The rise of the disgruntled

Just about seven years ago, shortly after President Obama took office, pockets of unrest started forming throughout the nation. Some of those groups began identifying themselves with variations of the Tea Party name, holding rallies and other events that generally focused on fiscal matters. Some of these independent groups said that their use of the Tea Party label was a throwback salute to the rebellious Boston Tea Party event of 1773. Others were more specific, saying that the TEA acronym stood for “Taxed Enough Already” and that their push was for major cuts in taxes at all levels, even if that meant eliminating some government services.

It seems strangely (and conveniently) coincidental that the movement grew to prominence at precisely the time that Democrats regained the White House with the election of the first non-white president. Defenders of the Tea Party’s honor have made claims that the roots of their cause took hold well before 2009, though one is hard pressed to realistically remember any such activity. Of course, people have been complaining about taxes since the first tax was collected.

As the assorted Tea Parties were gaining strength, the USA saw growth within another sub-culture… the sovereign citizen movement.  Essentially believing that the federal and most state governments have no authority, these individuals often refuse to pay taxes or fees imposed by government agencies. Many don’t register their vehicles, obtain driver’s licenses, or even use ZIP codes… as these are enacted by a government they don’t recognize.

Probably the most famous personality of the sovereign citizen realm is Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who for over twenty years has refused to pay fees for grazing his cattle on federally owned land. Bundy became somewhat of a cult hero when a standoff developed between the US Bureau of Land Management and a group of armed supporters. The matter ended without violence when government officials withdrew, effectively giving Bundy a victory. As this column was being written, three of Bundy’s sons are organizers of an armed occupation of federal property in Oregon, clearly emboldened by their family’s previous encounter.

There have been other notable occupations of federal property -- Alcatraz, Wounded Knee -- that ended in violence. But then, those occupiers weren’t white dudes with Twitter and Facebook accounts. But I digress.

A third faction that has gained in popularity over the past few years are militia groups. Usually heavily armed and self-trained, less than 200 of these anti-government groups were known to exist in 2008. Fueled by fears of a possible government crackdown on gun ownership helped the growth of these groups throughout the country, even though no real effort to limit the rights of Americans to own guns has materialized. Of course, just the implied threat, real or imagined,  is enough to motivate gun sales and discourage most elected officials from considering legislation that could be seen as impeding the average American from purchasing whichever weapon he so chooses.

It is right about here that someone will argue that President Obama’s plans for executive orders that, if fully enacted, could curtail gun sales. But most of what the president is offering are just suggested guidelines, and the strongest would require funding that the Republican-led Congress is not about to approve. Meanwhile, gun dealers are reporting a huge boost in sales… so let’s put aside any worries about how the government is going to empty out the Average Joe’s gun cabinet.

Nope, there’s no way the government is going to do anything to disarm the citizenry. But it is also clear that the government is no closer to solving the problem of gun violence.

So far, we’ve discussed the Tea Party, sovereign citizens, and militias. As diverse as these groups may be, they have many similarities. They all distrust government. They all have big problems with government actions like taxes and regulations. And they all saw intense growth in reaction to the 2008 election.

And… the lines between them are increasingly blurred.

I’m not saying that these three groups have exactly the same goals. But it’s really hard to tell where one stops and another starts. Log onto a random Tea Party website and you’re just as likely to see a discussion about the Second Amendment as you are efforts to trim taxes. Talk to a militia member and you’ll hear complaints about entitlement programs. And the Bundy family is proof that a large feature of the sovereign citizen movement is the combination of anti-tax sentiments and gun proliferation.

One thing is certain: you won’t find too many Democrats in those groups. And that’s a big problem for the GOP. You see, if the Republican party allows itself to be defined by those on the fringe, it has virtually no chance to field candidates who can draw votes from outside their own party.

And that’s a recipe for disaster come Election Day.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald January 7, 2016.)

Born in the USA?

My great-grandfather was born in Europe. He met and married my great-grandmother there and a few years later moved to the USA. Over time, they raised a family. They were poor by most standards, but they worked hard -- my great-grandfather was a cobbler and his bride was a seamstress -- and they were good members of their community.Their children were born here… in the United States… and were each given a priceless gift at birth: citizenship. Because she was born within the borders of this nation, my grandmother instantly became a citizen, something that could never be taken away.

Or could it?

There is a growing movement in certain political circles aimed at ending the practice of birthright citizenship. It’s a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail, and the opinions on both sides are strong, even if the arguments are a bit weak.

The Fourteenth Amendment officially became part of the Constitution in 1868 and since then its opening sentence became the standard for recognizing who is, actually, an American. The amendment’s Citizenship Clause states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

There it is, plain and simple. If you were born here, you belong here. You’re one of us. (Of course, there are a few exceptions, such as children born to foreign diplomats.) But not everyone is happy about that.

Growing out of the long-running debate over immigration reform, the question of whether to continue the practice of birthright citizenship has taken its place as one of the key discussion topics in the current race for the White House. Candidates, commentators, and coffee klatchers are arguing, sometimes fiercely, about whether a baby should have such a right.

Naturally, those in favor of changing the status quo are quick to point to undocumented immigrants -- the so-called “illegal aliens” -- and calling for rejection of automatic citizenship for their children. Those who seek to preserve the 14th Amendment as is are just as forceful in arguing that its language was carefully selected to assure that all born here are given equal treatment despite the origins of their parents. After all, some of the first to benefit from the amendment were former slaves who previously had no legal claim to citizenship.

You can be sure that those on the side calling for change would claim that they are only concerned with the undocumented, that they would have no problem with granting citizenship to the children of immigrants who are here with legal documentation. But I have to wonder if it would stop there. Given the power to strip away birthright citizenship from one group, how could we stop the government from ruling that others are also not worthy? Couldn’t such authority lead to refusal of citizenship to people of a certain race or religion?

Couldn’t we see a government that would make such a change retroactive, thus revoking citizenship… and all of its privileges including the ability to vote… from existing citizens? It sure would be an effective means of shutting down your critics, wouldn’t it?

What makes me even more suspicious of the intentions of those pushing this movement is that we aren’t hearing anyone complaining about babies born of parents from places like, say, Norway or Italy or Canada. No, the argument is firmly centered on the children of immigrants who cross our southern border.

What’s further troubling is that the argument is coming from the political right, whose party is sorely lacking in support from the Latino community. Such an unbending stance against citizenship at birth… especially one that is clearly aimed at people who come to the USA from Mexico and other nations to our south… is certainly not helping the Republican Party in its efforts to include people of color under its tent.

That is, if the GOP is still making the effort.

I just read a report projecting the 2016 election turnout broken down by race and its results aren’t enthusiastic for a party that alienates non-white voters. In fact, a party that turns its back on people of color will find that it is virtually impossible to win on the national stage.

I'm not a political consultant, but if someone came to me and asked what I thought would be a good strategy, I'd suggest that being a party of ideas and goals makes more sense than building your platform on exclusion and turning back time.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald September 3, 2015.)

A flag not worth flying

The evil that happened inside the Emmanuel A.M.E. Church on the evening of June 17th was more than just a lone gunman committing mass murder. Of course, many details surrounding the tragic event are still unknown, and speculating about the things we don’t know could cause us to overlook important facts. Then again, it’s easy to draw conclusions based on the obvious.

The accused killer -- I won’t grant him dignity by using his name -- has made some fact finding easy. He decided to post his thoughts on race and ethnicity on his own website. Over the course of nearly 2,500 words, this young man aired his disturbed views on Blacks, Jews, and Hispanics… focusing most of his negativity on people of color. Considering that his nine victims were black, it’s tempting to just suggest that he is just another bigot who chose to make his violent fantasies come true. But there’s much more.

In addition to his seething disgust of non-whites, this man wanted to be sure that we all knew another target of his hatred: the United States of America. He wrote about his hate of the American flag and of patriotism in general, and solidified that message with a series of photographs… including one where he is seen holding a burning Stars and Stripes.

But that’s not the only flag he featured.

In several photographs, the accused killer poses with what is commonly known as “The Confederate Flag”. The image that came to mind when you read that phrase is the iconic rebel flag that, while not an official flag of the Confederacy, is modeled after the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It’s the design seen on everything from the rooftop of the 1969 Dodge Charger of television fame to the decorations used by many Southern rock bands.

It’s also a reminder of a dark era in our nation’s history when many Americans turned their backs on the USA. The Army of Northern Virginia and many other Southern states and military units flew that flag during active hostilities in America’s Civil War. It was a flag meant to rally Confederate soldiers as they entered into battle against troops from the Union… from the United States.

We were taught that the Civil War was Americans fighting against Americans, but that’s misleading. Remember, those battles came about after 11 Southern states and some territorial regions seceded from the USA, forming what they wished to be their own federalized nation. Whether those states found justification within the language of the Constitution is an argument that remains unsettled, and one that we won’t bother to explore here. But what is clear is the intention of the Confederacy and its use of weapons of war to obtain that goal.

So, for a time in the 1860s, we can honestly say that the Confederate States of America was a separate nation… one that was fighting a horrific war with those states that continued to hold true to the USA. We can also honestly say that slavery was a primary motivating factor, though there are bits of truth in the argument that states’ rights was a key. Of course, one of the most prominent of those rights was tied directly to the ownership and forced labor of men, women, and children.

But we’re not here to study history, are we? We’re trying to understand the reasons why a young white man would walk into a historic black church in the city where the Civil War’s first shots were fired… and murder nine people.

Here’s where we have to start using appropriate language. This was not just a mass murder, nor just a hate crime. This was an act of terrorism. The shooter was, and should be treated as, a terrorist. But much of American media… and too many politicians… are afraid to say just that.

Why? After all, the shooter admitted to the police that he wanted to start a race war, so there’s your political connection. And this was a violent act committed in a symbolic place with the desire to cause fear and anguish. And… he had strong emotions against the American flag, while favoring a symbol of a country that once waged war with the USA. So why the hesitation to call him a terrorist?

Wait, you say, that rebel flag isn’t about hate. It’s a symbol of heritage. In a way, that’s true. But it’s a heritage of war, a war fought in no small part over slavery.

You want to express your Southern heritage? How about demonstrating Southern hospitality? Or preparing a feast of fried catfish, red beans and rice, and a pitcher of sweet tea? But not by flying a flag that sends a joint message of racial animosity and disrespect for the Stars and Stripes.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on July 2, 2015.)

Glenn Beck tells his audience what they want to hear

This excerpt from Glenn Beck's 5/11/15 tirade is enough to explain to you why you can't have a normal, meaningful conversation with a bigot.
In the view of people like Beck, there are no more race-related problems in the United States EXCEPT those problems caused by non-whites. In Beck's world, the election of President Obama is proof that ALL white people have ended all hatred and fear of people of color.
Beck wants us to believe... and his devoted followers DO believe... that we live in a complete post-racial society and that everything is all Kumbayah...or would be if those pesky non-whites would just appreciate it.

Ain't Nobody's Business

If I should take a notion

To jump into the ocean

'T ain't nobody's bizness if I do

Bessie Smith made that song famous in the Twenties, and singers ranging from Billie Holliday to Hank Williams Jr have offered their own versions over the years, all with the same fairly explicit message: don’t stick your nose where it doesn’t belong. Sure, you may be curious about what someone else is doing, but there are limits to your involvement.

Say for example: your next door neighbor hires a contractor for a home improvement project. As long as your own property isn’t affected, your neighbor is under no obligation to provide you with specifics of the plan.

What if your co-worker takes a few days off for medical leave? You might be a bit concerned for his well-being, but you shouldn’t expect him to share the personal details of his diagnosis and treatment.

Or, turn it around. Perhaps you had intended to join a friend on a shopping trip but suddenly had to cancel because you needed to post bail for your brother-in-law. You’d probably not want to talk about such an embarrassing situation.

Clearly these are examples of how people should mind their own beeswax, right? Unless it affects you directly, life is on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know. But why do so many people think the opposite is true when it comes to private, intimate relationships?

Later this month, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments that may lead to the high court deciding once and for all if same-sex marriages should be legal and recognized by all 50 states. There are opponents who are declaring that such recognition would devalue what is seen as “traditional” marriage between one man and one woman. Similar arguments were made years ago in defense of anti-miscegenation laws that criminalized interracial marriage and intimate relationships, but the Supreme Court rejected those statutes with its ruling in Loving v Virginia in 1967. From that point forward, no state could prevent interracial relationships or marriage. Remarkably, it wasn’t until 2000 that Alabama became the last state to remove such laws from its constitution. Loving v Virginia has been cited in some same-sex marriage court cases as a legal precedent, though it’s too early to tell if the nation’s highest court will concur.

Others suggest that the national legalization of same-sex marriage would be a slippery slope ruling, leading to recognized unions of other types. Again, such arguments were made by those wishing to prevent marriages between different races but their predictions have failed to materialize into fact.

Let me be clear: the notion that what two people do within the privacy of their lives together somehow changes the definition of your personal relationship is laughable. If you think that recognition of same-sex marriage will somehow magically cause your own heterosexual union to be worthless… or worth less… then the real discussion should be about why you don’t place more value on your own marriage.

Of course, opponents of same-sex marriage may also point to their religious beliefs as justification. While the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment -- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” -- guarantees each one of us the freedom to worship as we please, it does not grant us the ability to use such beliefs to infringe upon the rights of others.

On a related note, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law which many say would allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] individuals.

In the wake of this law, the backlash against Indiana’s economy has been swift and continues to grow. Companies such as Angie’s List are withdrawing expansion plans; others are threatening to boycott products manufactured in the state.

Many of the same religion-based arguments used in opposition to same-sex marriage are being cited by supporters of the law; most notably, that a person’s strongly-held beliefs should be considered as justification for that person refusing to do business with members of the LGBT community.

I’m sure some readers find what I’m saying here to be unsettling, and I’m sure I’ll be confronted with assorted scriptural references. Trust me, I’ve heard them before. Remember, we’re not talking about whether someone’s personally held religious beliefs are inherently wrong. Rather, we’re looking at how those beliefs can be used to harm others.

Quite a few people seem to be on a never-ending quest to attack those of a difference sexual orientation. I wonder how much good those politicians, pundits, and prominent religious leaders could do if they channeled the same energy into something positive.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald on April 2, 2015.)

What century is this?

This is State Senator Fran Millar (R) of Dunwoody GA and he is fighting a plan that would allow Sunday voting in his district. Why? Let's allow the senator to explain in his Facebook post from 9/9/14:

("AJC" refers to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, a prominent local newspaper.)

Notice the portion I highlighted? Sen. Millar is concerned that Sunday voting will be too convenient to African Americans.

But that's not all. In the comments section, Sen. Millar added this nugget:

Yes, Sen. Millar doesn't think that the African Americans who may find Sunday voting more convenient are sufficiently educated.

Man, my ears are hurting from all the dog whistles going off!

Sen. Millar is a classic example of bigotry in action... something that is all too common.

If he hasn't deleted it yet, here is a link to Millar's Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/millar.ga/posts/718236501557052