Stewart Park Squatters Demand Wellmark Change It’s Business Model

November 12, 2011 by 4 Comments

The complete and utter ignorance of the protesters taking part in Occupy Des Moines never ceases to amaze me. We have seen the protesters from Occupy Des Moines take a foolhardy and provocative stance that led to the arrest of more than 30 of the protesters. We have seen many of the so-called protesters continue to insist beyond any and all rational reasoning that the 1st Amendment allows their little squatters camp to violate the law. But the latest out of the Stewart’s Park Squatters Camp really takes the cake.

According to this story in the Des Moines Register, about a dozen of the squatters tore themselves away from their dingy little tents to march on one of Iowa’s largest and most respected employers. In their sights this time was Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield. The dirty dozen delivered their brazen demand that Wellmark “put people before profit” by lowering their premiums.

It is absolutely astounding that the occupiers have the nerve to tell a successful and well respected company like Wellmark how to run its business. It is quite evident that the group has absolutely no knowledge as to how a business, such as Wellmark, operates. Instead they make an emotional demand that Wellmark abandon a business model that has worked successfully for a great many years just because the occupiers don’t think it is fair.

I have a proposal for the dirty dozen that marched on Wellmark. If you don’t like how Wellmark operates, change to a different company. If that doesn’t appeal to you, start your own insurance company. Organize it as a non-profit so that you can “put people before profit.” Compete with Wellmark and the other insurance companies doing business in Iowa. The quickest and surest way to affect change is through competition. If you can offer equal or better coverage than Wellmark for less they will be forced to change how they do business.

With that said, I don’t see it happening. We have now had several weeks to observe the group. One conclusion that has been easy to come to is that they are lazy. They don’t want to do the work, they want someone else to do it for them while they sit back and reap the rewards. I know this is harsh, but the story about their Wellmark march demonstrates this conclusion very clearly.

Filed under Commentary, News Tagged with , , ,

Common Sense: Happy Veterans Day Courtesy of the US Air Force

November 10, 2011 by Leave a comment

  Today is the 236th birthday of the United States Marine Corps (Semper Fidelis, with a Bravo Zulu and Charlie Mike in there for good measure). Tomorrow will be Veterans Day.

Like most veterans, I will gather with my comrades tomorrow for special events in honor of those among us who, at some point in their life, made out a check to “The People of The United States of America” for an amount “up to and including my life.” But, in the back of my mind, I’m going to be thinking about how my government has once again reneged on its promise to those who put on the uniform and served.

If you haven’t heard, I can’t say I’m entirely surprised, but Tuesday, the U.S. Air Force released a report capping a year-long investigation of how the Dover Air Force Base mortuary mishandled the remains of service members. According to a statement from the Air Force, the practice of cremating the remains and dumping the ashes in a Virginia landfill had been going on for years.

The details of the situation at Dover AFB were outlined Tuesday in a report by The Washington Post, as well.

The mission at Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations is to “provide reverence, dignity, honor and respect to the fallen and care, service and support to their families.” While it is an Air Force operation, it is staffed by members of all branches of the military, as well as National Guard, Reserve and civilian staff.

And, since the initiation of joint hostilities in bothIraqandAfghanistan, AFMAO’s mission has become increasingly more difficult. Since 2003, it has prepared more than 6,300 fallen military members for return to their loved ones.

AFMAO operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and routinely deals with the horrific trauma of war. That much I get and respect. What I don’t understand, however, is how this has been candy-coated and, more or less, swept under the rug by the military.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said that while the situation was certainly bad, no one intentionally did anything wrong. Instead, he blamed “gross mismanagement” for the way service members’ remains were mishandled:

“Though the findings concluded remains of our fallen were handled with reverence, dignity, honor and respect, the investigations resulted in a determination that three senior supervisors’ actions and inactions, though not willful, constituted ‘gross mismanagement’ for failing to respond appropriately to clear indications that procedures were inadequate to prevent loss of accountability of disassociated remains (referred to as portions) at the Dover Port Mortuary.

“Gross mismanagement is an action or inaction that is blatant and creates a substantial risk or significant adverse impact on the agency’s ability to accomplish its mission. This did not constitute a finding that AFMAO was mismanaged as a general matter, but was limited to the leadership’s failure to respond appropriately to specific accountability issues related to portions.”

    I don’t know about you, but where I come from, that’s some Major League butt-covering. Perhaps I’m just a little too sensitive, being a veteran myself, but U.S. Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, who investigates complaints like these, agrees.

She said that “while the Air Force has made many changes… including requiring family permission prior to significantly altering remains and putting in place extensive procedures to improve the handling and accountability of remains, it has not taken sufficient disciplinary action against the officials responsible for wrongdoing.” She also noted “the Air Force delayed notifying the families involved until publication of the OSC report was imminent.”

As reported in the WaPo article, Gari-Lynn Smith, the wife of one service member whose remains were dumped in the landfill after his 2006 death inIraq, was appalled and disgusted by the way the Air Force acted. The article stated she did not learn about the mishandling of her husband’s remains until this spring, just before the OSC report was released (in May).

“My only peace of mind in losing my husband was that he was taken toDoverand that he was handled with dignity, love, respect and honor,” Smith said. “That was completely shattered for me when I was told that he was thrown in the trash.”

She said she only learned in April that part of her husband’s remains had been dumped in the landfill in a letter from an AFMAO official. The letter misidentified her husband, a 16-year Army veteran who volunteered for hazardous duty defusing roadside bombs, with the wrong first name.

So much for dignity, honor, and respect, I guess.

Lerner is currently investigating claims the Air Force retaliated against three staff members who were acting as whistleblowers — staff members who clearly didn’t feel AFMAO was handling fallen service members’ remains with “reverence, dignity, honor and respect.” So, let’s look at what Gen. Schwartz might have meant by that.

In a separate WaPo article, James Parsons Sr., an embalmer at AFMAO, blew the whistle when he was instructed to saw an arm off the body of a Marine who had been killed by an IED inAfghanistan in February of this year. Parsons, himself and Army veteran, refused to follow the order and was later the target of retribution — including an attempt to get him fired — over the matter.

“What I’m thinking is: ‘This is totally wrong’… I’d consider it to be mutilation, especially if that’s my son,” he said. “It’s immoral… It’s disrespectful, so disrespectful. This guy laid down his life for his country, and then we go and treat him like he’s a piece of meat. ‘I can do whatever I want with him.’ It’s just wrong.”

The WaPo article says the officer responsible for the Marine’s arm being removed was demoted and reassigned elsewhere at Dover AFB, away from AFMAO. But the officers overseeing the mortuary operation only received reprimands and remain in command, according to Lerner’s report.

Her report to President Barack Obama also enumerated two instances in which service members’ body parts were lost while being handled by AFMAO personnel. She also reported five instances in which the remains of five stillborn military dependents were mishandled at Dover AFB.

The WaPo also obtained Air Force documents that identified the landfill used for disposing the remains, which was located in King George County, Va. Officials with Waste Management, the company that operates the landfill, said they were not informed of the origin of the ashes, nor was it made aware of the process AFMAO was implementing.

So, where do you suppose the American Legion, the largest veterans’ service organization in the United States, weighs in on this matter? The answer, you would think, is pretty obvious: they’re outraged, right? Well, if they are, the National Command is strangely silent on the matter.

But, not everyone is staying mum about it. Richard L. DeNoyer, National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, found a way to express his outrage.

“The VFW demands that the Departments of Defense and the Air Force get to the bottom of this, to hold accountable those directly responsible, and to ensure necessary controls are in-place and followed to never permit such disrespectful incidents to ever occur again,” he said. “What happened at Dover AFB exceeds on many levels the nationwide anger that resulted from reports of mistreated wounded at the formerWalterReedArmyMedicalCenterin 2007 and reports of lost or misplaced graves atArlingtonNationalCemeteryin 2009. You only get one chance to return our fallen warriors to their families with all the dignity and respect they deserve from a grateful nation — and that mortuary affairs unit failed.”

I don’t think “failed” even begins to cover it, but I don’t think words can completely describe this nightmare. I’ve been trying to find a word that would describe the rage and anger I’m feeling as a veteran for two days now.

I simply can’t.

The closest I can come to it are a couple of old military phrases, neither of which are appropriate for polite conversation. The first one starts with “cluster” and the other has been shortened over the years to “snafu.”

I’ll let those of you who are good at Googling figure out the rest.

But, I end each and every newspaper column I write with the following statement, so I’d like to end on a positive note by repeating it here. I make no claims of ownership — I picked it up years ago — but it accurately represents my feelings about veterans. Feel free to use it whenever you like:

 

    If you’re reading this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading this in English, thank a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine.

Filed under Commentary, News Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Herman Cain: Liar, liar, pants are on fire

October 19, 2011 by 2 Comments

Bob Eschliman

 

      In all fairness, I have to admit I once was riding the “Cain Train.” I had bought into his message, his position as an outsider railing against Washington, and Herman Cain’s success as a businessman who has been able to create jobs and turn failing business models around.

      But, I never stopped the vetting process, which is why I’m firmly back among the ranks of the undecided. I dug deeper as I got to know more about the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO, and I didn’t like what I saw.

      For one thing, the man’s underwear must be constantly aflame, because he seemingly can’t open his mouth without lying.

      At the Las Vegas GOP debate held Tuesday night, Herman Cain got caught in one of those awkward moments where he said something to one journalist, and then told another journalist (ironically enough, from the same media outlet) the direct opposite.

      During the debate, moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper asked, “Herman Cain, let me ask this to you. A few hours ago you were asked by Wolf Blitzer, if al Qaeda had an American soldier in captivity, and they demanded the release of everyone at Guantanamo Bay, would you release them? And you said, quote: ‘I can see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer.’ Can you explain?”

      Before we get to Cain’s response, let’s take a look at what was asked and what was said during the earlier interview on CNN with Blitzer:

      BLITZER: One foreign policy question. I know you’re going to be asked many more in the days to come.

      CAIN: Yes. Sure.

      BLITZER: I know you’re a major supporter of Israel.

      CAIN: Yes.

      BLITZER: Did the Israeli government of Prime Minister Netanyahu do the right thing in exchanging 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for one captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who had been held by Hamas for five years?

      CAIN: I would have to know all of the considerations he made to say yes or no, because I’m sure that there were a lot of considerations that he had to make in order to make that decision. On the surface, you would say one for hundreds doesn’t make any sense. But here’s how I make decisions. And this is why I respect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu so much. He looks at all of the facts before he makes a judgment call. We don’t know all of the facts.

      BLITZER: Could you imagine if you were president — we’re almost out of time — and there was one American soldier who had been held for years, and the demand was al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, you have got to free everyone at Guantanamo Bay, several hundred prisoners at Guantanamo? Could you see yourself, as president, authorizing that kind of transfer?

      CAIN: I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer, but what I would do is, I would make sure that I got all of the information, I got all of the input, considered all of the options. And then the president has to be the president and make a judgment call. I could make that call if I had to.

      So, clearly, the evidence proves Herman Cain used the phrase, “I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer.” So, what do you suppose he had to say about Cooper’s question during the debate?

      “The rest of the statement was quite simply, you would have to consider the entire situation. But let me say this first, I would have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. We have to lay that principle down first,” he said. “Now being that you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. The point that I made about this particular situation is that I’m sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that.”

      “So on the surface, I don’t think we can say he did the right thing or not,” he added. “A responsible decision-maker would have considered everything.”

      I’m sensing his handlers and advisors got hold of him after the Blitzer interview and gave him some new talking points. And, I think Cooper sensed that, too, so he pressed the question further, as any journalist would:

      “But you’re saying you could — I mean, in your words, you’ve said that, ‘I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer,’” Cooper said. “Isn’t that negotiating with, in this case, al Qaeda?”

      Now, at this point, often referred to as the “run, squirm, or lie moment” amongst hardcore journalists, Cain could have done one of three things: 1) run away from the issue (Rick Perry calls this “answering the question however I want”), 2) squirm behind his podium, providing a mostly unintelligible response, or 3) flat-out lie.

      Herman Cain didn’t bat an eye or flinch — not even a little bit.

      “I don’t recall him saying that it was al Qaeda-related,” he responded.

      When Cooper confirmed Blitzer had, indeed, framed the question with al Qaeda in mind and offers to read back the exact quote, Cain almost says, “Well, I don’t really care.” At least, that’s what it appears he was ready to say before he caught himself.

      “Well, I don’t really — my policy will be we cannot negotiate with terrorists,” he said. “That’s where we have to start as a fundamental principle.”

      After the debate, Cooper again confronted Cain on the question about the quote, and this time played a video clip of the Blitzer interview. The official response this time: “I misspoke.”

      If this was a one-time faux pas, you could pretty well give him a pass on it. But, Herman Cain has had a lot of instances where he “misspoke.” In fact, there have been several instances where he’s appeared to flip-flop, or have multiple positions on a single issue.

      And, there have been several times where he’s outright lied to someone’s face. Having TV cameras in the room doesn’t appear to be a deterrent. And, lying in the middle of a GOP debate hasn’t been a problem, either.

      At the Bloomberg debate a week earlier, Ron Paul attempted to go on the offensive about Cain’s position on whether or not the Federal Reserve should be audited:

      Mr. Cain, in the past you have been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You have said — you’ve used pretty strong terms — that we were ignorant and that we didn’t know what we are doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway, because if you had one, you’re not going to find out anything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed.

      But now that we have found and we have gotten an audit, we have found out an awful lot on how special businesses get bailed out — Wall Street, the banks, and special companies, foreign governments — and you said that you advise those of us who were concerned, and you belittled, you say call up the Federal Reserve and just ask them, get the PR person.

      Do you still stick by this — that this is frivolous — or do you think it’s very important? Sixty-four percent of the American people want a full audit of the Fed on a regular basis.

      Once again, Herman Cain finds himself in a run, squirm, or lie position and chooses the latter. And, once again, he barely bats an eye as he lies through his teeth:

      First of all, you have misquoted me. I did not call you or any of your people ignorant. I don’t know where that came from. Alright?

      To which Paul responds, “I’ll get it for you.” But, Cain continues:

      Now, so, you’ve gotta be careful of the stuff you get off the Internet, because that’s just not something I’ve said. Secondly, when I served on the board of the Federal Reserve in the 1990s, we didn’t do any of the things that this Federal Reserve is doing. I don’t agree with the actions of this Federal Reserve. I don’t agree with the actions that have been undertaken by Ben Bernanke.

      We didn’t have a 14-trillion-dollar national debt to prop up with some of the actions that they are taking. And I have also said, to be precise, I do not object to the Federal Reserve being audited. I simply said, “If someone wants to initiate that action, go right ahead. It doesn’t bother me.” So, I’ve been misrepresented in that regard. I don’t have a problem with the Federal Reserve being audited, it’s simply not my top priority. My top priority is 9-9-9! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

      Those who know me know I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Ron Paul. But, when someone is right, they deserve to be defended. No, Herman Cain didn’t call the Audit the Fed movement “ignorant,” he used a different word: stupid.

      Cain then followed up his defense of whether or not he used the word “ignorant” by more or less calling Ron Paul and those who agree with him ignorant: “Now, so, you’ve gotta be careful of the stuff you get off the Internet, because that’s just not something I’ve said.”

      So, what did he say, exactly? Well, as a guest host on “The Neil Boortz Show,” he had this to say about the Audit the Fed movement:

      …but people who say, “Well, we ought to audit the Federal Reserve because we don’t know enough about it,” well, here’s the advice I’ve given to people who are worried about an audit of the Federal Reserve: “Call ’em up and ask ’em, if you can stop by and have one of their PR people, or of their Public Relations people, explain to you how the Federal Reserve operates!”

      I think a lot of people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don’t know enough about it. There’s no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve, to my knowledge, and I tell people, we’ve got twelve Federal Reserve banks, find out which district you’re in, call ’em up and go from there.

      We don’t need to waste money with another commission, or an audit that’s not necessary, because, folks, we got a lot of other problems we need to worry about.

      The Internet was ablaze the day after the debate with “fact checks” on Cain’s statements, both on Boortz’s show and in the debate. But, again, that wasn’t the first time he lied on the campaign trail.

      Granted, ThinkProgress is the least likely source of information I would quote, but they can back up what they’re saying with raw video footage of Herman Cain saying exactly what he’s about to say he didn’t say. Wow, you really do weave a tangled web…

      Back in late-June, ThinkProgress asked Cain if he would be comfortable appointing a Muslim to his Cabinet, if elected President. The answer is pretty straightforward: “No, I will not.”

      And then, he went on to explain why:

      There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

      The question that was asked that “raised some questions” and, as my grandfather said, “I does not care, I feel the way I feel.” I was asked, “what is the role of Islam in America?” I thought it was an odd question. I said the role of Islam in America is for those that believe in Islam to practice it and leave us alone. Just like Christianity. We have a First Amendment. And I get upset when the Muslims in this country, some of them, try to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.

      He went on to defend his point with Oklahoma’s attempt at establishing only American law should be considered in its courtrooms. And, if that’s where this story ended, we would be patting the man on the back as principled, Christian defender of Constitutional liberty.

      But just two weeks later, when approached by BBC reporter Matthew Wells, we get a completely different result:

      WELLS: You said you wouldn’t have a Muslim in your Cabinet two weeks ago. Is that still your position?

      CAIN: That wasn’t a statement I made. Let’s get it right. I was asked if I would be comfortable, and my response was I would not be comfortable with a terrorist in my Cabinet. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of the terrorists are Muslims, so I just have to be real careful about who I put in my Cabinet.

      The candidate later admits political correctness isn’t his strong point, and that he tends to ruffle feathers. But, he never acknowledges how his position has seemingly done a 180 in just 14 days’ time.

      But the baffling point is that he goes right back to the original position as he continues to defend himself against the criticism. And, he even admits to why his position keeps wavering in the wind, so to speak:

      …[T]he comment that I made that become controversial, and that my staff keeps hoping will die, is that I wouldn’t have Muslims in my administration. And it’s real simple: the Constitution does not have room for Sharia law. I want people who are going to believe and enforce the Constitution of the United States of America. And so I don’t have time, as President of the United States, to try and screen people based upon their religious beliefs — I really don’t care what your religious beliefs are, but I do know that most of the people of the Muslim faith, they believe in Sharia law. And to introduce that element as part of an administration when we have all of these other issues, I think I have a right to say that I won’t.

      Would the real Herman Cain please stand up?

      A good friend of mine, Cary Gordon, a pastor at Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, thought that was exactly what he was getting one day several months ago. Pastor Cary and his wife, Molly, were invited to attend a Cain campaign event, and were later invited to chat with the candidate, one-on-one.

      Somewhere along the line one of his staff mentioned that he would be in the city on the Lord’s day (the following morning) and would enjoy worshiping with us, if we were okay with that.

      Naturally, I said we would be delighted to have him worship with us. I shared the time of the morning service with them and parted ways. I asked him if he wouldn’t mind greeting everyone just before the sermon. He graciously agreed to do so. Herman was warmly received by our congregation as he briefly spoke prior to the sermon.

      Pastor Cary said, after the service was over, there were many members of the congregation who remained behind to meet Cain personally, and that in general they were very supportive of his candidacy. And after some good ol’ fashioned glad-handing, Cain, some his staffers, and the pastors at Cornerstone World Outreach went out to lunch at a popular Sioux City restaurant.

      We engaged in a discussion, among other things, on the Christian worldview. While we were eating, one of Mr. Cain’s staff members — Charlie Gruschow — made it a point to remind Herman that I had played a measurable public role in the recent Iowa Judicial Retention process, and that my efforts were strongly rebuffed by Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

      This dovetailed into an in-depth conversation on the sanctity of family, and our mutual conviction that it must be protected from judicial fiat and other leftist attempts at social re-engineering. In the course of that very specific conversation, Herman Cain made it abundantly clear that he agreed with our stand completely. He stated something to the effect of, “Rest assured, a Cain presidency will defend traditional marriage.”

      He then shared that he felt the media had been, and would continue to harangue him and other conservative candidates concerning the gay agenda. He said that he told a reporter, “I would have no problem hiring a qualified gay person to my staff,” then he emphasized to everyone listening, “please notice that I used the word ‘qualified.’”

      Little did Pastor Cary know at the time, but another staffer — Scott Toomey — was in fact the “qualified gay staffer” Cain must’ve been talking about. But that wasn’t the only betrayal of trust that occurred during that lunch discussion.

      Imagine my feeling of betrayal to read a [Washington] Post article highlighting Cain’s sudden departure from his word, now saying he will not do what he assured the pastors of Cornerstone he would do: protect marriage.

      I thought Herman Cain might be the kind of quality, fearless leader God would bless and use as a tool to salvage our nation that is currently sliding into hedonism and socialism. Clearly, Herman Cain is not the man I thought he was.

      But, with Cain leading several of the polls as of this reading, will enough Americans see through the façade before it’s too late? Or, will the real Herman Cain finally be revealed?

 

      Bob Eschliman is an Iowa journalist who has been covering politics and government for more than a decade. He is the founder of the Ben Franklin Journalism blog, which promotes citizen journalism.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Ron Paul’s only consistency is his inconsistency

October 19, 2011 by 1 Comment

      This past May, during a GOP debate in South Carolina, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was asked about his stated position on criminalizing drug use:

      Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.

      A: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

      And, yes, he’s completely for de-criminalizing the non-pharmaceutical abuse of heroine, arguing that if it were not illegal, no one would abuse it. While that’s probably a deal-breaker for a lot of Republican caucus/primary voters, it clearly hasn’t hurt his popularity with his committed supporters.

      But, let’s take a key point he made and it apply it to other pieces of his rhetoric: “If you have… inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty.” In other words, politicians who are inconsistent in their words and actions are not going to defend liberty.

      One of Rep. Paul’s first campaign commercials this time around touted his military record. Yes, he wore the uniform — he was a gynecologist in the Air Force — and he has routinely talked about “keeping our promises to our military veterans,” but what is his record on matters of military and national security?

      Actually, the Congressman’s recently released budget plan would cut $200 billion in defense spending — a proposal co-championed by Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, hardly a stalwart of conservatism. Meanwhile, he said he would like to redirect our military assets in Afghanistan to protecting our southern border with Mexico.

      But…

      Paul’s own past rhetoric would seem to belie the need for military on the border, in his own words. When campaigning for President the first time in 1988 (as a Libertarian, not a Republican), he championed an open borders policy and said he would eliminate the Border Patrol — which he said was unconstitutional — if elected.

      Granted, he may have “seen the light” on the importance of border security. Then again, maybe he hasn’t. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, who served with Rep. Paul in Congress for a decade, seems to think the latter is far more likely, based on an Op-Ed the former presidential candidate wrote for WorldNetDaily a few days after the aforementioned South Carolina GOP Debate.

      According to Paul, deporting illegal immigrants would be “incompatible with human rights.” That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law…

      The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own. Paul comes out against both these policies… He absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens ‘involuntary servitude.’

      Pretty much a hit-piece by a guy who has an axe to grind against the guy who threatens the “establishment,” right? Not so fast. Even Roy Beck, founder of the anti-illegal immigration group NumbersUSA, was unimpressed with what Rep. Paul had to say in his own book.

      Beck’s organization downgraded Paul to an “F” grade for his positions on amnesty and illegal immigration. The only other presidential candidate to get the same grade from the group was the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Barack Obama.

      Quoting directly from Rep. Paul’s book:

      “Neither the determination or the ability [for mass-deportations] exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.”

      That came from page 153 in the book. He then went on a few pages later — page 156, to be exact — to champion, as Beck put it, “amnesty with an asterisk”:

      “Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk should be issued… It could be argued that [this system] may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits — a much better option than deportation.”

      Yet, just one page earlier, he wrote the following:

      “(The United States should) not grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.”

      OK, so that’s just one issue. Surely, he hasn’t shown signs of inconsistency on others, right?

      Sadly you would be very wrong. If there’s one thing Rep. Paul has been consistent about, it’s his inconsistency on issues of greatest concern for conservatives. For instance, we have his introduction of 95 discretionary spending “earmarks” — pork for his constituents — for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, while publically decrying government spending and voting against the very earmarks he added to bills.

      Then, we have his declared support for traditional marriage, while he simultaneously voted against an amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. So, when he had a chance to further clarify his position in front of an otherwise receptive audience, he said:

      I think this argument about what is marriage and who can get married and to whom, in a fre society, is totally irrelevant. I think the government — national or state — should stay out of it. If someone wants to call themselves married, fine.

      That’s hardly a conservative viewpoint. It would seem Rep. Paul is implying there is some “wall of separation” at play. His being a well-versed scholar of the U.S. Constitution considered, one can only assume he certainly knows there isn’t any separation clause keeping religion and government exclusive from one another.

      But, it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that under Paul’s philosophy, a liberal-leaning church would be free to marry gays, lesbians, and even polygamists.

      Well, at least Rep Paul — a medical doctor — is consistent on his pro-life message. Surely that’s the most important factor, especially for social conservatives, right?

      If that’s the case, please explain his latest campaign commercial, which supposedly touts his adamant support for the pro-life position. You know, the one where he openly admits to abandoning a living, breathing, but unwanted child “in a bucket” following a late-term abortion, without even a hint of remorse.

      So, that leaves us with just one question: Would the real Ron Paul please stand up? We’d really like to get to know him, so we can vet him properly for the Republican presidential nomination.

 

      Bob Eschliman is an Iowa journalist who has been covering politics and government for more than a decade. He is the founder of the Ben Franklin Journalism blog, which promotes citizen journalism.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

GOP Presidential Field: Scapegoating Nevada

October 18, 2011 by Leave a comment

It has been more than one year since the Republican National Committee and the Democratic Committee came together in a bipartisan fashion to adopt updated rules governing the nomination process. This was done in an effort to prevent the kind of confusion and chaos that occurred after Florida and Michigan moved their primaries into January in 2008. The modified rules would in effect give provide for the punishment of any states that would attempt to change their primary or caucus dates in opposition to the approved rules. It was naturally assumed that this rule change would prevent a repeat of 2008.

All was going smoothly until Florida decided to buck the rules and moved their primary date to January 31st. This in turn prompted South Carolina to move their primary date to January 21st which in turn led Nevada to pick January 14th for their caucus date. This prompted to the state of New Hampshire to contemplate picking and early December date for their primary and Iowa to select January 3rd for its caucus date.

As you can see, Florida’s violation RNC rules have created a domino effect on the early part of the 2012 nomination process. When the State of Florida decided to blatantly flout the rules of the nominating process they created a chaotic and uncertain atmosphere that has spread across the country. Clearly Florida should be subject to punishment from not just the RNC for its rules violations, but the candidates themselves can and should boycott the state to affirm their support for the integrity of the nominating process.

However this does not seem to be the case. Instead there seems to be a movement shaping up within the GOP field to scapegoat Nevada. There is a clear desire to place the blame on one individual state for the chaos and confusion that have been wrought on the nomination process, but that blame is being placed upon the victim. It is like blaming the rape victim for getting raped. Several GOP Presidential hopefuls have already spoken up with a vow to boycott the Nevada contest. In fact Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman have all vowed to boycott the Nevada contest.

Like I said these boycott’s are the equivalent of the blaming the victim for being the victim. If the Presidential candidates wanted to preserve the integrity of the nominating process they would absolutely boycott the State of Florida’s contest. It was the date change in Florida that initiated this chaotic snowball that we are now experiencing. Florida was and is the origin. If they ant to punish someone, punish Florida.

However, I don’t really see that happening because there are just too many votes in Florida for the candidates to ignore. And this really shows the candidates in a different light. Do they really want to preserve the nominating process or are they just attempting to pander and appear tough. And the RNC has been all too quiet on the issue as well. If the RNC will not hold states accountable to the rules, then what good are they? If the RNC refuses to punish Florida you will see an unraveling of the nominating process. If you think the chaos that we are feeling now is bad, wait until the other states catch a whiff of the stuff at the RNC.

Filed under Commentary, Iowa Caucus, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Perry: Beyond Texas DREAM Act and Gardasil-gate

October 15, 2011 by Leave a comment

      As an uncommitted voter in the Republican primary/caucus process, I’ve taken my responsibility as an Iowa seriously — probably more seriously than several of the presidential candidates, but I digress.

      I’ve been trying to vet the candidates, and unfortunately, I find many of the candidates offered on the GOP slate lacking. But, I know I’m not alone. Most Iowa Republicans seem disenfranchised with the 2012 crop.

      It’s easy to bash on the media-appointed frontrunner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. His actions speak far louder than his rhetoric: he’s in favor of “partnership agreements” for homosexual couples — gay marriage, just by another name — and his “RomneyCare” program — by which “ObamaCare” was modeled — allows $50 copays for taxpayer-subsidized abortions.

      But, Romney wasn’t the only candidate to find himself the darling of the national mainstream media. Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign has been driven largely by media pressure and, apparently, some healthy prodding from his wife, Anita.

      And, for the couple of weeks, Perry found himself immediately at the front of the pack. But, after some lackluster debate performances, and revelations that he supported in-state tuition for the children of illegal aliens through the Texas DREAM Act, and issued an executive order that required young girls to get Gardasil vaccinations for the human papilloma virus (now referred to by his critics as “Gardasil-gate”), he quickly fizzled.

      But, the third-quarter financial reports provided Gov. Perry with a much-needed lifeline. Suddenly, the media was reporting how Iowans were giving the former frontrunner a fresh look. Even my good friend, Jen Green, acknowledged Perry could possibly find a way beyond the Texas DREAM Act and Gardasil-gate troubles.

      Her boss, conservative talk show host Steve Deace, suggested perhaps the two major controversies surrounding the Perry campaign had run out of impact. He wondered aloud during a broadcast last week if there were any other red flags fluttering in the breeze.

      And, indeed, there are.

      In July, as Gov. Perry was still flirting with a potential presidential run, Laylan Copelin of the Austin American-Statesman asked the question, “Should Perry get the credit for Texas’ growth?” Her breakdown of job growth in Texas seems to knock almost all of the shine off Perry’s bragging about his state’s economy.

      …(A)lmost half of the state’s job growth the past two years was led by education, health care and government, the sectors of the economy that will now take a hit as federal stimulus money runs out and the Legislature’s 8 percent cut in state spending translates into thousands of layoffs among state workers and teachers in the coming weeks.

      Also, Texas is tied with Mississippi as the nation’s leaders in minimum wage jobs. And conservatives argue that Texas can do more to lower its tax burden on businesses, which is higher than the national average and states such as California and Massachusetts that have a personal income tax…

      …Construction, manufacturing and information sectors lost jobs overall. Education and health services led in job creation (32 percent of all jobs added), followed by professional and business services (23 percent), petroleum (18 percent) and government (12 percent). Other industry sectors, ranging from utilities to hospitality, had smaller job gains…

      Copelin’s article went on to ask economists if Gov. Perry was the root cause of Texas’ economic success. Their responses — even among those willing to give him the most credit — were lukewarm, at best.

      Texas was the last state to allow homeowners to tap into their equity, and even then it came with numerous protections for both lenders and homeowners. The state also benefits from an economy that relies heavily on the energy markets, and its residents benefit from low taxes and an overall low cost of living.

      But, the Lone Star State also has the highest percentage of its population — tied with Mississippi — earning at or below the federal minimum wage. In fact, its total number of employees making no more than minimum wage was more than California, Florida, and Illinois — combined.

      For the “it’s the economy, stupid” wing of the Republican Party, those aren’t facts you likely throw around at campaign appearances. But, there’s more.

      Gov. Perry has touted himself as a champion of the Tenth Amendment, that the federal government just needs to butt out of the affairs of the states. But, when Washington handed out stimulus money to help states shore up their budget gaps, Texas ponied up — big time.

      According to Tami Luhby of CNNMoney, Texas was the most dependent state on federal stimulus money in 2009 and 2010. So much so, the state plugged 97 percent of its budget deficit with one-time money from Washington.

      Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

      “Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.

      Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it. On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled “No Government Bailouts.”

      “Join our fight and add your voice to a growing list of several thousand Americans who are fed up with this irresponsible spending that threatens our future,” Perry wrote on his blog on Feb. 18, 2009.

      In Iowa, for instance, the entire one-year state budget is $6.3 billion in the next fiscal year. But, in Texas, the idea of using one-time stimulus money was about as effective as it was in The Hawkeye State — legislators have been left looking for ways to balance the states’ budget without it, now.

      In January, the Texas State Legislature began working on an austerity budget based on $15 billion in less revenue, including more than $7.5 billion in federal money for Medicare and education. Legislators were tasked with finding $31 billion in spending cuts, including deep cuts in healthcare and education — chopping away almost all of the job gains Gov. Perry has been touting.

      Meanwhile, the state’s “rainy day fund” has only grown to $9.4 billion, which even if fully depleted will only cover less than a third of the budget gap. Schools will close, teachers will lose jobs, and the poor will find it more difficult to get healthcare.

      Not exactly the kind of stuff you talk about when trying to attract middle-of-the-roaders on the campaign trail. But, there’s even more. After all, middle-of-the-roaders aren’t the most likely voters in a caucus state, such as first-in-the-nation (for now?) Iowa.

      The base shows up for the caucus, meaning you have to appeal to true-blooded conservatives to have a shot. So, where would Gov. Perry stand on one of the biggest issues for “original” Tea Party members: the NAFTA Superhighway.

      Or, if you like, we can call it by its official name, the North American Supercorridor COalition (NASCO) Corridor.

      A key component of the NASCO Corridor, if you’ve listened at all to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the campaign trail, is the Trans-Texas Corridor. And, Gov. Perry’s involvement in the project is so deep, it prompted TownHall.com’s Rachel Alexander to call it “Rick Perry’s NAFTA Superhighway Problem.”

      Perry’s campaign website lists the Trans-Texas Corridor as one of his accomplishments, “Rather than taking decades to expand these important corridors a little bit at a time, Governor Perry developed the Trans-Texas Corridor plan.” But is it something Perry really wants broadcast as an achievement?

      The Texas Republican Party’s 2010 platform includes a plank specifically opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor. Some of the opposition to the NAFTA Superhighway has been dismissed as conspiratorial, but loud objections also came from people concerned with border security and one million rural interests and farmers that stood to lose their land to eminent domain.

      According to Alexander’s report, Perry received campaign contributions from the company that constructed the Trans-Texas Corridor, as well as the Spanish-owned company that retained ownership of the roadway and collected the tolls from it. Where have we heard of Gov. Perry doing that before?

      Alexander sums it up this way:

      Unlike Romney, Perry has not completely disavowed his controversial history as governor. Romney distanced himself from Mass-Care by promising that the first Executive Order he would sign upon becoming president would be a waiver to all 50 states from Obamacare. Perry, on the other hand, proudly lists Trans-Texas Corridor as one of his accomplishments on his website.

      The state of Texas, multiple factions within the Republican Party, and significant numbers of Democrats oppose the Trans-Texas Corridor. They are not going to sit back and risk repeating an “accomplishment” like this on a national scale.

      So, perhaps it’s not just a “NAFTA Superhighway problem” for Rick Perry. Maybe, it’s a Rick Perry problem for America.

Filed under Commentary, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Occupy DSM: Intentionally Confrontational?

October 14, 2011 by 4 Comments

David Goodner, one of the Occupy Des Moines protesters arrested last Sunday who seems to be intent on a repeat performance.

There is a new twist in the continuing saga of the Occupy DSM protests today. This morning the organizers of the Occupy DSM protests had their application to renew their permit to stay in the park they have been occupying has been denied. According to the Iowa Department of Administrative Services the permit was denied because the state has had the practice of limiting overnight stays to just three nights. This means that if the protesters ignore the 11 P.M. curfew they will once again be subject to arrest as well as criminal charges.

The uproar that has resulted from this decision has been entirely predictable. One of the chief agitators at the moment is David Goodner from Iowa Citizen’s for Community Improvement. This group has been well documented as a confrontational organization that will resort to disruption and chaos in an attempt to push their point of view. It was this group that heckled Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney during the Iowa State Fair in August. According to the Des Moines Register Mr. Goodner is attempting to claim that because the State denied the renewal of the permit that the State is suppressing their freedom of speech.

I cannot stress this strong enough. The State of Iowa is not attempting to limit the protesters ability to protest. The State of Iowa is not attempting to limit the protesters 1st Amendment rights. There is, however, someone that is working to limit the protesters right to protest, the protesters themselves. That’s right; the only one that is working to limit their ability to protest is the protesters themselves. They have rigidly stood by their demands to protest in that particular park. It seems to be that the protesters themselves feel that they are above the law. They continuously espouse the belief that they have a right to violate the curfew law governing that park because they want to protest there. By continuing to be wavering in this demand the biggest hindrance to their ability protest is themselves.

I find it simply astonishing that a group that has supposedly assembled to protest and attempt to affect change has acted so irrationally. This begs the question, if their message is so important that they have to be able to protest around the clock, why in the world are they so rigid in their protests location? And while I do not have an answer to this question, I can develop a few assumptions. Perhaps the some of the protesters are simply there to create a confrontation. Perhaps someone like David Goodner wants to try to get arrested in an attempt to become seen as a “leader” in this movement. Or it could be that the protesters are so blinded by their hatred for Governor Branstad that they are forcing a potential confrontation in an effort to embarrass him. Then again they could simply not realize that they do have options.

I have learned that the Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie has extended an invitation to the Occupy DSM protesters to utilize a city park to the east of the State Capital with a seven day permit. Personally I don’t think that these protesters will accept the invitation. They have the ability to protest at the State Capital, just not in the location that they want. Furthermore, there will be no line of sight between them and the State Capital officially neutering their protest. Additionally, as I said before, I believe that a number of the protesters are intent on provoking a confrontation with the Iowa State Patrol. No, I think that the use of the city park will be refused and that the end result will be the arrest of two to three dozen protesters. I could be wrong of course. We will find out at 11 P.M.

Filed under Commentary, News, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Occupy DSM Arrests: Rhetoric vs. Reality

October 11, 2011 by 3 Comments

As I am sure you are by now aware, thirty-two protesters were arrested last night at the Occupy Iowa protest at the Iowa State Capital. Now, in an attempt to deflect criticism, participants and supporters of the rally are attempting to claim victimhood. They are attempting to control the dialog to make it appear as if they had been wronged by a bullish government intent on silencing their voice. Fortunately there are those of us that are rational enough to see what truly happened are and are willing to shed light on the subject.

Last night shortly after the events unfolded The Des Moines Register’s Regina Zilbermints reported that after repeated warnings to vacate the park by 11P.M the Iowa State Patrol began arresting the assembled protesters. According to Zilbermints several of the protesters intentionally resisted arrest by linking arms and sitting down; thus forcing the Troopers to carry many of the protesters to the awaiting vehicles.

In the hours since the chaotic turn of events occurred the protesters and their supporters have come up with all sorts of excuses for what happened last night. Some, such as the Marion County Iowa Democrats, have attempted to claim that the protesters did not know that the park was closed after 11 P.M. I have since learned that this is an entirely fictitious statement based upon this post that I found on the Des Moines Registers Facebook page. Just before 6 P.M. the protesters commented that they expected the Iowa State Patrol to kick them out at 11 P.M. when the park closes.

Facebook Screenshot

In spite of the rhetoric that we are hearing, no one’s Constitutional rights were violated last night. The protesters that were arrested were provided ample time to, five hours to be exact, to relocate their protest to another spot. The thirty-two protesters that were arrested could have simply done as their fellow protesters did and move across the street. Instead they intentionally disregarded a lawful order from multiple Iowa State Patrol officers in accordance with the law. And due to their arrogance they were arrested. I hope that they will come to understand the consequences of their actions, but somehow I doubt that they will.

Filed under Commentary, News, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Common Sense — Where Did Liberty Come From? Part V: E pluribus unum

September 7, 2011 by Leave a comment

   For a brief explanation of this series, check out this link here.

 

   If we use July 4, 1776, as the date of birth of our nation, it was just 10 short years into the United States’ existence when America was teetering on the brink. Even the most ardent defenders of the union were concerned.

   Perhaps the most blatant example of the problems facing our nation was the Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts.  

   “Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been raising at the expense of so much blood and treasure must fall,” George Washington said.

   So, it was under that cloud of uncertainty Virginia invited representatives from the rest of the states to meet and discuss matters of commerce. Nine states originally accepted the invitation, but only five sent delegates: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia.

   The meeting, dubbed the Annapolis Convention, was held in Maryland, even though that state didn’t send any delegates. But, regardless of the responsiveness of the states as a whole, there was no debate that the United States were disorganized and incapable of working together effectively under the auspices of the Articles of Confederation.

   Farmers were often in rebellion with the new government, the individual states seemingly couldn’t agree even on the simplest of provisions for domestic commerce and mutual peace, and, in general, order needed to be restored. And, for once, the answer didn’t come from a Virginian.

   Enter the New Yorker.

   Alexander Hamilton, a devout Federalist, believed the United States needed a strong national government to maintain the order. So, he proposed all 13 colonies assemble one year later to “take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States… [and] to render the Constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”

   Ultimately, the Annapolis Convention spelled out in its report to the individual state legislatures that the second meeting was necessary. But, little did anyone know what really was in store for the Federal Convention that was then planned for the summer of 1787.

   The plan was to commit treason.

   By the time the following summer came around, there is little doubt England and our “ally” in France were licking their chops and figuring out how to best divide and conquer the American states. Now, more than ever, our country was teetering on the very brink of disaster and total collapse as a result of the hapless, state-oriented Articles of Confederation.

   It would be a good lesson for folks who want absolute states’ rights to re-learn.

   Meanwhile, the Articles of Confederation provided no avenue for revision, and the prospect of dissolution of the Union was becoming very real. However, several competing interests were less than interested in compromising on their core principles for the advancement of the combined United States.

   So, our Founding Fathers did what they do best. They overthrew the government.

   To the outside world, the Federal Convention in Philadelphia was only assembled to come up with a means to make the Articles of Confederation work better, not to create an entirely new framework for self-governance. But, most reasonable men had long concluded the only way to affect that kind of change was through a complete and total dismantling of the current form of government in favor of another.

   So, the Convention began meeting in May, sequestered behind locked doors with armed guards posted outside. Inside were 55 of the brightest minds (eventually whittled down to just 42) of the United States; the well-fed, well-bred, well-read, well-wed of 12 of the 13 states (Rhode Island refused to participate).

   The resulting document was far from perfect, but it did establish the perfect set of parameters by which self-governance is destined to work. It was a framework based on “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” espousing civil rights and power granted from the consent of the governed.

   But, believe it or not, that hasn’t prevented We the People from trying to alter it. As a matter of fact, more than 10,000 amendments have been proposed. But, our Constitution doesn’t bend at the slightest breeze of public opinion.

   Of those proposed amendments, only 33 have actually passed Congress. And, even fewer — 27 as of this writing — have been ratified by the assent of the governed. But, it is the first 10 — the Bill of Rights — we most often concern ourselves with.

   The way by which our most inalienable rights were forever codified in our national charter is an amazing story unto itself.

   The final draft of the Constitution was presented to the Confederation Congress in September of 1787. Less than one month later, it was clear that most states would not ratify the document without protections of civil liberties, particularly in a document that leads with the phrase, “We the People.”

   Reluctantly, the Congress suggested each state convention approve the Constitution with recommended amendments. “Rights” amendments, the states were assured, would be proposed in the First Congress — and they were — but, the American people still had to be sold on the concept of yet another form of government so soon in their nation’s young life.

   Enter three men from three very different backgrounds — James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton — who wrote a series of 85 newspaper articles favoring adoption of the Constitution. Writing under the pen name “Publius,” the heavy-hitters of American liberty crafted what eventually became known as “The Federalist Papers,” arguably one of the greatest contributions to American political thought.

   To kick off the national debate about the proposed Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 1, which was published in New York’s The Independent Journal on Oct. 27, 1787. Over the months that followed, the trio rotated responsibilities for writing the letters, depending upon their areas of expertise and the course of the debate over the Constitution.

   The anti-Federalists, of which Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence — was a member, were decidedly in favor of states’ rights before that of a powerful, centralized government. Obviously, the anti-Federalists aggressively opposed the Constitution.

   Madison, Jay, and Hamilton eventually won out, and the U.S. Constitution was adopted. And, the final legacy of liberty based upon the principle of self-governance on the American continent was well established. Our liberty was now born.

 

   If you’re reading this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading this in English, thank a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine.

Filed under Commentary Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Common Sense — Where Did Liberty Come From? Part IV: Flexing some republican ‘people power’

September 6, 2011 by 1 Comment

   If you’re looking for a brief explanation of this series, go to this link here.

 

   The Stamp Act wasn’t the last attempt by the British government to exert power and influence of its highly lucrative colonies in the Americas. And, as those efforts intensified in the late-1760s and early-1770s, a number of Americans rose up to sound the alarm.

   Chief among them was a fiery orator from Virginia named Patrick Henry; you know, the “Give me liberty…” guy. He was a member of the American gentry, bred of fine, upstanding stock, who had a penchant — and indisputable skill — for rabble rousing.

   He passed the Virginia Bar at age 24, and at age 27 took on perhaps one of the biggest court cases in colonial Virginia history: the Parson’s Cause. He argued, during the penalty phase of the civil trial, the King of England had no right to countermand the will of the People as expressed by their elected representatives.

   There’s no word on where he would stand on many of President Obama’s actions over the past three years, but I digress. After “winning” a case no attorney twice his age would even attempt, he had already become a new hero of the fledgling American liberty movement.

   He soon was elected to the House of Burgesses, where he continued to champion individual liberty. And, he exhibited a willingness to cross the line of treasonous speech when he spoke out in opposition to the Stamp Act, and subsequently avoided calls for his hanging with his aforementioned oratory skills.

   From that point forward, however, Patrick Henry was deeply entrenched in ever political act that led to the American Revolution.

   His now-famous “Give me liberty…” speech was made in March of 1775 in the House of Burgesses, wherein he urged the people of Virginia to take up arms against the British government. And, when the governor removed gunpowder from the colonial magazine to prevent such a move, Henry mobilized a militia to force the governor to restore those supplies.

   And, in May of 1776, it was a no-brainer that Patrick Henry would be among the Who’s Who of the American Revolution who arrived in Colonial Williamsburg for the Virginia Convention. His influence can be seen in nearly every word of The Virginia Resolution, which can only be described as the first pangs of labor pain leading to the birth of our nation.

   He wasn’t the only Virginian to play an important role in birth of the United States.

   Those well versed on the subject will quickly compile a rather impressive list: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Edmund Randolph. But the list would certainly be incomplete if you did not include George Mason. The author of the Virginia Bill of Rights rarely gets the credit he deserves for advancing the principles of limited government in the American version of republican self-governance.

   The Fifth Virginia Convention set the tone for the debates to be held a month later in Philadelphia, but more importantly, it set the stage for a new form of governance in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As a prelude to writing the constitution — not as an afterthought as had been the case historically both before and after — those in attendance hoped to establish a framework of inalienable rights that government could not violate.

   It also would become the framework Thomas Jefferson would use to outline the American colonies’ just desire to be free and independent of the British government, and it would even later be the basis for James Madison’s Bill of Rights amendments to the U.S. Constitution. So, through this gathering in Williamsburg, American liberty — its own signature version of civil liberty — was born.

   It’s unfortunate that many history books today do not adequately establish that the United States of America had been in a de facto state of war with its parent government in England for more than a year before the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. Knowing this piece of historical fact helps the students to better understand the environment in which the delegates worked.

   That a declaration of independence would come out of the gathering was nearly a foregone conclusion. Virginia had already announced its independence and formed its own government. How such a declaration would be phrased, however, was of utmost interest throughout the colonies.

   Enter young, timid Thomas Jefferson.

   As a student, he had sat in on Patrick Henry’s defiant rant against the Stamp Act, and was inspired by the fellow patriot’s words, which inspired him to form his own ideas about self-governance in the New World. But, he was actually an alternate delegate to the convention, sent to Philadelphia when it was apparent Payton Randolph, Speaker of the Virginia House, would be recalled by the colonial governor.

   So, before he left for Philadelphia, he penned his ideas on self-governance into a document called “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.” It was an overnight sensation — as much as such a document could be in those days — and Jefferson’s newfound fame actually beat him to Philadelphia, assisted by an illness that befell him on the way.

   When Thomas Jefferson finally arrived in Philadelphia, he was a late-18th century rock star.

   The 33-year-old Virginian was quickly placed on the committee tasked with drafting the declaration, a committee which included John Adams. The committee then tasked Jefferson to be the sole author of the document.

   Sequestered for 18 days in mid- to late-June, Jefferson penned the most powerful document in U.S. history, then quickly departed for Monticello, where his wife and two of his children had fallen ill. Adams and Benjamin Franklin offered a couple of minor tweaks to the draft declaration before it went to the Continental Congress as a whole for ratification.

   The rest is, as they say, history.

   Later, Jefferson was quoted as saying that when he set about to write the Declaration of Independence, he was attempting to place before the whole of mankind the “common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take.” In other words, he wasn’t trying to create new ideas or rationales.

   Rather, he was stating the obvious — or what should have been obvious to any British subject — if you’ve been following the previous installments of this series. And, perhaps, that’s what makes American liberty so very special — it’s a natural progression from its very foundation, unadulterated in every way.

 

   If you’re reading this, thank a teacher. If you’re reading it in English, thank a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine.

Filed under Commentary Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 695 other followers