WEEK OF NOVEMBER 30, 2008
Bring
on the Outrage
In July 2008, Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks had
published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal
entitled Where's the Outrage? Really, in which
he cited recent surveys indicated that, in general, “outrage” about the state of
America had decreased since a similar survey was taken twelve years earlier. Prof. Brooks
uses this survey data to draw some generalized assumptions about Americans, which may or
may not be accurate. It was one of those examples of psychobabble that only academic
“intellectuals” would enjoy and claim to be authoritative.
Nonetheless, there have been numerous responses to the article, the
most widely discussed of which was that of Alisa
Wilson, Ph.D. Of Beverly Hills, CA. Her response has been published on numerous websites,
but I will present it again here because it is the focus of this article.
She wrote:
On July 31, 2008, the Wall Street Journal had an article titled, Where's The Outrage?'
Really. I can tell you where the outrage is. The outrage is here, in this middle-aged,
well-educated, upper-middle class woman. The outrage is here, but I have no
representation, no voice. The outrage is here, but no one is listening...for who am
I?
I'm not a billionaire like George Soros that can fund an entire political movement.
I'm not a celebrity like Barbra Streisand that can garner the attention of the press to
promote political candidates.
I'm not a film maker like Michael Moore or Al Gore that can deliver misleading movies to
the public.
The outrage is here, but unlike those with money or power, I don't know how to reach those
who feel similarly in order to effect change.
Why am I outraged? I am outraged that my country, the United States of America, is
in a state of moral and ethical decline. There is no right or wrong anymore, just
what's fair.
Is it fair that millions of Americans who overreached and borrowed more than they could
afford are now being bailed out by the government and lending institutions to stave off
foreclosure? Why shouldn't these people be made to pay the consequences for their
poor judgment?
When my husband and I purchased our home, we were careful to purchase only what we could
afford. Believe me, there are much larger, much nicer homes that I would have loved
to have purchased. But, taking responsibility for my behavior and my life, I went
with the house that we could afford, not the house that we couldn't afford. The notion of
personal responsibility has all but died in our country.
I am outraged, that the country that welcomed my mother as an immigrant from Hitler's Nazi
Germany and required that she and her family learn English now allows itself to be overrun
with illegal immigrants and worse, caters to those illegal immigrants.
I am outraged that my hard-earned taxes help support those here illegally;( our dummies in
government at work!!) That the Los Angeles Public School District is in such
disarray that I felt it Incumbent to send my child to private school, that every time
I go to the ATM, I see do you want to continue in English or Spanish? Every time I
call the bank, the phone company, or similar business, I hear press 1 for English or
press 2 for Spanish. WHY? This is America , our common language is English and
attempts to promote a bi- or multi-lingual society are sure to fail and to marginalize
those who cannot communicate in English.
I am outraged at our countrys weakness in the face of new threats on American
traditions from Muslims. Just this week, Tyson's Food negotiated with its union
to permit Muslims to have Eid-al-Fitr as a holiday instead of Labor Day. What
am I missing? Yes, there is a large Somali Muslim population working at the Tysons
plant in Tennessee . Tennessee , last I checked, is still part of the United States .
If Muslim's want to live and work here they should be required to live and work by
our American Laws and not impose their will on our long history. { Seems to me that
we should boycott all TYSON products until they become a part of the U.S. A. }
I plan to!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the same week, Random House announced that they had indefinitely delayed the
publication of The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones, a book about the life of Mohammeds
wife, Aisha due to fear of retribution and violence by Muslims. When did we
become a nation ruled by fear of what other immigrant groups want? It makes me so
sad to see large corporations cave rather than stand proudly on the principles that built
this country.
I am outraged because appeasement has never worked as a political policy, yet Appeasing
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is exactly what we are trying to do. An excellent article,
also published recently in the Wall Street Journal, went through over 20 years of history
and why talking with Iran has been and will continue to be ineffective. Yet talk, with a
madman no less, we continue to do. Have we so lost our moral compass and its ability to
detect evil that we will not go in and destroy Irans nuclear program? Would we
rather wait for another Holocaust for the Jews, one which they would be unlikely to
survive! ? When does it end?
As if the battle for good and evil isn't enough, now come the Environmentalists who are so
afraid of global warming that they want to put a bag tax on grocery bags in California; to
eliminate Mylar balloons; to establish something as insidious as the recycle police in San
Francisco. I do my share for the environment. I recycle, I use water wisely, I installed
an energy efficient air conditioning unit.
But when and where does the lunacy stop? Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the
map, the California economy is being overrun by illegal immigrants, and the United States
of America no longer knows right from wrong; good from evil.. So what does California do?
Tax grocery bags.
So, America , although I can tell you where the outrage is, this one middle-aged,
well-educated, upper middle class woman is powerless to do anything about it. I
don't even feel like my vote counts because I am so outnumbered by those who disagree with
me.
Alisa Wilson, Ph.D.
Beverly Hills , California |
Alisa Wilson does not seem to fit the profiles drawn by Professor Brooks. Her response to
the article drew counter-responses from like minded people who passed the messages around
via e-mail. One such response came from my former classmate Fred Bauer of Southlake, Texas,
who wrote:
The part of this piece that garnered my attention was the "I
am outraged... but I have no voice."
A part of this "no voice" might be when the media turned
from "patriotism" to "political correctness;" when it turned from
honoring our "national values" to "indoctrination of liberal
theology." Is this "turning" a result of external control by forces
that are using the media for their own ends, or is this "turning" a result of
the media actually reflecting what is happening to our collective mind (the WE the
People)?
The idea that "outrage" is building is one that can be
ignored only at our national peril.
Physics applies. What happens when ever increasing pressure is
applied to a vessel without a relief valve? Are we heading for something unintended?
Does every amoeba eventually split?
How telling is her phrase at the end: ",,, powerless to
do anything about it?" |
And another response came from friend-of-a-friend
Steve Curtis of Las Vegas, Nevada. Steve wrote:
This is very easy to respond to. It is clear by this last
election that the American voting public has lost their minds. The balance has
clearly tipped in the way Thomas Jefferson predicted it would if the insider threat won
over the populace (as it always has with humans throughout history, though never as fast
as it has happened to our country), namely, more people are dependant on the
“Government” than are dependant on themselves. This, to Jefferson, was the
tipping point of no return and signaled the time when promises and emotion meant more than
reality and reason. Jefferson was positive that no human civilization would yield
control to their Government if they were once given control over their Government (a first
in the history of the human race with our US Constitution). It was a bold experiment
that failed. It is as simple as that. Humans, as a race, are simply not
mature enough to have this privilege……at least no human races on earth today
(though there seem to be individuals of sufficient maturity, though none of them are in
leadership positions).
Now, Alisa. Here is what you have to understand. You only
control your own actions and you cannot control others’ actions. Simple, huh?
Maybe, but not so well understood. If George Soros can scare us with his
riches to do what will make him more rich, shame on us. If our hired politicians can
scare us into giving up our earned money so they can live the high life and buy our votes,
shame on us. If we vote out of emotion and fear for hope and change, shame on us.
Those Alisas among us, however, should never give up. Too many have already,
but we can ill afford to lose any more. Throw your hands up in “outrage”
if you must, but never give up. There was a time when more people were upstanding,
moral, beneficent, and selfless, but no more. Does that mean that we have to drive
the lobotomy spike into our head and follow the “messiah”? I know not
course that others may take, but I will captain my own ship, not sail with pirates.
But it is important to understand that ONLY YOU CONTROL YOUR OWN
ACTIONS and YOU CANNOT CONTROL OTHERS’ ACTIONS. Remember, influence and control
are far different concepts.
I will not be led to the “better condos” downtown just
because my “Government” feels that I do not fit their mold.
I will not choose the “lesser of two evils” because George
Soros decides that is what he wants us to choose from.
I will not change my actions from right to wrong because it is more
comfortable.
I will never abandon the best gift we have been given, the US
Constitution, through fear, harassment, or coercion and I will never respect those who do.
My advice to Alisa is to keep your comportment above board.
Never cave to the “go along with the crowd” mentality. Stick up for
morality, actions that are right and descent, and Constitutional thinking according to the
intent of the founding fathers. Understand that this is hard. Understand that
it may be unpopular in some (probably most) circles. Understand that it may reduce
your “friends” considerably. Understand that you are living in times when
many others have sold out their souls. In some cases, you may be verbally or
physically chastised. You should avoid this as much as you can, but you must not
give up your spirit to do so. I know there are enough of us in America that believe
in the US Constitution, morality and good deportment, but there are fewer and fewer that
will give up their comfort to act on it. Too bad, we had something good. Maybe
we can salvage something out of the ashes, but not if we give up our spirit and our souls
to the devil. So my advice is to control your actions according to your principals
and let others do as they will. It is valuable, rare, and influential in the long
run, but difficult to do in times like these.
Good luck, Alisa. I hope to have a beer with you some day and
celebrate our victory. I am sure I will be dead if our Constitution does not
survive, so if I am having a beer with you, that means we won. I simply will not
tolerate the alternative to our eventual victory.
It is interesting to note that Harry Reid, our senator and Senate
majority leader, with a popularity rating in Nevada lower than George Bush’s (but not
lower than Congress as a whole, of course) has begun his assault on the 2010 election
already. Only days after Brian Krolicki, our very popular Lieutenant Governor,
announced his intent to run against King Reid for his senate seat in 2010, a kangaroo
court was announced on “possible irregularities” in the placement of Nevada
state loan moneys in a separate account when Brian was the State treasurer. Funny
how it did not creep up until many years later and only came to King Reid’s attention
days after this announcement. It was made clear that there were no funds missing,
just that they were in the wrong account. Of course the headlines are screaming
scandal. The assault is on. The King will use any tactic to stay in power and
there are plenty of applicants for his many “toady” positions. Such is our
political system and the state of our citizens these days. Just beware. |
My own advice to Alisa is this—GET INVOLVED. You
have more of a voice than you think you do. Did you walk the neighborhoods, pass out
literature, or make telephone calls for a candidate who shares your views in this last
campaign? Cash donations or contributions alone do not give you a voice.
Are you a member of any clubs or other organizations that promote
views that are the same as yours?
Do you blog or write letters to your local newspaper’s editorial
pages?
There are many things that you can do that may not give you the voice
of George Soros or Michael Moore, but you will have a voice. In addition, you will have
the satisfaction of knowing that you are doing all you can to knock down those objects
that are the source of your outrage. Just go for it.
RETURN TO ARCHIVES LIST
RETURN TO HOME PAGE
The
Question That Will Not Go Away
After the editors of New Media Journal.us saw fit to publish on of my
recent articles, We, the People, in its Featured
Articles section this week, you would think that the last thing that I would do would be
to follow it up with critical analysis of any other article that appears there, especially
one posted by the Senior Editor, Nancy Salvato. Actually, I take exception to just one
minor point in Nancy’s otherwise excellent article, True Patriots Put
Country First. In her article, Nancy wrote:
| I don’t want to hear about Obama’s
socialist agenda, his birth certificate, his black liberation theological church, his drug
history, or any of the multitudes of extremist views he represents. It no longer
matters. Republicans lost the election. |
If she had
left out the issue of “his birth certificate”, I would not be writing this
article. When the American people elected Barack Obama, they already were aware of the
other issues that Nancy mentions in her article; they chose to ignore them and vote for
him anyway. As Ms. Salvato suggests, it is no longer the time to hash these things over;
rather, it is time for Republicans to move on, and for Americans to judge the new
President by his actual performance instead of his campaign rhetoric. We are already
seeing differences there, much to the chagrin of Obama’s Far Left followers, but not
too surprising to moderates and some conservatives. It is amazing how a simple dose of
reality can make a political candidate move away from his or her campaign promises.
Filling his Cabinet with former Clintonistas is not what many on the Left thought the
concept of “change” was all about.
The issue of Barack
Obama’s birth certificate is, however, a different matter. Questions regarding his
place of birth, and thus his eligibility to serve as U.S. President, were just surfacing
on November 4. They had been around long before, but few paid any attention to them,
including the major parties, the Federal Election Commission (which denies
responsibility), state election officials, and the voters themselves. Even then, the
unresolved questions would probably not affected the election because very few were
cognizant of their significance. Most would have been willing to overlook the fact that he
may not be eligible to serve. Such is the modern nature of constitutional issues in America
today; what the Constitution says or does not say is irrelevant unless it is our ox that
is being gored.
That lack of concern is not
universally shared, however. Dr. Edwin Vieira, in his article Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down of October 29
at NewsWithViews.com, writes:
| America is facing potentially the gravest
constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum
and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born
Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or
he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United
States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the
Electoral College meets. [Italics are Dr. Vieira’s] |
Dr. Vieira holds
four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School
of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years, he has
practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. He successfully argued or briefed
the cases leading to landmark decisions In the Supreme Court of the United States.
There has been much speculation
regarding the widespread rioting and destruction that would follow on the heels of Obama
stepping down if it were to be found that he is not eligible for the presidency. However
grave that would be, it would be far less damaging to our nation and its laws than a
situation in which a “usurper” were knowingly allowed to serve as president, as
Dr. Vieira discusses in his article.
We will learn more on December
5, when the Supreme Court meets in conference to discuss the petition by Attorney Leo
Donofrio, who had his original filing for an emergency stay denied by Justice Souter. He
subsequently refilled with Justice Thomas, and the conference was scheduled to determine
if the Court would hear Donofrio’s case. Although the odds are against the Court
taking this issue on, this does not mean that the issue will go away. The stakes are
simply too high to let the issue die, as Nancy Salvato suggests it should. It is not a
Republican vs. Democrat issue, as many have suggested. It is not a part of the “vast
right-wing conspiracy” as some perceive it. Until Barack Obama puts the issue to rest
by providing unquestionable evidence in the form of an original birth certificate, it will
remain a question that Americans of both political parties (and independents as well) who
respect and revere our Constitution will be asking.
RETURN TO ARCHIVES LIST
RETURN TO HOME PAGE
Who Says That We Have Lost Our Moral Compass?
It’s a rare occurrence when I have nothing but positive things
to say regarding what Sunday morning brings in the Denver Post’s “Perspective” section. This
is one of those times, and I am happy to give credit where credit is due. Since all but a
very few of my readers had the opportunity to peruse these articles, they are highly
recommended reading.
The first article comes from one of the newspaper’s guest writers at COLORADO VOICES, and it is entitled To
those ordinary men. In his article, writer Fidel Jaramillo pays tribute to our
fathers, and most of us cannot help but believe that he was describing our own father. He
writes:
| Having short-changed themselves, their dreams now a faint whisper, they have asked for
no repayment of the outstanding debt we most undeniably owe. We did not earn their love,
but they helped us survive, intact. These ordinary men will stand before their Creator
unashamed. And we who knew them will swear that Paradise would be meaningless without
them. |
Rest in peace, Pop. And Sig, know that thanks to your example, your
widow and your daughter will be loved and cared for.
The second article was written by former Colorado Senate President John Andrews, and
serves as a very appropriate Thanksgiving piece. In The Grateful Americans, John
Andrews writes:
| Sure, we have our share of troubles, some obvious and others carried secretly. But we
don't take today for granted. Remembering those who will never see another sunrise, who
gave or lost or wore out their lives to make ours possible, we live in the attitude of
gratitude. To us it's an obligation. We are the grateful Americans. We're not showy
about it; that's not our way. We'll dive in on the three F's of Thanksgiving Day —
family, feasting and football — with the best of them. But the meaning of this season
of thanks will be on our minds. The only "made in America" sacred day of the
year won't be lost on us. |
Let us all give thanks for what we have, and gain the wisdom to know
that those things for which we strive will only come through our own efforts, not from
someone else.
The third article focuses on how we as parents must change our priorities in raising
our children if we really want them to achieve success. In More
important than happiness, writer Ruben Navarrette tells us that merely wanting our
children to be happy will not achieve that goal. He discusses a recent interview with
child psychologist Aaron Cooper, where Cooper says that by far the most often stated goal
of parents that they raise their children to be happy. Cooper says that this is a
relatively new phenomenon, one that is far different from what our parents or grandparents
would have said. Navarrette concludes his article with:
| We should give up on trying to make our kids happy and concentrate on raising children
with good values, compassionate hearts, a mighty work ethic, respect for others and a
willingness to take responsibility for their actions. We should teach them to follow their
passion and strive to succeed, but to never forget that we learn a lot from failure. And
much of the rest will fall into place. |
Come
to think of it, all three of these articles are saying much the same thing. They describe
values that make America the great nation that it is, but ones that we are all too quick
to ignore in tough times. That is precisely when we should remember them the most.
RETURN TO ARCHIVES LIST
RETURN TO HOME PAGE
We, the People
The question is
this. Is the Constitution of the United States, as written, still relevant at all times
and in all situations, or is it a tool of convenience to be used only in those cases in
which itmeets our individual agendas and needs?
I would assume that most rational and informed Americans would reply
that it is the former; for the corollary to this question then is, if the Constitution is
not relevant at all times and in all situations, then why have it at all? For all the
differences and disagreements that are inherent in a democracy, what instead would form
the basis of our laws and a refuge from tyranny? And if the Constitution is open to
interpretation by government, have we not then become a nation under men instead of a
nation under law, subservient to the whims of men who we may or may not agree with? How
else can we retain our right to dissent, or freedom to speak, or our freedom to worship as
we choose?
No doubt there are some in our country who would willingly do away
with the Constitution entirely, as if it were some outmoded relic of eighteenth century
thought and culture. However, they have not offered their alternative, either out of
negligence or out of malice. Fortunately, the number of people who think this way are
relatively few, and do not at this time present a clear and present danger.
Even more dangerous today, however, is the apparent willingness of
most Americans at all levels and of every stripe and color to ignore the Constitution, as
if there were safety in numbers in doing so, because not to ignore it would be
uncomfortable and inconvenient. Such is the case with the current question, now before the
U.S. Supreme Court, regarding Barack Obama’s legal eligibility under Article II,
Section 1 of the Constitution to serve as President of the United States. It says:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a
Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.
Barack Obama claims to have been born in the United States, in Honolulu,
Hawaii on April 4, 1961. For those who may be wondering, Hawaii had achieved statehood two
years earlier, in 1959. His father was a citizen of Kenya, while his mother was an
American citizen. If his claim of a Hawaiian birth is correct, Obama is indeed a
natural-born citizen in compliance with the Constitution.
A question arose, however, when in an interview, Obama’s
paternal grandmother claimed to have been in the hospital room and witnessed Barack
Obama’s birth in Kenya, the home of his father. Under U.S. law, if this claim is
correct, Obama is not a natural-born citizen and therefore, under the Constitution,
is not eligible to serve as President. If both of his parents had been American citizens
at that time or if his mother had been at least 19 years of age, according to U.S. law
that existed then, he would have been considered to be a natural-born citizen. This was
not the case.
On August 21, 2008, attorney Phillip Berg, a Hillary Clinton
supporter, Democratic activist, and former Deputy Attorney General in Pennsylvania, filed
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Obama,
the democratic national Committee, and the Federal Election Commission. According to
blogger Jeff Schreiber on his America’s
Right website, Berg asked the court “for an injunction preventing the senator
from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next
week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold
the office of President of the United States.”
After much legal wrangling and a refusal by Obama to provide the
documents requested relating to his birth, the Court, on October 25, dismissed Berg’s
suit on the grounds that he had no “Legal Standing” to bring the case.
“Legal Standing” is a somewhat complex legal concept that is used by courts to
determine the appropriateness of cases, and in this situation the judge ruled that Berg
had not demonstrated that he would suffer “…more than just general harm, that
the harm can be traced to the conduct of the defendant, and that adjudication of the
matter can provide a remedy to that harm.”
I would strongly disagree with Judge R. Barclay Surrick, who issued
this ruling. If we, the people, represented by Mr. Phillip Berg, lack sufficient standing
to challenge what we believe to be violations of our Constitution, then who does?
Mr. Berg subsequently appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court,
bypassing the Third District Court of Appeals. he cited the “urgency” of the
issue for doing so. At the time of this writing, a decision by the Supreme Court is
pending.
Full details on the Berg case, as well as similar cases filed in an
effort to obtain the birth record information for the President-elect can be found at the
website America’s
Right.
The implications of this issue are immense. If, for example, it were
to be determined at some future time that Barack Obama was indeed born in Kenya rather
than in United States and that therefore he was ineligible to serve as the President, then
any and all presidential actions that he had taken during those intervening years,
including the signing of new laws, would immediately become null and void, and the entire
process would have to be repeated. Any treaties, foreign policy negotiations, or
commitments of our military forces would become worthless scraps of paper. Faith and trust
in the American Presidency would be destroyed, and our standing and respect in the world
ruined. We would once again have to undergo the tortuous ritual of impeaching of a
standing president, and face the prospect of a popularly elected leader facing a long
prison term.
This is a very unlikely scenario, but as far as we know now, one that
is not impossible.
On the other hand, consideration must be given to the events that
would transpire if we were to learn today that Mr. Obama was ineligible to serve was
forced to step down. Undoubtedly our country would witness unprecedented riots and civil
strife, probably requiring the establishment of marshal law to restore peace in the
streets. The question of who then would be sworn in as president would have to be
resolved, and it may even become necessary to hold another presidential election to
satisfy all of the interest groups that would demand a voice in the process.
Or we could ignore the Constitution and proceed on our merry way.
Then the next time a Constitutional issue arose, it would be a little easier to ignore it
again, based on precedent.
However, that is precisely what we are doing today. Despite the
seriousness of the issue and its potential implications, it is being totally ignored by
the print and television media. As a result, relatively few Americans are even aware that
the issue exists. The only place where serious attention is being given to it is on the
internet, which only a minority of Americans use to obtain their news. Even conservative
talk radio has been relatively mum on the issue.
To those in the media, the issue is perceived as being either
irrelevant or just another right-wing conspiracy to invalidate the election. Those
relatively few Americans who are aware of the issue are not equally aware of its relevancy
to the Constitution and our entire rule of law. To many, the thought of the turmoil that
would come about if Mr. Obama were to be
prohibited from assuming the presidency outweighs any and all concern about whatever long
term effects would come about.
Of course, the issue could be quickly and prudently resolved by
President-elect Obama voluntarily releasing his official birth records that, as most of us
believe, would validate his claim of an American birth. The longer he refuses to do so
merely adds fuel to the flames of speculation. If he does not, we can only wonder if the
Supreme Court would have the courage to resolve the issue by requiring him to release the
documents. For some reason, I do not believe that it would. If that is the case, the U.S.
Constitution will no longer be the Law of the Land.
RETURN TO ARCHIVES LIST
RETURN TO HOME PAGE |
