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.)

False Prophets

If you’re a regular reader of this column, you’ve probably noticed that I have no use for people who substitute fiction for fact. I don’t mind if someone disagrees with me and wants to argue about it. However, if that argument is based on falsehoods, you’re wasting your time.

It’s one thing to share your opinion. For example, you might say that Johnny Unitas is the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. I’d probably be tempted to come back with Joe Montana’s career stats. We’d likely spar back and forth a bit and never reach a real consensus because we’re both offering opinions from our individual perspectives.

It would be different if you said Johnny Unitas had more passing touchdowns than Joe Montana. In that case, you would be able to go to the record books and show me the facts. [Note: Unitas is #9 in TD completions. Montana is #11.] See the difference? Instead of relying on your emotions which can skew your thinking, stating your case with solid evidence -- real facts that can be proven without a doubt -- is the way to win an argument.

It’s really that simple: if you stake your reputation on a specific matter, make sure you’ve got your facts straight. As it is with sports chatter, so it is with politics, religion, and any other topic of discussion.

I mentioned politics and religion because it’s clear that many people are willing to go to great lengths to use one to influence the other. Such is the case with many prominent entertainers in those two realms.

Take for example Dr. Ben Carson, a truly gifted neurosurgeon and political neophyte, who recently was a guest on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. He used the occasion of his Meet the Press interview to let it be known that he thinks people of certain faiths should not be elected President of the United States. Specifically, he said, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Notice that Dr. Carson wasn’t talking about anyone specifically… giving reasons why the actions and attitudes of a named individual would disqualify that person from holding office. No, Carson is suggesting that you should withhold your vote solely based upon a candidate’s religion. Why? Because Carson thinks that, when it comes to a candidate’s faith, “...if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”

Carson -- and anyone who agrees with him on this point -- is arguing that there needs to be a method of determining a person’s qualifications for elected office based upon religion. And while Carson is entitled to his opinion, the fact is clear: the Founders of this nation rejected that notion. Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution includes this key phrase: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Essentially, no one’s faith is ever to be used to challenge his ability to serve. Equally important, no one’s faith is ever to be used to give a candidate an easier pathway to office. Try telling that to the television preachers who lead their followers in prayers calling for misfortune and death to fall upon their political opponents.

It is discouraging that people like Dr. Carson will declare their devotion to the Constitution while also being so horribly ignorant to what the document has to say. But then, it’s not that surprising, since we live in an age where it’s becoming commonplace to hear someone claim that their religious beliefs grant them authority over others.

The Constitution does grant a certain collection of rights to you and me, but it’s up to us to understand the limits to those rights. As free speech advocate Zechariah Chafee Jr wrote: “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.”   

Dr. Carson is not alone. The current presidential campaign has several hopefuls who are pandering to extremists. making promises to impose some form of legal framework that would regulate many aspects of both public and private life based upon religious tenets.

Gee, that sounds a lot like Sharia law, doesn’t it?

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald October 1, 2015.)

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.)

Hey, Tennessee! You can't do that.

Despite being advised by the state's attorney general (a Republican) that:

"Yes, designating The Holy Bible as the official state book of Tennessee would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution and Article I, § 3, of the Tennessee Constitution, which provides 'that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.'"

...today the Tennessee state legislature did just that.

Aside from the blatant violation of the state and federal constitutions, here's an unanswered question:

What version? Christians can't agree on a single interpretation of the bible -- let alone a single denomination -- so how can politicians do so?

Yet another waste of time and money... and, of course, unconstitutional. So now the good people of Tennessee will see their hard-earned money wasted when the state has to go to court... and lose.