Someone answer this for me: how do you not see the parallels in today's political theater with the more startling component's of George Orwell's "1984"?
Among several storyline components in the book, Oceania's government flip-flops between its announcements of being at war with Eurasia and then Eastasia in a matter of a couple months, but no one seems to take notice.
Contrast with with how today's Republicans and Democrats do the same:
For example, deficit spending. Republicans and conservative pundits were relentless in their apologist defenses of Bush spending policies from 2001 through 2008. In the meantime, Democrat leadership railed against the rising expenditures relentlessly -- among which was then-Senator Barack Obama.
Today, you cannot criticize the Democrats' massive run-up of spending over the last three years without being accused -- by them, their supporters, and many of the media's unabashed left -- of having racist motives in many instances. Still, Republicans are frothing at the mouth over the national debt eclipsing $14.3 trillion but will dismiss and demean anyone who tries to make them answer for the $4.9 trillion expansion of national debt during the Bush years.
On war, challenging the so-called Bush doctrine on the Middle East was automatically deemed unpatriotic by conservatives. Democrats were nearly united in their steadfast opposition to the Bush warfare state. Now, we witness mainly complicity for expanded war engagements by President Obama among Democrats while Republicans are now the outspoken critics of his aggressive use of American military might.
Simultaneously, most Republicans oppose any proposals for troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan and are quick to label such action "Cut and Run." All the while, modern liberals have been silently burning and shredding their "Dissent Is Patriotic" T-shirts since January 20, 2009.
Finally, I find it uproariously hilarious that for years before the turn of the century, Democrats and liberal commentators have decried the activities of the Federal Reserve Bank while Republicans and their conservative apologists were insisting its continued unabated operation was vital to maintaining a healthy and stable American economy.
Now, the left is half peculiarly silent on the Fed while the other half has warmed-up to cheerleading for it. In recent years, more and more conservatives are jumping aboard the bandwagon for reining-in the Fed's financial powers.
I know I have maybe a very small handful of Democrat/liberal followers. So, to those of you who identify yourselves as Republicans and staunch conservatives, explain to me without silly, predictable ad hominem attacks, why you don't agree with my assessment of 1984 parallels.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wall of Separation or lines in the sand?
(Don’s note: As dated as the opening discussion points may be, the need to write this essay never ebbed in the same manner it’s timeliness did with each passing day since the linked article was published by Lima News Opinion Page Editor Ron Lederman. As I kept the main arguments tucked-away in the back of my mind, it dawned on me this piece would be the best possible segue composition for the one which will follow. While my authorship of the blog below may be long overdue, its central points have been of vital importance to our Republic for 220 years and will continue to be so for many generations to come. Also, while it may be tempting at some point to write this off as a strangely tardy defense of the former candidate mentioned as well, her mention serves merely as necessary background for why I felt it was so necessary to at some point tackle the central theme.)
I stopped getting excited over candidates for elected office based on their party affiliation several years ago.
While I have supplanted that outlook with a small-government, third-party bias, my spurning of the failed two-party political system has led me to (finally/belatedly) assess what all candidates and pundits say with a more critical – and especially skeptical – outlook.
Sometimes, even a less confidence-inspiring (or so many talking heads would have us believe) individual can arrive at the truth – and in plain enough terms to draw equal amounts of public scorn and adulation.
Such was the case with Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell in Delaware last year. During the October 19 debate with Chris Coons (the eventual winner of that State’s Senate seat) at Widener University’s law school she asked her opponent point blank, “Where in the Constitution is the ‘separation of church and state?’”
According to the Associated Press, O’Donnell’s retorts to Coons – during a discussion centering on whether or not public schools ought to include Creationism in their curricula – drew a derisive response from an audience which consisted principally of law students and professors. Critics would insist her remarks in the overall exchange during that segment of their debate demonstrated O’Donnell lacks a comprehension of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and what its original meaning and intent have always been.
Locally, Lima News Opinion Page Editor Ron Lederman would expand further on that observation (see, in particular, his post in the bottom of the comments section) by insisting that because she presented her perspective on this highly contentious topic while debating a lawyer and in front of a crowd comprised mainly of law students she is “an idiot.”
There are a couple of points that actually show favorably toward O’Donnell on this situation. The fact she would hold to the obvious on the First Amendment that the phrase “separation of church and state” is stated nowhere in it, and do so in the company present at that time, demonstrated a degree of courage of conviction so nauseatingly lacking among politicians today. It is easy to argue one’s convictions and principles while in the presence of a like-minded crowd. It is a far more daunting undertaking to do so when surrounded by people who are inclined to disagree with you vehemently.
Now had O’Donnell been surprised her stance on the Establishment Clause would be harshly-received, one would have a sound case that she lacks solid reasoning skills.
Otherwise, to say the least, Lederman’s criticism of O’Donnell on this specific point is nonsensical.
What is a legitimate criticism of her is how she defended her qualifications to be the next senator from Delaware instead of Coons, since she had not held any previous legislative seat or could boast of any other governmental experience. This was a gaff everyone who spent time tearing-her-down completely missed.
Bear in mind: she championed herself as embodying all that the Tea Party represented based on the notion she was not a Washington Insider trying merely to advance her political aspirations.
O’Donnell eventually pointed to her years of experience working for or establishing several right-wing think tanks and other non-profits (Concerned Women for America, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth [founder], and Catholic Advocacy Network [founder]), authorship of multiple articles for conservative and Christian publications, as well as her two years working in the communications office of the Republican National Committee in Washington, D.C.
In short O’Donnell, who promoted herself on the campaign trail as the non-Washington insider, heralded her qualifications to serve in the Senate based on her years spent as a Washington insider.
All in all, her perceived or real shortcomings aside, O’Donnell is right regarding the so-called intent of “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment. It’s not even a matter of semantics, as Lederman insists in his own observation.
What those with a Progressive outlook on the dynamics of religion and government have been pushing onto America over the last 64 years hinges on language used in the opinions of the Supreme Court justices in the Everson vs. Board of Education case.
Opinions written both by the majority and dissenting opinions in that case made reference to the “wall of separation between Church and State.”
What the Supreme Court did in 1947 – and what militant anti-religionists have continued to do to advance their agenda throughout the decades since – was thoroughly torture the words of Thomas Jefferson and completely disregard American and Western history.
On New Year’s Day, 1802, in the first year of his first term as President, Jefferson penned a letter in reply to one he received from leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.
The Baptists represented a small minority among Christians in the young nation, particularly in the Nutmeg State – which at the time had the Congregational Church as its established state religion. At one time or another during the United States’ founding years, most states had (although their respective legislation had been adopted during their years as British colonies) state churches. Jefferson himself had signed into law while governor of his home state the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in 1786, disestablishing the Church of England as the state church.
In their letter to Jefferson, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concerns that the state laws which declared a statewide church would result in their unalienable right to worship as they believed being reduced to privileges allotted by the legislature.
Within his response, Jefferson wrote the following passage which constituted the bulk of the second paragraph (of three) of the brief letter: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The other historical point which cannot be understated is the fact when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, fresh in the minds of much of America were the lessons learned from the histories of most of the nations of Europe, where religious tyranny at the hands of the monarchs and their nobility had raged for centuries.
Many of those who had set sail for the New World over the course of roughly 200 years preceding the ratification of the Bill of Rights had done so to escape oppression or outright persecution for their religious beliefs. The most famous among these were the Puritans who are more commonly known as the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.
While irony abounds in the fact the colonies would one-by-one establish state churches, it remains indisputable that America’s chief attraction throughout the years has been its promise of religious freedom.
The denial of religious freedom was most prevalent in Great Britain following the reigns of King Henry VIII and his daughter Queen Elizabeth I, where Catholic churches had been seized and re-established as Anglican churches – better known then as the Church of England. As time wore on, even other Protestant faiths came under assault as the perspective there evolved that failure to pay proper reverence to the King’s church was akin to disloyalty to the crown if not treason.
Understanding the people’s comprehension at that time of (what was then recent) European history of sectarian religious intolerance fills-in the crucial context of what the Founders truly meant in the opening clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Inspired heavily by their revulsion toward the actions of the English monarchy against competing faiths, the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to protect the Church from the State, not the State from the Church.
Their true original intent was to prevent what was done to the churches in Great Britain from happening here in the United States.
This is the vital truth so woefully forgotten by today’s general public and extensively disregarded by Progressives for over a century.
Both the misinterpretation of Jefferson’s words and the blatant brush-aside of historical facts by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and his colleagues have fueled the misconceptions that hang like a specter over one of the best-written defenses of civil liberties in our history.
Remember, the First Amendment is very specific in its language that “Congress shall make no law” when it comes to matters of religion or faith. The meaning presented in that clause was written to be much narrower than what is being applied in modern times.
Based on that precise wording, we understand this line item in the Bill of Rights was meant to ensure the federal government never passed laws or adopted policies which would or could deny any citizen the right to practice his or her religious beliefs – either through an explicit prohibition or slightly more subtly through the establishment of a State Church.
(On a related side note, part of the motivation for the First Amendment was to prevent the infamous Salem Witch Hunts from ever taking place again.)
The contemporary re-interpretation of the Establishment Clause has served as justification for the broad-sweeping prohibition of anything which could serve as even the remotest symbol of religious acknowledgment in any arena of the public sector.
Let’s examine this as it relates to the most common application of the Establishment Clause: local public entities.
If “Congress shall make no law” is the core language at the heart of the “wall of separation,” logically this means when a city hall puts a Nativity scene on display there is no constitutional prohibition against it – this is not Congress making a law favoring one religion or cracking-down on another.
When a crowd at a get-together on school grounds such as a graduation or sporting event wishes to engage in an invocation, this is not Congress making a law.
When a county courthouse has the Ten Commandments on display, this is not Congress making a law.
When a memorial for fallen soldiers or victims of a tragedy is erected on public land that bears the shape of a Cross, this is not Congress making a law.
What staunch religion opponents and those who have handled much of their litigation for them (i.e. the American Civil Liberties Union) have been doing since Everson vs. Board of Education is taking the examples mentioned above out of the realm of political concerns (where they rightfully belong) and falsely turned them into legal concerns.
Whenever an exhibit of any kind that holds any religious meaning is displayed on municipal or county property, it is a matter for the local residents of that jurisdiction who oppose it to settle through either a redress of grievance with the local elected body or the political process by getting individuals who agree with them on such an item elected to the respective council or commission.
Conversely, if a state or local government chooses to enact prohibitions on activities such as those, that rightfully should be their domain. Then, it is up to us as residents of that state, county, municipality, or township to petition for a redress of such a law, fight to elect those who would seek a repeal, or cast the ultimate vote by moving as we are free to do.
Unfortunately, the zeal with which a multitude of special interest organizations have attacked freedom of religion in America has outpaced the determination of those who would strive to defend it. Instead of pursuing legislation – which could be publicly debated and scrutinized – for their ends, they have achieved them through the use of our courts – bolstered by an ill-conceived legal opinion published by a Supreme Court packed with Progressive President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s appointees.
Jefferson in his incomparable wisdom said it best, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
As the decades have worn-on, we have seen this truth trampled-upon with startling vigor.
I stopped getting excited over candidates for elected office based on their party affiliation several years ago.
While I have supplanted that outlook with a small-government, third-party bias, my spurning of the failed two-party political system has led me to (finally/belatedly) assess what all candidates and pundits say with a more critical – and especially skeptical – outlook.
Sometimes, even a less confidence-inspiring (or so many talking heads would have us believe) individual can arrive at the truth – and in plain enough terms to draw equal amounts of public scorn and adulation.
Such was the case with Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell in Delaware last year. During the October 19 debate with Chris Coons (the eventual winner of that State’s Senate seat) at Widener University’s law school she asked her opponent point blank, “Where in the Constitution is the ‘separation of church and state?’”
According to the Associated Press, O’Donnell’s retorts to Coons – during a discussion centering on whether or not public schools ought to include Creationism in their curricula – drew a derisive response from an audience which consisted principally of law students and professors. Critics would insist her remarks in the overall exchange during that segment of their debate demonstrated O’Donnell lacks a comprehension of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and what its original meaning and intent have always been.
Locally, Lima News Opinion Page Editor Ron Lederman would expand further on that observation (see, in particular, his post in the bottom of the comments section) by insisting that because she presented her perspective on this highly contentious topic while debating a lawyer and in front of a crowd comprised mainly of law students she is “an idiot.”
There are a couple of points that actually show favorably toward O’Donnell on this situation. The fact she would hold to the obvious on the First Amendment that the phrase “separation of church and state” is stated nowhere in it, and do so in the company present at that time, demonstrated a degree of courage of conviction so nauseatingly lacking among politicians today. It is easy to argue one’s convictions and principles while in the presence of a like-minded crowd. It is a far more daunting undertaking to do so when surrounded by people who are inclined to disagree with you vehemently.
Now had O’Donnell been surprised her stance on the Establishment Clause would be harshly-received, one would have a sound case that she lacks solid reasoning skills.
Otherwise, to say the least, Lederman’s criticism of O’Donnell on this specific point is nonsensical.
What is a legitimate criticism of her is how she defended her qualifications to be the next senator from Delaware instead of Coons, since she had not held any previous legislative seat or could boast of any other governmental experience. This was a gaff everyone who spent time tearing-her-down completely missed.
Bear in mind: she championed herself as embodying all that the Tea Party represented based on the notion she was not a Washington Insider trying merely to advance her political aspirations.
O’Donnell eventually pointed to her years of experience working for or establishing several right-wing think tanks and other non-profits (Concerned Women for America, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Savior’s Alliance for Lifting the Truth [founder], and Catholic Advocacy Network [founder]), authorship of multiple articles for conservative and Christian publications, as well as her two years working in the communications office of the Republican National Committee in Washington, D.C.
In short O’Donnell, who promoted herself on the campaign trail as the non-Washington insider, heralded her qualifications to serve in the Senate based on her years spent as a Washington insider.
All in all, her perceived or real shortcomings aside, O’Donnell is right regarding the so-called intent of “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment. It’s not even a matter of semantics, as Lederman insists in his own observation.
What those with a Progressive outlook on the dynamics of religion and government have been pushing onto America over the last 64 years hinges on language used in the opinions of the Supreme Court justices in the Everson vs. Board of Education case.
Opinions written both by the majority and dissenting opinions in that case made reference to the “wall of separation between Church and State.”
What the Supreme Court did in 1947 – and what militant anti-religionists have continued to do to advance their agenda throughout the decades since – was thoroughly torture the words of Thomas Jefferson and completely disregard American and Western history.
On New Year’s Day, 1802, in the first year of his first term as President, Jefferson penned a letter in reply to one he received from leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut.
The Baptists represented a small minority among Christians in the young nation, particularly in the Nutmeg State – which at the time had the Congregational Church as its established state religion. At one time or another during the United States’ founding years, most states had (although their respective legislation had been adopted during their years as British colonies) state churches. Jefferson himself had signed into law while governor of his home state the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom in 1786, disestablishing the Church of England as the state church.
In their letter to Jefferson, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concerns that the state laws which declared a statewide church would result in their unalienable right to worship as they believed being reduced to privileges allotted by the legislature.
Within his response, Jefferson wrote the following passage which constituted the bulk of the second paragraph (of three) of the brief letter: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
The other historical point which cannot be understated is the fact when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, fresh in the minds of much of America were the lessons learned from the histories of most of the nations of Europe, where religious tyranny at the hands of the monarchs and their nobility had raged for centuries.
Many of those who had set sail for the New World over the course of roughly 200 years preceding the ratification of the Bill of Rights had done so to escape oppression or outright persecution for their religious beliefs. The most famous among these were the Puritans who are more commonly known as the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620.
While irony abounds in the fact the colonies would one-by-one establish state churches, it remains indisputable that America’s chief attraction throughout the years has been its promise of religious freedom.
The denial of religious freedom was most prevalent in Great Britain following the reigns of King Henry VIII and his daughter Queen Elizabeth I, where Catholic churches had been seized and re-established as Anglican churches – better known then as the Church of England. As time wore on, even other Protestant faiths came under assault as the perspective there evolved that failure to pay proper reverence to the King’s church was akin to disloyalty to the crown if not treason.
Understanding the people’s comprehension at that time of (what was then recent) European history of sectarian religious intolerance fills-in the crucial context of what the Founders truly meant in the opening clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Inspired heavily by their revulsion toward the actions of the English monarchy against competing faiths, the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to protect the Church from the State, not the State from the Church.
Their true original intent was to prevent what was done to the churches in Great Britain from happening here in the United States.
This is the vital truth so woefully forgotten by today’s general public and extensively disregarded by Progressives for over a century.
Both the misinterpretation of Jefferson’s words and the blatant brush-aside of historical facts by Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and his colleagues have fueled the misconceptions that hang like a specter over one of the best-written defenses of civil liberties in our history.
Remember, the First Amendment is very specific in its language that “Congress shall make no law” when it comes to matters of religion or faith. The meaning presented in that clause was written to be much narrower than what is being applied in modern times.
Based on that precise wording, we understand this line item in the Bill of Rights was meant to ensure the federal government never passed laws or adopted policies which would or could deny any citizen the right to practice his or her religious beliefs – either through an explicit prohibition or slightly more subtly through the establishment of a State Church.
(On a related side note, part of the motivation for the First Amendment was to prevent the infamous Salem Witch Hunts from ever taking place again.)
The contemporary re-interpretation of the Establishment Clause has served as justification for the broad-sweeping prohibition of anything which could serve as even the remotest symbol of religious acknowledgment in any arena of the public sector.
Let’s examine this as it relates to the most common application of the Establishment Clause: local public entities.
If “Congress shall make no law” is the core language at the heart of the “wall of separation,” logically this means when a city hall puts a Nativity scene on display there is no constitutional prohibition against it – this is not Congress making a law favoring one religion or cracking-down on another.
When a crowd at a get-together on school grounds such as a graduation or sporting event wishes to engage in an invocation, this is not Congress making a law.
When a county courthouse has the Ten Commandments on display, this is not Congress making a law.
When a memorial for fallen soldiers or victims of a tragedy is erected on public land that bears the shape of a Cross, this is not Congress making a law.
What staunch religion opponents and those who have handled much of their litigation for them (i.e. the American Civil Liberties Union) have been doing since Everson vs. Board of Education is taking the examples mentioned above out of the realm of political concerns (where they rightfully belong) and falsely turned them into legal concerns.
Whenever an exhibit of any kind that holds any religious meaning is displayed on municipal or county property, it is a matter for the local residents of that jurisdiction who oppose it to settle through either a redress of grievance with the local elected body or the political process by getting individuals who agree with them on such an item elected to the respective council or commission.
Conversely, if a state or local government chooses to enact prohibitions on activities such as those, that rightfully should be their domain. Then, it is up to us as residents of that state, county, municipality, or township to petition for a redress of such a law, fight to elect those who would seek a repeal, or cast the ultimate vote by moving as we are free to do.
Unfortunately, the zeal with which a multitude of special interest organizations have attacked freedom of religion in America has outpaced the determination of those who would strive to defend it. Instead of pursuing legislation – which could be publicly debated and scrutinized – for their ends, they have achieved them through the use of our courts – bolstered by an ill-conceived legal opinion published by a Supreme Court packed with Progressive President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s appointees.
Jefferson in his incomparable wisdom said it best, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
As the decades have worn-on, we have seen this truth trampled-upon with startling vigor.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
An incident at Faurot Park during the City of Lima's 4th of July festival
To: J. Howard Elstro, Director of Public Works, City of Lima
CC: Mayor David Berger
From: Don Kissick, Allen County Libertarian Party Chair
Re: the behavior of an individual affiliated with the July 4th Festival
Mr. Elstro:
As promised, this is the letter detailing the nature of the confrontation we discussed regarding the individual who identified himself only as a member of the committee which plans the annual 4th of July festival in Faurot Park.
Since I do not have his name I only have his description to offer: he was an elderly gentleman who is an apparent amputee (right leg) and was riding one of the green carts used throughout the park that day.
For the record, I wish to be clear my primary complaint is not about the prohibition against distribution of literature during the festival. In brief, I do reserve disagreements but they shall be addressed later.
The gentleman in question who approached my fellow Allen County Libertarian Party members and I (this was approximately 6 p.m.) did so in the most unprofessional manner possible.
As he rolled-up in the cart, he began repeatedly bellowing, “Give me that box,” and, “Hand over that box!”
In light of the fact he never once identified himself or under what authority he operated to be able demand forfeiture of anyone’s personal property, I politely refused.
At that point, his behavior went from threatening and combative to outright belligerent. All the while he insisted we were not allowed to distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence, he never once explained why or under what authority it was prohibited. He then attempted to interrogate me as to whether or not we had gotten “a permit from the committee” to pass out copies of the Declaration of Independence but refused to explain to what committee he was referring or how a permit was necessary to distribute anything on public property.
Throughout the exchange, I was resolute on the grounds that distribution of copies of the Declaration of Independence is a perfectly legal, First Amendment-protected activity and we were well within our rights to do so.
Eventually I was able to bring to his attention – after multiple attempts due to the belligerent manner in which he kept yelling over my responses to his questions – that there were no notices of any kind posted anywhere in or around the park informing the public of such prohibitions during the festival: to which he accused me of lying.
Next, he once more demanded that I surrender my property to him and this time included I had to “get out of the park” – again, without ever even hinting to what authority he retained to eject anyone from public property – and if I did not comply he would involve officers of the Lima Police Department.
When I reiterated we had every right to be on public property and distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence under the protection of the First Amendment he then employed his radio to contact others working the festival and asked them to direct law enforcement to our location, saying, “He thinks he’s got rights but he ain’t got no rights!”
After finishing his call to have the police step in, he continued with his belligerence and even commented, “If you want to be taken down you keep going! And, don’t think just because I got one leg I can’t do it!”
It was right after that he then violently ripped out of my left hand the copy of the Declaration of Independence I was holding in it (the box containing the other copies was in my right hand).
Within a few short minutes, three officers arrived on the scene led by Sgt. Holman (sp?). He very calmly and with far greater professionalism than the gentleman who suggested he was on the (yet unidentified at that time) committee explained that even though Faurot Park is public property since it was reserved via permit by a private entity they retained the prerogative to determine what activity was and was not permissible during the festival.
One of my fellow members and I let the sergeant know if that gentleman simply had informed us of all that there would have been no need for law enforcement to intervene and that we would have gladly kept to the sidewalk with our copies of the Declaration of Independence.
Instead, this committee member (who would not identify himself) engaged in the most unprofessional and atrocious (at times bordering on violent) behavior toward us. To demand forfeiture of my personal property constituted an attempted petty larceny, to engage in his threatening and menacing behavior constituted a public nuisance, and to grab any items out of my hand could very easily be interpreted as assault.
Clearly understanding he was not just in the wrong but way out of bounds, he changed his behavior as soon as he noticed law enforcement was approaching the scene.
At this point of the letter, having described the incident with this member of Star Spangled Spectacular, Inc.’s committee, I would wish to have some important technical points explained.
Now, per our conversation in the Lima Municipal Building this afternoon, you mentioned the City of Lima is “a partner” with Star Spangled Spectacular, Inc. If your description is accurate, then the 4th of July festival cannot be classified as a private event as it is conducted under a partnership by SSSI with the city government on public property.
Therefore, there is a complete lack of legal and constitutional standing when it comes to prohibiting the distribution of literature of any kind – political, religious, or otherwise – during such an event. The handing-out of copies of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July in Faurot Park remains a First Amendment-protected activity.
Furthermore, with the festival operating as a public-private partnership, those who (be they SSSI committee members or volunteers recruited by them) staff the festival under such an arrangement would become by default representatives of the City of Lima.
Given these circumstances, I would want to know if the city would be comfortable with the fact those who assume representation of it (even if temporarily) are treating members of the public in such a manner while on City of Lima property, operating with a City of Lima-issued permit, conducting the event in partnership with the City of Lima, and using the City of Lima’s name in the event.
This has the potential to reflect very unfavorably on the city.
It is our hope and expectation this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Allen County Libertarian Party as well as the satisfaction of the taxpayers of this great community.
Thank you for your time and professionalism in considering this situation.
Together in Liberty,
Don Kissick
Allen County Libertarian Party Chair
CC: Mayor David Berger
From: Don Kissick, Allen County Libertarian Party Chair
Re: the behavior of an individual affiliated with the July 4th Festival
Mr. Elstro:
As promised, this is the letter detailing the nature of the confrontation we discussed regarding the individual who identified himself only as a member of the committee which plans the annual 4th of July festival in Faurot Park.
Since I do not have his name I only have his description to offer: he was an elderly gentleman who is an apparent amputee (right leg) and was riding one of the green carts used throughout the park that day.
For the record, I wish to be clear my primary complaint is not about the prohibition against distribution of literature during the festival. In brief, I do reserve disagreements but they shall be addressed later.
The gentleman in question who approached my fellow Allen County Libertarian Party members and I (this was approximately 6 p.m.) did so in the most unprofessional manner possible.
As he rolled-up in the cart, he began repeatedly bellowing, “Give me that box,” and, “Hand over that box!”
In light of the fact he never once identified himself or under what authority he operated to be able demand forfeiture of anyone’s personal property, I politely refused.
At that point, his behavior went from threatening and combative to outright belligerent. All the while he insisted we were not allowed to distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence, he never once explained why or under what authority it was prohibited. He then attempted to interrogate me as to whether or not we had gotten “a permit from the committee” to pass out copies of the Declaration of Independence but refused to explain to what committee he was referring or how a permit was necessary to distribute anything on public property.
Throughout the exchange, I was resolute on the grounds that distribution of copies of the Declaration of Independence is a perfectly legal, First Amendment-protected activity and we were well within our rights to do so.
Eventually I was able to bring to his attention – after multiple attempts due to the belligerent manner in which he kept yelling over my responses to his questions – that there were no notices of any kind posted anywhere in or around the park informing the public of such prohibitions during the festival: to which he accused me of lying.
Next, he once more demanded that I surrender my property to him and this time included I had to “get out of the park” – again, without ever even hinting to what authority he retained to eject anyone from public property – and if I did not comply he would involve officers of the Lima Police Department.
When I reiterated we had every right to be on public property and distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence under the protection of the First Amendment he then employed his radio to contact others working the festival and asked them to direct law enforcement to our location, saying, “He thinks he’s got rights but he ain’t got no rights!”
After finishing his call to have the police step in, he continued with his belligerence and even commented, “If you want to be taken down you keep going! And, don’t think just because I got one leg I can’t do it!”
It was right after that he then violently ripped out of my left hand the copy of the Declaration of Independence I was holding in it (the box containing the other copies was in my right hand).
Within a few short minutes, three officers arrived on the scene led by Sgt. Holman (sp?). He very calmly and with far greater professionalism than the gentleman who suggested he was on the (yet unidentified at that time) committee explained that even though Faurot Park is public property since it was reserved via permit by a private entity they retained the prerogative to determine what activity was and was not permissible during the festival.
One of my fellow members and I let the sergeant know if that gentleman simply had informed us of all that there would have been no need for law enforcement to intervene and that we would have gladly kept to the sidewalk with our copies of the Declaration of Independence.
Instead, this committee member (who would not identify himself) engaged in the most unprofessional and atrocious (at times bordering on violent) behavior toward us. To demand forfeiture of my personal property constituted an attempted petty larceny, to engage in his threatening and menacing behavior constituted a public nuisance, and to grab any items out of my hand could very easily be interpreted as assault.
Clearly understanding he was not just in the wrong but way out of bounds, he changed his behavior as soon as he noticed law enforcement was approaching the scene.
At this point of the letter, having described the incident with this member of Star Spangled Spectacular, Inc.’s committee, I would wish to have some important technical points explained.
Now, per our conversation in the Lima Municipal Building this afternoon, you mentioned the City of Lima is “a partner” with Star Spangled Spectacular, Inc. If your description is accurate, then the 4th of July festival cannot be classified as a private event as it is conducted under a partnership by SSSI with the city government on public property.
Therefore, there is a complete lack of legal and constitutional standing when it comes to prohibiting the distribution of literature of any kind – political, religious, or otherwise – during such an event. The handing-out of copies of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July in Faurot Park remains a First Amendment-protected activity.
Furthermore, with the festival operating as a public-private partnership, those who (be they SSSI committee members or volunteers recruited by them) staff the festival under such an arrangement would become by default representatives of the City of Lima.
Given these circumstances, I would want to know if the city would be comfortable with the fact those who assume representation of it (even if temporarily) are treating members of the public in such a manner while on City of Lima property, operating with a City of Lima-issued permit, conducting the event in partnership with the City of Lima, and using the City of Lima’s name in the event.
This has the potential to reflect very unfavorably on the city.
It is our hope and expectation this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the Allen County Libertarian Party as well as the satisfaction of the taxpayers of this great community.
Thank you for your time and professionalism in considering this situation.
Together in Liberty,
Don Kissick
Allen County Libertarian Party Chair
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Can our Free Will be amended?
As I do so well and on such a consistent basis, I wish to state the obvious.
The leadership for both major parties have no idea what the ultimate function of the Constitution of the United States of America has always been intended to serve.
I bring this up yet again in light of reactions to the recent legislative action in New York. The idea has been reintroduced into the national conversation about pursuing a constitutional amendment to define and limit marriage as only taking place between one man and one woman.
This is being urged by high-profile members of the Establishment Right.
Throughout my lifetime (and for several decades preceding the start of it), there have been those who believe the Constitution is missing essential duties that the federal government should undertake on our behalf and thus needs to be amended to contain the additional language outlining those obligations as well as have key limits to governmental power eliminated.
This is being urged by high-profile members (and particularly those behind the scenes) of the Establishment Left.
The two points illustrated above share a key unifying component: they demonstrate how the top decision makers of both major parties either have no clue or are deliberately spurning the role our Constitution was meant to play in the governance of America.
To those who advocate for a constitutional amendment on marriage, I pose this question: was the Constitution ever intended to serve as a vehicle to limit the choices and control the behaviors of individuals?
While it is well-known it was written and designed to limit the power and constrain the actions of the federal government, is there also room for it to be used as a means to place similar limits and constraints on any of our nation’s citizens?
The answer to that can only be a resounding, “No!”
To those who yearn for a country where well-meaning authorities are enabled by law to act for us whether we wish it or not, I tell you that you share with your so-called opponents on the right one striking similarity: the deliberate disregard for our human free will.
If you all should get your way – those of you who insist that people cannot… must not… determine our own choices for ourselves, that we cannot… must not… be free to do for ourselves and brave the consequences for our decisions, choices, and actions – then at such time America will cease to be America.
The leadership for both major parties have no idea what the ultimate function of the Constitution of the United States of America has always been intended to serve.
I bring this up yet again in light of reactions to the recent legislative action in New York. The idea has been reintroduced into the national conversation about pursuing a constitutional amendment to define and limit marriage as only taking place between one man and one woman.
This is being urged by high-profile members of the Establishment Right.
Throughout my lifetime (and for several decades preceding the start of it), there have been those who believe the Constitution is missing essential duties that the federal government should undertake on our behalf and thus needs to be amended to contain the additional language outlining those obligations as well as have key limits to governmental power eliminated.
This is being urged by high-profile members (and particularly those behind the scenes) of the Establishment Left.
The two points illustrated above share a key unifying component: they demonstrate how the top decision makers of both major parties either have no clue or are deliberately spurning the role our Constitution was meant to play in the governance of America.
To those who advocate for a constitutional amendment on marriage, I pose this question: was the Constitution ever intended to serve as a vehicle to limit the choices and control the behaviors of individuals?
While it is well-known it was written and designed to limit the power and constrain the actions of the federal government, is there also room for it to be used as a means to place similar limits and constraints on any of our nation’s citizens?
The answer to that can only be a resounding, “No!”
To those who yearn for a country where well-meaning authorities are enabled by law to act for us whether we wish it or not, I tell you that you share with your so-called opponents on the right one striking similarity: the deliberate disregard for our human free will.
If you all should get your way – those of you who insist that people cannot… must not… determine our own choices for ourselves, that we cannot… must not… be free to do for ourselves and brave the consequences for our decisions, choices, and actions – then at such time America will cease to be America.
Friday, July 1, 2011
What does Independence Day mean?
The Fourth of July, more appropriately known as Independence Day, has endured the same kind of secular humanist transformation over the years and decades as the rest of our holidays.
So many of us in society have taken to "celebrating" it in ways that have little or nothing to do with its original significance or meaning.
While we all love the open-grill, summer cuisine as well as the many (professional and amateur) fireworks displays, too few of us fully appreciate why we adorn ourselves and our homes with so much red, white, and blue decor on the fourth day past the calendar midpoint.
The day marks the single most important turning point not only for America but also in world history.
On July 4, 1776, the most audacious revolt against an unjust ruling class was put in writing – after more than a year of open warfare had already been waged. Most of the signatures which appear on it were affixed on that date, with the final signings done by August 2.
In all, 56 men would "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." And it is to these words we should pay extra attention. Most of these duly appointed delegates to the Continental Congress would lose their fortunes and their lives as a result of drawing the particular scorn of King George III for their role in approving this document.
Knowing full well they would be targeted by British authorities for their roles in boldly setting the American Revolution in stone, those individuals who shaped, voted for, and signed the Declaration of Independence had grasped and embraced one vital, unifying truth.
America's Revolutionaries understood there are certain principles and ideals so important, so indispensable, they are worth dying for.
What ideals and principles do you hold so dearly?
So many of us in society have taken to "celebrating" it in ways that have little or nothing to do with its original significance or meaning.
While we all love the open-grill, summer cuisine as well as the many (professional and amateur) fireworks displays, too few of us fully appreciate why we adorn ourselves and our homes with so much red, white, and blue decor on the fourth day past the calendar midpoint.
The day marks the single most important turning point not only for America but also in world history.
On July 4, 1776, the most audacious revolt against an unjust ruling class was put in writing – after more than a year of open warfare had already been waged. Most of the signatures which appear on it were affixed on that date, with the final signings done by August 2.
In all, 56 men would "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." And it is to these words we should pay extra attention. Most of these duly appointed delegates to the Continental Congress would lose their fortunes and their lives as a result of drawing the particular scorn of King George III for their role in approving this document.
Knowing full well they would be targeted by British authorities for their roles in boldly setting the American Revolution in stone, those individuals who shaped, voted for, and signed the Declaration of Independence had grasped and embraced one vital, unifying truth.
America's Revolutionaries understood there are certain principles and ideals so important, so indispensable, they are worth dying for.
What ideals and principles do you hold so dearly?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Potential libertarian implications may stem from presidential sloth
When I previously wrote about the Obama Administration’s announcement that the Department of Justice would be taking a pass on litigating on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I stated then I would not engage in analysis of the legislation itself as I recognized how easy of a divisive trap it was.
I stand by that observation still.
What has been slowly percolating in the back of my mind since then is a perspective on the implications President Barack Obama has created in terms of unintended consequences. This time, instead of pushing open the door to socialism wider he and his fellow party members – I believe – may have inadvertently bumped (or, perhaps, “nudged”) open another door that can lead America on a more libertarian path.
Making sense in this essay requires tying the new White House attitude on DOMA with its legal proceedings against the State of Arizona over SB1070.
With Arizona’s attempt to enact legislation authorizing state and local authorities to enforce immigration laws found in the U.S. Revised Code, the legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer were seeking to shoulder a burden that ought to have belonged to the federal government.
In response, the Obama Administration swiftly invoked the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution and sued to block Arizona’s new law in federal court.
So, here, we have an instance where our federal executive branch openly flaunts its choice to not exercise authority granted to it by legislation. Not only that, it pursued litigation to block one of the states from doing so as well.
Since that whole brouhaha played-itself-out in front of the media, I took the opportunity to pick the brain of a gentleman named Kevin Hawley, who approached me last year and identified himself has having taught constitutional law, and then offered to answer my questions concerning such subject matter.
My inquiry following the SB1070 deliberation centered on the notion of, “What if the states counter-sued the federal government?”
The idea is rooted in the premise that the Constitution serves as a legally binding contract between the federal government in Washington, D.C., and the governments of the Several States. Therefore if the federal government jeopardizes the general welfare of any of the states and their citizens by deliberately failing to act on a federal statute, it stands to reason that would constitute a breach contract.
Demonstrating greater wisdom than I, Mr. Hawley swiftly shot the notion down. He explained that to maintain the balance created by the Separation of Powers the Judiciary retains the power to tell the Executive Branch it must cease and desist with an activity but it cannot compel (or dictate) it to engage in an activity.
Then, in February, the present administration became more brazen in its insistence that it enjoys the prerogative to pick-and-choose when it is going to enforce or uphold certain laws: the aforementioned DOMA.
Now enters the libertarian potential for (pro-)constitutional hijinx.
Since this administration has invoked the Constitution regarding federal supremacy to suppress a state law (SB1070) but then turned around and invoked it on a federal statute they claim falls outside its purview (DOMA), then what are the limits, really, to be found here?
Many libertarians have argued the pair of measures cited above are constitutionally questionable. However, a far greater percentage stands in agreement that there is much, much more emanating from D.C. that is unconstitutional as well.
Just ponder the possibilities if – by the Grace of God – we can elect a libertarian (preferably of the capital-L variety) to the White House next year.
After all, if the President of the United States is well within his or her authority to pick and choose when to enforce any given law, then wouldn’t the President also enjoy the same authority to arbitrarily shutter any Executive Branch office, agency, or even entire department?
If the current president may decide, “This law no longer suits my needs nor agrees with my sensibilities,” then what is there to stop a future president from padlocking the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Regulatory Affairs and even the Internal Revenue Service and telling thousands of career bureaucrats, “Thank you for your time and dedication, here are some lovely parting gifts, and now beat it!”
Bear in mind that, based on the Separation of Powers, when Congress writes and passes legislation which establishes new laws, appropriations, and agencies it merely authorizes the President to engage in these activities and expenditures…
…It cannot compel the President to do so.
Thanks to the American Establishment Left, the precedent to play this game already has been set.
I stand by that observation still.
What has been slowly percolating in the back of my mind since then is a perspective on the implications President Barack Obama has created in terms of unintended consequences. This time, instead of pushing open the door to socialism wider he and his fellow party members – I believe – may have inadvertently bumped (or, perhaps, “nudged”) open another door that can lead America on a more libertarian path.
Making sense in this essay requires tying the new White House attitude on DOMA with its legal proceedings against the State of Arizona over SB1070.
With Arizona’s attempt to enact legislation authorizing state and local authorities to enforce immigration laws found in the U.S. Revised Code, the legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer were seeking to shoulder a burden that ought to have belonged to the federal government.
In response, the Obama Administration swiftly invoked the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution and sued to block Arizona’s new law in federal court.
So, here, we have an instance where our federal executive branch openly flaunts its choice to not exercise authority granted to it by legislation. Not only that, it pursued litigation to block one of the states from doing so as well.
Since that whole brouhaha played-itself-out in front of the media, I took the opportunity to pick the brain of a gentleman named Kevin Hawley, who approached me last year and identified himself has having taught constitutional law, and then offered to answer my questions concerning such subject matter.
My inquiry following the SB1070 deliberation centered on the notion of, “What if the states counter-sued the federal government?”
The idea is rooted in the premise that the Constitution serves as a legally binding contract between the federal government in Washington, D.C., and the governments of the Several States. Therefore if the federal government jeopardizes the general welfare of any of the states and their citizens by deliberately failing to act on a federal statute, it stands to reason that would constitute a breach contract.
Demonstrating greater wisdom than I, Mr. Hawley swiftly shot the notion down. He explained that to maintain the balance created by the Separation of Powers the Judiciary retains the power to tell the Executive Branch it must cease and desist with an activity but it cannot compel (or dictate) it to engage in an activity.
Then, in February, the present administration became more brazen in its insistence that it enjoys the prerogative to pick-and-choose when it is going to enforce or uphold certain laws: the aforementioned DOMA.
Now enters the libertarian potential for (pro-)constitutional hijinx.
Since this administration has invoked the Constitution regarding federal supremacy to suppress a state law (SB1070) but then turned around and invoked it on a federal statute they claim falls outside its purview (DOMA), then what are the limits, really, to be found here?
Many libertarians have argued the pair of measures cited above are constitutionally questionable. However, a far greater percentage stands in agreement that there is much, much more emanating from D.C. that is unconstitutional as well.
Just ponder the possibilities if – by the Grace of God – we can elect a libertarian (preferably of the capital-L variety) to the White House next year.
After all, if the President of the United States is well within his or her authority to pick and choose when to enforce any given law, then wouldn’t the President also enjoy the same authority to arbitrarily shutter any Executive Branch office, agency, or even entire department?
If the current president may decide, “This law no longer suits my needs nor agrees with my sensibilities,” then what is there to stop a future president from padlocking the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Regulatory Affairs and even the Internal Revenue Service and telling thousands of career bureaucrats, “Thank you for your time and dedication, here are some lovely parting gifts, and now beat it!”
Bear in mind that, based on the Separation of Powers, when Congress writes and passes legislation which establishes new laws, appropriations, and agencies it merely authorizes the President to engage in these activities and expenditures…
…It cannot compel the President to do so.
Thanks to the American Establishment Left, the precedent to play this game already has been set.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
For Libertarians, dual role comes with the territory
Sometimes, a comment or sequence of events just seems to always standout in memory with unusual clarity. Such is the case with one explanation I heard last year from a friend regarding what he saw as the real difference between men and women when it comes to political activity.
He pointed out that when it comes to getting a political movement underway, women tend to be more task-oriented and focus on the nitty-gritty work which comes with it. All the while, men on the other hand are more likely to sit around and think deep thoughts and carry-on deeper conversations. In more pop culture-friendly terms, women are more inclined to “Walk The Walk” as opposed to “Talk The Talk.”
Based on that observation, he is insistent the Libertarian Party needs a lot more women to join its ranks.
There is great truth to what he says. And, I’ll just come right out and say it: I can vouch for at least half of his premises through my own activity. If you look at my Facebook page, you’ll see a lot of blogs as well as links to various articles of libertarian, small-government interest and the occasional comment on world events.
Still, there is an important point I wish to raise on the topic. Circumstances in our society almost dictate that anyone who joins the Libertarian Party must to some extent be ready to wear the hat of “armchair philosopher.”
Among the general masses, when you invoke the words Republican or Democratic, there is an inherent understanding of where those two political parties stand (in theory, of course) on a host of issues and subjects.
This is a luxury we as capital-L Libertarians do not enjoy.
Last summer, shortly after returning to work from a layoff I was settling-in with my new coworkers on the assembly line when the topic of politics came up. One gentleman, known for being a staunch Republican, expressed his curiosity what my political leanings or affiliation were. Being a candidate for Congress at the time, I boldly and proudly informed him of my membership as a Libertarian – to which he replied, “So how liberal are you?”
It would take the next three months we worked together to explain and impart at least a little bit of understanding how the old one-dimensional, left-right paradigm was outdated (although, thankfully for him, not in those abstract terms).
All this laboriously leads me to my ultimate point. In the vast majority of conversations across this great land of ours, those who identify themselves with either major party don’t need to explain what that identity means. We Libertarians, on the other hand, almost invariably need to engage in some degree of discussion as to what our core principles are.
And that is not to say this is a negative development. Every opportunity to espouse the virtues of true liberty for all citizens is a potential seed of thought planted in the minds of those who will engage us in these conversations.
But, all those who will join our ranks as active, participating members of the Libertarian Party for the foreseeable future will need to be ready to accept that dual role. While the need for functionaries can never be fully met – no matter how successful we may become – the need for the additional skill of readily espousing what true liberty really means inevitably will come with the territory.
So, ladies, be prepared to roll your sleeves up and back down at a moment’s notice.
He pointed out that when it comes to getting a political movement underway, women tend to be more task-oriented and focus on the nitty-gritty work which comes with it. All the while, men on the other hand are more likely to sit around and think deep thoughts and carry-on deeper conversations. In more pop culture-friendly terms, women are more inclined to “Walk The Walk” as opposed to “Talk The Talk.”
Based on that observation, he is insistent the Libertarian Party needs a lot more women to join its ranks.
There is great truth to what he says. And, I’ll just come right out and say it: I can vouch for at least half of his premises through my own activity. If you look at my Facebook page, you’ll see a lot of blogs as well as links to various articles of libertarian, small-government interest and the occasional comment on world events.
Still, there is an important point I wish to raise on the topic. Circumstances in our society almost dictate that anyone who joins the Libertarian Party must to some extent be ready to wear the hat of “armchair philosopher.”
Among the general masses, when you invoke the words Republican or Democratic, there is an inherent understanding of where those two political parties stand (in theory, of course) on a host of issues and subjects.
This is a luxury we as capital-L Libertarians do not enjoy.
Last summer, shortly after returning to work from a layoff I was settling-in with my new coworkers on the assembly line when the topic of politics came up. One gentleman, known for being a staunch Republican, expressed his curiosity what my political leanings or affiliation were. Being a candidate for Congress at the time, I boldly and proudly informed him of my membership as a Libertarian – to which he replied, “So how liberal are you?”
It would take the next three months we worked together to explain and impart at least a little bit of understanding how the old one-dimensional, left-right paradigm was outdated (although, thankfully for him, not in those abstract terms).
All this laboriously leads me to my ultimate point. In the vast majority of conversations across this great land of ours, those who identify themselves with either major party don’t need to explain what that identity means. We Libertarians, on the other hand, almost invariably need to engage in some degree of discussion as to what our core principles are.
And that is not to say this is a negative development. Every opportunity to espouse the virtues of true liberty for all citizens is a potential seed of thought planted in the minds of those who will engage us in these conversations.
But, all those who will join our ranks as active, participating members of the Libertarian Party for the foreseeable future will need to be ready to accept that dual role. While the need for functionaries can never be fully met – no matter how successful we may become – the need for the additional skill of readily espousing what true liberty really means inevitably will come with the territory.
So, ladies, be prepared to roll your sleeves up and back down at a moment’s notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
