Birth in a Nation

So, was President Barrack Obama born in the United States? I don’t know. Was he born in Kenya? I don’t know? Was he born in Indonesia? I don’t know? Is he a “pod baby” from the Planet Nimrod? I don’t know. Was he born? Apparently he was. A number of people in our nation are feverishly attempting to prove that Barrack Obama is not a natural born United States citizen. Constitutionally he would not be qualified to hold the office of president if he were not born as a citizen of the nation. That’s the rub…the bone of contention. Will the past two years be rewound if it can be proven that the president was not born in the U.S.? For the moment I don’t care.

If were proven beyond a shadow of doubt that Barrack Obama was not born in the United States, then he would be illegally serving in the Office of the President. He would also be subject to some penalties including perjury and fraud.  So, if it were to be revealed tomorrow (3/8/2011), that the President was not qualified to serve, what is the remedy? Will he resign? That’s a laughable proposition. If he and his minions have worked so hard to hide the facts of his birth, it is highly unlikely that he would meekly resign and return to Chicago. Besides, his messiah complex has him convinced that only he can save the nation by destroying it and all the inequities that he believes are present. He would battle to the bitter end, issuing Executive order after Executive order in an effort to remake the country. His behavior would, in essence, be a non-military coup. I suspect that he might even consider suspending the election of 2012 or issue an Executive order changing the qualifications for president.

If the President will not resign given proof of his being a non-citizen, then the clear cut remedy is for the House of Representatives to initiate Articles of Impeachment. The process would not be lightning fast as an investigation would be required plus numerous hearings. I may be assuming too much here because I sincerely doubt that the GOP House leadership has the stomach for an impeachment effort. “Too divisive,” too close to the election,” too many difficult issues that require our attention,” will be the plaintive cries to justify House inaction. Oh yes, one more,”the Senate won’t convict, so why bother?”

That last excuse…about the Senate… may have merit. The dynamic dim bulb from Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid still holds the reins of control in the Senate.  In addition many of the Republican senators are less courageous than their cohorts in the House. The numbers and the reality of politics indicate that impeachment would be a long shot and conviction would be extremely unlikely. The unresolved nature of the issue would divide the country even further than it is now. In addition, the impeachment process, however meritorious it might be, would energize the Obama defenders.

To me it seems that the best alternative if it were proven that Obama was not legally qualified to be president is to have the various state boards of elections and legislators work to prevent him from getting ballot access. In the meantime, the full weight and power of the Congress could be focused on thwarting and repealing any of his orders. In essence, he would be isolated at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I realize how risky it may be to leave the Marxist-leaning Democrat in office for the next 20 months, but given the painful lack of leadership in the Congress, it may be the least corrosive strategy.

For those who are chasing the holy grail of a missing birth certificate…forge on, work hard, get proof. For the Congress…blockade, repeal, de-fund. For the rest of us…pray, pray, pray.

Comments:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Border Line

Today’s column addresses an issue that I haven’t previously written about on these pages…our southern border. As a Libertarian, I support, in the purest sense, the notion that restricting borders is antithetical to liberty. True freedom includes the right to move about without constraint as long as an individual respects the lives and property of others. Aha! There’s the rub. As a Libertarian, I believe that an individual owns his/her own life, labor and property…otherwise identified as free will. Libertarians also subscribe to the foundational precept that the initiation of force is an anathema. We do not oppose a  fast, furious and final response when we are threatened or assaulted, but we adamantly oppose the use of force to impose one’s will (see IRS, ATF, DEA and a host of others).

To get our arms around the situation on our southern border (and northern, too), I’ll arbitrarily identify four groups of illegal border crossers. The first represents those Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans who risk arrest to enter the United States for employment and opportunity. We’ll call them…the ants. The second cluster of people sneaks into our country to take advantage of the generous social welfare system. We’ll label them …the roaches. A third element of illegal immigration includes smugglers and their mules—drugs, guns, any contraband. These are multiple lawbreakers and are potentially dangerous. (We’ll deal with the drug issue in a later column). We’ll identify this group as the tarantulas. A final group includes those from all over the world who enter the United States with the sole intent to do harm to our citizens and their property. They are the scorpions.

Now we have the new border crossing taxonomy for illegal entrants into the United States. We have two insects and two arachnids, but because they all look like bugs, that’s close enough. You’ll note that the “ant” has historically been identified as a worker whereas the cockroach is a dirty disease carrier that avoids the daylight. The tarantula and the scorpion possess lethal capacity and are never to be trusted…or fondled. For the moment I’d like to concentrate on the overview of the issue.

First, because of the tarantulas and scorpions, it is vital that our borders be secured. No “ifs, ands or buts.” For decades the federal government has been derelict in its duty of providing a national defense. When borders as large as ours are so porous that nearly anyone can sneak into the country, the Congress, the Executive branch and the federal judiciary have committed impeachable offenses given the tenor of the times. Instead, the government has focused its efforts on the general population at large by severely restricting OUR freedoms through such devices as the Patriot Act and overzealous body groping by the TSA. Clearly the government is more willing to control our citizens than it is committed to limiting the access of nefarious killers who would do us harm. These priorities must be addressed and reversed. When any of these dangerous characters is apprehended, justice should be swift and firm.

My remedy for the issue of southern border leakage is to first SECURE THE BORDER. If we would close the bulk of our military bases in some 140 countries around the world and bring those troops back home, they could be deployed with the respective state guard organizations. The re-deployed regulars could be sent to theater (another column), and the guard could come home. With the guard as the primary lead force on the border, posse commitatus ceases to be the major legal concern. Also the wall/fence/barrier must be built. Plant land mines, if necessary.

Stop the benefits…immediately. Understandably if individual states and communities wish to continue providing benefits for “undocumented aliens,” they can do so…without any federal assistance whether direct, indirect or fungible. The responsibility must remain wholly within the entity that chooses to subsidize illegals. Also, the anchor baby program should be abolished along with the ability to invite extended family members. These measures should go a long way toward addressing the issues of the cockroaches.

Finally, wait a reasonable length of time…perhaps a year or so. At that point we should re-examine the situation. If we continue to have twelve to twenty million illegal aliens in country, then more stringent measures may be necessary. If, on the other hand, the illegal population becomes much smaller and the vast majority of those here are productive contributors, then a legitimate and restrictive pathway to citizenship could be devised. The ants would be given an opportunity to participate as citizens in our free-market country.

This is not a perfect solution. In fact if government were to adopt it, they most certainly would do it imperfectly. Government is incompetent and thoughtless. But if they were to implement this plan, we might be somewhat safer and the costs for our social services could be somewhat lower. Perhaps.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or    www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:  www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

Morality-Public and Personal

What is moral? How do we define morality? If these questions make you uncomfortable, or if you’ve never really asked them, we may have an answer about our leaders in this nation. To understand and accept morality as a guiding element is the first step toward moral behavior. If one does not accept the necessity for morality, one cannot be expected to act morally, and if one does not understand the concept of moral behavior, moral life choices become coincidental or accidental. Philosophers and ethicists have grappled with definitions of morality for centuries. Shakespeare, perhaps the most celebrated of all Western writers, seemed to address the issue of an internal moral compass by penning (or quilling) the line, “to thine own self be true,” for Polonius in Hamlet. It seems to me that the first step toward questionable morality is self deception. If one is not honest about one’s motives or justifications, then the purposes of one’s actions will be distorted…divorced from reality. Okay, so how does this little preamble fit into today’s political climate? I’m glad you asked.

The impulse to run for public office seems driven by two primary motivations: self-aggrandizement and the desire to serve. Vanity in politics is as common as hair on a dog, and the politicians’ claims to be wholly dedicated to serving humanity are equally typical. At first glance the two motives would appear to be somewhat contradictory. How can a person serve him/herself and profess to sacrifice for others? I suspect, however, that the motives do not conflict. True morality is rare, but as a goal would require that our actions be noble and good. When we witness public morality, we applaud evidence of goodness and nobility. The self-deceptive aspect for politicians (and entertainers) is that they wrongly identify their desires for acclaim as a public recognition for acting morally. In other words they have calculated that their morally based actions justify their receiving praise and devotion. Their attitudes toward morality and acclaim are similar to an infant who utters a word or a toddler who uses the potty. They believe that they have earned our praises for doing what is right. Clearly, politicians and entertainers are infantile. True morality is expressed when we do what is right no matter the size of the audience, if any, or the desires of the mob. True morality is courageous and not self-conscious. It is self-effacing and extremely rare.

True morality is absolutely vital in a republic. Public morality (or imposed morality if you prefer) is the currency of a democracy. In the republic the representative must fulfill the public trust by doing what is good and what is right. She/he must be guided by moral and ethical principles while navigating the waters. In a democratic system the elected official or appointee is not necessarily influenced by absolute principles but is responsive to the citizens’ demands and whims….even if they are amoral, immoral or moral. If the politician yields to the clamoring crowd that lacks an introspective moral compass, the people will celebrate the politician’s actions. All parties will succumb to the notion that the politician’s behavior is principled and moral because he reflects the will of the citizens…the shallow-thinking, amoral public. The public construct of morality has usurped the notion of true morality. So, the self-aggrandizing vain public “servant” feels justified and moral because he/she does the people’s will, and, in turn, basks in the people’s praise. Meanwhile the republic drifts toward insignificance. The moral dream becomes a paragraph in future histories. The people and the politicians become joyful as they return to wearing skins and living in caves.

Comment:  cearlwritin@hotmail.com   or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Face Book:   www.facebook.com/pages/Earl-for-Ohio/

  

Center of it All.

At a time in our historical past, it was assumed that the Earth was the centerpiece of our corner of the universe. Although some wiser observers suspected otherwise, it wasn’t until Galileo used telescopic evidence to prove that the planets orbited the Sun that our Earth-centric point of view was discredited. Unfortunately, there some who sit in the seats of power that haven’t discovered that the world doesn’t revolve around their ego-centric universes. We often complain because politicians seem oblivious to our concerns, or dismissive of our preferences. The problem as it appears to me is that so many of the political class are so egocentric that they assume that their remedies are the best and only viable solutions for their perceived problems. It’s not that they ignore citizen input, but rather that they overvalue their own contributions.

For those of you who are familiar with teams of horses, the harness configuration often includes a “blinder” that is mounted near the horse’s eye and limits peripheral vision. Many people in public life are so taken with their electoral successes that they operate is if they are equipped with blinders. Another visual for this phenomenon could be “tunnel vision.”  The politico sees only straight ahead with little awareness of competing options, intervening variables and other legitimate points of view. It often puzzles us why someone who is intentionally vague and indecisive during a campaign suddenly develops the single purposed approach when confronted with an issue. That solution is often the one that involves additional government action and increasing taxpayer funding. The ego driven politician wants the problem to be “resolved” by the state because he/she desires to be in a position of guidance.

Rather than expecting our egocentric politicians to think “outside the box” where innovative and practical solutions may exist, we should first work to shrink the box by forcefully and resolutely limiting the government’s input. Narrow minded egomaniacs should be restricted to small places lest their overblown sense of self-importance prod them into proposing massive government action to solve problems that exist only in their narrow self-indulgent minds. We should gracefully and forcefully inform them that the ability to beg and wheedle for thousands or millions of campaign dollars does not infuse them with omniscience. We must educate our political careerists that starched shirts and shiny shoes does not automatically make one an expert in everything. We have a duty to inform the political class that their duty is not to discover problems and create government solutions for them, but rather to anticipate instances where government may impede our opportunities for problem solving. They must be taught or required to remove the blinders, surgically if necessary, so that they may observe that citizens have the means and the desire to arrive at solutions.

Yes, I know, a series of “they should” is not a prescription for responsible government, but what I’m attempting to illustrate here is that when we elect people and send them to the cocoons in Washington and Columbus, they go there with their blinders firmly attached. In most cases they assume that the people elected them to solve problems and propose legislation. Obviously, the only tools available in the capitols are political ones, and they feel compelled to use them. We must disabuse them of that notion as we actively engage them in the accountability process. We must make them aware during the campaign and thereafter that we expect their efforts to be more focused on dismantling the state apparatus rather than on legislative tweaks. Our politicians are not our Sun…they’re not that bright.

Comment:  earl4sos@gmail.com      or   www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

  

Active Submission

When we examine our options for engaging our government, we have arbitrarily defined them as submission, salvation, secession and sedition. These remedies appear to be graduated ones wherein one follows the other if the previous efforts were unsuccessful. Today we’ll focus on submission as a citizen’s response to governmental action. Historically, submission has been the most common reaction to governmental edicts and power. Throughout recorded human history, governments have primarily been patriarchal, tyrannical or imperial. Citizens have been little more than chattel or property of the ruling monarch. It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that recognized individuals as stand-alone entities capable of reasoning and executing sound decisions. The awareness of self probably occurred before Abram (Abraham), but our first consistent and recorded chronicle of individuality is found in the Old Testament.


Despite the clear biblical acknowledgement of an individual’s relationship with God, many Christians who belong to mainline denominations have succumbed to a passive stance of submission when confronted with an over-reaching government. Their justification for such a position is rooted in Matthew 22:21b: Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” The inference that is drawn by submissive Christians is that one must submit to the state in worldly matters and practice obedience to God in the spiritual realm. They fail to detect the difference between Roman governance and our constitutional republic as designed for our United States. There are three critical words that provide a stark line of demarcation between the system of Rome and our method of governance. They are “We the people”….the opening words of our foundational document. I haven’t authored a systematic theology, but it seems clear to me that Christ’s teaching was that the individual must conform to the practices of the system in which she/he found themselves while continuing to be a positive reflection for God. There are theological justifications for resisting an unjust government, but they aren’t necessary to further this discussion. “We the people” can stand alone as a reason for individuals, Christian and non-Christian, to become actively involved in determining the role of government in their lives. To passively submit to a government that habitually violates its own rules becomes a ringing failure to follow the biblical admonition to engage with Caesar. One who allows government to run roughshod over individual rights while claiming the mantle of Christ is failing others and the Lord.

Certainly, submission as an approach to government should not be universally rejected. That would be anarchy. There are instances, legal and spiritual, where submission is vital for the survival of the state and the protection of the citizens. The occasions are rare and should be judiciously undertaken. Theologically speaking in the context of a constitutional republic, the citizen should always trust the Lord completely while skeptically working within government to “secure the blessings of liberty.” The secular aspect of a citizen’s submissive role is much more clearly defined. While the Christian recognizes the supremacy of God, the secular citizen must first define the primary focus of his allegiance. “We the people,” it seems, directs the citizen’s fealty to liberty. Because the state is creation of the people, and the nation is a product of the states, the citizen must honor the individual. Individuality cannot flourish without liberty. Therefore, it follows that submission is a secondary element of citizenship. The preservation of liberty for every citizen must be the overriding impetus for involvement with the state. Any activity that arbitrarily undermines freedom for the citizens is contrary to good stewardship. Anytime a citizen voluntarily submits to an unconstitutional or unjust action by government, then that citizen is derelict.

Active, consistent and unyielding efforts for liberty are the defining elements of a good citizen. Unthinking submission to government’s abuses of its mandate is the equivalent of treasonous activity. When the citizen passively submits to an unruly government, he tacitly encourages tyranny. He or she violates the obligation to protect and defend liberty from the grasp of illicit government action.

Discipleship and citizenship are active endeavors and should be the norm for spiritual and governmental involvement. Submission should be a conscious reasoned activity and not the default mode. God wants pro-active disciples, and the state requires our action to hold it accountable. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the salvation aspect of good citizenship.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com