I’m confused.

What are we trying to accomplish here?

Does either side of the political fence think that total annihilation of the other side is plausible?  Is that the goal?  If it isn’t then why aren’t we working together or even listening to each other?  Why are the arguments so extreme?

Does anyone really think either party is going to lie down and confess, “You guys were right!  We need to shut up, step aside and let you take over!”?

I’ll admit that I did not like the Bush Administration and I was vocal as I opposed the invasion of Iraq and I bristled at continued de-regulation on top of already deep Clinton-era de-regulation policies that allowed for derivatives to turn toxic.  Money was being siphoned from the bottom toward the top with more gusto than a Gold Rush prostitute.

I was baffled by reducing revenue while engaging in two wars and I scoffed at the poorly conceived and underfunded “No Child Left Behind,” as well as falsifying costs of the Prescription Drug Program.

I was miffed when President Bush shunned counsel from his own economic advisors, and angry at Dick Cheney’s self-serving involvement in creating Halliburton loopholes.

I was ashamed of the administration’s jingoistic foreign policy that alienated allies and I was incensed by the Patriot Act which gave government virtually unlimited powers of surveillance over its citizens without judicial oversight!

In short, I wanted George W Bush and his neo-cons, the post-Reagan Republicans, and a growing extreme on the right to go away.  I wanted an election revolution where the left took over.

I was being naïve.

The 2008 election turned out pretty much the way I wanted, but the lines of division were now so wide and so contentious that bi-partisan cooperation was as improbable as Snookie becoming an advisor to the Princeton Review.

So what have we done?  What have I done?  I’ve engaged in the battle, thinking that I might attach the right words to the right ideas that will change the way things are; I thought I could get my “opposition” to come around to my way of thinking.

Not gonna happen.

But, here’s my conundrum:  When I offer conciliatory olive branches by applauding the accomplishments of Republicans in our history, or when I am critical of President Obama and Democrats (I distrust his abuse of power from the Patriot Act as much as I did with President Bush), I don’t get even ”one thin wafer” of acknowledgment from my friends on the right.

Instead, they reveal a GRAVE double-standard as they chastise me for supporting our President while they condemn him for the very things they once embraced.

Or…to be more accurate; things that they once cared far less about…

Things like the Patriot Act, Deficit Spending, Debt Ceilings or the Debt, for that matter.

Obama essentially continued the same economic recovery plan set into motion by Bush with Stimulus Spending and Bailout Loans to Detroit and Wall Street.  Very little was done to actually “regulate” the markets that had just betrayed us.  Obama did not immediately de-escalate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, either.  He didn’t change counter-terrorism policies and he continued the Patriot Act.

Yet…the Republicans hate him and when I point out the inconsistencies in their arguments, their reply is consistent and swift:  “Excuses!  When are you going to stop blaming Bush?”

Well….history is what it is…but this isn’t really about placing blame.  It’s about trying to figure out  WHAT THE F*#K IT IS THEY BELIEVE!!!

If the Republican ”offense” is that Democrats are making excuses and still blaming Bush for what is wrong, why, then, can’t they acknowledge what is right?  And I have to ask…”Excuses for what?”  Look at the stock market, corporate cash reserves, hiring, and the housing market.  Look at real budget numbers that show that deficit spending was coming down, even before the Draconian austerity measures.  More Americans have health security.  Long decaying roads and bridges are being re-built.  The war is de-escalating.

Those words will fire up the Republicans who read my columns as they insist that America has only fallen deeper into a hole for the past 4 years.  In fact, I know a guy who just bought a house and went on a vacation for the “first time in 4 years.”  He even said that his business is hiring again, yet, he still complains about how badly Obama has messed things up.

I am not suggesting that it’s time for anyone to take a victory lap; we still have deep, dark issues surrounding civil liberties, immigration, un-employment, foreign policies, and Constitutional protections; but, I am confused as to what it is I’m being asked by Republicans to believe.

And, in fact (olive branch coming…) if President Obama’s stimulus package and loans to Detroit and financial institutions were instrumental in the recession’s reversal trends, we have to share that credit with President Bush, as well.  Unless we can find common purpose and sit down without intending to throw one side out the window; unless we can define our principles and acknowledge that both sides have contributed to what we believe is great about this country…we will condemn ourselves to continue this unhealthy and destructive journey toward an eventual implosion.

The Roman Empire lasted 400 years, and it crumbled from the inside out, before it fell.

I realized something.

(Pause.  Wait for fanfare to subside)

The arguments we are having about politics are not as much about policy as they are about perceptions.  I’ll admit that my evidence is anecdotal, but as I argue here and in other social media (or about town), my observations are pretty consistent; both sides will admit that their side has done pretty much the same things that they are up in arms about concerning the other side, but both sides, believe that their leaders are doing so with a more noble character, while the other side is Hell-bent on world domination through evil tyranny.

President Obama certainly didn’t invent the authorization of warrantless wiretapping, in fact, the use of it under his watch, is in line with where it was going under the vague parameters outlined by the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was a hasty revision, after 9/11, of the nation’s surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government’s authority to spy on its own citizens, while reducing the checks and balances to contain those powers.  Judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court were thrown aside in 2001 (not 2013).

Today this power may appear to be more invasive than at any previous time, however, this identical controversy raged under President Bush, and nothing in today’s realization of National Security is a divergence from what that expansion of surveillance granted.  The technology has grown, along with the diversity of threats, and, therefore, so has its use.

What the rightwing is up in arms about is the fact that it is Obama and not Bush (or Romney) exercising this abuse of our civil liberties.  One conservative on Facebook offered:  “We cannot let this man (Obama) continue to run his personal agenda of tyrannical rule.”

A bit dramatic, but that was followed by post after post reiterating that this is a result of Barack Obama basically trying to become nothing short of Stalin.

They didn’t feel that way about George Bush, though, because they liked him.  They trusted his intentions because he was of their party.  Apparently, we all know how kind, generous and lovable we are, personally, and so we are more comfortable with government overreach when it’s by people of our own kind.

People (like me) who LIKE Barack Obama, feel that he is trying to do the right thing, that he is in a uniquely difficult situation (damned if you do, damned if you don’t) and we continue to support him- even though many of us feel that his continuation of Patriot Act policy is wrong.  We want to work from within, where we support the administration to offer criticism that will correct, and not destroy.

What I felt during George W Bush’s presidency is that we had a man without clear vision at the helm.  I didn’t think he was stupid, but I believed that he was a puppet to people that I REALLY didn’t like; neo-cons like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, and Perle who reeked of cronyism and a self-serving agenda.  So…whatever President Bush did, had to pass through that filter for me, and rarely did it come out smelling clean.

This is what Republicans are doing with President Obama and his cabinet.  Today there was a ridiculous news item (from, you know…the left wing media) that questioned Vice President Biden’s taste as he made funny comments about the late Senator Frank Lautenberg at his funeral.  I watched the video and the Vice President was funny and warm telling stories about a man that he had known and worked closely with for decades.  It was exactly the kind of eulogy I would hope someone would make at my funeral (a long time from now).

Then I decided to venture over into Right Wing Cyberspace to see what people were saying….

“Biden the clown embarrasses himself again.”

“How inappropriate to make JOKES at a funeral!”

“I hate Biden!  He has no taste whatsoever.  We have to get rid of these fools!”

Every comment was pre-disposed toward disliking anything that the Vice President might do and so the “controversial” display of a funny eulogy for a colleague and friend was more than enough to bolster their negative impression of the man.

I happen to know Joe Biden (I’m not name dropping, but I met him in 2007 when he campaigned in Iowa for President and I supported him at events and even introduced him).  He is one of the brightest, most informed, funny and warm individuals I’ve ever met.  He is the kind of representative everyone should want in Washington and he is instrumental in inspiring me to consider public service.

I like Joe Biden and so I am pre-disposed to giving his actions, ideas and policies the benefit of my admiration.  Just like people who like George Bush or Dick Cheney (of course, that would be limited to Mrs. Cheney).

This is not to say that there are not significant differences between Democrats and Republicans and between liberals and conservatives; many of those differences are diametrically opposed and unavoidably lead us to angry rhetoric.  My point here is rather pedestrian, but nevertheless, important:  We are not arguing over what is best for America, we are colliding over who is best, based on whether or not we trust them.  The problem is that trust is being predicated on what party they belong to and not from a fair judgment of character.

I don’t think Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, or NIXON, for that matter, had any intention other than to serve the American people to the best of their ability and from their personal understanding of what that means, and I believe that they sought the Presidency because they were inspired by patriotism and a genuine love for America’s ideals.

ALL of these men (and someday I hope to chastise women the same way) were flawed and surrounded by others who are flawed, who are themselves, surrounded by a flawed population.  If only we could learn to trust the collective genius of our Founding Fathers who created a representative Republic framed by checks and balances to overcome those flaws and to “smite unto death the tyranny of kings, hierarchs, and oligarchs, and carry the glad tidings of peace and good will…”

We would pave the way for corrections to make us stronger and diminish the destructive dialogues that are weakening our resolve.

This morning in the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier this rebuttal appeared to a column that I had written the week before:  http://wcfcourier.com/news/opinion/guest_column/questions-for-liberals/article_f518ea5c-ced4-11e2-9026-001a4bcf887a.html.

I will also offer my column if anyone wishes to use it as a reference:  http://wcfcourier.com/news/opinion/guest_column/have-you-taken-stock-of-your-jeopardized-liberties-lately/article_b252beb0-c947-11e2-b3ad-0019bb2963f4.html.

For the record, I consider Van Miller to be a friend, and I have tremendous respect for him and the business he has created.  He is a smart and generous man.  However, with regard to his article, he has made my reply too easy.

Let’s start with my friend “Steve” (in reality I changed his name).  I don’t believe anyone attends Northwestern University dreaming of becoming a fast food manager and Steve was no exception.  Having lofty ambitions to become a writer, director and actor, he worked at Burger King in the evenings to make his attendance possible.  As Mr. Miller points out there is nothing wrong with being a manager at Burger King and today the benefits are very good (for managers), but they weren’t back then and that would be more relevant to this point, but still irrelevant to Steve’s story.

I don’t want to belittle the company or anyone in food service and Mr. Miller is correct when he points out that the fast food industry generates billions in sales and creates jobs, but he should realize that most of the jobs that it creates are not full time positions with benefits; those belong to managers.  What do you suppose that ratio (managers to employees) would equal?  Not as impressive as Mr. Miller has suggested.

No, what is relevant is that Steve was among the best in his chosen profession and he did quite well for a long time.  But, ageism took him out of the mainstream of employment opportunities and for the past 10 years he didn’t make enough to qualify for guild benefits.  Mr. Miller is very successful and I compliment his business acumen, but, perhaps he has forgotten what making less than 50,000 dollars a year is like and having to pay for family health coverage out of pocket without an employer or guild match.  After taxes, and costs of living, many Americans have to roll the dice with regard to health care.

Mr. Miller dismisses me as another “Hollywood Liberal.”  Not that I would be ashamed of that because Hollywood liberals are among the brightest people I know, however, I didn’t become a liberal in Hollywood.  I grew up in a house where I observed and was taught egalitarianism, critical thinking, compassion and about civil rights.  I am still the same Iowa bred, moderate-liberal.

Finally, with regard to questioning a statistic I tossed out concerning “scandals” from the Bush and Obama administrations, I seem to have placed a burr in the saddle of Republicans who read my column (read the comments that follow and on my Facebook page).  They simply have to believe that Obama defines corruption and any attempt to illuminate history that contradicts that premise is “left wing bias.”

How soon they forget…the George W Bush presidency…

1) The Valerie Plame spy outing,  2) Mismanaged intelligence gathering in Iraq (or you can call it “WMD lies” to justify invasion), 3) Remember Jack Abramoff? (Look him up if you don’t), 4) Enron (close administration ties),  5)  Ashcroft’s violations of campaign finance laws  6)  Abu Ghraib (torture made fun?),  7) Cheney’s secretive Energy Commission and giving Halliburton drilling rights denied to others (polluting drinking water),  8) The Medicare scam where the administration lied to Congress about actual costs of legislation (I’m sure Mr. Miller remembers that one), and 9) the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” (warrantless wiretapping).

I’m up to 9 and I haven’t even gone online to do research yet.  Mr. Miller mentioned 4 Obama scandals, but consider that one is a continuation of existing NSA policy since President Bush and two others have shown NO direct connection with the President.  The gunwalking scandal points to the Attorney General, and the President has taken ”executive privilege” (which is always suspicious) and I won’t deny that was a bad plan, but an aggressive program to smoke out gun trafficking to Mexican Cartels is not something I can’t understand and I’m not really incensed over it.  And you know what?  I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that Mr. Miller isn’t really either….so, in my view…3:1 was being generously kind.

Generous…just like you’d expect from a Hollywood Liberal.

P.S. The comment from the rebuttal about a “Stand down” order from President Obama to military in Benghazi is erroneous.  The only testimony that has been given contradicts that Fox News assertion.  And as for the President “taking credit” for the killing of Bin Laden, he never took any credit save for the fact that it required a presidential order to go through with the mission.  Perhaps, Mr. Miller believes that George “Mission Accomplished” Bush would have been more modest.

A friend posted an indictment of President Obama’s surveillance policy (as a realization of the Patriot Act) with regard to wiretaps by the NSA.  You can find it here at:  http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-obama-nsa-phone-scandal-editorial-nyt-2013-6.  It was of particular interest because it was from the editorial board of the New York Times, a paper considered by the right, at least, to have a liberal bias.  Not meaning to get too far off topic, I think that it has a bias for the truth which appears to the right to be a leftwing bias, but I digress…

My point here is that I agree with the article.  I believe that the President is allowing government overreach in the name of security, and I believe, as I’ve written on this blog before (www.garyhassissues.com/and-freedom-tastes-of-reality/) that we compromise fundamental aspects of our freedom by taking liberties with the 4^th, 5^th, and 1^st amendments; all designed to protect our personal freedom.

Overreach is an abuse of power.

But I offer a caveat.  A huge caveat:  When we make this an Obama-specific issue we are causing a stalemate for the solution.  The post drew applause from right wingers who chastise every move this President makes, yet I never heard a peep from them when the Patriot Act was created; I never heard “boo” from the right wing when President Bush created the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” that first allowed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretapping.

I never heard a whimper of criticism from these same people who are accusing President Obama of a tyrannical abuse of power when a previous President defended his suspension of habeas corpus for suspected terrorists, domestic or foreign.

This isn’t backpeddling on my position of adherence to the Bill of Rights, but a question arises that exploits a contradiction within the electorate:  Let’s say, public outcry for this government invasion of privacy brings about legislation that makes it impossible to do this kind of warrantless surveillance.  And then….let’s imagine that an act of domestic terrorism takes place where innocent Americans are killed.

Now, consider that the investigation reveals that a more aggressive and clandestine surveillance policy would have stopped the event from taking place.  For those of you who are pretending to be of Constitutional nobility, let’s drill down even further; let’s say someone you loved was killed and it is revealed that unknown, warrantless surveillance could have thwarted the terrorist cell from the committing the crime….now, where do you stand?

This is the paradox and this is why, especially post-9/11 government intelligence has expanded the gray areas of what is allowable and what is not in accordance to our rights to privacy.

However, I stand by my personal position that we cannot allow for unrestricted surveillance because security that compromises the individual liberties that were the substance of our founding is another contradiction.  But we have to also recognize that this dilemma was created by all of us, right, left, and in-between, and is not solely the overreaching of this administration, but the extension of what we have allowed and even demanded as an electorate.

I woke up the other day to a post on Facebook that said I had declared my candidacy for the Iowa House (I haven’t).  It was posted by a former candidate who ran as a Republican for the House several years ago and for the Iowa Senate two years ago.  He lost both times and although I consider him a friend and a good man I opposed him largely because of his antiquated, fundamentalist views that lead him to stand against civil rights for gay Americans.  I think he bears ill-will toward me for my positions because he wrote:  “I think you’ll find running…and losing…a rewarding experience.”

Was he being self-deprecating, or insinuating that I’ll lose?

The post was quickly populated by his conservative friends and supporters, all of whom, chastised me because I’m a Democrat.  One said, “Kroeger would be a vote against America and Freedom!”

I was going to respond with: “Either you have never read anything I’ve written or you haven’t understood anything I’ve written.  Your choice.”

Even I can show restraint at times and I didn’t.

Another: “I read his column the other day and it was all bullshit.”  (http://wcfcourier.com/news/opinion/guest_column/have-you-taken-stock-of-your-jeopardized-liberties-lately/article_b252beb0-c947-11e2-b3ad-0019bb2963f4.html)

It went from there.  I did fire back at that one, but once I expose myself in attendance I am begging for the litany of insults that will always follow and so quickly I bowed out.  It doesn’t really upset me to be called an “idiot,” or “another brainwashed liberal,” because the people throwing such darts rarely elevate their own thoughts above name-calling.  “Bullshit” was probably one of the more sophisticated adjectives used.

Most of the hostile reaction toward me was directed at a statement that I made where I offered: “America can improve and so can this administration, but unless we can acknowledge good things that have happened in the past 4 years, the discourse is nothing but partisan and hostile.”

I had pointed out in my last Courier article (the one full of “bullshit”) that the Stock Market was robust (it is), that my mortgage rate was good (it is), that friends of mine who have lived in fear without health insurance are now relieved (they are), and that combat operations have ended in Iraq, Bin Laden is dead and we are reducing troops in Afghanistan (they have, he is and we are).  Not sure where the bullshit lies.  My point was to illustrate that we can improve but when we are constantly ducking for cover because “The sky is falling!” then the conversations that could better our situation become more difficult, if not impossible.

It occurs to me that being in government is a lot like being in advertising, which is my profession.  When a client is getting traffic and selling products, it is because they have good products, good service and a good reputation.  When they aren’t, it’s because the advertising sucks.

You can’t win for losing.  We have major policy issues in America, unemployment is still too high, and we have a debt/interest rate crisis, but…businesses are growing again, unemployment is coming down, deficit spending is half of what it was at the end of Bush’s second term, the stock market hit new highs, the housing market has rebounded, American cars are selling again….yet according to Republicans, “Obama is the worst President in history!”

I AM declaring my candidacy!  But, not for next year, for some time thereafter; maybe 2016.  Meanwhile, I’m going to continue writing and debating the issues I believe America needs to address.

And government- Stay away from my phone, my email and my texts!  Feel free to read my blog

Can you imagine the fun my opposition will have when I do decide to run?

Do you know that I can find out what you’re driving, what you pay every month, and when your lease expires?  Do you own your car?  I knew that already and I know what your trade-in totaled and what bank you got a loan from and at what interest rate.

I know your house payment and if you like red shoes.  I can have a banner appear when you go online that promotes your favorite designer and your favorite brand of coffee.

If you’re over 40 I can be sure that you get Viagra ads.

I can find out if you’ve been surfing porn sites and I know the name of your first pet.

And I’m just in marketing.

Imagine what the government can know.

The 4^th Amendment is under fire and so is the 5^th and the 1^st and they have been for a long time, but, here’s the really troubling part:  We have been all too happy to let them know whatever they, and every marketer, wants to know.  In fact, we expect government to know as much as possible about everyone- just so long as it isn’t me or you.

A hot political topic has been Warrantless Wiretaps and people are up in arms about that invasion of privacy and the threat to our individual liberties.  The NSA eavesdrops on our conversations when their software reveals that we have been using suspicious language or communicating with nefarious people, and our texts, emails, Tweets and phones can be targeted for investigation.

So what are we going to do about it?  Most likely….nothing.

Perhaps, Col. Jessep sums up our self-imposed ignorance best in “A Few Good Men”:  You have the luxury of not knowing what I  know… And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth.  Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall.  You need me on that wall!

Because, we are afraid, and because we want to be protected from terrorism and from unknown threats against us.  Because 9/11 scared the living crap out of us and we‘ve allowed, if not downright asked, the government to analyze all the information that is available regarding terror networks and suspect operatives, whether they are known Al Qaeda or as seemingly pedestrian as the guys in the apartment next door, because, who knows….?

And when government law enforcement misses; when a bomb goes off because not enough secretive information was processed – we tear them down for not protecting us.

If every other nation, every terrorist cell, every business, every marketer, every hacker and even your grocer, has access to Big Data, with analytical information about our individual habits and preferences that creates a 3 dimensional, real time, map of world society and every imaginable microcosm therein, how can we limit our own government from processing the same information in the interest of our protection?  That is, after all, a primary function of governance.

Can we really expect our government to stand down when Proctor and Gamble has all of the same information?

I posted some thoughts a little while back that I called “The Price of Freedom” where I posited that Freedom isn’t free and it isn’t necessarily safe.   We can choose freedom or we can choose security, but we cannot necessarily have both.  The laws which protect our freedoms can also leave us vulnerable to what the government doesn’t know.

The 4th Amendment provides us with freedom from illegal searches and seizures by law enforcement officers.  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

That can logically be extended to technology that didn’t exist at the time; cell phones and computers.

The Constitutional Framer’s intent was to secure individual rights and freedoms from government overreach, even in the pursuit of security.

After further reflection, though, I want to retract part of my conclusion and amend it:  Freedom isn’t free and it comes with great risks, but it isn’t the individual freedom as promised by our Constitution that people desire.  What people desire is the freedom to live without fear, and that freedom has a price that compromises the former.

I stand apart from this, however.  I bristle at anything that offends the 4^th amendment or suspends habeas corpus, because I believe that the Cause of Protection and Security will lead to Abuse of Power and ultimately to Tyranny, whether government, corporate, or both.  I believe that we must take the risks associated with adherence to the Bill of Rights and “not knowing everything” so that we can protect the only thing that truly keeps us free:  Freedom of Thought and Expression.

50 years before the Revolution began Benjamin Franklin proferred:  Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.

But, I am a minority.  Many people, on the left and on the right side of the aisle, are appalled by the invasion of privacy and that infringement upon our personal liberty, whether it was by the administrations of President Obama or Bush…or Clinton or Reagan….or Nixon or Johnson…or Lincoln; but, nearly everyone still chooses to be safe rather than sorry.  It’s a cliche that resonates to our core.

Living without freedom, or freedom without living?  Tough call.

I’ve been reading a lot lately about the scandals that the Obama administration has created and I’ve been hearing “We told you so” from a lot of Republicans.  Right wing columnists and pundits have been saying that “things have never been this bad before.”

Oh really?

Let me see what I can remember just off the top of my head from the Bush Administration….

The Valerie Plame spy scandal

The Medicare scam

Jack Abramoff’s lobbying fraud and tax evasion

Abu Ghraib prison torture

Manufactured evidence and false intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq

Enron

Tom Delay’s criminal fundraising

Ashcroft’s violations of campaign finance laws

The Halliburton loopholes

Cheney’s secretive Energy Task Force

______________________

Clinton had Monica-gate, which consumed more ink than Watergate.  Even the junk press (The National Enquirer, The Globe….Fox News) made its bones on every birth-marked inch of Clinton’s public and personal life.

______________________

President Reagan trumps them all with Iran/Contra, but let’s not forget the Savings and Loan scandal, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging….or the Inslaw Affair that alleged that top-level officials of the Department of Justice were involved in software piracy and then failed to appoint an independent counsel to investigate it.

By the end of his second term,138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.

What we really can’t forget, as the Benghazi controversy rages, is Beirut in 1983 when President Reagan, over objections from his secretary of defense, ordered that American servicemen be sent into a war zone, as part of an international peacekeeping force, but, under strict presidential orders not to load their weapons.  Reagan was noble in his attempt to make it clear that we came in peace, but, terrorists killed 299 essentially defenseless American and French servicemen.

_____________________

And today Republicans are in a bunch over what was known, or not known, concerning Benghazi and an alleged bias within the IRS.

Benghazi was a horrible tragedy, and I am all for accountability, but, in that light, it’s important to remember that in 2012 Republicans voted to remove $331 billion from security budgets at international consulates and embassies.  Should a glaring spotlight of accountability be aimed there, as well?

As for the IRS….we all hate the IRS so they become a pretty easy target, but with regard to the Obama “scandal” there are some important points to consider.

First of all, the commissioner at the time of the “targeting” was a Bush appointee, so that should be a head scratcher, but most interesting to me is the genesis of the targeting.  Four years ago the IRS was facing an explosion of newly formed 501(c) 4 groups claiming tax exempt status.  That tax classification is only for groups that primarily promote education or social welfare, and not electioneering, but a wealth of applications came from tea party related groups.  Red flags started flying toward any group applying for this status with names containing ‘Tea Party,’ ‘Patriots,’ or ‘9/12’.  Although the majority of Tea Party related organizations complied with tax guidelines, the scrutiny had begun.

Not exactly the Controversial Scandal to End All Scandals that the right-wing is trying to make it; not when you put it in its historical context.  Furthermore, this is not even a new controversy and it originally played out the other way around.

“I wish there was more GOP interest when I raised the same issue during the Bush administration, where they audited a progressive church in my district in what look liked a very selective way,” said California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff.  “I found only one Republican that would join me in calling for an investigation during the Bush administration. I’m glad now that the GOP has found interest in this issue and it ought to be a bipartisan concern.”

Double standards, anyone?

I remember someone saying less than 6 months after Obama took office in 2009 that he was going to be “the worst President in history.”  And he was only echoing what the right-wing media blitz was already saying.  Given that no policy had taken effect and that we were mired in a recession set into motion nearly two years earlier, that would indicate nothing but a predisposition to see Obama fail, and not a measure of any action or policy that he had taken.

And now I am even hearing some Democrats start to question President Obama’s ability to get things done and to question his integrity.  That does not come from an awakening or enlightenment, but rather it is the inevitable result of a constant beating of a right-wing drum that has questioned everything about this President from day one, using a media conspiracy formed by Fox News, talk radio and a conservative blogosphere feeding frenzy.

The President’s Faith has been questioned and attacked, his citizenship, and even his patriotism, in a never ending maelstrom of misinformation, fanned by the REAL bias in our political arena:  Hatred.

With a Republican agenda of 100% obstructionism and billions of lobbying dollars being waved, how was a new gun control measure to pass?  Or a job’s bill.  Or necessary tax reforms.

Yet, under President Obama we have seen a stock market rebound and reach a new high, military operations in Iraq come to an end, troop de-escalation in Afghanistan, health care reform that was talked about since Eisenhower become a reality, and unemployment is down to where it was at the beginning of the worst recession in 80 years.

So….Democrats—buck up!  This man has been nothing short of remarkable.

Republicans—shut up!  Your Herculean efforts to bring down our President will continue to fail as you spend your time creating scandals to define him, while failing to do what you should be doing; cooperating in Washington to further the best interests of the American people.

There are several signs around town that say “Freedom isn’t free.”  I’ve made that statement, myself, several times in these posts, but, usually the signs I see outside of medical clinics and dry cleaners, add “Thank a Veteran.”

I agree wholeheartedly with that entire statement, but when I’ve used the phrase I am using it in a slightly different context.  Service men and women are part of the equation to keep America free, but, as important (while less dangerous) is an informed electorate and the understanding of our constitutional charter.  There is no freedom in America without our system of laws and justice, and without our charter to form representative government and to clarify our unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Freedom is realized only by our collective willingness to live by that charter.

And this is where we have a conflict of interests…

Freedom isn’t free and it isn’t necessarily safe.  We can choose freedom or we can choose security, but we cannot necessarily have both.  The laws which protect our freedoms can also leave us vulnerable to what the government doesn’t know.

The 4^th Amendment to our Constitution provides us with freedom from illegal searches and seizures by law enforcement officers.  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

The 14^th Amendment contains the “Due Process Clause” prohibiting state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness, and the amendment’s “Equal Protection Clause” requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

Even the seemingly irrelevant 3^rd Amendment, preventing the government from quartering soldiers in civilian’s homes, is part of our Framer’s intent to secure individual rights and freedoms from government overreach, even in the pursuit of security.

With freedom come risks and our efforts to reduce those risks, can limit our freedom.  Which brings us to several topics:  Wiretapping, Immigration, and Water-boarding.

The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the “War on Terror,” was authorized under the Bush administration to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, internet activity, text messages, and any communication involving any party that was deemed suspicious by the NSA.  This program, referred to as the “terrorist surveillance program” was condoned by the administration, as well as many in the private sector, as a necessary program to combat terrorism in the wake of 9/11.

Enough public pressure did cause the Bush administration to cease the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007, but forms of it, under new guidelines, continued and continue today during the Obama Administration.  In April of 2009 officials from the Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications.

At what point do we draw the line?  Security can be expanded to mean anything, and if so, what does our right to privacy mean?  American citizens should not have to worry about their phones being tapped or their emails being read by government agencies, even in the name of security- THAT is the price of freedom.

The Arizona Immigration Law requires all aliens (legal) over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government, and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.  Additionally, state law enforcement requires proof of immigration status when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.

We are not a fascist country and no American citizen should be required to carry Citizenship Papers to pass within our own borders, even in the name of capturing illegal aliens- THAT is the price of freedom.

America was founded during a struggle for sovereignty outlined by respect for human rights, life, liberty and impartial justice.  We cannot allow for torture, even in the name of intelligence gathering.

“Water-boarding” used in US counter-terrorism measures is the sensation of drowning and causes extreme pain, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and even death.

When we condone such a thing by justifying its effectiveness to gather information from extra-judicial prisoners, we lower ourselves to the most barbaric order of civilization; we betray the fundamental human rights that we stand for and compromise the freedom that we claim to uphold.

If America is to be, as President Reagan once imagined, “The Shining City on the Hill,” then we cannot allow for the invasion of our privacy, the profiling of our citizens, and the sanctioning of torture.  Not if we wish to uphold the principles of unalienable rights that we treasure-  THAT is the price of freedom!

“People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”    – Benjamin Franklin

I’ve been thinking about evangelicals.  They are a strong political force within the conservative movement and while I have no problem with the expression of deep Faith, I am confused by the contradiction between the pageantry in some of their massive congregations and Matthew 6:1:  “Take heed that ye give not your alms before men, to be seen of them.”

Where religion is concerned I seek humility and I have a world view that allows for all religious, and non-religious people, to “follow their bliss.”  That phrase was coined by the late mythologist, Joseph Campbell who believed that all world religions contain the same fundamental, transcendent truths and I share that view.  My problem with modern evangelicals is the fact that they’re so…evangelical, and the aggressive righteousness leaves no room for non-conformists.

The original movement in the 17^th century rose from Lutheranism to de-emphasize ritual and ceremony in the Church and to instead focus on pietism.  They were, in fact, non-conformists.  Today, however, “evangelicalism” has come to mean strict social conservatism, devout adherence to Scripture and a clear establishment of Christian doctrine in politics.  Such zealotry leads many to anti-scientific theory and anti-intellectual conformity that compromises solutions to real world problems and that, in my opinion, has become dangerous.

A poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and Religion News Service, questioned respondents about God and natural disasters, and it revealed that 60% of the evangelicals polled (more than any other group), believe that natural disasters are signs from God. Other denominations hovered around 30 to 40% but that is still a staggering number of people who feel that solutions, even the ones within our human grasp, may be as simple, and as exclusionary, as piety.

Right after the Newtown massacre, former Arkansas governnor, Mike Huckabee, came onto Fox News and opined, “We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools.”

A columnist wrote to a Texas paper that “their deaths could be attributed to God’s displeasure with our culture’s moral collapse.”

I was reminded of a person I saw being interviewed just before the Republican convention who shared his belief that Hurricane Issac was desending on the Republican Convention because, “God is flexing his might to remind us that we have turned our backs on Him.”

I’m always impressed at how quickly a zealot can turn any occurance into whatever ideological confirmation they choose. The sun was shining over the Democratic Convention, but I’m sure someone surmised: “God is casting a blinding light onto those who see false idols”

Years ago I had dismissed Pat Robertson after he blurted out that “the earthquake in Haiti was a result of a Haitian pact with the devil” but, last year an email circulated, with hundreds of names attached, which stated that we are “suffering because we are becoming a Godless nation.”

So, I got to thinking…

What if…”fringe” evangelicalism is becoming mainstream?

What is that saying about Christianity? And about God?

My first thought is that this concept betrays the very nature of God. I never thought of Him as a Father that would resort to playground tactics and exact revenge on those who don’t follow. I have children and when they ignore me (which is most of the time), I hardly wish for them to perish in a flood.

Then I thought…..“What if…this fundamentalist Christian notion is all wrong? I mean, what if, in fact, it is exactly wrong?”

What if God is angry at the Christians inside His church who pose as followers when, in fact, they betray His doctrine?

What if God is angry at those in his church, who recited the Gospel, yet went to work and pillaged the credit of the less fortunate and plundered the investments of his hard working flock?

What if He is appalled at the trusted servants of a major Christian denomination who would first choose to protect themselves before innocent children?

Maybe God is angry at the Christians who want to repeal health care reform that can help over 30 million of His children to have more security in their lives.

Maybe God is less insulted by those who would remove prayer in schools, than He is by those who cannot separate religion from the laws of men.

Maybe…maybe, God gets upset with those who would deny civil rights to others who wish to show their love and devotion through marriage.

Maybe God is fed up with those who manipulate His divinity into messages of smite and exclusion.

Or what if…God, whether real or a concept, is how we measure our compassion for others and His word represents the responsibility we have to care for one another and for this planet?

What if…natural disasters are just that, natural, and solutions to the problems we face depend on how we accept each other, as we are, and not whether or not we share the same piety?

Just something to think about.  My Faith contends that our collective thoughts make a difference.

It is fairly common that a mass email will reach me like the one below.  This one was a list of things (perceived contradictions in policy) that concluded, if they were true, that “you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.”

I’m sure that there are some idiots running this country, just as there are plenty within the electorate but, the laundry list of reasons documented in the email fail to make a point beyond that fact that it was probably idiots who created the email.

These kinds of things circulate en masse and I imagine that it’s because they strike a chord with many citizens who feel that it represents what is wrong with America.  This one was particularly frustrating because it was sent to me by a person that I consider very intelligent.  Apparently, however, intelligence is not a barometer to indicate rationality, especially in politics.

Before I bloviate too much here myself, I’d like to address each of the statements in this email.  I give part of the statements and then offer my response to each.

1)      “…you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally…”

There is this thing about being a free nation that operates contrary to fascism and implies that we don’t have to carry citizenship papers wherever we go within our borders.  Or are we going to designate only certain ethnicities?  Can I assume that Scandinavian looking people will be exempt?

Illegal immigrants, when caught, are arrested, charged and deported.  If they continue to immigrate illegally they can face up to 7 years in prison.  But, because this is a country where some founding fathers thought that impartial justice would be a good idea, illegal immigrants still retain Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure and Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

2)      “…you have to get your parent’s permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion…”

Most states require one of two types of parental involvement– consent or notification, or both.  35 states require parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion, with 22 demanding consent.  Based on a national study, 61% of young women voluntarily notified at least one parent when seeking an abortion; those who do not are often the victims of sexual abuse, incest or domestic violence.  Among those that chose not to inform their parents or guardians, all chose to consult an adult.

Studies from “Pediatricians for Reproductive Choice and Health” also indicate that parental consent laws do not reduce the rate of unwanted teen pregnancies, nor do they deter determined young women from seeking abortion, and they can increase the number of second trimester and illegal abortions by deterring pregnant teens from seeking safe, timely abortion. (For example, after a parental notification law was passed in Minnesota, second trimester abortions increased by 27%).

This is an emotional subject and I am not making a political statement here; I am seeking to clarify a reality that contradicts the email.

3)      “…you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check…buy liquor…but NOT when you go to vote…”

These are completely different issues.  We show an ID on a plane to verify that we are the holder of the ticket for security reasons.  Not that long ago, it wasn’t required.  ID to buy liquor is to confirm that you are old enough.  Boarding airplanes and buying liquor, however, are not rights guaranteed by our citizenship, as is the right to vote.  Without the requirement of proof of age, would anyone like to guess how many minors would purchase alcohol illegally?  Too many.  Who would like to get on a plane these days not knowing if the person next to you is the person who bought the ticket?  I wouldn’t.  Would anyone like to guess the percentage of documented voter fraud?  It’s .0002%.  Not really worth the trouble and cost to create and enforce voter identification.

So…what is voter ID really about?  Well, I’ll leave that for another post.

4)       “…the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines…but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the new crazy leaders in Egypt…”

This one would make me laugh if I didn’t know that to many people it’s a “right on!” statement.  The answer is pretty simple:  Gun regulations are designed to discourage citizens who are NOT stable and law abiding.  And if gun magazines over 10 rounds are not sufficient force for you, then perhaps, you aren’t the “stable, law abiding citizen” you think you are.

This is not a foreign policy post, but, like it or not, Egypt is a strategic ally, and after the transition to democracy during the Arab Spring, the strategic importance of Egypt is even more relevant.  For the record, the Bush Administration gave $2 billion annually to Egypt, more than half of which went to their military.  There is a long history of US aid to Egypt, especially since Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat (1970-81).  In fact, they are second, only to Israel, in the receipt of American aid.

5)       “…an 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA, but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched…”

This one is too ludicrous to spend a whole lot of time on.  First of all the woman in the hijab went through an X-Ray just like everyone else.  The case where an “80 year old woman” was searched at JFK was because she was observed to have an unusual bump under her dress.  Unfortunate and embarrassing to be sure, but not a double standard.  Muslim women in hijabs are patted down, or searched if necessary, just like everyone else.  I offer this article to clarify the myth:  http://www.examiner.com/article/are-muslim-women-exempt-from-screening-other-tsa-myths

6)      “…a 7 year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is ‘cute’ but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable…”

I must have missed Sexual Exploration and Diversity class in Grade School.  There were Sex Education classes at my High School that I remember quite well (I saw a picture of a Winky and a Petooty making Jumblies) that were designed to teach puberty-busting teenagers responsibility, and understanding of the most basic and fundamental part of being human.

As for a boy being thrown out of school for calling his teacher “cute”….I don’t know if that’s a true story, but I will assume that it is.  I think that’s ludicrous, if it happened, but if it did, it was the result of our societal awareness of appropriate behavior, and perhaps, in this case, a school thought a lesson was to be learned.  What it isn’t is a rational comparison to reveal loose standards regarding sex education.

The final entry in this already too long email diatribe was:

7)      “If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize them NOT to work with 99 weeks of unemployment checks….you might be in a country run by idiots!”

In 2008, the United States was mired in what was a bottomless recession.  Unemployment from that recession grew 2.3% from the end of 2007 to 2008 and steadily rose until it hit its ceiling in October of 2009 at 10%.  The extension (up to 99 weeks) occurred in November of 2009 at the peak of unemployment and can be directly associated with creating sustenance and extending opportunities for out of work families to find jobs.  The unemployment rate has been dropping since.

In summary…the email that circulated was, as are many documents, websites, blogs, and news channels, an erroneous collection of shortsighted, incomplete, and dangerous pseudo-facts, that do nothing to improve our arguments or our legislation.  They serve only to fan the flames of political bias, obstinacy, and ignorance, and are contrary to progress.

Gary out.

May 1^st marked the second anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  Did I miss a History Channel special or was this kind of overlooked in the news?  Maybe it isn’t an event that we need to call attention to every year but in a culture where we acknowledge 6 month anniversaries of relationships I would’ve thought the OBL story would’ve gotten a little press again.

Actually, the only reason I’m thinking of Bin Laden at all is because I was in a conversation regarding President Obama’s foreign policy achievements and an arch conservative friend said, “I will give him that one! I still celebrate.”

I join the millions of Americans (and non-Americans) who feel relief, even gladness, at the demise of Bin Laden, but I’ve never felt compelled to celebrate. The sense of closure his death brought was met with new concerns about American foreign policy and I find myself asking, “Does America have the moral compass anymore to make our continued fight with Al Qaeda and the surgical decimation of its leaders more than celebrations of bad men dying and can it lead us in the direction of peace.

A leading Republican was on tv the other day and declared that we need a president that will “make us proud again to be an American.”

Yet, it was only a few years ago when it was the Democrats who were rallying to “return America to greater standing in the world” and to find our “moral authority once again.”

I remember because I was one of the louder voices.

Only 8 years before that the battle cry was heard from a Republican running against Gore that we needed to “bring dignity back to the White House.”

Clinton, before that, ran against Bush Sr. and promised to return us to “a time when America was respected more than feared.”

A recent letter to the editor in the Des Moines Register criticized Obama’s foreign policies and finished with the proclamation, “We need to make America great again!”

Every time I hear that I ask myself, “What ‘great’ period are they referring to?”

I hear “return to greatness” from both sides of the political fence and I wonder, “What is the criteria for greatness?”

Apparently, the letter writer felt good about the way things were before Obama even though the Bush era ended with economic catastrophe, and a foreign policy quagmire.

Maybe, the writer was referring to Clinton-era American pride.  Clinton did balance the budget and maintained an extended period of prosperity, but, even I will admit there was a stain on the personal integrity of the White House as certain proclivities became harder and harder to defend.

It wouldn’t be hard to imagine that many Americans wish for a return to the principles of Ronald Reagan and his “Shining city on the hill,” but, that was also when we first became a debtor nation from his fiscal blunder.  Not to mention that the “Trickle Down” revival of neoliberalism created a divide between the Haves and the Have-nots that still tangle the economic debate.  With regard to foreign policy, the Iran/Contra deception comes to mind, and while the fall of the Soviet Union has been handed to his legacy, it was really the result of Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika.

Many Americans think of the great moral purpose of World War II and the recovery from the Great Depression as the greatest time in the history of America. Although to hear the conservative revisionists speak of FDR today, you would think that every failure since, social and economic, was the result of the New Deal.

Lincoln, perhaps the greatest philosophical genius to ever occupy the White House, presided over the greatest socio/political divide in history.

There is no doubt that seeds from separatism still exist to this day as we continue to fight challenges of racism and policies born from ignorance and fear.

So…what is the period of greatness that we all, at one time or another, seem to crave?

Good news!  This isn’t a rhetorical question, I have an answer!

There are two things that happen when we consider our historical greatness.  One is a natural human craving for nostalgia.  Nostalgia is not built upon a remembrance of how things were; rather it comes from what we remember about how we felt at a certain time.  We carry in our narrative the fact that we have survived, and we remember the moments of joy in the cracks and crevices of our struggles; we instinctively long for those feelings again. Some of my happiest memories are from financially hard times long ago where I found laughs and inspirations in the journey and I yearn for them even today.

And two, we have a collective historical consciousness about the legacy and promise of America. We are aware of the unique place in world history that our Republic occupies and we have been taught what our forefathers fought for in defiance of tyranny. We are raised on the traditions of patriotism and the stories of struggle and triumph that define our realization of freedom and human rights.

While our history is undeniably peppered with stumbles and falls toward realizing those principles, it is still a timeline of progress toward life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Together, nostalgia and patriotism conspire to give us a sincere sense of what makes this country great and we perennially long to restore her to something that “used to be.”

My challenge for all of us is to ask ourselves, individually:  “What is it that I believe in that makes America great?  Does America follow the call of human rights and the principles of freedom?  What am I doing to continue that journey?”

We make a mistake when we put the responsibility of America’s promise onto the shoulders of politicians before we answer those questions ourselves.  Only collectively, as citizens and politicians, can we define the moral directives that will restore our journey for freedom and guide us toward the realization of peace.

That, and only that, will make us great.