedom and essential liberty. While proponents of the practice maintain that it promotes choice and, therefore, liberty for women, at the same time, it denies choice to unborn children, who have no voice and no advocate on their behalf defending their right to live. Abortion supporters argue that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade is constitutional because it upholds the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the peoples’ right to be secure in their persons. However, the pro-abortion lobby overlooks the obvious: That this right ought to reasonably be extended to all living persons, born and unborn. In fact, the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person shall be “deprived of life” without due process of law. Human infants killed before they have a chance to breath outside of the womb are not given a fair trial and, thus, are denied due process of law before their execution. This is a direct and blatant violation of the Constitution.
3. Taxation. I believe that Americans are unnecessarily burdened with rising taxes in order to pay for unbridled government expansion that the overwhelming majority of Americans have never endorsed. The federal government has grown in spite of the people and despite their representation, which, unfortunately, has made such decisions independent of the people supposed to be represented. And while we may not have taxation without representation, I don’t believe our representatives have been making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve, but rather themselves. Our representatives make tax and spend decisions for the benefit of their own re-election, to feather their own political nests, and not for any benefit to the people. I believe our representatives should be making responsible legislative decisions that are considerate of the people whose money pays for them. Spending should be cut back and taxes reduced to relieve the burden on everyone, not just a few or select groups.
4. Energy. Why have we allowed ourselves to become dependent on other countries to supply our energy needs, when we have the supply right underneath our feet? Why have we allowed our money to benefit foreign nations who hate us, instead of boosting our own economy? Restrictive environmental regulations that put the skids on domestic energy production need to be relaxed or altogether lifted in order for us to function independently from the rest of the world. There is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be led around by a dangling carrot, when we’ve got our own carrots to eat. While I don’t believe our economy can or should exist on fossil fuels alone, I also don’t believe we can just dump petroleum products altogether. The transition from carbon-based to alternative energy sources needs to be gradual. That is why we must drill our own oil and explore alternative energy options at the same time.
Okay, these are the four most important issues to me. When I compare John McCain to Barack Obama, here is what I see:
1. McCain has a history of putting his country before himself, as evidenced by his service in the military and, specifically, the sacrifices he made in service to America during the Vietnam War. McCain will unequivocally support the United States Armed Forces and its current mission in the “War on Terror.” Obama, on the other hand, is willing to negotiate “without preconditions” with terrorist-sponsoring nations. I am convinced that McCain will not allow America to fail during wartime. He will keep her on the offensive, rather than assume defensive posture and wait for the next attack on our soil. By virtue of his service and whole-hearted commitment to the military, McCain is a better fit than Obama to assume the role and take on the responsibility of commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
2. John McCain is anti-abortion; Obama is pro-abortion. Enough said.
3. McCain supports across-the-board tax cuts for everyone, regardless of their income levels or tax brackets, because he knows that relieving the burden of those who employ is just as important as relieving the burden of those who are otherwise employed. Obama, conversely, endorses selective tax breaks for what is termed the “middle” and “working” classes, while raising taxes on the so-called “rich.” What he fails to understand is that by supporting tax increases on those who do the employing, he is harming their ability to employ more people, provide the benefits that working people rely on, and offer products and services at reasonable cost to the average, middle-class consumer. McCain gets this connection, where Obama and his Democratic Party just do not or refuse to.
4. John McCain has come out in support of domestic oil drilling and production, in spite of waffling on ANWAR. But he also understands that there must be a balance struck between the environment and our economy. To be one-sided either way has destructive consequences. McCain at least recognizes the economic and political threats that continued reliance on foreign nations pose, and he is willing to do something about it. Sen. Obama, by contrast, cannot decide whether to support or continue to oppose domestic oil production and the drilling for petroleum on our own soil. He is at odds with his party’s strict environmental voting block and with the blue-collar working class that relies on a strong economy to provide jobs. Without a domestic fuel product, we cannot expect to have a strong economy that grows jobs and creates economic stability for the working class.
By and large, I find myself in agreement with John McCain more than I disagree with him; vice-versa with Barack Obama, who is decidedly more left-wing and socialist for my comfort. I take issue exclusively with Obama’s political philosophies and associated judgment therein; not his skin color, experience, or any other detail of the man.
When I look at the resume of John McCain, I see a man who has all of the faculties necessary to lead the military, make tough and sometimes risky foreign policy decisions, and who is willing to answer the call to duty when the red telephone rings at 3 a.m.
When I regard Barack Obama and his resume, I see a man full of social idealism, charm and fancy rhetoric that beguiles crowds by the thousands. Experience aside, I don’t believe that Obama has the judgment needed to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in a time of war. The record shows that John McCain does.
And that, to me, is the bottom line.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Whatever happened to the warrior spirit?
In 1864, Union Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman summarized his infamous “March to the Sea” through Tennessee and Georgia with the following remark: “War is hell. The more brutal war is, the sooner it will end.”
He applied the same principle to the Indian Wars in the West following the Civil War. Sherman, along with Gens. Phil Sheridan, George Crook and Nelson Miles, among others, endorsed a policy of attrition against the Indian tribes by allowing them to starve into submission. The will to fight among many tribes was too great and strong for the United States Army to simply break in a single battle, or even a long series of them, for that matter. The Civil War and the Confederate resolve had proven this.
So, the Army allowed the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, a primary food source for many Indian tribes in the West, thus effectively cutting off their food supply and forcing them onto reservations where they could eat.
Whether or not one agrees with this tactic is a topic of debate for another time and place. But it is clear that such brutality was, in fact, effective in hastening an end to the Indian Wars.
About eighty years later, a lieutenant general named Douglas MacArthur proposed to invade China as part of a plan to sweep the communists out of Southeast Asia for good. But his commander-in-chief, Harry S. Truman, would have none of it. President Truman held a deep fear of communism—especially the Soviet Union to the north. He feared an invasion of China would provoke communist Russia into nuclear war with the United States. Perhaps President Truman had become gun-shy after having authorized the drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the devastating aftermath of which prompted the swift surrender of Imperial Japan and officially ended World War II. Whatever the reason, his reluctance to support MacArthur led to the latter’s dismissal, right in the middle of an American-led offensive that had the communist North Koreans on the run, fleeing across the border into China. MacArthur had argued that relentless pursuit of the enemy and its allies was the surest and shortest means to an end—that being an end to the Korean War.
But as history went, President Truman fired MacArthur, ordered Allied forces to pull back, and allowed the communist army to retake Northern Korea. This move not only made the war drag on longer, but it also bolstered the confidence of the communists and ultimately resulted in a cease-fire that drew the political lines that still exist today. Consequently, Korean families have been separated from each other for more than a half-century.
Truman’s cowardice toward communist nations sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States could be bullied and bluffed into submission, because it was willing to pull its punches. Consequently, we locked horns with communism in a 45-year Cold War.
America did not pull any punches in either World War I or II, both of which resulted in Allied victories. She didn’t do that in Cuba, either, when her Roughriders helped to kick the Spanish in the teeth at San Juan Hill. And the Union was particularly brutal and deliberate in its victory over the Confederacy, especially the final two years under the direction of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinates, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer et al.
As a result of Grant’s deliberate pursuit, Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s raids throughout the Shenandoah Valley, the tenacious and stubborn Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered little more than a year after Grant assumed command of the Army of the Potomac. Prior to Grant’s appointment, President Lincoln had gone through a half-dozen or more commanders in three years, including four between September 1862 and July 1863. Consequently, the war continued on and Gen. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had built up a head of steam that seemed near impossible to stop. Only the simultaneous victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg kept the Union from summarily losing the war by July 1863. But Gen. Meade’s reluctance to pursue a retreating Lee across the Potomac River dragged the war on and left Lincoln asking what every other American was wondering: How much longer?
Fortunately, Grant was not hesitant the way Meade and McClellan were. He was neither clumsy like Hooker, nor assuming and predictable as Burnside, nor uninspiring as Pope or McDowell. And he certainly wasn’t as arrogant as many of Lincoln’s general staff in Washington, D.C. were.
This same spirit inspired future military commanders like the eccentric Gen. George Patton, who gave German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel all he could handle in North Africa and Italy. Patton’s blood-and-guts style also helped to break the spirit of the German Army at the Battle of Bulge.
The reason why Germany and Japan failed to conquer the world, respectively, was because of brutal warriors such as Patton, MacArthur and other contemporaries of like mind. If not for them, the Second World War could have lasted longer and at much greater expense of lives lost.
Indeed, where would the world be today if the warrior spirit hadn’t existed in at least a few during history’s most pivotal conflicts? More importantly, imagine how much better our world might have been had the warrior spirit not been shackled by the fears of a few.
Perhaps we’d be looking at a unified Korea and democratic Vietnam.
But history is what it is. All we can do is learn from it. God willing.
He applied the same principle to the Indian Wars in the West following the Civil War. Sherman, along with Gens. Phil Sheridan, George Crook and Nelson Miles, among others, endorsed a policy of attrition against the Indian tribes by allowing them to starve into submission. The will to fight among many tribes was too great and strong for the United States Army to simply break in a single battle, or even a long series of them, for that matter. The Civil War and the Confederate resolve had proven this.
So, the Army allowed the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, a primary food source for many Indian tribes in the West, thus effectively cutting off their food supply and forcing them onto reservations where they could eat.
Whether or not one agrees with this tactic is a topic of debate for another time and place. But it is clear that such brutality was, in fact, effective in hastening an end to the Indian Wars.
About eighty years later, a lieutenant general named Douglas MacArthur proposed to invade China as part of a plan to sweep the communists out of Southeast Asia for good. But his commander-in-chief, Harry S. Truman, would have none of it. President Truman held a deep fear of communism—especially the Soviet Union to the north. He feared an invasion of China would provoke communist Russia into nuclear war with the United States. Perhaps President Truman had become gun-shy after having authorized the drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the devastating aftermath of which prompted the swift surrender of Imperial Japan and officially ended World War II. Whatever the reason, his reluctance to support MacArthur led to the latter’s dismissal, right in the middle of an American-led offensive that had the communist North Koreans on the run, fleeing across the border into China. MacArthur had argued that relentless pursuit of the enemy and its allies was the surest and shortest means to an end—that being an end to the Korean War.
But as history went, President Truman fired MacArthur, ordered Allied forces to pull back, and allowed the communist army to retake Northern Korea. This move not only made the war drag on longer, but it also bolstered the confidence of the communists and ultimately resulted in a cease-fire that drew the political lines that still exist today. Consequently, Korean families have been separated from each other for more than a half-century.
Truman’s cowardice toward communist nations sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States could be bullied and bluffed into submission, because it was willing to pull its punches. Consequently, we locked horns with communism in a 45-year Cold War.
America did not pull any punches in either World War I or II, both of which resulted in Allied victories. She didn’t do that in Cuba, either, when her Roughriders helped to kick the Spanish in the teeth at San Juan Hill. And the Union was particularly brutal and deliberate in its victory over the Confederacy, especially the final two years under the direction of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinates, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer et al.
As a result of Grant’s deliberate pursuit, Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s raids throughout the Shenandoah Valley, the tenacious and stubborn Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered little more than a year after Grant assumed command of the Army of the Potomac. Prior to Grant’s appointment, President Lincoln had gone through a half-dozen or more commanders in three years, including four between September 1862 and July 1863. Consequently, the war continued on and Gen. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had built up a head of steam that seemed near impossible to stop. Only the simultaneous victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg kept the Union from summarily losing the war by July 1863. But Gen. Meade’s reluctance to pursue a retreating Lee across the Potomac River dragged the war on and left Lincoln asking what every other American was wondering: How much longer?
Fortunately, Grant was not hesitant the way Meade and McClellan were. He was neither clumsy like Hooker, nor assuming and predictable as Burnside, nor uninspiring as Pope or McDowell. And he certainly wasn’t as arrogant as many of Lincoln’s general staff in Washington, D.C. were.
This same spirit inspired future military commanders like the eccentric Gen. George Patton, who gave German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel all he could handle in North Africa and Italy. Patton’s blood-and-guts style also helped to break the spirit of the German Army at the Battle of Bulge.
The reason why Germany and Japan failed to conquer the world, respectively, was because of brutal warriors such as Patton, MacArthur and other contemporaries of like mind. If not for them, the Second World War could have lasted longer and at much greater expense of lives lost.
Indeed, where would the world be today if the warrior spirit hadn’t existed in at least a few during history’s most pivotal conflicts? More importantly, imagine how much better our world might have been had the warrior spirit not been shackled by the fears of a few.
Perhaps we’d be looking at a unified Korea and democratic Vietnam.
But history is what it is. All we can do is learn from it. God willing.
McCain trumps Obama with an ace
For those of you keeping score, it’s John McCain one, Barack Obama zero.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Straight from the heart
I have a lot of contentions with the Kennedy family, too numerous to go into here. But the Special Olympics is certainly not one of them. When it comes to persons with developmental disabilities, Eunice Kennedy Shriver got it right. And for that, she has my respect.
Mrs. Shriver put her money where her mouth was upon establishing what would grow into one of the largest not-for-profit charities in the world.
The Special Olympics has helped millions of physically and mentally handicapped people realize dreams and achieve a measure of success that you and I take for granted every day: self-respect.
Special Olympians face a daily struggle to overcome barriers that the average person does not have. These include, but are not limited to, the ability to live on one's own, to make choices and decisions independent of others, to care for oneself, to go where one pleases and when one pleases without supervision or permission, to pursue a career and profession, obtain an education beyond the high school level, and generally sustain oneself for oneself.
Now, this, of course, is not the lot of all developmentally disabled persons. Some are healthier and less severe than others. Some can work and hold a job. Some can raise a family of their own. Some can and have gone on to great things like college, a professional career, or the realization of special talents and gifts. But, in general, Special Olympians have limitations that normal, healthy individuals do not have.
The Special Olympics gives developmentally disabled persons the opportunity to achieve some measure of success in their lives, be it something as simple as inclusion and obtaining a sense of belonging.
I'll be the first to admit that when I was a kid, I would snicker and laugh at mentally retarded children in my school, because they were very different from me. There was something wrong with them. They weren't normal.
Well, I was partially right. Developmentally disabled people aren't normal; they're special.
Underneath their abnormalities, Special Olympians are human beings with a beating heart and a spirit, which can be seen from the divine spark in each of their eyes. They are deserving of a fundamental measure of respect, and the Special Olympics helps to give that much to them.
I can say from personal experience that developmentally disabled people are some of the most sincere, hard-working and dedicated individuals I've ever met. By and large, they do not manipulate others, because they do not realize that they have this power. They cannot really hate, because they have no understanding of the word and what it means, let alone what it looks like. They are not lazy or underachieving, because by their efforts, the most severe of them can best me any day of the week. They will give you their best without ever having to be asked, because they just want to be accepted, respected and loved.
On the other hand, Special Olympians have a very clear and concise concept of love, because they love unconditionally. They show extraordinary courage, because they don't know cowardice exists. They don't see barriers where we see them: color, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even disabilities. In fact, many don't see barriers at all, because they have put none up in front of them.
Perhaps therein lies the big picture and the very point Special Olympics makes to the rest of the world: It exists not exclusively to help the disabled, but also for the disabled to help the rest of us see a life without barriers, that anything is possible when you set your mind to it, and the only obstacles we have in life are the ones we set before ourselves. Everything else that follows is just an excuse for not achieving what each of us is capable of.
The Special Olympics is much more than a catalyst for disabled people to set goals and achieve dreams. It is a conduit of knowledge, wherewith the disabled person is able to open the eyes of the non-disabled. When we see the world through the eyes of a child, suddenly everything seems so simple, so clear and a lot less muddled. If we allow ourselves to see the world through the eyes of a developmentally disabled person, many of whom are themselves children trapped in adult bodies, we stop stirring the mud from the bottom of the pool and suddenly see what was there all along: the truth about ourselves and our purpose in life.
The truth is, we are only as limited as the limits we place upon ourselves. And our purpose in life is to live to inspire others.
Special Olympians do this every day. They've done it to me. If you let them, perhaps they can do it to you, too.
Mrs. Shriver put her money where her mouth was upon establishing what would grow into one of the largest not-for-profit charities in the world.
The Special Olympics has helped millions of physically and mentally handicapped people realize dreams and achieve a measure of success that you and I take for granted every day: self-respect.
Special Olympians face a daily struggle to overcome barriers that the average person does not have. These include, but are not limited to, the ability to live on one's own, to make choices and decisions independent of others, to care for oneself, to go where one pleases and when one pleases without supervision or permission, to pursue a career and profession, obtain an education beyond the high school level, and generally sustain oneself for oneself.
Now, this, of course, is not the lot of all developmentally disabled persons. Some are healthier and less severe than others. Some can work and hold a job. Some can raise a family of their own. Some can and have gone on to great things like college, a professional career, or the realization of special talents and gifts. But, in general, Special Olympians have limitations that normal, healthy individuals do not have.
The Special Olympics gives developmentally disabled persons the opportunity to achieve some measure of success in their lives, be it something as simple as inclusion and obtaining a sense of belonging.
I'll be the first to admit that when I was a kid, I would snicker and laugh at mentally retarded children in my school, because they were very different from me. There was something wrong with them. They weren't normal.
Well, I was partially right. Developmentally disabled people aren't normal; they're special.
Underneath their abnormalities, Special Olympians are human beings with a beating heart and a spirit, which can be seen from the divine spark in each of their eyes. They are deserving of a fundamental measure of respect, and the Special Olympics helps to give that much to them.
I can say from personal experience that developmentally disabled people are some of the most sincere, hard-working and dedicated individuals I've ever met. By and large, they do not manipulate others, because they do not realize that they have this power. They cannot really hate, because they have no understanding of the word and what it means, let alone what it looks like. They are not lazy or underachieving, because by their efforts, the most severe of them can best me any day of the week. They will give you their best without ever having to be asked, because they just want to be accepted, respected and loved.
On the other hand, Special Olympians have a very clear and concise concept of love, because they love unconditionally. They show extraordinary courage, because they don't know cowardice exists. They don't see barriers where we see them: color, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or even disabilities. In fact, many don't see barriers at all, because they have put none up in front of them.
Perhaps therein lies the big picture and the very point Special Olympics makes to the rest of the world: It exists not exclusively to help the disabled, but also for the disabled to help the rest of us see a life without barriers, that anything is possible when you set your mind to it, and the only obstacles we have in life are the ones we set before ourselves. Everything else that follows is just an excuse for not achieving what each of us is capable of.
The Special Olympics is much more than a catalyst for disabled people to set goals and achieve dreams. It is a conduit of knowledge, wherewith the disabled person is able to open the eyes of the non-disabled. When we see the world through the eyes of a child, suddenly everything seems so simple, so clear and a lot less muddled. If we allow ourselves to see the world through the eyes of a developmentally disabled person, many of whom are themselves children trapped in adult bodies, we stop stirring the mud from the bottom of the pool and suddenly see what was there all along: the truth about ourselves and our purpose in life.
The truth is, we are only as limited as the limits we place upon ourselves. And our purpose in life is to live to inspire others.
Special Olympians do this every day. They've done it to me. If you let them, perhaps they can do it to you, too.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
A war without end
Enough is enough. The war between the colors has got to end.
If the United States of America is ever going to heal from the wounds of her past, then we need to stop picking at the scabs. Otherwise, the injuries suffered her will become permanent scars.
I fear that they already are.
And we only have ourselves to blame.
The issue of race has been a central topic of debate since the earliest beginnings of our nation. Founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson held universal beliefs about the fundamental rights of men and recognized the suppression of those rights via the racist institution of slavery. Many founders, including slave owners Jefferson and Washington, came to see slavery as a wrong that needed to be righted. They just differed on how that was to be done. Some, like Adams, sought an immediate end to the practice, while others felt a gradual decline in the use of and demand for slave labor was necessary to avoid severe social and economic consequences.
Washington and Jefferson both believed that a sudden stop to slavery would not only cripple the economy of the American South, but would also turn loose thousands of people unprepared to take care of themselves and their families.
This perspective was paternalistic, to be sure, but it was a widely held view of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Unfortunately, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin dramatically changed the dynamics of slavery and set back its end about another 70 years. Had there been no invention that increased the demand for slave labor, then the practice could well have ended a half century before it actually did.
Regardless, racial debates increased as the notion of Civil War became an inevitable reality. Irreconcilable differences between North and South resulted in long-term social consequences that are still felt very strongly today.
During Reconstruction, bitter whites formed supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan to take out their anger and frustrations on former slaves and free blacks. That bitterness wasn’t just confined to the war-torn South, either. Racism spread into the industrialized North, where former slaves and free blacks competed with whites for jobs. Many white workers resented the fact that the black man was competing with them for work.
The sad reality is that black Americans found no more success up north as free men than they had on Southern plantations in bondage. Escaped slaves prior to and during the Civil War discovered that hatred and resentment toward them existed perhaps more so up north as in the south. Likewise, former slaves learned that life as free men had its share of severe consequences formidable to those in bondage.
Since the Civil War, America has made slow, gradual progress toward racial equality, beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, which brought an official end to slavery in the United States. An amendment was later added to the Constitution, giving black men the right to vote and participate in this great republican democracy experiment. Gains toward equality would be painfully slow after that as America recovered from the deep wounds inflicted on her during the Civil War. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1950s that racial equality was looked at seriously and significant strides were made in its name.
But since then, America has been living up to its declarative promises more so than at any other period in her history. We ought to be proud of the lessons learned and accomplishments made toward racial equality, reconciliation and opportunity.
Sadly, though, we aren’t.
At a time when Americans ought to celebrate a coming of age of their nation’s enduring promises, we prefer instead to hold onto old vices, grudges and memories out of guilt and retaliation.
Many whites harbor the guilt of past wrongs inflicted by their ancestors upon others. Likewise, many blacks and other ethnic minorities brood over past wrongs done to their ancestors.
Reliving the past is no way to get beyond it. Yet, people like the Revs. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want to keep pounding the nail and turning the screw tighter.
It’s one thing to remember the lessons of the past, but quite another to relive and revive wrongs that ought to be allowed to rest in peace.
Too many minority leaders today aren’t willing to do this, because racial reconciliation and lasting peace will mean an end to their individual power and influence. Who would need the Wrights, Sharptons or Jacksons of the world if people were to let go of their guilt and resentment? No one.
And that is why race continues to be a hot topic today. The so-called voices of the down-trodden need it to be if they are to remain relevant. Otherwise, they fade into history and obscurity.
We ought to be under no illusions: Racism between ethnic groups will always exist.
Racism today cuts across ethnic lines. Because of deep-seeded resentments, minorities have come to hate both the majority as well as one another. In the inner cities, neighborhoods have been divided by race and are often pitted against each other in a power struggle for racial superiority.
Contrary to what many academic sociologists have come to believe, racism is not institutional; meaning that it is a white-only problem, because the white institution is continually regarded as the majority.
Rather, racism is a personal problem that infects the heart and the mind. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racism as (1) “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; and (2) racial prejudice or discrimination.”
The fact that racism is a belief confirms that it is a problem of the human heart that knows no color.
The Black Panthers were a group of racist black crusaders intent on exacting revenge on white society. The Mexican group “La Raza” also seeks retribution against the so-called American “majority” for sins of the past, including the seizure of lands in the American Southwest as a result of the Mexican-American War. Oddly enough, “La Raza” translates into English as “The Race.”
In truth, racism can never be completely extinguished, because it is based upon innate human fear of change, the unknown and of differences. For this reason, we must not ignore history and its lessons.
However, we also must not fall into the trap of pessimism and cynicism by harboring unnecessary guilt, shame, resentment and hatred toward one another for the wrongs of the past.
Some of my ancestors were Southerners, and some may have even owned slaves. But what my ancestors did in their time does not reflect on my time. I’m a different person than they were, and just because there may have been a scarlet letter somewhere on my family tree does not mean I should bear it on my branch. I harbor no guilt for slavery or racism, because I know in my heart that I find slavery offensive and the idea of racial inequality unjust.
Those whites who cling to a guilty conscience in order to liberate themselves from the sins of the past are only fooling themselves. By bearing this guilt, they unnecessarily carry the chains of regret and shame along with them. Consequently, they end up living in deep-seeded misery all their lives, making themselves feel as though they are never truly free, but rather in a constant state of moral probation.
Conversely, ethnic minorities ought to be willing to let go of their grudges held over past mistreatment and injustices. Forcing whites to relive the sins of their fathers only causes resentment in the direction of hatred.
In recent years, certain minority advocacy groups have demanded reparations of the United States government over wrongs done to their ancestors. Not only is this a classic case of people unwilling to let go of the past, but it is also pure, unadulterated greed. Make no mistake: The demand for reparations is nothing more than an effort to get money, as though money will solve our nation’s racial problems. Money is like law: It is tangible, temporary relief that simply coats the wound like an ointment, making us feel better until its soothing effects subside. Then we just coat it again and again.
Unfortunately, all we end up doing is giving ourselves temporary pain relief. But we do nothing to treat the wound and let it heal. Rather, we have picked at it, and now, the wound has become infected.
If we aren’t careful and don’t seek meaningful treatment for our injuries, then the infection will spread to the point where permanent damage can occur.
Should the Wrights, Sharptons and Jacksons have their way, the wounds of America’s decades long race war will end up claiming her life.
If there is ever to be any further progress toward racial reconciliation and a realistic end to the war, then the American people as one need to forgive and forget what has been done. When I say forget, I mean to say that we ought not hold on to bitter memories, but rather let go and move on. This isn’t to suggest that we should ignore history or forget its lessons. But certainly, there can be no forgiveness if at first a person is unwilling to forget and let go of the past.
Whites must be willing to forgive themselves and their ancestors, while minorities must be willing to forgive what had been done to their ancestors.
Without forgiveness, there can be no real, meaningful healing. There can be no peace, no armistice, no end to the war.
If the United States of America is ever going to heal from the wounds of her past, then we need to stop picking at the scabs. Otherwise, the injuries suffered her will become permanent scars.
I fear that they already are.
And we only have ourselves to blame.
The issue of race has been a central topic of debate since the earliest beginnings of our nation. Founding fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson held universal beliefs about the fundamental rights of men and recognized the suppression of those rights via the racist institution of slavery. Many founders, including slave owners Jefferson and Washington, came to see slavery as a wrong that needed to be righted. They just differed on how that was to be done. Some, like Adams, sought an immediate end to the practice, while others felt a gradual decline in the use of and demand for slave labor was necessary to avoid severe social and economic consequences.
Washington and Jefferson both believed that a sudden stop to slavery would not only cripple the economy of the American South, but would also turn loose thousands of people unprepared to take care of themselves and their families.
This perspective was paternalistic, to be sure, but it was a widely held view of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Unfortunately, Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin dramatically changed the dynamics of slavery and set back its end about another 70 years. Had there been no invention that increased the demand for slave labor, then the practice could well have ended a half century before it actually did.
Regardless, racial debates increased as the notion of Civil War became an inevitable reality. Irreconcilable differences between North and South resulted in long-term social consequences that are still felt very strongly today.
During Reconstruction, bitter whites formed supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan to take out their anger and frustrations on former slaves and free blacks. That bitterness wasn’t just confined to the war-torn South, either. Racism spread into the industrialized North, where former slaves and free blacks competed with whites for jobs. Many white workers resented the fact that the black man was competing with them for work.
The sad reality is that black Americans found no more success up north as free men than they had on Southern plantations in bondage. Escaped slaves prior to and during the Civil War discovered that hatred and resentment toward them existed perhaps more so up north as in the south. Likewise, former slaves learned that life as free men had its share of severe consequences formidable to those in bondage.
Since the Civil War, America has made slow, gradual progress toward racial equality, beginning with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, which brought an official end to slavery in the United States. An amendment was later added to the Constitution, giving black men the right to vote and participate in this great republican democracy experiment. Gains toward equality would be painfully slow after that as America recovered from the deep wounds inflicted on her during the Civil War. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1950s that racial equality was looked at seriously and significant strides were made in its name.
But since then, America has been living up to its declarative promises more so than at any other period in her history. We ought to be proud of the lessons learned and accomplishments made toward racial equality, reconciliation and opportunity.
Sadly, though, we aren’t.
At a time when Americans ought to celebrate a coming of age of their nation’s enduring promises, we prefer instead to hold onto old vices, grudges and memories out of guilt and retaliation.
Many whites harbor the guilt of past wrongs inflicted by their ancestors upon others. Likewise, many blacks and other ethnic minorities brood over past wrongs done to their ancestors.
Reliving the past is no way to get beyond it. Yet, people like the Revs. Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson want to keep pounding the nail and turning the screw tighter.
It’s one thing to remember the lessons of the past, but quite another to relive and revive wrongs that ought to be allowed to rest in peace.
Too many minority leaders today aren’t willing to do this, because racial reconciliation and lasting peace will mean an end to their individual power and influence. Who would need the Wrights, Sharptons or Jacksons of the world if people were to let go of their guilt and resentment? No one.
And that is why race continues to be a hot topic today. The so-called voices of the down-trodden need it to be if they are to remain relevant. Otherwise, they fade into history and obscurity.
We ought to be under no illusions: Racism between ethnic groups will always exist.
Racism today cuts across ethnic lines. Because of deep-seeded resentments, minorities have come to hate both the majority as well as one another. In the inner cities, neighborhoods have been divided by race and are often pitted against each other in a power struggle for racial superiority.
Contrary to what many academic sociologists have come to believe, racism is not institutional; meaning that it is a white-only problem, because the white institution is continually regarded as the majority.
Rather, racism is a personal problem that infects the heart and the mind. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racism as (1) “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; and (2) racial prejudice or discrimination.”
The fact that racism is a belief confirms that it is a problem of the human heart that knows no color.
The Black Panthers were a group of racist black crusaders intent on exacting revenge on white society. The Mexican group “La Raza” also seeks retribution against the so-called American “majority” for sins of the past, including the seizure of lands in the American Southwest as a result of the Mexican-American War. Oddly enough, “La Raza” translates into English as “The Race.”
In truth, racism can never be completely extinguished, because it is based upon innate human fear of change, the unknown and of differences. For this reason, we must not ignore history and its lessons.
However, we also must not fall into the trap of pessimism and cynicism by harboring unnecessary guilt, shame, resentment and hatred toward one another for the wrongs of the past.
Some of my ancestors were Southerners, and some may have even owned slaves. But what my ancestors did in their time does not reflect on my time. I’m a different person than they were, and just because there may have been a scarlet letter somewhere on my family tree does not mean I should bear it on my branch. I harbor no guilt for slavery or racism, because I know in my heart that I find slavery offensive and the idea of racial inequality unjust.
Those whites who cling to a guilty conscience in order to liberate themselves from the sins of the past are only fooling themselves. By bearing this guilt, they unnecessarily carry the chains of regret and shame along with them. Consequently, they end up living in deep-seeded misery all their lives, making themselves feel as though they are never truly free, but rather in a constant state of moral probation.
Conversely, ethnic minorities ought to be willing to let go of their grudges held over past mistreatment and injustices. Forcing whites to relive the sins of their fathers only causes resentment in the direction of hatred.
In recent years, certain minority advocacy groups have demanded reparations of the United States government over wrongs done to their ancestors. Not only is this a classic case of people unwilling to let go of the past, but it is also pure, unadulterated greed. Make no mistake: The demand for reparations is nothing more than an effort to get money, as though money will solve our nation’s racial problems. Money is like law: It is tangible, temporary relief that simply coats the wound like an ointment, making us feel better until its soothing effects subside. Then we just coat it again and again.
Unfortunately, all we end up doing is giving ourselves temporary pain relief. But we do nothing to treat the wound and let it heal. Rather, we have picked at it, and now, the wound has become infected.
If we aren’t careful and don’t seek meaningful treatment for our injuries, then the infection will spread to the point where permanent damage can occur.
Should the Wrights, Sharptons and Jacksons have their way, the wounds of America’s decades long race war will end up claiming her life.
If there is ever to be any further progress toward racial reconciliation and a realistic end to the war, then the American people as one need to forgive and forget what has been done. When I say forget, I mean to say that we ought not hold on to bitter memories, but rather let go and move on. This isn’t to suggest that we should ignore history or forget its lessons. But certainly, there can be no forgiveness if at first a person is unwilling to forget and let go of the past.
Whites must be willing to forgive themselves and their ancestors, while minorities must be willing to forgive what had been done to their ancestors.
Without forgiveness, there can be no real, meaningful healing. There can be no peace, no armistice, no end to the war.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Separation clause not in the Constitution
Since the days of Clarence Darrow nearly a century ago, God has been systematically removed from the public eye. It began in the schools, where science curriculum adopted the theory of evolution as the basis for teaching human origin, while biblical Creationism was spurned. God would later be denied any and all access to schools, be it through curriculum, extra curriculum or even customs.
Today, public school students are not allowed to gather in prayer during school, at sporting events or assemblies. Praying around the school flag pole on the National Day of Prayer is discouraged, but it probably won’t be long before even this is prohibited.
As it is, God and His Word have not only been banned from public schools, but also the courtroom, public lands and public grounds in general.
How could this be? Who is God hurting? What is His Word offending?
The rationale behind this insanity is supposedly wrapped in the “separation of church and state” clause of the United States Constitution. The problem is that no such clause exists in America’s founding legal document.
Those whose agenda it has been to push God out of sight and mind have cited the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, specifically the clause that begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” as the basis for their argument.
But this clause of the First Amendment is rather explicit in its meaning: “Congress” shall make no law. Where is the Congressional law that placed the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms, promoted prayer in schools, or even instituted the invocation held to open every session of Congress?
None exists.
Yet, the so-called “separation” clause is invoked whenever there’s an issue of God and religion—read that “Christian” religion—in public.
The truth about the “separation” clause lies in some obscure papers written by Thomas Jefferson on the subject of state-sanctioned religion. Jefferson was addressing the need to avoid what happened in Great Britain, where the Church of England controlled much of what went on in government. Jefferson argued that laws passed for the purpose of establishing a state religion were in fundamental contrast to basic human rights as well as the virtues of a free republic.
What he did not say is that God should be removed from government. On the contrary, Jefferson was a spiritual man with reverence for God, his Creator. After all, it was Jefferson who penned the following in our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Clearly, Jefferson was no advocate of either a secular society or government. What he did espouse, though, was a neutral and impartial government that neither endorsed nor sanctioned nor denied the existence of any particular religion. What he envisioned was a land that embraced religious liberty to assemble and practice with a government standing at the ready to defend this freedom. He did not want religion telling government what to do any more than he wanted government telling religion what to do.
Unfortunately today, government is telling religion what it can and cannot do, and where it can and cannot do it. What’s lacking, though, is a valid explanation of why.
Simply invoking the “separation” clause is not enough to justify restricting the free exercise of religion, which, by the way, happens to come directly after the so-called “separation” clause in the First Amendment. Separationists conveniently ignore this very important, and in fact, most significant part of the First Amendment, because it is supposed to prevent them from eliminating the very existence of religion from public life. This has been the end goal of separationists for decades.
So, all of this leads me to ask just one very important question: Why are we allowing it to happen?
Indeed, if the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of you and me to pray and worship wherever, whenever and however we wish, then why are we allowing the government to tell us when, where and how we must practice our religion? Why are we tolerating a government that tells us we can’t exercise our religion in public?
Why are so many people silent on this issue?
The answer is ignorance.
Many Americans don’t even know what the First Amendment says in its entirety, much less what it means. We have been dumbed down in our schools, yes, the very ones that have kicked God off their premises. We aren’t taught the U.S. Constitution in depth. We don’t study its meaning.
So, when a so-called legal expert cites the “separation” clause in defense of a law banning religion, people assume that the expert must be right with regard to what the law actually says.
But I wager that if even 51 percent of the people actually took the time to read, study and learn the U.S. Constitution, many of the laws suppressing religion and God, in particular, would not see the light of day, because such legislation would be stopped before it even reached the floor for a vote.
If God and His Word are to ever be restored back to prominence in America, then “We the People” must first begin to care. We must take an interest in the law, especially the Constitution, where so many of our freedoms are secured, yet come under assault every day by those seeking to change the framework from within.
Unless we are willing to be “within,” then we can continue to expect more of the same manipulation by our leaders and the interest groups and lobbyists who lead them.
Because we have not cared, the phrase “under God” is routinely being taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance; the Ten Commandments were yanked from an Alabama courthouse and an honorable judge lost his job because he felt God’s laws were worth defending; high school students can no longer pray outloud at football games or any other school event; the Gideons are not allowed to leave their complimentary pocket Bibles on classroom desks; our children can no longer be excused during the school day to attend weekly church schools; Creation is considered scientific heresy; and kids are not allowed to pray together while in school.
I suppose we ought to count our blessings that “In God We Trust” still exists on our currency; the bailiff still requires us to swear on a Bible before taking the witness stand in a court of law; and the United States Congress opens every session with a prayer invocation.
But mark my words: Unless we begin to care, then even these things will soon disappear. Last to be touched will be worship in our own homes. Who’s to stop the separationists from going that far if they think they can get away with it? Hmmm?
Today, public school students are not allowed to gather in prayer during school, at sporting events or assemblies. Praying around the school flag pole on the National Day of Prayer is discouraged, but it probably won’t be long before even this is prohibited.
As it is, God and His Word have not only been banned from public schools, but also the courtroom, public lands and public grounds in general.
How could this be? Who is God hurting? What is His Word offending?
The rationale behind this insanity is supposedly wrapped in the “separation of church and state” clause of the United States Constitution. The problem is that no such clause exists in America’s founding legal document.
Those whose agenda it has been to push God out of sight and mind have cited the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, specifically the clause that begins, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” as the basis for their argument.
But this clause of the First Amendment is rather explicit in its meaning: “Congress” shall make no law. Where is the Congressional law that placed the Ten Commandments in our courtrooms, promoted prayer in schools, or even instituted the invocation held to open every session of Congress?
None exists.
Yet, the so-called “separation” clause is invoked whenever there’s an issue of God and religion—read that “Christian” religion—in public.
The truth about the “separation” clause lies in some obscure papers written by Thomas Jefferson on the subject of state-sanctioned religion. Jefferson was addressing the need to avoid what happened in Great Britain, where the Church of England controlled much of what went on in government. Jefferson argued that laws passed for the purpose of establishing a state religion were in fundamental contrast to basic human rights as well as the virtues of a free republic.
What he did not say is that God should be removed from government. On the contrary, Jefferson was a spiritual man with reverence for God, his Creator. After all, it was Jefferson who penned the following in our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Clearly, Jefferson was no advocate of either a secular society or government. What he did espouse, though, was a neutral and impartial government that neither endorsed nor sanctioned nor denied the existence of any particular religion. What he envisioned was a land that embraced religious liberty to assemble and practice with a government standing at the ready to defend this freedom. He did not want religion telling government what to do any more than he wanted government telling religion what to do.
Unfortunately today, government is telling religion what it can and cannot do, and where it can and cannot do it. What’s lacking, though, is a valid explanation of why.
Simply invoking the “separation” clause is not enough to justify restricting the free exercise of religion, which, by the way, happens to come directly after the so-called “separation” clause in the First Amendment. Separationists conveniently ignore this very important, and in fact, most significant part of the First Amendment, because it is supposed to prevent them from eliminating the very existence of religion from public life. This has been the end goal of separationists for decades.
So, all of this leads me to ask just one very important question: Why are we allowing it to happen?
Indeed, if the Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of you and me to pray and worship wherever, whenever and however we wish, then why are we allowing the government to tell us when, where and how we must practice our religion? Why are we tolerating a government that tells us we can’t exercise our religion in public?
Why are so many people silent on this issue?
The answer is ignorance.
Many Americans don’t even know what the First Amendment says in its entirety, much less what it means. We have been dumbed down in our schools, yes, the very ones that have kicked God off their premises. We aren’t taught the U.S. Constitution in depth. We don’t study its meaning.
So, when a so-called legal expert cites the “separation” clause in defense of a law banning religion, people assume that the expert must be right with regard to what the law actually says.
But I wager that if even 51 percent of the people actually took the time to read, study and learn the U.S. Constitution, many of the laws suppressing religion and God, in particular, would not see the light of day, because such legislation would be stopped before it even reached the floor for a vote.
If God and His Word are to ever be restored back to prominence in America, then “We the People” must first begin to care. We must take an interest in the law, especially the Constitution, where so many of our freedoms are secured, yet come under assault every day by those seeking to change the framework from within.
Unless we are willing to be “within,” then we can continue to expect more of the same manipulation by our leaders and the interest groups and lobbyists who lead them.
Because we have not cared, the phrase “under God” is routinely being taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance; the Ten Commandments were yanked from an Alabama courthouse and an honorable judge lost his job because he felt God’s laws were worth defending; high school students can no longer pray outloud at football games or any other school event; the Gideons are not allowed to leave their complimentary pocket Bibles on classroom desks; our children can no longer be excused during the school day to attend weekly church schools; Creation is considered scientific heresy; and kids are not allowed to pray together while in school.
I suppose we ought to count our blessings that “In God We Trust” still exists on our currency; the bailiff still requires us to swear on a Bible before taking the witness stand in a court of law; and the United States Congress opens every session with a prayer invocation.
But mark my words: Unless we begin to care, then even these things will soon disappear. Last to be touched will be worship in our own homes. Who’s to stop the separationists from going that far if they think they can get away with it? Hmmm?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Where is the choice?
I know why abortion opponents call themselves “pro-life,” which makes sense because abortion takes life.
But I do not understand the reasoning behind why abortion supporters consider their movement “pro choice.” They say it is because they support a woman’s right to choose whether to go through with her pregnancy or terminate it.
Unfortunately, pro-choicers fail to explain why they support such “choice” that denies the unborn the right to choose whether or not to be born.
The pro-choice movement considers an unborn child as belonging to a woman as though he or she was property or an organ of the body essential for function.
Well, it’s evident that a baby is neither property nor an organ. But the abortion lobby rationalizes that a fetus is not really human while in the womb, but rather a mass or ball of flesh incapable of thought, being or realization of self. Forget the fact that a fetus develops into and becomes a human baby that eventually realizes itself, thinks and is. What matters to the pro-choicer is that here and now, a fetus does not look human. Therefore, it is not human and cannot be counted as human life.
But the bare truth is that a fetus is entirely human; perhaps not yet in form, but certainly in function and biology. The fetus is an unrealized individual with a beating heart and developing brain that will soon become just like the ones we have. It is flesh, blood and bone just like us. It feels and hurts just like us. In fact, a fetus is entirely autonomous and sentient in its ability to feel, perceive and think. A developing fetus is entirely conscious of itself and its needs. That's why it kicks in the womb when it's happy or excited; it moves around when uncomfortable in order to get comfortable; and it communicates to the mother through the umbilical cord when it is hungry.
Again, I ask, what choice does an unborn individual have with regard to his or her life? What say do they have in choosing whether to live or die?
The answer is none. Pro-choice, while an advocate for a woman’s “right” to choose, denies the right of choice to the unborn.
Furthermore, pro-choice denies the right of the people to choose.
The abortion lobby has manipulated the law and used the courts—including the United States Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court—to rule in its favor and establish abortion as the law of the land.
If being pro-choice really means favoring the individual’s rights to choose, then why don’t pro-choicers support the right of individual states to choose whether or not to allow abortion? The answer is because pro-choice isn’t really about choice at all. It’s about abortion and nothing else.
Why was the will of the people, through democratic process, subverted on the way to the Supreme Court in 1973? The reason is that pro-choicers knew then as they know now that the vast majority of the people support neither abortion nor the agenda of its lobby.
If the issue of abortion was left up to the people in each state, then most states would likely limit or restrict its practice. Then again, this is why the pro-choice movement went straight for the jugular. The abortion lobby appealed its case not to the American people, but before a panel of nine judges, the majority of whom have been sympathetic to the so-called “right to choose.”
Pro-choicers argue that abortion is a right by virtue of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
In return, we got Roe v. Wade and 35 years of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in spite of what the majority may or may not have wanted.
Two hundred and thirty years ago, American colonists cried out against taxation without representation and called that tyranny.
If tyranny is measured by the lack of representation in the decisions of government, then abortion is oppression in its most fundamental form.
Roe v. Wade is not only an unjust law, but also an unconstitutional one that denies the rights of states to pass their own laws concerning abortion.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the last of the Bill of Rights dictates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This is written to mean that the people of individual states have the right to govern independently of the federal government. Congress is supposed to function within the bounds of the Constitution and let the people determine the course of their respective states.
I say, let’s put 35 years of ferocious debate over abortion finally to rest by bringing it up to a vote of the people. Let each state decide whether or not to legalize the practice and under what terms within its own borders.
If a woman wants an abortion that is prohibited in her state, then she can move to or cross the border into a state that allows the practice.
Why should an entire nation—a republic no less—be forced to suffer the foibles of a few zealots who have used abortion as a means of securing power for themselves?
When you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, that is exactly what pro-choice is all about: Giving power to those few with an agenda they want to push onto everyone else—including those of us who don’t want what they are selling.
Indeed, pro-choice offers perhaps the greatest contradiction in terms and action. While the choice of some is championed, the choice of many others—most notably the unborn—is scorned.
So to the pro-choicers, I ask, what exactly is the choice? It seems like we have no other choice but to accept theirs.
But I do not understand the reasoning behind why abortion supporters consider their movement “pro choice.” They say it is because they support a woman’s right to choose whether to go through with her pregnancy or terminate it.
Unfortunately, pro-choicers fail to explain why they support such “choice” that denies the unborn the right to choose whether or not to be born.
The pro-choice movement considers an unborn child as belonging to a woman as though he or she was property or an organ of the body essential for function.
Well, it’s evident that a baby is neither property nor an organ. But the abortion lobby rationalizes that a fetus is not really human while in the womb, but rather a mass or ball of flesh incapable of thought, being or realization of self. Forget the fact that a fetus develops into and becomes a human baby that eventually realizes itself, thinks and is. What matters to the pro-choicer is that here and now, a fetus does not look human. Therefore, it is not human and cannot be counted as human life.
But the bare truth is that a fetus is entirely human; perhaps not yet in form, but certainly in function and biology. The fetus is an unrealized individual with a beating heart and developing brain that will soon become just like the ones we have. It is flesh, blood and bone just like us. It feels and hurts just like us. In fact, a fetus is entirely autonomous and sentient in its ability to feel, perceive and think. A developing fetus is entirely conscious of itself and its needs. That's why it kicks in the womb when it's happy or excited; it moves around when uncomfortable in order to get comfortable; and it communicates to the mother through the umbilical cord when it is hungry.
Again, I ask, what choice does an unborn individual have with regard to his or her life? What say do they have in choosing whether to live or die?
The answer is none. Pro-choice, while an advocate for a woman’s “right” to choose, denies the right of choice to the unborn.
Furthermore, pro-choice denies the right of the people to choose.
The abortion lobby has manipulated the law and used the courts—including the United States Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court—to rule in its favor and establish abortion as the law of the land.
If being pro-choice really means favoring the individual’s rights to choose, then why don’t pro-choicers support the right of individual states to choose whether or not to allow abortion? The answer is because pro-choice isn’t really about choice at all. It’s about abortion and nothing else.
Why was the will of the people, through democratic process, subverted on the way to the Supreme Court in 1973? The reason is that pro-choicers knew then as they know now that the vast majority of the people support neither abortion nor the agenda of its lobby.
If the issue of abortion was left up to the people in each state, then most states would likely limit or restrict its practice. Then again, this is why the pro-choice movement went straight for the jugular. The abortion lobby appealed its case not to the American people, but before a panel of nine judges, the majority of whom have been sympathetic to the so-called “right to choose.”
Pro-choicers argue that abortion is a right by virtue of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
In return, we got Roe v. Wade and 35 years of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in spite of what the majority may or may not have wanted.
Two hundred and thirty years ago, American colonists cried out against taxation without representation and called that tyranny.
If tyranny is measured by the lack of representation in the decisions of government, then abortion is oppression in its most fundamental form.
Roe v. Wade is not only an unjust law, but also an unconstitutional one that denies the rights of states to pass their own laws concerning abortion.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the last of the Bill of Rights dictates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This is written to mean that the people of individual states have the right to govern independently of the federal government. Congress is supposed to function within the bounds of the Constitution and let the people determine the course of their respective states.
I say, let’s put 35 years of ferocious debate over abortion finally to rest by bringing it up to a vote of the people. Let each state decide whether or not to legalize the practice and under what terms within its own borders.
If a woman wants an abortion that is prohibited in her state, then she can move to or cross the border into a state that allows the practice.
Why should an entire nation—a republic no less—be forced to suffer the foibles of a few zealots who have used abortion as a means of securing power for themselves?
When you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, that is exactly what pro-choice is all about: Giving power to those few with an agenda they want to push onto everyone else—including those of us who don’t want what they are selling.
Indeed, pro-choice offers perhaps the greatest contradiction in terms and action. While the choice of some is championed, the choice of many others—most notably the unborn—is scorned.
So to the pro-choicers, I ask, what exactly is the choice? It seems like we have no other choice but to accept theirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
