Busting Myths of Liberal Media

And now for some random thoughts. Here are some liberal myths that need busting.

Right-wing protests and activist groups are more violent, racist, and intolerant
False. Tea Partiers and allied groups have had demonstrations, protests, and gatherings in every city across the country for over a year and the number of violent incidents is almost zero. In fact, there have been a couple instances of Tea Partiers being attacked by Union thugs as in St. Louis, as well as Black Panther and other groups actively trying to obstruct, disrupt or outright attack such movements.

The Oklahoma City bombing is often invoked as the consequences of letting right wing passions run high. In the last twenty years that is the only incident, and in that case McVeigh and Nichols acted alone without any support or validation from other groups. In fact, conservatives and the supposed "right-wingers" were among the most strident groups demanding justice. In every case of armed militia groups going off the deep end, conservatives never sympathize. The only sympathy they receive is when the government goes in heavy-handed and kills a good number of them as in Ruby Ridge and Waco (religious group in this case). Even, then most conservatives I know have very little sympathy for these types of groups.

Left-wing groups meanwhile have a more checkered past (Weather Underground for one). No bombings recently but - pro-illegal immigration groups attacked pro-rule of law demonstrations in Arizona not two weeks ago. In fact they are pushing hard for draconian efforts to punish Arizona for its passing of the law. In other states they are actively trying to obstruct business with Arizona, bordering on criminal. Radical environmentalists, socialists, and even some anarchists violently protested the WTO meetings in Seattle. Anti-war groups constantly disrupt public proceedings, block roads, protest military events, and even protest at military funerals.

Overall political violence in this country is very low, but a lot of it comes from the left wing, not the right.

Liberals still believe that conservatism is still dominated with groups that are intolerant, racist, and even violent towards those that oppose them. What they fail to see is that white supremacists have become so small and fringe, that they are not a part of the "right wing" anymore. They are radicals to conservatives. Liberals on the other hand are not always tolerant. Opposition to the liberal worldview is met with suspicions of racism, intolerance, and greed. Their blood begins to boil and they lash out at those that disagree with them. It is ironic, but in many cases liberals are the most intolerant of those with different beliefs and ideas.

It is difficult to enter this country legally, or its so complicated and takes so long that people have no choice but to cross the border illegally.
In 2009 alone roughly 700,000 immigrants became U.S. citizens including 110,000 from Mexico. At that rate, you could populate Chicago with nothing but newly naturalized citizens in four years. One has to ask, what number of immigrants and level of citizenship is appropriate or desirable? Should be we welcoming over 1 million per year? 2 million? Are our doors too narrow?

And why is it that we are so tolerant of illegal immigrants from Mexico only? Why is it that Mexico gets the opportunity to cross illegally in such a quick and easy manner? Those from China and other parts of Asia must spend the journey in cargo containers a lot of the time (when they are illegal) or worse. There are probably millions of Africans dying to come to this country as well. Why is it that Mexico gets the edge only because they are on our southern border?

How many people do you think would immigrate here and become citizens if given the opportunity? Two million a year? Three million a year?

The Time Square bomber was a lone wolf attacker, a novice, who decided to attack because he lost his home to foreclosure and was having difficulty in the economic recession
This is such bull shit I have a hard time responding. The bomber was born in Pakistan, had made several trips back home and probably had jihadist leanings well-before he lost his house. He married an American to become a citizen despite the fact he should've been on a watchlist for his visits to Pakistan and other evidence of a possible threat. In my mind, he is not an American, he is still Pakistani. I do not suggest any change in immigration law, but at the very least we should take a closer look at those who marry themselves into citizenship.

Many have lost their homes, jobs, or worse in this recession. To date, only one tried to bomb something. That person was of Pakistani descent, had made several visits there and clearly had some sort of tie to the Taliban. Even if he got no logistical support from the Taliban, he clearly wasn't just some nut living alone and going insane with anger and a desire to do violence.

I have no sympathy for this man, and if the liberal media wants to stop their downard spiral of TV ratings and circulation, they should try to keep their expressed sympathy for this human piece of shit to a minimum.

Conservatives and Republicans are greedy and selfish. That is why they are opposed to social programs, equal protection, and social justice.
Statistically Republicans give more to charity in both absolute terms and relative terms (per capita). And it is not because Republicans are rich. Statistically Republicans and Democrats average roughly the same in terms of salary and personal wealth. That is changing, as a portion of the Middle Class is starting to leave the Democratic Party and become independents thus moving the Democratic number downward.

To the conservative, wealth is created, it is not a static number or overall amount. If that were true then we are all greedy for desiring to protect the piece of wealth we currently control. We are also greedy for wanting to expand our piece whenever possible, as we all do. Any attempt to increase the size of our piece of the pie must in effect be taking from someone else. This theory is false.

Wealth in general is not a static thing. Our economy was $6 trillion in 1993, it is now $14 trillion. Wealth is created, it expands. Conservatives want the opportunity to create as much as possible, not "take" it from another source. Those who want to take it from others are not capitalists, socialists or any other label - they are the ones that are truly selfish, greedy, and dangerous. But those are not ideologues, they are the opposite, they have no principles at all and therefore could be anywhere on the cultural spectrum or more likely they have no strong feelings either way. They just want what isn't theres.

Illegal Immigration: Discuss without Fear

Immigration is a subject that caused the most heated discussions during my time in law school. It was surprising to me. I thought it would be abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, torture, or maybe gun control but no it was illegal immigration.

Liberals are unable to argue rationally on the issue. They get angry and almost immediately start throwing out personal insults, allegations of racism, and all sorts of other things. Voices get elevated, heart rates jump, and beads of sweat begin to form, and many times it is on white faces. For one to resort to personal attacks so quickly in a debate should be a sure sign of weakness. And in this case it most definitely is.

We want to stop criminals, undocumented workers, and potential terrorists crossing into the United States BUT we want documented workers, skilled laborers, and a steady flow of new citizens into the country. So how do we do both?

The conservative/legalist argument is that it is pointless to reform immigration law before we restore security at the border first. They want to close up the border with a fence and strict enforcement of immigration laws, with a clear documented record of who is coming in and who is leaving. Within the United States, they want illegal immigrants deported. Problem is there are probably anywhere from 12-15 million of them here already, many that have been here for years.

Another more mixed conservative proposal is to secure the border THEN decide what to do with those already here. In this case, they don't want mass deportations, rounding up of individuals. They are willing to listen to pathway to citizenship but will NOT grant amnesty. the legalists will not grant amnesty or offer any path to citizenship that does not require them to jump through all sorts of hoops and in many cases go home.

Moderates want to secure the border, create a path to citizenship, and really thats it. So they want a secure border and essentially amnesty. In this debate there are probably very few moderates.

The liberal will not secure the border until we have a clear path to citizenship, amnesty for those already here, and equal protection of those that came here illegally with those that come here legally.

Which of the four positions stops the criminal element from entering the United States? all of them except the liberal proposal.

Which of the four positions provides a means of discerning the criminal from the non-criminal immigrants (productive from nonproductive immigrants)? The two conservative proposals.

Which of the four positions provides a path to citizenship to immigrants that are already here? All four.

Wait a minute? You mean those crazy right-wing racists want a path to citizenship? Yes they do. It would not be easy and millions would likely have to leave under their plan. It requires paying a fine, paying back-taxes, becoming registered, learning English, and proving that they have no criminal record here or in Mexico. If they just got here, they would probably not have this option, they would probably have to leave. In addition, they would want the federal government to strictly control the flow of immigrants from this point forward to ensure we are receiving only productive new members of America.

Here is what offends a lot of people. hardliners would want those illegal immigrants who do not do all the above to be deported. That number could be quite large.

I believe the hardliner position is actually rational, except for the active effort to deport illegal immigrants. We should not focus law enforcement efforts in rooting out illegals but rooting out the reasons they come here, unscrupulous employers that have no problem hiring illegals and paying them sub-minimum wage. I also believe people should be given a fair chance to stay here, earn a living, and become a citizen. No Amnesty, but lets not make it impossible for a hard-working immigrant to get it done.

What is happening in Arizona? Self-defense. Arizona is not making a statement on what to do with illegals. What they are saying is that the lack of immigration enforcement or a reformed policy has led to an explosion of crime on the border. It is a situation they can no longer tolerate and are hence authorizing state police to do what the federal government will not do.

Arizona should not be doing this, but they were forced into a corner. What should happen is the federal government stop being cowards and actually agree on illegal immigration reform. At that point, the Arizona Law should be repealed.

I believe illegal immigration is stalled because of a giant electoral "boogey" man that does not exist. Somehow politicians fear a massive backlash from Hispanic voters if they support a strict or tough immigration policy. I do not believe that to be true. First, illegal immigrants do not vote and neither do their families. those that did come here illegally and were either granted amnesty in the 80s or have become citizens some other way since then will certainly not like the new law but I don't they have such large numbers, nor vote reliably.

What about those that came here legally? There is no compelling evidence that legal Hispanic immigrants and citizens strongly oppose tough immigration policy. The demonstrations are large and sometimes violent as it was in Arizona the other day, but one must ask: how many demonstrating are illegal immigrants? In other words, what portion of those protests were from non-citizens?

It is nothing more than a boogey man that moderates and conservatives must ignore. The majority of this country does not want amnesty, and they want the border secured. Go with that and you will not face this shadowy backlash from the electorate.

This situation needs to be solved. We are in such dire economic condition, we cannot help neighboring countries deal with their poor and unemployed until we can deal with our own.

What is Leadership according to Taoism?

The very great leaders in their domains are only known to exist.
Those next best are beloved and praised.
The lesser are feared and despised.
Therefore when faith is insufficient and there is disbelief,
it is from high value placed on words.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 17

Why does government exist at all? Because men are not saints and therefore order must be established and maintained. Harmony cannot exist on its own where men are not saints. Without harmony there is no freedom, no prosperity, and no justice. When government is established how do we judge its greatness and effectiveness?

The Tao teaches that the greatest leaders are only known to exist. How could this possibly be??? In America, we are always learning in the news what our President is doing, what his positions are, how he proposes to change things, to make things better. If we don't, people ask "what is he doing?", "why isn't he doing something about this, or about that?", "he must be weak, incompetent, or simply does not care about the problems that plague society". And so we seek government where the President is beloved and praised. Everyday we take polls to learn how people feel about our President and what the think of the job he is doing. Everyday the President and his advisors take note of these polls as does everyone else serving in public office or in the bureaucracy. We gauge success or failure by use of approval ratings. It is because we place an overly high value on words.

What if the President did not have daily press briefings? What if he did not take interviews? What if the only speech you heard was the State of the Union? In the early days of the American republic, most people never heard the voice of the President, received publications of his speeches and words very rarely, in fact it was not known to the people what the President was doing unless he was declaring war, peace, signing a major piece of legislation, or nominating someone to a post. Otherwise it probably didn't matter. Was there anarchy? Were those Presidents irresponsible? Those Presidents were Washington thru FDR. FDR became the first to engage the people on a weekly basis, the first to be on television, and the first to be a constant in the lives of the people.

Taoism would caution modern society on its constant demands on the President, both in words and action. It would also caution our obsession and high value on words. So the question is do we buy this?

Imagine a society where the people do not really hear daily about their President or their Congress. They know who they are and periodically what they do but for the most part they only "know them to exist". How is this possible? First, the people would have to live where the actions of the federal government seldom affect their lives. Second, when there is cause for complaint, the people do not see the federal government as providing the solution. Perhaps a local magistrate or some private action would provide a more expedient resolution, whatever the case they don't look to central government. Third, the people are living peacefully and prosperously and see no problems requiring government interference. There will always be problems or issues, but no great injustice, no war, no violence, or no poverty that demands large scale action.

Today, liberals and many moderates do not see this kind of world. The federal government must serve an important role in the daily lives of the people. They are taught that are major problems with this country that require solutions. Things are wrong. There is poverty, social injustice, racial injustice, legal inequality, inadequate social services, global warming, and there are people out there that will take advantage of you if no one stops them. They are next taught that these are big and complicated problems that require big and complicated solutions that only the federal government can provide.

Conservatives have different beliefs. They resent the role the federal government has in their daily lives. They believe there are problems, some big, some small. But many, they believe, are exaggerated. They question the level of alarm that many have on the issues of the day. They are also highly suspicious of the required solutions. They feel they do not warrant big and complicated solutions and certainly do not think the federal government can provide those solutions. They feel the federal government is already in excess and that further action is not desirable in the least.

So how do conservatives convince others? One way is they debate the scale of these problems, which has been marginally effective at best. Most people believe these problems exist and are big. Another way is to argue the federal government cannot solve them. This has been more effective but there is an obvious question: then how do we solve them? Conservatives are not very good at answering this second question. Sure they have answers, but they have proven unpersuasive to others. Often the retort is that there are other ways but its not through the federal government. But people want clear solutions and clear details. They want words, they want something to praise. To them, conservative solutions just don't seem compassionate or "good". Their liberal education leaves them skeptical.

What about the Tea Parties? What you are seeing today is a massive rejection of the big and complicated solutions offered by the federal government. People do not believe it is the solution to these problems, but believe these problems do exist. Is that enough to get us back on track? No its not. Because the people are still looking for leadership and solutions they can praise. We are stuck in the middle rung of governance and need to get out. Until then, the defeat of liberal democrats on today's issues may provide conservatives a victory but it may be short-lived. It won't be long before the people give republicans another chance and if they cannot solve this puzzle, their reign will be short-lived as well.

I don't have a theory on the solution yet but am working on it.

The Commerce Clause: Expansion of Federal Power

The Commerce Clause
Congress shall have the power...to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes...

Up until 1937, this clause was used only in narrow respects, in terms of actual commerce that crossed state lines. It prohibited government intervention in contracts and property rights. FDR changed it with his Court packing and was able to get a more expansive interpretation of this clause. It allowed for more application to civil liberties and other non-commercial subject-matter. It covered minimum wages, labor standards, civil rights, prosecution of sex offenders, and gun control laws. As long as the government could prove some element of the statute involved something that crossed state lines or involved more than one state, the Court got out of its way.

It was not until 1995 in United States v. Lopez that the Supreme Court restores some of the limitations of government power in terms of this clause of the Constitution. However, most of it is still in place. Through this clause the federal government has been able to increase its power beyond its enumerated powers and the original intent of the Constitution.

In civics class, it is taught that the federal government has specific enumerated powers in the Constitution, while the States have plenary powers restricted only by the provisions of the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution states specifically what the federal government CAN do, but for the states, it states specifically what they CANNOT do. The purpose was to give states greater jurisdiction while limiting the role of the federal government.

Today the federal government has flexibiltiy in extending its authority and the states have been manipulated to where they willingly defer to the central government. Walter Russell Mead provided an interesting take. He argues that the United States changed in the mid-20th century to a new "Blue Model" with large and stable entities in the public, private, and mixed sectors of the economy. These large entities provided lifetime employment and substantial resources to better education and other public services. Costs were expected to go down making these services affordable. It was progressive and was considered an achievement in reconciling capitalism with social and economic security, according to Mead.

As we all know it is going in the opposite direction. Costs are going up and the services offered are seen as inadequate or flawed. Investments in a centralized government bureaucracy often gets chopped up with administrative costs, pensions, and high salaries for public sector workers, which are now all unionized and bargain for these funds. They are interested in self-preservation and power not quality services. We can no longer afford this "Blue Model" and it is failing to provide the services offered.

The power and reach of the federal government is overstretched. It is time the blue model is dismantled and we begin a breaking down in the major oligopolies of public services, devolving it to the states or the private sector. It will also require that the Constitution begin to be applied as if it means what it says. The Commerce Clause must be pulled back. This all began with a stretching of that clause and can be solved by returning to first principles.

It will involve tough choices. These giant entities will have to be reduced in size, cut costs, or be eliminated completely. States must be given more leeway to actually try new policies and ideas rather than being "directed" by federal agencies and statutes to follow a single path. States must also move towards greater independence from the federal government in terms of money and institutional capability.

Conservatives love this idea. Conservatism has a lot to do with going with what got us here, which involves greatly the U.S. Constitution and the principles of the founders. The Commerce Clause and its expansion is a demonstration of the battle between conservatives and liberals. Liberals wanted the blue model, and they still want it. However, we can't afford it and it is provided sub-standard results. Conservatives want to begin working towards a new model, or rather adoption of something that better resembles the pre-1937 system.

Political Parties

Neither political party in the United States is popular, and for good reason. The Republicans failed to keep themselves under control when it came to spending, the size of government, and corruption. In 2008, they got scared and suppored a group of centrist Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee) and one moderate conservative McCain. Conservatives were frustrated and did not come with the energy as they did in 2004. Moderates swung strongly for the charismatic Obama and his promise of change. Most believed the country was going in the wrong direction, so why not vote for change?

Well now moderates realize they don't like the change. Conservatives are infuriated at the radical Obama agenda and have come with energy less than a year after getting crushed. Instead of supporting the alternative Republican Party, they formed a grassroots movement, known as the Tea Party in relation to the tossing of British Tea off ships in Boston Harbor way back when. At that time, Americans despised the fact they could only buy British Tea, choice was taken away. They were angry at taxation without representation. Finally, they were angry that the British Government was so distant and out of touch, they could not represent their interests.

Today's Tea Party is not quite the same but some similarities are there. It is anti-centralized government. It is about economic freedom in terms of choice when it comes to Healthcare and other sectors controlled by the government. GM and Chrysler are beginning to resemble the East India Trading Company. Government involvement in commerce is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. It is one of the reasons they rebelled. They were angry at taxes, something that is going to rise under Obama and perhaps even more so in the future to pay off the debt. Obama has not used military force or police power but instead uses the softer left-leaning media, journalists, and hollywood to shame conservatives into thinking they are racist, sexist, stupid, radical, knuckle-dragging idiots who hate the poor. Not to mention they are all white, rich, and Evangelicals. At last, Washington D.C. is clearly out of touch. The Congress demographically does not resemble the U.S. as a whole. The people living in that area certainly do not (90% voted for Obama). The media elite do not. In fact, Washington D.C. is basically a fish bowl. How can a fish bowl on the east coast govern a country of 310 million people?

The people are angry. In this atmosphere they might actually protest, contribute time and money to the cause, and God forbid VOTE against the incumbents.

Tea Partiers still don't like the Republican Party and for good reason. I have found numerous examples of the national party getting involved in local elections, trying to find the candidate they think is "most electable" and "friendly to the agenda of the party". That is not what Tea Partiers want. They want independent-minded candidates, conservative, and yes a little extreme in their ideas. Extreme because the status quo has shifted so far in the other extreme (socialism) that only a extreme response will return us to any kind of equilibrium or better yet, an actual free market. Party-backed candidates are just well-known, well-financed, and experienced politicians. Most have no relation to the ideas and sentiment of the Tea Party movement and only want to take advantage of the momentum to gain office.

A good goal for Tea Partiers is to go head-to-head with party-backed candidates in all primaries and blow them out of the water. It won't be long before the Tea Party Movement has a major voice in the party, and the establishment politicians are forced out. The new guard must be brought in and the old guard retired. It is hard to win back independents and lost conservatives when you have the same leaders from 2004-2006. People like Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell need to be replaced.

If the Republicans nominate a moderate candidate, it should not be discouraging or press people to find a third candidate. Better a spineless centrist Republican for one term then a socialist democrat. Vote for him in November but make sure you find a real conservative to challenge him in the next primary. In my opinion, incumbents should be challenged in primaries as much as possible. Primaries should be very competitive and active. This strong lean toward incumbents needs to stop. The American political system needs to change its approach, from centralized partisan establishment to decentralized popular systems. When Congress performs poorly, we should not become apathetic and refuse to vote as some form of protest. That is like quitting your job instantly because you didn't get a raise. Now your not making any money. You don't show up for work, you won't get paid. You want a higher salary, look for a new job.

There are many Republicans I wish were not in office right now and wish they would be challenged by better candidates. The political party is a mechanism used to better represent our interests in the federal government. We should not take the perspective of the political party and hope the Republicans "absorb" the Tea Party Movement so they can succeed. I don't care so much that the Republican Party is successful, I care more that the right policies are implemented.