Systemic Racism and Violent Communities

CHARLOTTESVILLE, USA – August 12: White Supremacists and counter protestors clash at Emancipation Park where the White Nationalists are protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee monument in Charlottesville, Va., USA on August 12, 2017. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

 

According to statistics compiled by an opinion writer in the Carroll County Times, nearly 50 percent of convicted murderers in the US are black. Blacks are also more likely to be involved in violent crimes as both perpetrators, and victims.

Most thinking people agree that much of this violence is due to the life situation too many African Americans find themselves in because of the misfortune of being poor, and too often born into a broken family.

But is the problem systemic racism or something else?

What one draws from these statistics often depends on their perspective and political agenda. The left wants more government and believe welfare works. They say the statistics support the need for government intervention.

On the right, people see personal responsibility as the cost of freedom. Those people interpret the exact same statistics as proof that there are problems inherent in the black community such as single parent homes and little encouragement toward education – things that only families and communities can fix.

Is their truth in both points of view? Maybe the destruction of the traditional family has created a sort of community level systemic racism – defined here as an environment unhealthy to success. While the government can help by ensuring quality education and safe streets, the community must also step up to create a culture that studies and history suggest will give children the best chance of success.

Both initiatives are happening – just not quickly. And the reason progress is so slow is because too many black leaders and politicians need the problems to justify their reach for power.

So instead they work on silencing reasonable voices.

PHASE ONE

Unfortunately for them, their true radical agenda is often unpopular with the majority. So instead, following the pattern of previous tyrants, they first come out in defense of ideas the majority can easily accept. The goal of this phase is to become the champion of the people and to firmly establish labels for anyone who opposes the plan. The labels must be demeaning, insulting, and embarrassing – labels such as bigot, racist, homophobe, transphobe etc.

Example of something the majority can easily agree to:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

Result: Radicals become community leaders.

PHASE TWO

They conflate the original agreeable goal into something more in line with their true agenda.

Example: statement the 2020 goals from the Black Lives Matter Website.

BLM’s #WhatMatters2020 will focus on the following issues:

• Racial Injustice
• Police Brutality
• Criminal Justice Reform
• Black Immigration
• Economic Injustice
• LGBTQIA+ and Human Rights
• Environmental Conditions
• Voting Rights & Suppression
• Healthcare
• Government Corruption
• Education
• Commonsense Gun Laws

They accuse anyone who disagrees with their new goals of being a racist, regardless of whether you still support the original goal of MLK’s Dream.

With huge masses of uninformed, out of school and out of work young people looking for something to do, they can quickly punish the slightest infraction of their aggressive brand of political correctness.

Results: Statues get torn down, communities burn, and  Aunt Jemima gets taken off the syrup bottle – and no one complains out of fear of being labeled. Now, even folks who recognize that tearing down a statue of Ulysses S. Grant does nothing to further equality say nothing. It’s the new normal and seems easier and safer than fighting back against a rising tide of craziness.

Their power has grown.

PHASE THREE

To test and grow their power, leftist leaders now demand that silence is not enough, that only positive and public actions can truly demonstrate your dedication to the cause of Dr. King.

Example: Protestors demand that police officers and politicians take a knee before them to prove their support for ????

Results: Many take a knee. Practically every school in the nation announces new efforts to fight systemic racism. These various declarations prove (so the organizations believe) they are not racist. Yet even as they make these insincere gestures, they do nothing to address, or even talk about the real problems facing children in black communities.

Radicals no longer hide their power. Now, even the bastions of government take a knee to avoid the ultimate career-ending insult of being labeled racist. Everyone is afraid of losing their job or business if they speak out.

Sadly, this new won power is not used to better the situation in black communities. Instead, it is used to push a broader agenda. One that just happens to mirror, almost perfectly,  the agenda of the left and much of the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, the dream of Martin Luther King goes unrealized and no one seems to care.

Kevin D. Williamson writing for National Review expressed his feeling about the current raft of worthless actions this way, “Forbes has announced a change in its in-house stylebook and will henceforth honor the woke convention of uppercase Black vs. lowercase white. And George Floyd is still dead. Jacob Frey is still mayor of Minneapolis. Medaria Arradondo is still the chief of police.

As I finished up this piece, A new story of racial violence came across the news. Apparently, a white Macy’s employee was beaten by a black customer who claimed he called him the “N” word. Store cameras seem to show that the insult never occurred. However, even if it did, what shook me most was the attitude of the perpetrators – and it goes straight to the heart of the question asked at the start of this essay. The brother of the man who beat the store employee, who was also at the scene, said of his brother’s reaction, “ In this age and time, he didn’t know what else to do. That was just his instinct.”

Read Full Post »

Insanity and the transgender child

I must have been around four or five-years-old the morning I decided I couldn’t walk.

There’s probably some scientific name for what was at the time nothing more than a kid’s overreaction to the very real fear of polio and the new vaccine in the news. Perhaps it had something to do with having a paraplegic in the home. Regardless, in my mind, at five-years-old, the paralysis was very real. To this day, I remember the frustration of trying to move legs that refused to budge.

Thankfully, my mother, recognizing the truth, fixed breakfast, put it on the table and told me it was ready whenever I was hungry. The paralysis didn’t last long. Closer to minutes than days. Food has always been a great motivator in my life.

I wonder how different my life might have been if instead of fixing my breakfast my Mother had carried me to the table. What if she had taken me to a doctor, who instead of telling me there was nothing wrong, gave me a wheelchair. None of this happened of course because back in the 50’s reality mattered.

Today, not so much. Some want us to believe that our sexuality is artificially created through association with family and friends. A quick peek in a human anatomy book proves that theory wrong. But even if it was so, how would it be bad to teach children to live in harmony with their physical nature? To do otherwise seems un-natural and potentially harmful. (Consider the astronomically high suicide rates, up to 50 percent, for young people suffering from gender confusion.)

Yet the craziness continues.

So when I saw this headline, “Court Rules That a Mom Can Transition Son into a Girl Against His Dad’s Wishes,” I got fired up … again.

The story tells about seven-year-old James Younger whose divorced Mother (a pediatrician no less) has decided that her son must be a girl because he wants to dress up like his TV hero (a girl) and his favorite movie is Frozen. According to the boy’s Father Jeff Younger, Anne Georgulas, the boy’s mother, started dressing him in girl’s clothes at age three, telling him monsters only eat boys and withholding affection if he didn’t act like a girl.

The court decision mentioned in the article apparently opens the door for little James’ Mother to begin puberty reversal treatments – a process known to cause sterilization. Thankfully, a second court has now decided the Father, does have parental rights to stop this madness.

When at his Father’s house James acts and plays like a boy, and, according to his Father, violently opposes having to wear girl’s clothes. When at his Mother’s house he plays and acts like a girl. Maybe he is simply behaving in a way that gets him the love of his parents.

This doesn’t even sound like gender dysphoria since James acts like a normal boy in normal situations. No, this is child abuse by someone who ought to know better. Even if James was confused (suffering from gender dysphoria) studies show that without treatment, nearly all (95 percent) of these children eventually grow comfortable with their birth gender.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not paranoid that transgenders are taking over the world. Transgendersim has been around for most of human history and will continue as long as we continue to treat mental illness as a choice. The transgender lifestyle is too destructive to individuals and society to ever be truly mainstream and even it’s current (dare I say) popularity, will soon subside.

Meanwhile, however, we cannot allow children’s lives to be destroyed by parents and doctors who are either too scared or too indoctrinated, to speak truth to insanity.

I have always cringed a little when I hear a parent say my child and I are best friends. Being your child’s best friend is fantastic as long as it is secondary to being their parent. This means teaching your child right and wrong and what is best in life, regardless of whether they “hate you” (temporarily) for doing so.

When it comes to parenting, I try not to be too judgmental. It is a hard job and we all make mistakes. But if the stories about James’ Mother are true, that is child abuse, plain and simple. And regardless of her possible “good intentions,” society should not allow a misled Mother to chemically or surgically destroy her child’s future in homage to an insane dedication to leftist gender theories.

If an adult wants to have transgender surgery or take hormones – go for it. While I feel it is validating a mental illness – adults are generally allowed to harm themselves. Children should be protected from such craziness because of the life-changing, unalterable effects. Our legislators need to support Virginia Health Boards, which have already banned conversion therapies for minors, by passing laws that impose legal penalties on those who provide hormone treatments or surgery for sex change purposes to minors.

To do less is simply … well, crazy!

Read Full Post »

Craziness

I was with some friends recently when the conversation turned to what each of us thought was the most pressing political problem of the day. I threw in my two cents for political tribalism, which, I pointed out, was destroying reasonable debate. “We need to start looking for common ground,” I said as I climbed down off my soap box.

Then another member of our group asked a question that made me think. Do I really want to find common ground with someone whose opinions are offensive, and who, lacking facts, just starts throwing insults?

He had a valid point.

I started looking at some of the more outrageous comments I have heard lately and wondered – Can you find common ground with someone who talks crazy?

How do you argue reasonably with a government agency, like the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, that is suing a shelter for battered women because they refused to take in a man late one night, who was drunk, had obviously been fighting, and who claimed to be transgendered. When the shelter tried to reason with the government commission, they were threatened with another suit because their explanation was discriminatory. Now, they are keeping their mouths shut.

How difficult is it, to speak reasonably to someone like Alyssa Milano, who recently claimed that without her two abortions, “… My life would be completely lacking all its great joys. I would never have been free to be myself – and that’s what this fight is all about: freedom.”

How do you reason with college students, like those at George Washington University who willingly signed a fake petition to ban “oppressive” white stick figures in walk signals? Those same students had recently signed a real petition calling for the replacement of George the Colonial (their sports mascot) because the negatively charged figure of colonials “glorifies the act of systemic oppression.”

Or how do you reasonably respond to CNN, who never questioned the comments of psychiatrist, Alan Francis, who during an on-air interview claimed that Trump may be responsible for many more millions of deaths than Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong.

While the CNN interviewer Brian Stelter, later agreed that he should’ve interrupted after that line, I wonder if he would have interrupted if a conservative had been on the air and said a similarly crazy thing.

But the media these days is not exactly known for its fair and balanced reporting.

When Pres Trump recently tweeted that some Baltimore neighborhoods were a rat-infested mess, he was immediately labeled a racist. Yet there was no mention, in most mainstream media outlets, that former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh, an African American female, had complained of the same thing just last year. Nor was there any mention that Bernie Sanders in 2015, had compared a Baltimore neighborhood he was visiting to a Third World country.

Some, however, on both sides are starting to respond.

When former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell started rooting for a direct hit by Hurricane Dorian on Mara Lago in southern Florida because Donald Trump owns property there, Allen Covert, an American actor who has relatives living in the same area, tweeted, “you have sunk so low in your hatred that you have become worse then what you hate.”

In a podcast for The Daily Signal, Jeanne Safer, liberal author of the new book “I Love You, but I Hate Your Politics,” discusses how we can keep our friends and family despite political differences. She advises to “Never start any conversation with, ‘How could you possibly think … ‘” Safer explains, “even if you’re not shouting. Or, ‘Did you hear the obnoxious tweet or the stupid thing this person said?’ These are not conversation starters, they are insults. And your partner, the person you care about, will interpret them that way.”

 

Hardly anyone (except for media’s talking heads) talk politics anymore. Everyone is too afraid to be harshly labeled. That’s not good for democracy. However, we must speak up if we want reasonableness to prevail. If the only voices being heard coming from the far left and the far right, the gap will only widen. Already, the violence has started.

We need to keep talking, even when the opposition talks crazy.

Several years ago, I wrote in this publication, “Remember, however, in the give and take of free speech, “take” is half the equation. Along with being civil ourselves, let’s give passionate people the right occasionally to say dumb things. After all, if we can put up with a few harsh words, perhaps we can make it less likely for someone to throw sticks and stones.”

Punchbowl Shelter

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Emperor Has No Clothes!

Do you remember the story of the Emperor’s new clothes? In it, a couple of tailors convince the Emperor that for the right price they can weave clothing that is invisible to those who are incompetent, stupid or not fit for their position. Of course, it is all a lie, but the fear of being seen as unfit keeps the people silent – even as the Emperor strolls down the street getting a full body tan. Finally, a young boy, too innocent to know any better, cries out, “The Emperor is naked!”

I wonder sometimes if Hans Christian Anderson was not having a vision of our day when he wrote that story.

I was lucky enough this past weekend to attend an event sponsored by The Wesley Center for Constitutional Studies. The two speakers, Dr. Glenn Kimber, a nationally recognized Constitutional expert; and former U.S. Ambassador to Bahrain, Sam Zakhem, inspired me to look into the dangers (both physical and ideological) facing religion today.

I discovered that the recent violence against churches, synagogues, and mosques, while horrific, is only a symptom of an even more pernicious and lasting danger. According to Kimber and Zakhem, the founders considered religious freedom vital to liberty and constitutional democracy. Today, however, many see it as a crutch for the weak, one that only limits our freedom. And for the radical left (the tail currently wagging the political dog), religion is the primary obstacle to those who dream of a secular utopia.

In this war on religion, silencing the opposition is key, and right now, the left is winning.

One example is The Equality Act. This most recent leftist legislation would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the protected classes already under federal civil rights law.

In combining gay rights (a popular movement) with the rights of the transgendered, the radical right has been able to silence what should be common sense opposition to this law from both sides. Misplaced equality for transgendered males has already led to attacks on women in restrooms once reserved for biological females, and transgendered males are already beating women in female sporting events where their male bodies give them an advantage. By conflating transphobia with homophobia the left has dressed the Emperor in clothes that only those willing to be called stupid or incompetent cannot see.

Even so, people of reason even within the LGB community worry about the effects this law might have on women and children.

Unable to find a forum for their concerns on the left, some of those leftists asked The Heritage Foundation for help. On YouTube, The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left,” is a video of the resulting panel worth watching.

The first panelist, Jennifer Chavez, broke my heart as she told the stories of actual families and children whose lives have been destroyed when those they turned to for help with gender dysphoria were too afraid to suggest any politically incorrect interventions. This, even though most of these children who are deciding to change their gender forever are considered too young to vote or drink alcohol responsibly. Instead, the “expert” solutions involve chemically halting puberty and radical mastectomies for children as young as 13, even though studies show that without treatment, as high as 95 percent of these children eventually grow comfortable with their birth gender.

Kara Dansky, a feminist lawyer on the panel called the Equality Act an unmitigated disaster for women and girls and said that under its guidelines all sex-segregated spaces will disappear if gender identity becomes a protected class.

One member of the audience asked the panel if this was a monster built in the labs of academia. The entire panel agreed.

Camille Paglia, a well-known social commentator, self-avowed feminist and occasional leftist, equates this explosion of gender dysphoria to a fashion statement for those who feel alienated by today’s confusing society. She says that while most will not admit it – these type of problems are always present as great civilizations begin to unravel.

Yet much of society still rides the fence, watching the naked Emperor pass by, afraid to speak the obvious. It might be funny if it was not destroying the lives of so many young people and threatening the very fabric of our society.

The Equality act, as currently written, could force churches to employ transgendered males in their new after-school girls’ volleyball program. Religious schools might lose federal funding if their policies do not allow biological men to use the girl’s restroom. Faith based organizations may no longer be allowed to foster or adopt children, and business owners may lose their licenses if they refuse services that run contrary to their religious beliefs.

Dr. Kimber and Ambassador Zakhem, both agreed that the solution to the war on religion is to fight back, not because we hate the enemy, but because we love our country, our freedom and the principles that have made it great.

I agree. It is time to stand up and declare, like the child in the old story, “The Emperor is naked!”

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Read Full Post »

Partisanship: The Good, Bad and Ugly

THE GOOD

Nancy Pelosi says she opposes impeaching the President – at least for now. She says, “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.”

She is exactly right. While Constitutional separation of powers can protect us (at least somewhat) from any bad president, only placing the good of the country above partisan politics will save us from the frightening divisiveness currently threatening our democracy.

According to one recent study, 42 percent of the people in each party view the opposition as ‘downright evil.’ Twenty percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans believe “we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died.” Even more disturbing, a small but significant minority, 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans feel violence would be justified if the opposing party wins the 2020 election”

These statistics should scare us. Maybe they scared Pelosi.

THE BAD

Last week I read an article, where some on the liberal side of the aisle were claiming the recent education admissions scandal was proof of white racist privilege and should silence the critics of affirmative action. This is exactly the type of illogical jump that happens when politics are driven more by partisan dogma than thoughtful consideration.

It is uninformed and bias to equate black and poor. As the Institute for Family Studies recently reported, “The share of black men who are in the upper-income bracket rose from 13% in 1960 to 23% in 2016 … Moreover, poverty among black men has dropped dramatically over the same time, with the share of black men in poverty  falling from 41% to 18% since 1960.”  If the recent scandal proves anything about institutional bias, it shows that truly harmful bias is based more on social status than on skin color.

THE UGLY

Perhaps the ugliest part of hyper-partisanship is the way its most skilled practitioners use social media to destroy lives, end careers, tarnish reputations and silences thoughtful discussion. In a way, it is worse than just wishing your opponents would die since, in this case, actual harm is being done.

Today, the slightest politically incorrectness, intentional or not, can land you downrange in a free fire zone where the shooters are anonymous and can say and claim anything they think will hurt you – and they can do it with impunity. This misuse of an otherwise valuable communication tool is fracturing some college campuses into twitter-armed camps and suppressing speech for fear of unintentionally upsetting someone, anyone, and viciously being attacked for it.

I read were one college group was afraid to have a tequila themed birthday party because they were afraid that someone might accuse them of cultural appropriation, even though it was not called a Mexican party, and no one wore sombreros. Moreover, even if they get away with it today, what might happen in 20 years when tequila parties are called racist?

David French, writing for National Review, said that maybe we are giving to much credit to an Ivy League Diploma. He described his Harvard experience:

I was grateful for the opportunity but also feared that I wasn’t up for the academic or intellectual challenge. I quickly learned that I needn’t have worried. The problem wasn’t that we didn’t learn anything, but that our education was both deep and narrow. In torts, civil procedure, property, and criminal law we plunged into the depths of critical race theory and critical gender theory. I learned in great detail how common-law conceptions of contract rights harmed women and minorities and perpetuated the patriarchy. I learned very little about competing legal doctrines and traditions — when such ideas were brought up at all, they were presented as caricatures so they could be debunked. Make no mistake, I wanted to learn about critical-race theory, but I also wanted to better understand Blackstone. Why couldn’t I do both?

We should not value a diploma’s lineage more than learning. A good liberal arts education, where academic freedom is real, where all sides of an issue are subject to peaceful debate, where students are taught to think, and where history is studied in context is too rare today. However, if you can find it, it will beat a Harvard education hands down in real life value for its students.

Besides, what good is getting into an Ivy League School to someone like Lori Laughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli, who admitted on social media, “I don’t know how much school I’m going to attend. But I’m going to go in and talk to my deans and everyone and hope that I can try to balance it all. But I do want the experience of, like, game days, partying. I don’t really care about school.”

That’s just ugly.

Read Full Post »

CLICK

Do you hear it? That loud clicking? That is the sound of presidential power ratcheting up.

We have heard this same clicking sound during nearly every crisis our nation has faced since George Washington turned down his chance to be King. Usually, it is justified by a true emergency. However, as history shows, once the power ratchets up, it seldom retreats.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice,

Although the very concept of “emergency” suggests a temporary, short-term event, states of emergency last a long time, and they’re getting longer. Thirty-one of the 58 states of emergency declared since the National Emergencies Act [NEA] was passed are still in effect today. The average duration of declared emergencies is 9.6 years. Twenty-five emergencies have lasted 10 years or longer [with]  the longest-lasting, Blocking Iranian Government Property, being persistently renewed for 39 years.

Now, despite legislative action mostly in his favor, President Trump has declared an emergency on the southern border for the express purpose of freeing up money to build a wall he could not get funded (to the level he wanted) through proper channels.

Do not get me wrong, we need a wall.  But not at the cost of trashing the Constitution and the checks and balances that have kept us free from tyranny for over 200 years.

According to the Constitution, the decision on how to pay for federal expenditures is the exclusive responsibility of Congress. In this most recent crisis, the more important question is whether Trump’s extra-constitutional methods to fund the wall is more dangerous than the threatened influx of illegal aliens if we don’t build it.

I think they are.

Calling the border crisis a national emergency is disingenuous. It’s nothing more than a straw man created to build support for legislation unlikely to pass otherwise. Rahm Emanuel put it best a few years ago when he instructed his fellow politicians, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” I’ll add, even if you have to manufacture the crises.

The good news for Trump, however, is that there are no definitions in the NEA laying out the elements of a national emergency. However, common sense (and any dictionary) tells us that a national emergency, like any other emergency, ought to be unexpected, unusually dangerous, and require immediate attention to avoid catastrophic disaster.

Using this definition, it is hard to say illegal border crossings are unexpected since presidents and legislators have been looking for solutions for years. Legislative incompetence is not a National Emergency. And while the crisis has caused some dangerous situations, according to U.S. Customs, border crossings have been steadily decreasing since 2000. Arguably, the only thing that has changed is the recent political emphasis on immigration as both parties try to claim the high ground.

The NEA does not give any specific additional powers to the President. However, it opens up a broad range of additional powers across a broad range of other programs and regulations.

For example, the Brennan Center for Justice provides a list of additional powers the executive Branch gains when he declares a national emergency. It is 41 typewritten pages long.

The list includes emergency powers that enable the President to take over all U.S. citizen communications, an expedited ability to seize citizen property under eminent domain, and the ability to re-allocate funds from one government agency or department to another.

Most of these additional powers are reasonable in helping a sitting President react quickly during a time of severe crisis. However, they are also easily abused if the emergency declaration is just a smoke screen to bypass legislation the executive does not like.

Jonah Goldberg writing for National Review last week put it this way, “There is no national emergency now, but he steered himself into a political one. And neither he nor his cheerleaders can see the difference.”

Keep in mind, many Democrats are only against this action because it is not their man in the White House. For now, they can only dream of the day they regain the presidency and they can use this new power established through Republican precedent.

Meanwhile, the power of the president and the importance of the presidential election ratchet up and the Congress becomes even less relevant. If you are counting on the Supreme Court to save us – do not hold your breath. The Court’s historic reluctance to limit executive emergency powers is what got us here in the first place.

So lobby for the wall, write your legislators, but be cautious about supporting a plan that abandons the Constitution just to check off a campaign promise. We will all regret it when the next President decides that gun violence, the new green deal, or any other liberal cause is suddenly a national emergency.

 

Read Full Post »

The real reason for the continuing shutdown

As of this writing, parts of the government are still shut down. The media tells us the problem is disagreement over funding for a border wall. Excuse me if I call foul, but that’s crap. The truth is, the wall is a smoke screen covering a liberal “never-trump” strategy. It’s a dangerous and destructive game.

In 2006, Congressional Democrats agreed to $1.4 billion for 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. In 2013, every Senate Democrat voted to authorize $7.5 billion for an additional 700 miles. So today, when Democrats are willing to shut down the government over an expenditure they previously supported – one that only represents .0998 percent of the total federal budget – their argument that the wall is immoral or a waste of money rings hollow.

Besides, common sense tells us that walls have always made for good neighbors. Consider the border wall built south of San Diego to stop crime and illegals from crossing over from one of the highest crime centers in the world – Tijuana. Even Politico and NPR have written about its effectiveness.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who today calls the proposed wall immorality, still built a barrier around her multimillion-dollar property in Napa Valley. People do this, as Trump pointed out, not, “…because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”

No, this fight is more about the next election and a feverish attempt by Democrats to stop any policy Trump proposes – good or bad. In the end, however, it hurts their party and more importantly, the country.

I recently had a cousin post on Facebook the following she had copied from a friend:

“Here’s why we want Trump. Yes, he’s a bit of a jerk; yes he’s an egomaniac, but we don’t care. The country is a mess because politicians suck, the Republicans and Democrats can be two-faced and gutless, and illegals are everywhere. We want it all fixed … and Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.”

In an article this month in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger examines why Trump supporters are so persistent. He used this example from a letter he received, “When I see long-hoped-for ‘Resistance’ to those nutburgers [liberals] from Trump—which I did not see from Nixon, Ford, Bush 41 or Bush 43—I am unalterably supportive. Flawed vessel or not, it’s not the man, it’s the resistance that binds us to him.”

I have been one of the biggest whiners about Trump’s un-presidential character. However, like the writers above, I can put up with a certain amount of un-presidentialness as long as his policies support the Constitution and defend American citizens. Unlike Pelosi, at least Trump does not place imagined constitutional rights of non-citizens above the needs of those who the government is established to protect.

Frightened by the far left’s hijacking of the Democratic party, more and more average Americans are moving defensively right and hunkering down.

That is not good for our country.

It’s scary when the left bashes Karen Pence (wife of the Vice President) for simply teaching at a Christian school. And it’s scary when leftists try to derail the nomination of Neomi Rao (Trump’s nominee to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals) because she did in college what modern college students should be doing and argued difficult issues. (She just made the mistake of arguing from the conservative side).

It’s scary when liberal pundits turn to identity politics to cut off debate when they see they are losing as Areva Martin (CNN political analyst) recently did when debating David Webb (radio show host). She accused him of white privilege – before realizing he was African American.

Conservatives, of all races, are tired of being called racists, homophobes, deniers or religious kooks by people who nothing about them – and seem to have no desire to learn.

In relating the Martin/Webb story for National Review,  Kevin Williamson wrote, “I’ve heard Charles C. W. Cooke dismissed as a fundamentalist Christian (he’s an atheist) and Guy Benson denounced as a homophobe (he’s gay). I have even heard myself denounced as a sellout self-hating black man (I’m white). We have been the beneficiaries of Voltaire’s prayer: “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”

Remember Democrats, what goes around comes around. Republicans got Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court because Democrat Harry Reid ended the Senate Filibuster Rule for confirming Federal Judges. The Democrat “never Trump” attitude will only lead to greater hyper-partisanship for the next president. While this is a problem for both parties, maybe Democrats can help end it here. All it takes is loving your country more than your politics. If Democrats can’t do that – they shouldn’t be surprised when Trump wins a second term.

Punchbowl Shelter

Read Full Post »

Opioids, Common Sense and the Election

Corey Stewart’s loss in the recent Senate race against Tim Kaine surprised no one. Kaine was the incumbent, had a lot more money and a lot more political experience. Stewart helped out by relying too much on party politics.

Stewart decided early on to run, in his own words, a vicious and ruthless campaign. Instead of trying to appeal to the needs of the people, he ignored good policy and focused on the party line.

He totally missed that most Virginians are not far right or left and are growing tired of partisan politics.

Besides, when you are seeking a seat in what is supposed to be the premier deliberative body in the world (the U.S. Senate) it helps if you can show you can think for yourself.

Just consider one issue currently in the news, the opioid epidemic.

For Virginia, a state hit hard by this national crisis, getting opioid abuse under control is a major concern.

While deaths from overdoses of prescription drugs have remained fairly level since 2011, overdose deaths from synthetic drugs such as Fentanyl and Heroin continue to rise. No longer a big city issue, the abuse is creeping into western Virginia, especially the southwestern highlands. According to the New York Times, overdoses now kill more people than guns or car accidents.

Stewart’s solution was to increase the co-pay for Medicaid recipients prescribed opioids. He probably got that lame idea from Senate Republicans who were arguing that expanding Medicaid was contributing to the growing opioid crisis. It is a position not based on research, or even good sense, but is a knee-jerk reaction by too many Republicans who hear the word Medicaid and shut down their brains.

The truth is that solid research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that Medicaid expansion did not worsen the opioid epidemic. Instead, it increased the ability of caregivers to fight this societal cancer.

Kaine’s plan, like so many plans coming from the left, was not much better – but it felt nice, and looked pretty, so it provided the more experienced politician a safe zone to sit back, pretend he had a viable solution, and let Stewart self-destruct.

Kaine’s brilliant plan included initiatives such as increasing seizures of illegal opiates arriving at the US border (with no explanation of how to do that); have the National Institute of Health develop non-addictive painkillers (dreamland again); and then throw more money at treatment programs. The last idea was at least in the realm of reality – but only if you’ve identified programs that actually work and know where the money is coming from. Again, however, Kaine left us hanging on those questions.

Maybe because they actually have to stick to a budget, local governments are taking a more realistic approach.

Last week, The News Gazette reported that Rockbridge County was joining Lexington to “look into” the possibility of a lawsuit against the manufacturers and distributors of opioids.

While I like the idea of looking into this first. I worry it might turn into a typical leftist blame-the-guy-with-the-fat-wallet tactic. We should keep in mind that a too tough smack down on drug companies could have the unintended consequence of running legitimate drug companies out of the pain relief business, leaving many needy customers without relief or with prescription costs so high they are forced to turn to illicit sources.

However, the solution will definitely require money.

In 2010 the makers of OxyCotin (one of the primary drugs used by those addicted to opioids) pled guilty to criminal charges that they misled regulators and patients about the drug’s risk of addiction and were fined $634.5 million – one of the largest fines ever paid by a drug company.

Then, a little over a year ago, President Trump declared the opioid crisis a national health emergency freeing up emergency funds and streamlining paperwork to better address the problem. While only a temporary measure (renewed four times so far), it is a step in the right direction.

Regardless of where one stands on this issue, it is good to see politicians “looking into” policy decisions instead of just spouting partisan talking points designed to oppose or demonize the opposition.

The truth is that neither the far left nor the far right represents most Virginians. And while I still might vote mostly Republican (at least they pretend to be conservative), I will vote for whoever is willing to put good policy ahead of party. Call it a vote for the people.

Punchbowl Shelter

Read Full Post »

Addicted to Outrage

The left is outraged over Trump’s fiery political speech that they say is to blame for the bombs recently mailed to his political enemies.

The right is outraged over the left blaming Trump for a toxic political environment that has existed for years while ignoring his accomplishments.

Perhaps we just enjoy being outraged.

That’s what Glen Beck thinks. In his recent and surprisingly nonpartisan book, “Addicted to Outrage,” Beck, a recovering alcoholic, says our current love for outrage is an addiction and suggests a path for our recovery.

So what’s fueling this addiction?

We are lonely. Almost 20 years ago, Robert Putman published “Bowling Alone,” a groundbreaking book warning us that technology (then TV and the Internet) was causing us to meet fewer people, gather less and form less meaningful bonds. Today, thanks to social media technologies that didn’t even exist when he wrote his book, researchers say the problem has increased exponentially. Church attendance continues to drop and service organizations such as the Lions, Optimists, and Rotary have lost 20-70 percent of their members. Yet in our hyper-connected loneliness, we still crave a cause –something to fight for – something to replace what religion and philanthropy used to provide.

It is in our genes to take sides. Jonathan Haidt, renowned moral phycologist and speaker explains that it’s natural for humans to form tribes. It is a survival instinct. To make tribes work we also developed instincts to care for each other, an instinct for fairness, loyalty to our group, respect for leadership and respect for group purity. These instincts, while great for survival in the wild, can get in the way of cooperation in a modern society.

Controversy sells. Business research confirms that controversy increases interest in a product. However, just like with any addiction, after a while, we need a stronger dose to fill the need. Modern 24-hour media is more than happy to meet the increasing demand.

Negative campaigning works. A recent marketing study confirms that not only does negative political advertising work but also that the first candidate to go negative will usually win in the battle of slime – and politicians read the research.

You know you’re addicted when:

Good and bad results are judged by whose tribe did it. If the results are bad, it is the fault of the opposition. If the results are good, it is a leftover benefit from when your tribe was in power.

Agreeing with the enemy becomes heresy. If a member of the tribe considers any opposing view, they are a traitor. If a member of another tribe adopts your tribe’s point of view, they are flip-flopping to gain political advantage.

Other tribes are stupid and they are purposely destroying the nation. They hate everything except violence against you and your tribe.

We are obviously right, but the other side is too stupid to see it.

Since we are right, the ends justify the means. Therefore, the rules of civility and justice don’t matter.

Recovery from our addiction to outrage will be slow and difficult. It begins only when we recognize our problem and actually act to fix it.

Research shows that butting heads seldom convinces anyone and generally only hardens each in their own position. Instead, experts say, effective discussions start by finding common ground and expanding from there.

Lee Colan, a leadership consultant for many of the top businesses and organizations in the country suggests we T.H.I.N.K. before speaking to keep conversations positive.

“T” is for truth. Is what we say true – are we sure?

“H” is for helpful. Is what we are about to say helpful or just aimed at scoring on the opposition?

“I” is for inspiring. Does what we say inspire the discussion?

“N” is for necessary. J Golden Kimble, one of my heroes and religious leaders used to say we should always say what we think. However, he would add, sometimes we think things we shouldn’t say!

“K” is for Kind.  Karl G. Maeser, one of the founders of the academy that would later become BYU instructed his students, “Always be yourself, but always be your better self.”

We need to find in our better selves a way to respect the opposition, even when they call us vile names and disparage our motives. If we can’t do that, perhaps we can respect ourselves enough to not join them in the gutter.

Here is an idea from the left I really like: “Make America Dinner Again.” This group organizes dinners that bring opposing parties literally to the table. They believe you can’t sit down to dinner with someone, discuss your differences in a reasonable way, and still think of them as monsters afterward.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he knew we were not ready to live up to its standards. Yet he wrote it, and even today, we strive to make it a reality. Perhaps the same is true for solving our addiction to outrage. Perhaps one dinner at a time, one column at a time, or one comment at a time, we can narrow the divide between us.

Read Full Post »

It’s not just about Kavanaugh

It’s time to say enough is enough.

If you are a regular reader of this column, you know how I have begged for more civil political discourse. I have watched, unbelievingly, as politicians at the highest levels engaged in name-calling and arguing like children at a playground. With obvious hyper-partisanship, they have argued less and less for truth and more and more only to advance their party’s agenda. The recent spectacle over the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is only the latest embarrassing example.

Reasonable, thoughtful people can disappear in the excitement of political circus, ensuring that only those willing to use attack dog tactics and win at all costs can get elected. This is not good for democracy.

Pundits compare the testimonies of both Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, and with great personal emotion, declare them both credible. Yet back in the world where the rules of justice and fairness matter, that is ridiculous.

Credibility is not measured only by a witness’s apparent sincerity and compelling story. When that alone is the standard, everyone, regardless of his or her innocence, becomes an easy victim to any scurrilous attack by a well-coached actor.

Instead, credibility also requires that testimony fit within the framework of the known facts. Kavanaugh, whose testimony is supported by his personal calendar and the sworn testimonies of all the witnesses identified by the accuser, is therefore credible. Ford, who cannot remember the date, the place, or other important details, regardless of her emotional delivery, does not meet this basic standard of fairness.

Credible testimony must be consistent – like Kavanaugh’s. Again, Ford’s testimony is inconsistent in that what she told her doctors and her friends don’t match up to what she told the judicial committee last week.

While I might accept that Ford was sexually assaulted in high school, there is no compelling evidence that Kavanaugh had anything to do with it. Instead, the exact opposite is true, since credibility also takes into account an individual’s history. Kavanaugh’s exemplary life and his proven track record for treating women with respect and honor for over 40 years weigh heavily in his favor.

The leftists say this is a job interview – not a trial. They’re right – but since when do we throw out American principles of fairness just because it is an interview?

The whole problem with this process has been the left’s willingness to toss out basic principles of justice because they don’t believe the Judge agrees with their politics. Fairness no longer matters, and they have turned what should have been a respectable and important political process into a carney sideshow trying to get their way.

If the Democrats truly wanted the truth and were seriously concerned over Ford’s allegations, why didn’t they investigate when they first received them? If they truly cared about protecting their witness, couldn’t they have conducted the investigation in private – as she wanted? Instead, they leaked her story, throwing her desires under the bus when it became obvious that an anonymous, unsubstantiated claim was not going to delay the nomination. They abandoned any sense of propriety, ignored the facts, and snubbed the traditional values of American justice. That is despicable.

That politics has sunk this low indicates how dangerous the situation has become.

This is not about Kavanaugh. It is about a political system mired in hyper-partisanship and an electorate too willing to enjoy the show and look the other way as long as their side is winning. After all, it’s just politics …right?

But when discussing the rise of Nazi Germany, the German pastor Martin Niemoller warned:

First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

Kavanaugh, who the left condemns for daring to defend himself, warned the committee “What goes around comes around … I fear for our future.”

It is time to stop this folly. It is time to say enough is enough. I hope the Republicans can find the courage to do the right thing in the face of these vicious, unfounded, political attacks and confirm Kavanaugh. I also hope that this latest madness will wake-up the majorities on both sides of the aisle to say enough is enough. Let’s get back to the business of serving free people with honor and decorum.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Read Full Post »