Before the presidential election, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) said that if Democrats gained a substantial majority on Capitol Hill, Congress would become more bipartisan. That was then…

This is now… Speaker Pelosi is planning to rewrite House rules that will completely shut out the Republican minority from having any influence whatsoever over legislation. Moreover, the retraction of the rules put in place by the House in the mid 90s will greatly reduce the transparency and accountability of members of Congress. It will also make cronyism the norm once again.

The American people have currently given control of Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill to the Democrats. The agenda, therefore, will be primarily that of the Democratic Party. One day it will again revert to the Republicans (these things go in cycles). The Democrats have been given temporary approval by the American people to put forth their agenda. They have every right to do so. But, while the Founding Fathers believed in majority rule, they also believed in minority influence. One does not have to read too far into The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers to know that the Founders embraced majority rule, while at the same time being wary of majority tyranny. Those in the minority were not in charge, but they were to be heard; and they were to be heard in such a way that the majority needed to be forced through procedural rules in the House and the Senate to listen to those who had no power to win the vote through numbers, but could sway compromise through the constraints that came through the checks and balances of the system. Speaker Pelosi clearly plans to lead the tyranny of the majority shutting out the minority as having no significance whatsoever. The Founders would be appalled. (Except for perhaps Thomas Jefferson, who would outright lie rather than concede anything to his opponents.)

President-elect Obama wants to foster bipartisanship. Whether or not he pursues that in actuality remains to be seen, but I believe he is sincere when he states such. The biggest threat to his bipartisan approach to the issues that Americans hold so dear, comes from the Speaker of the House of his very own party. Before the election, when Barack Obama promised he would foster a less partisan tone in Washington, I believed his sincerity and I still do. When Speaker Pelosi said before the election that a Democratic majority in Congress would mean more bipartisanship, I believed she was being disingenuous.

Speaker Pelosi is about to prove me right.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

You have to feel for Roland Burris. He’s come into a dream come true — appointed to be a US Senator. And his dream turned into a nightmare.

All of this drama because the Illinois Democrats didn’t have the stones to do something about Blagojevich. Now, the Senate Democrats want to do something to show they don’t approve of Blagojevich, so they want to punish … Burris.

By law, the governor of Illinois has the sole authority to appoint Obama’s replacement. The man he has named is to all appearances clean — maybe one of the few Illinois politicians not under investigation for something. There is no legal, or really even ethical, reason to deny Roland Burris a Senate seat.

Hopefully Reid and company will decide to handle this matter honorably rather than punish Burris simply because he’s the only one they can.

——-
Crossposted from My Three Cents

Just some thoughts to begin the year

————————————————-

What will it take for change to occur in this country in the next year? What will it take for this country to understand that the methods and the thoughts of the past have no place in the future and that those who cling to the past will find no future?

There is a gap in this country, a gap between the people. It is a gap between those who have and seek power and those who have no power or voice in this country. It is a gap brought about by economic and social differences. This gap grows larger every day, especially in terms of power; those who have power and seek power are so far removed from reality as to make any power they actually gain meaningless. They are removed from the reality in which the average American lives and cannot possibly comprehend the problems the average American encounters on a day-to-day basis.

The problems of this society, this country, and this world are the results of thinking in the past and believing that what once worked will work again. This is maybe the worst winter this world has every faced and if there are expectations that a new year will bring change by itself, there will be many disappointed people.

In the winter of 1776, Thomas Paine wrote of the times that “try men’s souls.” He wrote of the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, of people who were for the Revolution when things were good but turned against and away from the movement when things were going badly.

And in this winter of 2008, when the economic fortunes of this country and the world are sliding downward quickly and prospects for the future are bleak, we hear the same cries. There are those who are quick to blame others for these misfortunes, quick to say that one political philosophy or another is at fault.

There are many today who are the 21^st century equivalent of the sunshine patriot and the sunshine soldier that Thomas Paine so despised. They are the ones who are only interested in a solution that allows them to maintain what they have, be it in politics, economics, or social status. They are only interested in other people’s problems if such interest will further their own interest.

The people of this country will let others tell them how to think and what to say because what they are told fits within their own selfish interests. To let others think and speak doesn’t require much effort on an individual’s part.

Look at the nature of commercials on television today. Many of the commercials (and I am not speaking of the 30 – 60 minute infomercials that many stations use to fill up air time) that fill up the spaces on the cable television promise wealth, health, and success in ways that verge on illegal, dishonest, or unethical means.

We cannot see the contradictions in our rhetoric. The media is proclaimed to be liberal in nature but all you hear and much of what you read is conservative. The people cry out against illegal immigration and blame those who seek to enter this country in search of better opportunities. Little is said about the companies who hire the illegal immigrants and go unpunished and nothing is said about the fact that those who cry out the loudest are often the children and grandchildren of immigrants themselves.

Many of our parents and grandparents came to this country in search of better opportunities; the fight for freedom some two-hundred thirty-two years ago was about such opportunities. Yet, those who are the beneficiary of those opportunities want to say no to those individuals who seek the same opportunities and seem to forget the racism, bigotry, and oppression that their own ancestors meet.

Our politics have become the politics of fear, not hope. Our politics are more about who has the power in the present time rather than leadership into the new century. Each year political campaigns get longer and dirtier. While a new administration still has some three weeks to go before taking office, there are some who are already proclaiming its efforts a failure. And though the next never-ending set of political primaries and accompanying Presidential election is not until 2012, we are already speaking about the candidates who will be involved in that race. It is almost as if the 2008 election either didn’t take place or didn’t count.

Change is hard to accomplish when no one is willing to work for change or when one must give up something for the good of the people. We speak of this being the land where people can find opportunity but that is only true if you have the resources to seek opportunity. We speak of this land being the place where all can be successful but success depends upon your economic and social status. If you have no resources of your own, then you will not be allowed to seek your own opportunity. If you are not among the social, political, or economic elite, then you have no chance to be successful.

What will it take to effect change in the coming year and years to follow?

Change will not occur if individuals see others as a threat to their personal way of life. If we are intent on keeping what we have and getting more at the expense of others, if we are intent on seeking salaries that are unrealistic when compared to the salaries and wages of others, then change will not occur.

Change will occur when we no longer use war as the means for arbitrating disputes, when violence is not the answer to violence. Change will occur when we decide to do something about hunger, poverty, homelessness, and lack of medical insurance. Change will occur when we decide that housing and healthcare should be affordable and wages and salaries should allow a family to earn a reasonable living. Every human being living on this planet has a right to a decent place to live and access to medical care without bankrupting their lives.

To do all of this will require funds and that probably means higher taxes. And most people don’t want higher taxes. You can hear the critics how this will cost a lot of money and most of the money will be wasted. You can hear them howling that it would be better to let each individual decide what to do with their money. If the problems were new and limited in scope, that would be the most appropriate solution. But the problems have been left to fester and grow and now are beyond the realm of individuals acting independently.

When your thinking is on the short-term, it is hard to see the solution is a long-term one. The solutions will not come immediately and that is troubling to a society that is used to immediate gratification. It will call upon the many who have much to sacrifice and that will cause grumbling about those who feel that what they have is theirs and they do not want to share.

Change will occur when we stop thinking in terms of traditional labels. To be a conservative or a liberal is to wear an outdated label. Such labels are two sides of the same lens and we need to see the world in an entirely different manner.

Change will only occur when we realize that every life on this planet is precious and labels such as American, Iraqi, Iranian, Palestinian, Israeli, Indian, Afghan, or Pakistani no longer apply.

Change will only occur when we understand that we are altogether on this planet and that we must share in the resources equally. If we decide that because we are somehow better than others and thus entitled to more than others, we will die. Change will only occur when we understand that how we treat this world affects everyone living on Earth. We need to understand that the resources of this world are not limitless and that pollution does not immediately go away any more.

Change can only begin when we begin to focus on the future as much or more than we focus on the past. It will take a new mind set, a new way of thinking to solve the problems and make into the future. If we desire to maintain our present way of thinking with our present delineations in society because of race, creed, and status, then there will be no future. What it takes is for us to see that we cannot continue as we have in the past and that we need to be thinking about everyone together, not apart.

————————————–

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On  The Left

There was an interesting article in The Christian Science Monitor the other day (“Wanted: More science and math teachers in the US”) that caused me to wonder: should I laugh or should I cry? The premise of that article is that there is a drastic shortage of qualified science and mathematics teachers in this country and schools will need some 200,000 such individuals over the next decade.

I hold a Ph. D. in Science Education with an emphasis in chemical education and I have thirty years experience, yet I cannot get schools in this area to look at my resume or vita. Is the fact that I am “old” and have experience a factor in my not being hired? I have thirty years experience plus a commitment and dedication to teaching but no one is interested in hiring me. Why? Is it better for school systems across the country to hire “rookies” with virtually no experience and hope that they last?

More to the point and as the title of this piece implies, when are we going to learn what it takes to improve science and mathematics education in this country?

First, the good news; the article notes that about 1/3 of new science and math teachers typically leave the profession after three years. That’s an improvement; when I started teaching in 1971, it was about 50% over 5 years. But the reasons were about the same (lack of support, poor pay, or poor working conditions). The only problem is that not much else has changed in the thirty-plus years since I started.

The article notes fewer than 6 out of 10 science teachers are certified in the areas that they teach. Those are essentially the same numbers as ten and even twenty years ago.

The article noted that one of the teachers hired had to take courses on how to teach, not just to meet certification requirements but to understand how one successfully teaches science. Now, these are not the type of courses that critics of educational schools so often deride. I agree that there are a number of courses that education majors take that they could probably do without (I have taken one or two such courses) but courses in the methodology of teaching are as important to successful teaching as a core foundation in the subject that you are teaching. As with the statistics about the lack of certified teachers, the preparation of those teachers coming into the classroom is no better than it was ten or twenty years ago.

To me, the central point of the article was its statement that

“The United States is not only facing a dearth of future homegrown scientists and engineers, she and others say, but increasingly, everyday citizens need science literacy.”

And those in science education have been making the comment for the past twenty-plus years. We are still trying to find ways of getting qualified people in mathematics and science into the classroom and yet it doesn’t seem that our efforts have made much difference or impact. This is not the first time someone has suggested ways to improve science education and it is not the first time I have addressed the issue; see “The Crisis in Science and Mathematics (1990)”.

Why is it then that we keep addressing this same problem?

Read the rest of this entry »

Scott McKnight at Jesus Creed has waded into the tumultuous waters over President-Elect Obama’s invitation to Rick Warren to give the Invocation at his Inauguration. I was planning to post my own view on the matter tomorrow, but Scot’s perspective closely echoes my own, and he says it much better than I ever could, so I will simply link to his post and the ensuing discussion.

When a politician from either party attempts to reach across the aisle and work in bipartisan fashion with other politicians and civic leaders, the people who are the most angry about it are the extremists in the person’s own party and of his or her political persuasion. We only have to go back in recent history to recall how angry many partisan conservatives were that John McCain surprised everyone to win the Republican nomination for president. Rush Limbaugh carried on for more than a few days on his radio show about it, and Ann Coulter was bellowing that she was going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Why were they so upset? Because McCain, who is certainly conservative in many ways, nevertheless, has reached across the political aisle on many occasions in order to get something done, and many conservatives have felt betrayed by him often times.

Former Democratic Senator, Bob Kerry in a pre-election editorial warned that in order for President-elect Obama to work in bipartisan fashion, as he promised, the biggest obstacle he would face would not be from Republicans, but from his fellow Democrats on the extreme left, and those too excited over their new found monopoly on power. For years, liberals and the national media have portrayed conservatives as the only ones who are intolerant and ideological. While that is true for some conservatives, plenty of others do not fall within the intolerant camp. Now, that partisans on the left have the power they have longed for, what some (certainly not all) are now demonstrating is that all their talk of tolerance and working across the aisle and reaching out to those who disagree, has been all talk. What they are revealing is that there are just as many intolerant liberals out there as intolerant conservatives.

Conservatives do not have a corner on the market when it comes to Fundamentalism. There are plenty of Liberal Fundamentalists out there; and now that they see an opportunity to legislate their moral agenda, just like the Conservative Fundamentalists before them, they will gleefully and self-righteously push anyone out of the way they deem as a threat to their now moral majority.

President-Elect Obama is not even president yet, and he has four years of governing ahead of him with many difficult issues to confront. I have no doubt that since he is a Democrat, he will do plenty of things that will make his own party happy and also irritate Republicans in the process. That is to be expected. Why would Republicans expect a Democrat not be a Democrat, and why would Democrats expect a Republican not to be a Republican? But, unlike former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay (R), and current Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D), who both define bipartisanship as “You do it our way or you are the one who is being partisan!” President-elect Obama, seems to know that bipartisanship truly means working across the aisle and reaching out in honest fashion to people who do not share your most precious views. That kind of bipartisanship, not only includes politicians in Washington, but civic leaders as well.

Barack Obama has yet to be tested as president, but he did promise to reach out to all Americans. So far his Cabinet appointments and his invitation to Rev. Rick Warren and Rev. Joseph Lowry (who has differing views from Rick Warren on gay marriage) have demonstrated that he wants to keep that promise.

If Barack Obama continues on that path as president, we will get to see just how illiberal liberalism can be.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

Quote of the Day

…”The problem with Caroline Kennedy’s presumption to Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat is not lack of qualification or experience. The Senate houses lots of inexperienced rookies — wealthy businessmen, sports stars, even the occasional actor.”

“The problem is Kennedy’s sense of entitlement. Given her rather modest achievements, she is trading entirely on pedigree.”

“I hate to be a good government scold, but wasn’t the American experiment a rather firm renunciation of government by pedigree?”

“Yes, the Founders were not democrats. They believed in aristocracy. But their idea was government by natural — not inherited — aristocracy, an aristocracy of ‘virtue and talents,’ as Jefferson put it.”

“It’s not the end of the world, but it is an accelerating trend that need not be encouraged. After all, we have already created another huge distortion in our politics: a plethora of plutocrats in the U.S. Senate, courtesy of our crazed campaign finance laws. If you’re very very rich, you can buy your Senate seat by spending as much of your money as you want. Meanwhile, your poor plebeian opponent is running around groveling for the small contributions allowed by law. Hence the Corzines and the Kohls, who parachute into Congress seemingly out of nowhere.”

“Having given this additional leg up to the rich, we should resist packing our legislatures with yet more privileged parachutists, the well-born.”

“True, the Brits did it that way for centuries, but with characteristic honesty. They established a house of Parliament exclusively for highborn twits and ensconced them there for life. There they chatter away in supreme irrelevance deep into their dotage. Problem is that the U.S. Senate retains House of Commons powers even as it develops a House of Lords membership.”

You can read Charles Krauthammer’s entire editorial,”Camelot is Not a State,” here.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

The brouhaha over President-Elect Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Forest Lake, CA, and author of The Purpose Driven Life,  to give the invocation at his inauguration is mind-boggling to me.  Because he supported Proposition 8, he in the minds of the homosexual community, is unfit to pray.  Ok then.  Same old, same old, yarn - because you don’t support gay marriage you are a homophobe.  You are a hate monger, etc., etc.  Yawn.

In the midst of all of this Warren gives an interview with Ann Curry.

ANN CURRY: Your position [on gay marriage] has raised the spectre that you are homophobic.

Warren responds with a hearty laugh.

CURRY: You laugh, but that is why gay people are angry.

RICK WARREN: Well, I could give you a hundred –

CURRY: Are you homophobic?

WARREN: I don’t know any church in America that’s done more to help the gay community, particularly with AIDS, than Saddleback. But the hate speech against me is incendiary.

CURRY: If science finds that this is biological, that people are born gay, would you change your position?

WARREN: No, and the reason why is because we all have biological predispositions. I’m naturally inclined to have sex with every beautiful woman I see. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

Transcript HT: Cassy Fiano

Watch a video of this exchange: (HT: Hot Air)

There has been much debate over what changes need to happen within the Republican Party, but one area of consensus is that the GOP needs to do much better with Web 2.0.  Democrats in general, and the Obama campaign specifically did a masterful job with the new tools at their disposal.  So the GOP finds itself with a technology gap.  Potential RNC Chair candidates are finding themselves being vetted based on their positions and usage of Web 2.0.

Rebuild The Party is one such movement pushing advancement in technology, and though they have more suggestions than that, it is priority #1 for them.  The Next Right founded by Soren Dayton, Jon Henke and Patrick Ruffini is a place for "wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement."

Ft. Hard Knox and Grizzly Groundswell are other places that are trying to mobilize and equip conservative Web 2.0 activists.  Red County, a new place I discovered is mobilizing grassroots politics from the center-right. 

I would be remiss to not mention an up and coming trend utilizing Twitter - #TCOT or Top Conservatives on Twitter (founded by Michael Leahy - @michaelpleahy).  I joined a little while ago and at the time of writing this post I’m #277 out of 1375 people who have joined so far.  It is a great way to network on Twitter, and if you don’t have a profile - you should.  Feel free to add me @shanevanderhart, and sign up at the Top Conservatives on Twitter, when you do be sure to let them know I sent you.  They suggest 10 things that you can do to help build the conservative community on Twitter:

1. Follow everyone on this list.
2. Make a point of tweeting conservatives on the list who you don’t know, but you think might be interesting.
3. Use the "#TCOT" tag before tweets you think might be of interest to the entire community.
4. Tell your conservative friends who are not on Twitter to join now.
5. Do something nice for someone on the list.
6. If someone follows you, follow them back.
7. Try to keep your following to follower ratio greater than 0.85 to 1. The point of a community is to engage in a dialogue. You can’t engage unless tweets flow two ways.
8. Follow the people who follow people on the list with whom you have much in common. Especially follow people on the list who are rapidly adding new followers, such as @pinkelephantpun and @nansen.
9. Volunteer to be a Project Servant-Leader or Team Member on a #TCOT Action Project
10. Propose and gain approval for a new #TCOT Action Project.

If you are new to Twitter, never fear.  There is a Twitter 101 guide that you can check out.

I’m excited about the steps that are being taken.  This isn’t the only work that needs to be done, but it certainly is a need.

Originally posted at: Caffeinated Thoughts

Well the Senate killed the Automaker bailout, but the Bush Administration wants to keep hope alive.  The automakers want $14 Billion to help them with keep going through just one quarter next year.  My question is what then?  They can’t/won’t restructure in order to cut expenses - will they be back again with hat in hand?  Yes.  Giving them a bailout will do nothing to solve their fundamental organizational problems.

With the $14 Billion bailout being killed, the Bush Administration is now talking about using the $700 Billion bailout passed a little while ago.  President Bush himself said that:

"I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."

HT: Michelle Malkin

Domestic Divapalooza says its time to call the White House since this this is basically in his hands.  The number is (202) 456-1414

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts.

Most of us know by now that, during his last trip to Iraq, President Bush had to duck a couple of times as a reporter threw his shoes at him during a press conference, which in the Arab world, is quite an insult. Actually, I was quite impressed with the president’s quick reflexes. I hope that in another 15 years or so, my reflexes are that good.

What I have found somewhat distressing, though not surprising, is that certain American bloggers of the extreme leftist bent are quite pleased with the incident, and in fact, have found this reporter’s behavior quite acceptable, if not profound. They apparently lack the maturity and integrity to realize that such an attack on the leader of any nation, even with shoes, is unacceptable and should not be tolerated among people who have an interest in a civilized world. It is amazing how illiberal liberalism can be.

I understand that these individuals are opposed to President Bush’s policies. There are more than a few places where I have been quite disappointed with the president. But I do not find it remotely funny nor somehow just that someone would attempt to injure the President of the United States, whether it be George W. Bush or President-Elect Barack Obama. I find it infuriating when someone attempts to hurt my president, whether or not I voted for him, whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. Such behavior is unacceptable, and those who think otherwise need a time-out in the corner until they grow up.

There is bad news and good news in all of this. The bad news is that these bloggers disseminate their poisonous views publicly to the ten people who visit their blogs each day. The good news is that they hold no significant office. Thus, even though they think they have something important to say, they have no real influence.

Thanks be to God for that!

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

A colleague of mine from RedBlueChristian (ChrisB) has posted some thoughts concerning the bailout (see "Bailout Blues").  And his thoughts have prompted me to post thoughts of my own (in addition to the comments that I have posted to his post on his "other" blog ("My Three Cents").

Now, one of the few things that we agree on is that the bailout of the various industries is probably not the best idea.  The problem with bailing out the financial firms is that the money was given without any guidance whatsoever.  That’s not very good financial management.

And while Republicans may want UAW workers to make more sacrifices in return for bailout funds to save the auto industry, I heard nothing about the CEOs of any of the industries that the present administration has "rescued" or promising to help giving back their salaries and/or bonuses.

But the problem isn’t that the CEOs earning salaries and bonuses that are out of step with the income of their workers. The problem isn’t about the fact that our housing industry is in a virtual shambles and that our health care is a joke.  Our schools are not doing what schools are supposed to be doing, that is educating our children to better them for the future.

Now the problem is that the solutions that we are offering are solutions from the past and will only led to more problems.

When George Allen became the coach of the Washington Redskins, he spoke of the "future being now."  Well, if we are to even think of the future of this country, then we must begin thinking about the future now.

Since Congress seems dedicated to spending taxpayer dollars, let’s make the taxpayers the owners of the companies that are being bailed out.  Employee Stock Ownership Plans are not new ideas but they can be the basis for restructuring these companies.  It is clear that the present management has not done what it should have been doing and it is clear that many of the Boards of Directors, who have okayed large salaries and bonuses for management, has also failed to do what they should have done.  So why not let the workers own the company?  Can they do any worse?

Second, we seriously need to have new ideas about the direction of this country.  Yes, our roads really need some help and much of this country’s infrastructure is in sad shape.  But how much focus is given to making our schools better?  When we speak of our children being computer literate, are we speaking of them being able to use computers in new and creative ways or simply being able to download music to their music players or text messaging their friends?  Do all of the schools across this country have computers which are "state-of-the-art" with proper software?

Are we focusing  on the problems that we will encounter tomorrow or are focusing on the problems of yesterday?

The solution lies within us, not in government, and it lies within how we see tomorrow, not how much we want to hold on to yesterday.

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left.

The “no bailout?!” hysteria is about to hit a fever pitch, but I don’t think it’s the calamity many are declaring.

First, the Big 3 bailout question has been framed in terms of “we can’t let them fail!” But bailout and bust are not the only two options. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It exists to help companies get their act together.

But some don’t want them to file bankruptcy. Who and why not? Well, that should be obvious. Big labor knows that if the automakers go into chapter 11, all labor contracts are on the table for renegotiation. That’s not good for the unions. The evidence for this is that the unions jumped up to offer concessions to keep them out of bankruptcy (e.g., suspending the “jobs bank). If they have to go back to the bargaining table in this climate, they’re going to lose big, and they don’t want that to happen.

You can’t blame the labor unions for wanting to keep the deals they’ve gotten. Their job is to get the best deals they can for their people. The problem is that those deals are a big part of what’s killing the domestic car companies.

Second, even if one of them does close its doors, it’s not the end of the world. I understand the whole domino effect, and it would certainly be a hit to our limping economy, but we would survive.

What we may not survive is further strengthening the notions that the federal government holds the solution to all of our problems and that the American taxpayer is supposed to rescue poorly run companies.

We live in an increasingly consequence averse society. We don’t like to let anyone fail — be it students, little league teams, or poorly run businesses. Well, failure is a part of life, and it is frequently an important instructor. If one (or more) of the Big 3 has to close up shop, that will provide many important lessons for all the other car makers, “foreign” and domestic, and every other industry.

Most of all it well tell our society that failure is still an option in this country.

———-
Crossposted from My Three Cents

UN scientists are now claiming that human-made global warming has been proven beyond doubt.

But, more than 650 scientists, not a few of them formerly on the UN payroll and one-time human-oriented global warming believers, are about to issue strong dissent in a U.S. Senate report to be released very shortly.

It appears to this outside observer that contrary to what some seem to think, the debate over global warming is far from settled.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

Shock! Amazement! Wonderment!

Those were the words that seemed to resound through the “ether” when it was announced that the governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, had been indicted and arrested on corruption charges.

“How stupid can this guy have been?” was the question that my wife asked, in light of what Patrick Fitzgerald said at the news conference announcing the indictment.

Now, I will admit that I wasn’t all that surprised that this happened because Blagojevich had been under investigation for sometime and I was used to seeing the reports in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. That he would try something so bold while knowing he was under investigation underscores the stupidity of his actions.

But, I figure that it has to be in the water. After all, something like four of the last seven governors have been indicted on a number of charges and the governor that Blagojevich replaced, George Ryan, is currently serving 6-½ sentence for corruption related offenses.

And while others will look at the connections between the Governor of Illinois and the President-elect, I want to look at ways that we can fix this problem. Political corruption is nothing new and this merely reinforces the notion of many people that politics is something evil. So let’s get rid of politics. But how shall we govern this nation?

There is a need for government, if for no other reason that without a government, anarchy in some form would result. We saw it in the time between the completion of the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution when this country was simply a loose confederation of states. But each state was effectively its own country and the dealings with the other states/countries proved to be exceedingly difficult. Those who met in the Constitutional Convention saw the problems inherent to a confederation type of government and proposed a new form of constitutional government. But the one thing that was not in the planning for the new government was the nature of the human animal and our capacity to take power in any form to the excess.

So, perhaps we need a new form of government. There have been many arguments for some sort of Internet presence in the government. The last few political campaigns have shown the viability and necessity of establishing a presence on the Internet so why not somehow develop governing by electronic means.

But, if for no other reason that many people do not have immediate and constant access to the Internet, I don’t think it will work. There are many people in this country and throughout the world who do not even have a computer. And while we may proclaim the Internet as “the new democracy”, if there is one person who does not have a computer, then this “new democracy” is flawed. And it isn’t just having a computer; it is easy and sustainable access that is needed. We aren’t there yet and until we have this new infrastructure in place, using the Internet as a means of government will not work.

And even if we did have easy and sustainable access with everyone having computers, that is no guarantee that they will know what to do with that capability. I have heard so many times that the present generation of school kids are the most technologically savvy generation we have ever seen. If we limit that technology to downloading songs to their MP3 players or text messaging their friends, perhaps that is the case. But using the computer to prepare documents and gather information is another issue and until this generation, the next generation, or any generation can utilize the technology to consistently create new information, it will be a long time before the technology in use matches the technology of Star Trek. Read the rest of this entry »

When the question of whether Barack Obama was really a US citizen came up months ago, I assurred my wife that this was all nothing because there was no way someone would be able to get as far as he had without proving his bona fides.

Apparently I was wrong. (Don’t tell her.)

Whether or not the Supreme Court ultimately decides to hear the Donofrio case on this question, one thing has been made perfectly clear:

No one asks for proof of citizenship when you file to run for federal office.

How is this possible? As ridiculous as it sounds, if this were not the case, the question of Mr. Obama’s citizenship would not have lasted this long.

Frankly, I don’t think the Supreme Court will take this case for one simple reason: What will happen if they find out he’s not a citizen? More to the point, what would happen if we had to say he could not be president (and I’m not just talking about a Biden presidency).

At the same time, can we have this hanging out there for the next 4-8 years?

Congress, please fix this. This can’t happen again.

————
Crossposted from My Three Cents

The head of the FDIC said Tuesday the government needs to devise an ‘exit strategy’ for its massive financial rescue plan to avoid artificially propping up banks and other institutions over the long term (Read the full story here).

I agree. There certainly is an important place for government help in the midst of the current financial crisis, but at the same time the American taxpayers do not have unlimited resources, and we also need to let the market work through this as well. If government keeps stepping in, it unintentionally threatens to take away the incentive for businesses and financial institutions to do what they need to do; and one essential element for the free market is incentive.

I know that many people are hurting right now, but we must avoid the extremes of no government assistance on one hand, and believing, on the other hand, that Washington DC holds the keys to the solution. Tyler Cowan, an economist at George Mason University believes that in this current crisis we should look to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to assist us in figuring out what might help us now, but he also says we should dispel the myth that it was the New Deal that moved us out of the Great Depression. He writes in The New York Times,

Many people are looking back to the Great Depression and the New Deal for answers to our problems. But while we can learn important lessons from this period, they’re not always the ones taught in school.

In short, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the ’30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.

The problems we currently face are complex, which means the solutions are not clear. Those who are zealous laissez-faire capitalists need to understand that there is a necessary place for government in working through our current dilemma. Those who favor more control and a tighter grip by the federal government, need to realize that in a free market economy, when Washington squeezes too tight, it can strangle the incentive and the entrepreneurship that will ultimately lift us out of this great recession.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at Allan R. Bevere

As Americans began to celebrate God’s blessings on our lives, people on the other side of the world were being killed like targets in a shooting gallery. Many Americans, being Americans, have responded by wondering how best to kill anyone who tries the same thing here.

Many states already permit citizens to carry concealed firearms; is it time for a national call to arm the citizenry? The states have shown it can be handled responsibly. People who have been properly screened, trained, and tested can be a citizen militia. The police cannot be everywhere, even less the army, but if people everywhere are capable of dealing with mad gunmen, incidents here like what occurred in India last week would not have the same loss of life – if they even occurred (who, after all, wants to attack people who are armed?).

In the days of post-9/11 airport security, I have found myself thinking that the problem that day wasn’t that the terrorists had box cutters but that everyone else didn’t. When everyone is unarmed, the guy who sneaks in a steak knife wins the fight. When everyone has a knife, the guy who sneaks in gun will probably win – but the folks with knives will have a much better chance than those without one.

Which leads me to the obvious objection – guns and knives are no use against bombs or falling airplanes. That is absolutely true and absolutely beside the point. There is no way to prepare yourself for every possible scenario, but that shouldn’t prevent you from preparing for all you can.

And if Hamas-style bombings were to be attempted here, there is at least hope that armed citizens might be able to identify and neutralize these people before they are able to detonate a bomb in a mall, school, or church.

Do Christians dare take a life to defend their own? That’s a topic for another time.

———-
Crossposted from My Three Cents

For what do we have to be thankful this year? I am first thankful that I can post my thoughts. To post my thoughts and express my beliefs is, first and foremost, what I believe this day is about. While it may not have been the reason that the first thanksgiving was celebrated in 1621 or the reason for Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation of a national day of thanksgiving in 1863, we have ever reason to be thankful for our freedoms.

But I view Thanksgiving this year with some degree of cynicism. While I am thankful that I am working, I am only working 8 – ½ hours per week and earning less than 25% of what I should be making. I submit resumes and vitas but I don’t hear anything back. But I am thankful that I am working because there are people who are losing their jobs and the signs are that more people will be losing their jobs.

I will celebrate this Thanksgiving with my family and for that I am thankful. But I know of at least 1000 families for whom the Thanksgiving meal that our local churches provided this year will not have to feed them today but for the weekend as well because the food banks upon which they so depend are closed for the holidays. And next week, when the regular routine resumes, there will probably be more people in line as has been the case each week this year. The food bank at our church serves 150 families per week and that number has been increasing.

I have reasons to be thankful. But I also have reasons to be worried. For with Thanksgiving comes the celebration of Advent and the coming of Christ; the coming of Christ should come a celebration of peace and mankind. But I cannot see how, today, when there are so many things working against our being thankful, we can focus on what this day and the next four weeks offer us.

There is hope in Christ and for that we have to be thankful. And with that hope, we need to make sure that others have the same opportunity.

———————

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

For the past few months, I have been trying to find a joke that describes the differences between Democrats and Republicans. There are several parts to this joke comparing the attitudes and behaviors of such individuals. The punch line for the last comparison points out that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is why there are so few Republicans and so many Democrats. But now matter how I phrase the search, I can’t seem to find the joke.

It’s not that I haven’t found jokes with that title; it is just that most of these jokes are very sarcastic (not to say that the one I am looking for isn’t) but there are limits to sarcasm and some of these jokes go beyond the boundaries of good taste.

In the meantime, I could not help but note that John McCain’s presidential campaign recently used the songs “Running On Empty” by Jackson Browne and “Still the One” by John Hall (when he was with the group Orleans). I don’t know Jackson Browne’s political affiliation but John Hall happens to be a member of Congress and a Democrat. And the problem with this particular example is that George Bush used the same song in his presidential campaign in 2004.

Jackson Browne has sued the McCain campaign for failing to ask his permission to use the song; the McCain campaign has filed a motion asking that the suit be dismissed because the ad was covered under “fair-use standards.”

Republicans believe in business and the individual but they fail to respect one of the basic aspects of private enterprise, the copy-right. No matter what one’s political beliefs may be, it seems to me that if you state that you are for the individual and then you take that individual’s property (be it real property or intellectual property), you are doing what you complain the other person does.

————————-

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

GW Bush claims to “believe in the free market.” If faith without out works is dead, then lets take a look at his works. A look at the numbers tells the story.

With thanks to www.reason.com (“Bailout Balance Sheet”, November 7, 2008 by Katherine Mangu-Ward and Anthony Randazzo) here are the totals–so far at least:

$29 billion for Bear Stearns
$143.8 billion for AIG (thus far; it keeps growing)
$100 billion for Fannie Mae
$100 billion for Freddie Mac
$700 billion for Wall Street, including Bank of America (Merrill Lynch), Citigroup, JP Morgan (WaMu), Wells Fargo (Wachovia), Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and a lot more
$25 billion for the Big Three in Detroit (so far)
$8 billion for Indy Mac
$150 billion for stimulus package (from January)
$50 billion for money market funds
$138 billion for Lehman Bros. (post bankruptcy, through JP Morgan)
$620 billion for general currency swaps from the Fed

Rough total: $2,063,800,000,000—Two trillion and growing!

In the 90’s we had a Clinton in the Whitehouse and a financial crisis a brewin’. What did the big spending liberal commie democrat do? Nothing. Much to the chagrin of the sock puppet from pets.com we let the market determine which companies were worth saving and which ones needed to be restructured.

America is facing a major economic crisis. However, at a time like this Americans (The People) better not allow the apocalyptic fear espoused by professional power-based politicians, and especially Obama, cause us to stick our heads in the sand. Actually, it is times like these that “The People” better watch the chicken coop much closer. If we do not then we will repeat the mistake that was made by us doing Bush’s war on terrorism. We allowed Bush and the Congress to do things out of the fear of terrorism. Now, Obama’s fear issue is not terrorism, but the economy.

The People must watch Obama in two primary areas right now: the Federal Constitution (attempts to side step and change Constitutional processes) and the Federal Budget (economic plans that are not realistic in light of the Federal Budget Crisis we are facing).

What are Obama’s primary sources of revenue?

The federal government receives approximately $2.4 trillion each year in revenue for four primary sources:

1 - Individual income taxes at 43.4% (52 million people pay little or no taxes). Obama is going to implement a welfare handout to all lower and middle class people (what he calls tax cuts). This includes the 52 billion. Obama has decided not to raise income taxes on those making more than 250,000. This means income tax revenue will decrease under Obama.

2 - Social insurance and retirement receipts at 34.8% 

 Obama wants to increase Social Security tax on those making more than $250,000 a year. However, this will in no way meet the need for retiring Baby Boomers. So, Social Security taxes will be decreasing, while Social Security spending will go up, way up.

3 - Corporation - big & small - income taxes at 14.7%. Obama wants to cut taxes for some companies, and raise them for others. So, we will have to see how this revenue washes out.

4 - Excise - alcohol, tobacco, gas - taxes at 3.1%.

5 - Other at 4.1%.

What will Obama spend money on?

The federal government spends its money in six primary areas:

ENTITLEMENT SPENDING

1 - Security Security at 20.7%
2 - Medicare at 12.4%
3 - Medicaid at 6.8%

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

1 - General Discretionary at 31.9% (
Education
 Veterans Space Program etc) Obama plans for HUGE new general discretionary spending)
2 - Defense Discretionary at 19.7% 
(Obama states that we will save money as we end the war in Iraq and pull out troops. But, Obama has made Afghanistan his war, and he plans to expand this war by adding more troops. How much we will really save in this war exchange still remains to be determined.

DEBT SPENDING

1 - Debt - $9 Trillion (Obama has no budget plans to pay for our debt. Under Obama, the debt will explode)
2 - Interest on Debt at 8.5%. (this percentage will grow significant under Obama as we borrow more money)
3 - Obama will continue to spend our Social Security taxes. This means as Baby Boomers retire we will have no Social Security trust fund to pay for it. This is the federal governments Social Security debt.

BOTTOM LINE: Under Obama, federal revenue will be going down, AND federal spending and the debt will be exploding. Much of this will be done under the disguise that if he dosn’t do this then America will enter a deep depression. Short-term it might provide some basic stability, but in the long-term it will make America’s economy much worse.

Brad Hightower thinks I am missing the big picture of Obama’s economic strategy. Brad is a good thinker and blogger, and so I thought I would publish his thoughts. I add a few comments in caps.

“Andrew, I think you miss the Obama agenda. What is needed is threefold and they both are absolutely necessary to avoid very high unemployment.

1. The banks have to be rescued. This is simply not an option. If capital is not available, the entire system will collapse. The entire accounting system of every business is based on the availability of credit. If credit continues to dry up the whole economy will contract. The federal government has to act to save jobs. OBAMA PLANS TO BAILOUT MUCH MORE THAN THE BANKS, WITH NO GUARENTEE OF NEW MAJOR CREDIT AVAILABILITY.

2. Demand is the ultimate problem of any recession. We need middle class tax relief and possibly stimulus to generate demand. This is why Obama says we have to not worry about deficits for a while. If demand or consumer confidence does not respond pretty quick, we will see a huge round of layoffs in every sector. This round will then lower demand further and the whole system spirals until government steps in to artificially generate demand. OBAMA’S NEW WELFARE HANDOUTS (THAT ARE OFTEN CALLED TAX CUTS) HAVE NO ASSURANCE OF CREATING OR SAVING JOBS. IT REALLY SCARES ME WHEN OBAMA SAYS THAT WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT DEFICIT AND DEBT SPENDING.

3. Jobs..The Obama plan as it unfolds will be a huge public works plan for infrastructure. The infrastructure is needed anyway but what the dems will push is energy technology. This is very important. In the same way that the cold war under Reagan led to huge deficits, the investment ultimately led to a huge burst in technology which came out of the military buildup and the military’s need for technology. WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY COMING FROM?

The point is the government does need to interrupt the crisis with decisive action or the whole system will collapse. Without this leadership, we are in for a significant contraction. SOME GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP IS GOOD, A FAR-REACHING LEADERSHIP BECOMES SOCIALISTIC IN PRACTICE.

Those who have read my blog or heard me preach know that I am a southerner and a 2^nd generation military brat by birth.  Without doubt, where I was born and where I grew up in this world had a lot to do with how I feel and what I think of the world around me.

I was raised in an environment where the races were divided, in other words, segregated, and people were taught that this was the way that it was to be.  They held to the belief that the separation of the races was ordained by God and to breakdown this barrier was to go against the Word of God.

But over the years as I moved from Texas to Alabama to Colorado to Missouri and then finally to Tennessee I realized that segregation was not right and no matter how it was stated or what doctrine was applied to this belief (“separate but equal”), keeping people separate never made people equal.  In fact, all segregation seemed to do was make sure that those who have will keep what they have and those who do not have anything will never get anything.  Segregation was never about race but about economic status and the desire of some, mostly white, to keep power in their own hands and not to share it.

Those who sought to keep segregation as the status quo used fear as their primary means of control.  Listen to the rhetoric of those who proclaimed states’ rights and were so vehemently opposed to integration and you hear words of fear, fear of what would happen if children of the various races were allowed to go to school together or sit at the same lunch counter.  It was fear that allowed businesses in the south to keep unions out by claiming that through integration and union organizing, blacks would take jobs away from whites.

Fear is perhaps the most dangerous emotion because it provides the environment for hatred and violence to grow.  I am not old to remember the Joseph McCarthy era (I would think that for many of my generation, the only McCarthy they can remember is Eugene McCarthy) but I have seen pictures and old video tapes of what transpired during that time in the early 50’s.  If fear had a face, it was of a man standing before an audience and claiming to have the list of known Communists working in the State Department.   My wife was a young girl of ten when the McCarthy hearings began in 1953 and almost twelve when they ended in 1955. Though she didn’t understand the full scope of these hearings she knew there was a fear component in what was being said on the television. Out of this grew what has become the hysteria know as McCarthyism and anyone who once knew someone who may have been in the same room with someone who thought about joining the Communist party was quickly labeled the same. 

We get in an uproar when someone suggests that the phrase “under God” be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance but we fail to remember that it was put into the Pledge during this period of fear and hysteria.  And remnants of this fear and hysteria are still with us to this day; some people still have to sign loyalty oaths (see “Pledges and Loyalty Oaths”) in order to receive their paychecks.  Loyalty oaths are vestiges of that period.

So why do I speak of years gone by?  While the people who invoked such fears in our parents and older siblings may be gone, their descendants are still with us.  There is evidence that the election of Barak Obama will and has brought back those same attitudes of fear and hatred that so dominated this country in the 1950’s.

And understand this, fear works best in darkness and ignorance.  Those who use fear to incite others do so because they are only interested in keeping themselves in power and in control of what others do.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was right when he said “that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  Fear is the product of ignorance and which results in the spawning of hatred.

Let those who would spread hatred and violence do so but make them stand in the light of truth and justice.  For in such light, they will wither and die.  Make sure that you understand what is going on and don’t let the so-called experts tell you what to think; do your own thinking and make your own decisions. There are people who refuse to look at the problems of the world with a critical eye. They prefer to believe what the pundits and talking heads spew because either they are too lazy to read, study and learn about “why” the problems exist or because the rhetoric of fear and hate fits in with their core beliefs. It was easier for them to believe that segregation fit in with God’s plan rather than look at the evils of segregation. They forgot that Jesus had given us the two Great Commandments –“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments rest all the law and the prophets.”

There are clear and visible economic and social problems in this country and this world.  To use the words and tactics of days past will not solve these problems.  The only thing that will solve these problems is a critical look at the problems and a rational discussion of possible solutions.  This requires an educated and informed people, not a group of self-proclaimed experts telling us what to think or believe and inciting our fears.  Some of the biggest challenges facing this nation and the world cannot be solved with fear. Words of hatred and fear will only exacerbate the problems that already exist.

Thomas Paine in his writings called the darkest days of the American Revolution the “times that try men’s souls.” These present times match that darkness; the success or failure of the American Experiment rests on our ability to move boldly and fearlessly into the future, even if it is not clear or certain what that future will bring.

————————–

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

Obama promised that he would bring economic health to America through a “bottom up” economic plan. The reality is, he is implementing a “Federal Government Down” economic plan of corporate bailouts, welfare handouts, huge spending plans, and new federal programs.

The most important issue facing America right now is JOBS! Job creation is the number one issue in my view.

Based on Obama’s own website, this is his “federal government down” economic plans: The first thing he says is “The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has a role to play to ensure that every American is able to work at his or her highest capacity.” That’s right, the federal govenment, not primarily private businesses. Here are his 12 initiatives:

1 - Obama will double FEDERAL funding for basic research, expand the deployment of broadband technology and make the research and development tax credit permanent so that businesses can invest in innovation and create high-paying, secure jobs.

2 - Obama will improve access to jobs: America’s families and businesses depend upon workers having reasonable access to their places of employment.

3 - Obama will double the FEDERAL JOBS Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to ensure that additional FEDERAL public transportation dollars flow to the highest-need communities and that urban planning initiatives take this aspect of transportation policy into account.

4 - Obama’s urban agenda will also help facilitate the creation of new jobs in underserved economic areas, so more low-income urban residents can find employment within their home communities.

5 - Obama will make long-term FEDERAL investments in education, language training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths – our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism – to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a global economy. A critical part of this process is ensuring that we reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and ensure that it strengthens FEDERAL investments needed for success in the 21st Century.

6 - Obama will increase funding for FEDERAL workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable jobs.

7 - Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.

8 - Obama will reduce crime recidivism by providing ex-offender supports: America is facing an incarceration and post-incarceration crisis in urban communities. Obama will create a prison-to-work incentive FEDERAL program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership and work to reform correctional systems to break down barriers for ex-offenders to find employment.

9 - Obama will reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, increase FEDERAL resources for community colleges and lifelong learning initiatives to ensure our citizens can continue to gain new skills throughout their lifetimes.

10 - Obama will also modernize and expand the existing system of trade adjustment assistance to include workers hurt by changing trade patterns.

11 - Obama will create flexible FEDERAL education accounts that workers can use to retrain.

12 - Obama will expand and fully funded FEDERAL apprenticeship programs to help workers get credentials and skills in crafts that reward that investment with a middle class income and benefits.

For Obama, bottom-up (grass roots folks) really means federal-government-down (professional politicians spending tax-payers money).

More SmartChristian.com

As this economic crisis looms, we are hearing answers from everyone as to how to stave off recession but no one is looking at the root causes. We as a nation no longer embrace (beyond lip service) the historical values that made us the richest nation on earth.

As a nation we affirm the concept of economic liberty but in practice we are increasingly repackaging socialism on both the right and the left. A brief look at the Communist Manifesto follows…

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Public Domain Laws are being used more and more and with less and less rational justification. The National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service all to differing degrees rent out logging rights, picnic rights, hiking rights, camping rights, hunting rights, etc. We even do this abroad by taking over other countries and building bases bigger than the vatican in them.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

April 15th ring a bell.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

While not yet done in full we do have the euphemistically named estate tax or “death tax” that seriously infringes on inheritance. Then the receiver of said inheritance is taxed on the “income.”

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Throughout modern history we have found enemies to do this to. Communists, Asians, Mexicans, Muslims etc.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Federal Reserve. Treasury purchase of equity in banks.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

The FCC. Also, the Federal Gov’t cuts highway funds to states who don’t comply with their wishes thus regulating transport.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

EPA. Gov’t purchase of many businesses.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Farm subsidies. Central planning, price fixing and buyouts to not farm certain crops in agri-business.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Social welfare, corporate welfare, callous disregard for 9th and 10th Amendments.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

Department of Education.

In preparing for this Sunday’s sermon (I am at Lake Mahopac UMC this Sunday; service is at 10 am), I heard the speech that Bobby Kennedy gave in Indianapolis, Indiana the night of Martin Luther King’s death on April 4, 1968.  In light of what is transpiring right now in this country, it is important to read the words that he spoke that night.

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness; but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or they be black.

Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of the world.

Statement on the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Indianapolis, Indiana, April 4, 1968.

I also came across these words that he spoke the next day.

"What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by an assassin’s bullet.  "No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of reason.
"Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded." On the Mindless Menace of Violence, Cleveland, Ohio, April 5, 1968.

What he said in Cleveland was in response to the riots and violence that transpired across the nation the night before.  What is important to remember is that there was no violence, there were no riots in Indianapolis that night.

I am not certain the direction this country is going but I would hope that we consider where we have been and decide that perhaps we need to walk in other direction.

————

Cross-posted to Thoughts From The Heart On The Left

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

Theodore Roosevelt

***
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

Abraham Lincoln

***
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

James Madison

***
“Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.”

Woodrow Wilson