Those who can...

Unless you've been living under a rock the last two years, you've no doubt seen the level of political discourse sink deeper and deeper into an abyss of name calling, insults and personal attacks from politicians and pundits alike. It seems there is no one left who can be objective any longer. The right has shown their dissatisfaction with the GOP by creating a movement that seeks to hold it's hierarchy accountable to it's base. The left, driven primarily by the President, has opted for using dark conspiracies about foreign money in American politics as a way to scare it's base into staying engaged throughout the election cycle. Whatever the outcome on November 2nd, it has been a most interesting election cycle.

While some would argue that this election is a referendum of Obama's policies and (lack of) results in rescuing our flailing economy from the precipice it appears to be teetering on, in my own view, it seems the only likely answer. In the run up to the 2008 Presidential election, Obama's message was one of "Hope & Change". It energized his base with dreams of equality and a new direction in American politics. Leaving aside the obvious reality that neither happened quite like it was promised, our upcoming election is absolutely a referendum on Obama and the ruling class on both sides. The anti-incumbent sentiment on the right is as strong as it's ever been and probably more than a little frightening to the upper echelon in charge of it's future.

A large majority of the left feels betrayed by Obama for his apparent lack of being "left wing" enough. The radical left of the Democrat party sees him now as just another politician skilled at being long on promises and woefully short on results. He didn't go far enough to change the way the country is run and for that he will be punished. More than likely this punishment will be evident in relatively low turnout results in November. Just as conservatives did in 2006. Awash in scandal after scandal and both obvious and subtle signs of extreme corruption, conservative voters decided to sit out the election in 2006 as a way to flex what little muscle they had in the electoral process. The message was loud and clear if only briefly. By 2008 the substance of that message had been lost and conservatives were faced with the choice of Obama or McCain. For many conservatives, it was a choice of the lesser of two progressives. Both had visions of spending our way to solvency and government intervention in the private sector as a way to shore up the economy. It can be flatly stated now after months of economic malaise, that neither was right.

There have been whispers in the press of a "new normal" for unemployment hovering around 8%-9%. If one ignores the media's cries of recession under Bush because of a 5.5% unemployment rate, then their idea that a "new normal" is a recovery should have us all singing kum ba ya any day now. The press has also been quite forgiving of late as to Obama's failures both perceived and real. The mantra of, "He's doing the best he can, why do they berate him so?", have been met with a healthy dose of derision. The New York Times should have a pair of pom poms on the front cover for all the cheerleading they do for this administration.

"Gimme an O!"

In a recent impromptu debate on fiscal policy, Obama said despite the recession and the possibility of higher taxes in 2011, the rich would still "buy their big screen TV's" and that the middle and lower classes needed the tax break to go buy their own big screen TV's. What Mr. Obama fails to recognize is that those evil rich people who don't deserve a tax break don't just buy big screen TV's. They own companies that produce parts for said TV's, they own businesses that deliver them, track them and stock their stores with them. If an extreme tax hike does come down the pike, those companies will be less inclined to expand their businesses thereby shrinking the number of big screen TV's available to the rest of us. For his apparent lack of understanding of a free market economy, Mr. Obama was called an "economic illiterate" and a "jackass" by Rush Limbaugh. Harsh words to be sure but these are harsh times. The poverty rate is at an record high, the number of Americans on food stamps is at an all time high. Heated rhetoric or not, Limbaugh's characterization of Obama as an "economic illiterate" is accurate.

There's an old saying that tells us "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." It's the simple idea that there are thinkers and doers in our society and it's usually the doers that shape change and ultimately the progress of humankind. Steven Dutch, professor of applied sciences at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay relates a story that illustrates this point perfectly. He writes,

When NASA convened a commission to analyze the 1986 Challenger disaster, one of the panelists was physicist Richard Feynman, about as "ivory tower" as they come (in terms of his academic degree. In his personal style, Feynman was the antithesis of "ivory tower"). During a discussion of the hypothesis that launching under cold conditions might have caused the seals in the solid fuel booster to become stiff, many of the panelists agreed it might be a good idea, but it would be hard to test. Feynman took a sample of the seal material, dunked it in a glass of ice water, and showed that the seal became stiffer.

This is the root of the problems Mr. Obama is facing. He's a thinker, a theoretician and not well versed in real world solutions. To quote Ray Stanz from the movie Ghostbusters,

"You've never been out of college. I've worked in the private sector. They expect results."

Such is the reality Obama is currently fighting so hard to ignore. He went from college into public service with no real, practical experience with regards to basic economics and business growth.
We expect results Mr. President. Not platitudes or promises. Not bumper stickers or catch phrases. We want results. We demand action that produces those results. I think one of the reasons that Bush has recently pulled dead even with Obama in poll numbers as to who could run the government better is because Bush was perceived as a doer. A man who saw a problem and took the best course of action to solve it. He didn't wring his hands after 9/11. He took action. He didn't convene a commission on debt reduction, he cut taxes. While many of his decisions were extremely unpopular, he was viewed as a man of action.

I think that's what America needs right now more than anything else. A man of action. Not a pointy headed elitist with a penchant for thinking a small problem into a big one.

Bring on November and let's see what the American people really think.

The dream dies to resounding applause.

This missive, unlike most of the others I've written, is quite the bitter pill for me to swallow. It signals a realization I was dreading to admit was happening. Some of you would call me a patriot, some would say a nationalist and still others would characterize me a jingoist. Whatever the moniker I am eventually attached to, I am saddened by recent events to the point of losing hope that we, as a nation, will ever be able to realign ourselves with a common belief in right and wrong. A common understanding of what is good for our nation and what is not. Not since a civil war that threatened to tear our nation to pieces has the level of divisiveness been as high. Once again we are thrust into a chaos that could easily set our country ablaze with hate and distrust.

What follows is how I interpreted two very different events that may or may not be defining moments in our history. I watched as these two events unfolded, unrelated on their surface but in my mind they seemed connected in a nebulous way as if tied by slender, almost invisible threads I will relate the first as dispassionately as I can.

If you haven't already heard the flap and furor surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic center mere blocks from ground zero, then you may want to stop reading now. I'm not too sure you'll see the odd little connection that I saw. Like many who opposed it's construction, I questioned the motives of the Imam who became it's most visible spokesman. I questioned his reasons and his ability to understand any objections that might arise. It was an openly provocative site that was chosen from an openly provocative religious leader who had said that America was "complicit" with the evil behind 9/11. Adding to that, saying that Osama Bin Laden was "made in America" leaves a reasonable person to ask: Why there? Why now? I would never seek to deny anyone seeking religious freedom the right to do so. What I would ask is for a little sensitivity to the location, the radical offshoot of the religion responsible for the carnage and his previous statements to be clarified, if not apologized for.

My objection stems from a simple concept: This is hallowed ground. This is a moment from our past that will live forever in the minds of everyone who still feels proud to call themselves an American.

Those who support the building of this structure site anti-religious bias, small minded thinking and a general hatred for Islam as the reason for the uproar. Let's leave aside the fact that people from both sides of the political aisle both support and object the mosques construction. Both Harry Reid and former governor George Pataki are against it. Conversely, Nancy Pelosi and Orrin Hatch support it. Suffice to say that there's more than enough argument to go around for both sides.

Fast forward a few weeks and we come to the looming rally, sponsored by Glenn Beck, called "Restoring Honor". As beck explained, the rally was meant to provide a renewed focus on our ability as a people to recognize those traits that first made this country a beacon of hope and freedom across the world: Honor, Duty, Sacrifice, Spirituality and the marvelous appreciation for innovation that made us a powerhouse in the fields of medicine, technology and business. The date chosen for his rally was August 28, 2010. His original choice for a date was 9/12 but that fell on a Sunday and Beck, a devoutly religious man, found the idea of asking Americans to ignore the sabbath distasteful and counterintuitive to his ultimate message : Without a firm grasp on religion as our foundation, we are doomed to fail in the promise of our founders.
His next choice for a date, owing to preparation time, security concerns and allowance by the parks service for the event, fell on 8/28. This also happened to be the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech".

When the left learned about the date he had ultimately chosen, they cried foul and said that Beck, a man with questionable motives, would sully the King name and ruin the date forever. While Beck is always outspoken and provocative, he promised that the rally would be about restoring honor and not be a political event designed to foment disharmony. To his credit, he lived up to that promise with only a few mild but passing mentions of politics. The event was uplifting, with the feel of an old fashioned tent revival with the concept of living up to our founders desires for the nation they gave us as the spiritual connection for all to be enjoyed.

The right, by and large, said a man (Imam Rauf) with questionable motives and a penchant for saying hateful things should be denied his rights based on dishonoring the memory of an historic event. His beliefs are anathema to what the event stood for.

The left, by and large, said a man (Glenn Beck) with questionable motives and a penchant for saying hateful things should have his rights denied based on dishonoring the memory of an historic event. His beliefs are anathema to what the event stood for.

Neither side saw the hypocrisy of their own statements. Neither side could understand the reasons for all the objections. Neither side has any credibility left in my humble opinion.

In all this, the left has used it's standard tactic of calling anyone who disagrees with them haters, fear mongers and outright stupid for not being enlightened enough. To their credit, the right has at minimum agreed with the Imam's right to build his mosque but simply asked for compassion and understanding in his choice for the site and the date for ground breaking: 9/11/2011. Ten years to the date of that horrible tragedy. I didn't hear anyone on the left agree that Beck should have his rally, it is his right as an American citizen to gather for a peaceful demonstration. He demonstrated compassion and a reverence for King's message and legacy.

When we can no longer agree to apply our first amendment rights equally across the spectrum of political ideology, then King's dream has truly died. Content of character no longer matters. All that matters now is the belief that: what I want is right, what you want is wrong, therefore you must be squashed and made irrelevant.

The saddest part of this tragedy lies just below the surface of all this. King's dream officially died when a black man was president.

The Equality Principle

In recent days, I've watched as Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream gets dashed to pieces on the rocks of political correctness. I've watched as the media that covered the historic events he took place in and inspired, bravely turned a blind eye towards the destruction of that dream. While it's true that I was very young at the time the civil rights struggle was finally seeing it's goal of equality being met, I've spent the years reading about it and trying to come to grips with why it took so long to happen. Why so many deaths, threats and so much hate could stop the inevitable and the just ends to the struggle. King's death in 1968 was merely the tipping point at which the country could take no more. People of all races and nationalities could see what we could not. I will forgo my urge to point out that most of the detractors to the Civil Rights Act were Democrats like Robert Byrd, former Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan, and Albert Gore Sr. and simply say that despite the hardships it was a mighty victory for all mankind. No other country had ever fought itself to make all men free and equal.

Fast forward to 2010 and it seems that all that Dr. King and his brave followers fought and died for has been subverted. Hijacked by a political party to justify fear-mongering and spread discontent amongst Americans. The struggle of the 60's has been morphed by Progressive ideology into meaning something vastly different. Equal rights has changed to equal results in modern times. Equal justice has become social justice, a darkly vague term that seeks to sound good but has unsavory connotations when expounded upon.

No government can guarantee equal results except through totalitarianism. Socialism is a fine idea on paper but when administered by men, weak and flawed as they are wont to be, it becomes the nightmare that was Stalinist Russia. It's often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The same is true of the concept of equal results.

This is where the Progressives have led the civil rights movement to. A fictional utopia where everyone of all races can live together free of hatred and injustice. Sadly, this simply is not possible due in large part to the ultimate failings of the human condition.

Let me stray back to my point and provide a little background.

During the 2008 election, two men, King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, stood outside a Philadelphia polling place hurling racial epithets at white passersby. Both are members of the New Black Panther Party and Shabazz was clearly seen on video brandishing a nightstick while proclaiming, "You're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

Charges were filed with the civil rights commission and it seemed a slam dunk case on the surface. The video was clear and the charges justified. In 2009 however, the justice department abruptly dismissed the case much to the dismay of J. Christian Adams, lawyer for the DOJ.
He later claimed publicly that there was a clear mandate that the DOJ would not pursue black defendants in matters of civil rights violations.

If true it casts a cloud of doubt over the justice system that could have enormous repercussions throughout the entire Federal Government. Imagine it, the civil rights commission dismissing a clear violation based solely on skin color. The very antithesis of what it stands for. Civil rights are for all people, not just black people.

Some of Shabazz' previous comments on issues of race are widely available online, in his own words, he "hates white people" and thinks that blacks should "kill you some crackers" and they should "kill some of their babies". Hateful words from a hateful man, predisposed to violent confrontation and revolution, as opposed to King's message of peace and love for all mankind. Opposite ends of an ideological spectrum that spans a scant 50 years.

History has taken King's message of hope and turned it into a commodity, to be sold and traded like so much chattel. King's belief that one day his children would be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin has been perverted into a system of thinly veiled "payback" for so many years of abuse and injustice.

If the equality that King sought meant only to pay for an egregious sin with another sin, then that does more to set back the dream of civil rights for all than any stupid sign carried by some great fool at a Tea Party Rally. The perceived racism of the Tea Party and its recent denigration by the NAACP says less about the Tea Party than it does about their vocal and often, virulent, detractors.

I suppose in the end, equal rights truly means everyone acting like brutes who see hatred as a sport and use fear and intimidation as tools of the trade.