Much has been written and spoken lately about the reaction that the GOP establishment has had toward the surprise nomination of Christine O’Donnell in the GOP Senate primary, as well as the victories of Sharon Angle in Nevada, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Joe Miller in Alaska. In fact, I recently wrote a post that my good friend Cynewulf assures me was “restaurant quality” that took a look at the issue. So it may seem strange to see back to back posts here that deal with the same issue, but I assure you that this post is going to be a bit different from the first.

As I was reading a book of historical essays last week, one of the writers made a point that I think clearly explains just why both the Democratic and Republican establishments are reacting to the rise of O’Donnell, Miller, et al in the manner that they are.

Now, we expect the Democrats to attack anyone to the right of George McGovern as a “far-right extremist”, and we have heard that particular formulation thrown around so much that it has lost its sting. When people like John McCain, Bob Dole, and Lindsey Graham are being excoriated by the leftist media and the Democrats, we can see just how little that really means. I mean, the next principled conservative stand, not necessitated by political expediency that John McCain takes will likely be his first…but the media continues to treat him as if he is some “arch-conservative.”

Sadly, the GOP has taken a similar tack on conservatives in recent memory. The GOP has rarely had the guts to stand by any real conservatives in races across the country, because they have bought into the notion that strong conservatives cannot win in states that have a “moderate” on the ballot, so we have seen the establishment attempt to foist upon the voters candidates like Dede Scozzafava, Mike Castle, and Charlie Crist. These people were sold to us on the premise that they, and not a more conservative candidate, were the only electable Republicans on the ticket, so they had to be supported regardless of their records. And when these candidates failed, how did the establishment react?

Both the Democratic and Republican establishments acted in the same way, attacking the conservative winners as ‘extreme’, ‘kooky’, ‘unqualified’, or ‘unelectable’. Furthermore, the level of vitriol directed at these conservative candidates has been just as intense from the GOP establishment as it has been from the expected environs of the Democrats!

Search the memory banks quickly and tell me how many times you heard that Marco Rubio in Florida would be irreparably damaged by an independent campaign by Charlie Crist; remember the many instances of ‘conservative’ pundits telling us that Rand Paul was the wrong candidate in Kentucky; recall the many people on the right attacking Sharon Angle as a kook with no chance to beat Harry Reid; and now listen to the increasingly personal attacks leveled against Christine O’Donnell for having been a “two time loser” in Delaware, even though one of those losses was when the Delaware GOP nominated her to challenge Joe Biden for the Senate seat he had held for most of my life, until becoming Vice President.

Looking at this, and thinking about it we probably have the same question that my all-time favorite professional wrestler, “Nature Boy” Ric Flair once famously asked in a promo: What’s causing all this?!

The answer to that question came to me as I was reading, when in one passage the historian pointed out the difference between conventional partisan politics and movement politics. The writer explained that in conventional politics, in this case represented by the two established political parties, those involved seek to identify mutually acceptable middle ground on issues via compromise. We see this every day in the calls for bipartisan agreement and compromise on the major issues of the day, from the economy to defense concerns to immigration law. Neither side seems willing to stake out a principled position, plant their feet, and say “This is where I stand, come what may.”

In contrast, movement politics is described as people staking out a principled position on issues and instead of seeking to compromise those positions, attempting to draw the more conventional politicians to their causes. As all who are looking at this honestly can tell you, this fits what the Tea Party Movement (TPM) is doing to a T. The TPM has staked out positions primarily on tax and government spending issues and are working to reward those politicians who embrace those ideals with their support, and to punish those who have spent their political careers selling out the principles of the voters who put them in office.

Removing the Democratic establishment from the equation, as they are naturally antagonistic towards anyone opposes the expansion of government spending, etc let us consider just what the rise of the TPM and its status as a “movement politics” means in relation to the GOP establishment. Just what is it that this movement has done to the GOP elite that causes them to shower the TPM candidates with so much anger and fills them with so much consternation?

The major reasons for the GOP Establishment’s near hysterical reaction to the rise of the TPM and the nomination of TPM candidates across the country are firmly rooted in the unbreakable bonds the Establishment has to conventional partisan politics.

We understand, and we have seen much evidence to back this claim, that much of what is wrong in Washington is that national politics has become an insiders club, and partisan politics helps perpetuate that system. What too many members of the GOP Establishment in Washington want more than anything are power and influence, and partisan politics is the way that those things are kept “in house” for the elites. They want to be the “ranking member” of this or that committee; they want to cosponsor bipartisan legislation that raises their stature in the eyes of the press, which in turn raises their level of influence in the Congress. But rarely do these displays of bipartisanship result in legislation that is good for We The People.

The most instructive example of this type of attitude and activity is the last Republican presidential nominee, John McCain. Mr. McCain has spent nearly his entire political career, especially since joining the Senate, worshipping at the altar of bipartisanship, while pretending to be loyal to the conservative principles that have so long been the foundation of the GOP. While he spent his time making common cause with the Democrats he so enthusiastically worked with in the Senate, he also tried to make us believe that he was somehow a guardian of freedom and liberty. However, his record bears out my broader points about the quest for personal prestige and passage of disastrous legislation that comes from the processes of conventional partisan politics. John McCain became a media star and was turned into a political power broker in DC as he betrayed the GOP and the country by co-authoring the McCain –Feingold bill that infringed upon political free speech and the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill that mercifully was voted down in Congress. But both of those efforts were celebrated within the confines of the political Establishment as fine examples of how the political system was supposed to operate. Yet, that is only true if the political system of this country was set up to be run by and established political elite, who feel it is their prerogative to rule instead of govern.

What the rapid rise of the TPM has done in these last few years is to upset the political applecart in a manner that is most disturbing to the Republican Establishment. The Establishment is wedded to the partisan model, because it is from that model that they derive their power and prestige. The movement model, as embodied in the TPM is a most serious threat to the Establishment because it forces the Establishment into a corner. The TPM has forced the Establishment into a situation where they are being challenged by their constituents to prove that they are what they so loudly claim to be…namely conservatives. The Establishment politicians are being challenged on their records, on their votes, and on their actions and many of them are failing to live up to the lofty conservative rhetoric they used to get themselves elected. Further, when the people have started to call their bluffs and peruse their records, the members of the Establishment have often been found wanting…and the people have moved them aside. That is what happened to Bob Bennett in Utah; Lisa Murkowski in Alaska; Trey Grayson in Kentucky; and most recently Mike Castle in Delaware. And it is that reclaiming of the political process by the people from the political professionals that has the Establishment in such a rage.

You see, what was exhibited by Karl Rove in his now infamous rant against Christine O’Donnell on Hannity was not just about that race, it was the unleashing of the fears and anger of the Establishment as it sees its power beginning to erode. Christine O’Donnell has been the avatar that has been attacked and smeared by both the Republican and Democratic operatives, but make no mistake it is not just her that is being attacked.

By attacking Christine O’Donnell the establishment is attacking every voter in every state who has rejected their status quo candidates. They are attacking every member of Town Hall’s own SCDS members who refused to hold their noses and vote for McCain on 2008; they are attacking every conservative in Florida who rejected Charlie Crist in favor of Marco Rubio; they are assaulting the voters of Kentucky and Nevada who refused to accept the usual go-along-to-get-along Republicans in their states. And I so doing they are showing us who they really are and why they can never be trusted with the levers of power again.

I don’t know what the future holds for the TPM, it may be long lasting or it may peter out after November. But I do believe that the rise of the TPM movement has made more and more of us realize that our voices will be heard when raised loudly, purposefully, and in a sustained manner. We have served notice that We The People Will not be ruled, and that We The People will only be governed by those We choose, not those selected for us by those who consider themselves political doyens.

We The People are back in the saddle!

 If anyone ever doubted what the true colors of the national GOP and many of the so-called conservative talking heads and media outlets were, this primary season has exposed them to the light of day. The primary victory of Christine O’Donnell over the handpicked establishment candidate Mike Castle was not the first sign of their true colors, but may just have been the straw that broke the camels back in opening the eyes of the GOP base (and yes, I know I just mixed my metaphors).

In this political year of special elections, congressional primaries and the like the base of the GOP, strong conservatives, have done just what Nuke LaLoosh wanted to in “Bull Durham”; Announce our presence with authority! We wrested control of the governor’s and AG offices in Virginia; the governorship of New Jersey; Senate nominations in Utah, Alaska, Florida, and Nevada; a special election for Senate in Massachusetts; and now the epic upset in Delaware. And all of this was done with little support from the Washington power brokers of the GOP establishment; in fact this was done in most places in direct opposition to the wishes of the poobahs.

Remember, the GOP supported very few of the conservative nominees that have risen to the top in this political season; the NRSC supported Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio in Florida; Trey Grayson over Rand Paul in Kentucky; Lisa Murkowski over Joe Miller in Alaska; Dee Dee Scozaffava in NY-23; and of course, Mike Castle over Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Further, they were all supported by the GOP using the same line of “logic”, to wit, they were more “electable.” The GOP was willing to support an obvious opportunist, a person more in line with the Democrats than the GOP, and someone who voted on a resolution that allowed an impeachment referral of a sitting GOP president all on the false belief that they were “electable.”

But the O’Donnell-Castle race brought the true positions of many self professed conservatives into stark relief against those held by most grassroots conservatives. The very thought of O’Donnell actually waging a campaign against the hand picked RINO candidate in Delaware brought out the worst in these self appointed GOP elites. There were columns at National Review Online savaging her character; there were other columns attacking her for suing some conservative group; she has been called the “U” word by none other than Charles Krauthammer; and most famously attacked and smeared by an unhinged looking Karl Rove on FNC’s Hannity. Curiously though, the attacks launched against her are rarely about policy positions, but always about personal foibles, as seen by the GOP elite. I don’t know exactly where O’Donnell stands on cap and trade (although I thin we can figure it out), but thanks to Karl Rove I know that she had a house go into foreclosure; that she faced possible bankruptcy (as did I); that she once sued a conservative think tank (so what); and that she had trouble paying off her college loans (like the current President and First Lady). And these were reasons that the Delaware electorate should go running into the arms of Mike Castle, he of the support for cap and trade and the Bush impeachment process.

What the GOP elite fails to understand is that her problems are our problems, and that is why the people of Delaware rewarded her with the Republican Senate nomination. She will be exactly what the Founders expected to see in the halls of Congress, real person with a real life outside of politics. She is the citizen legislator who has had to struggle to make ends meet and who actually understands the challenges of the people she represents, instead of someone who pretends to understand after spending most of their adult lives living the privileged lives of US Senators!

The GOP is exactly what we have always said: The Stupid Party. They are not conservative, but are Republicans who care about nothing more than have a numerical majority and the power that gives them. They care more about committee chairs than actual policy positions, so a liberal new member like Scott Brown is more welcome than the idea of an honestly conservative candidate. And the example of Scott Brown is very indicative of the ideas embraced by the GOP elite. Just today (September 16) Scott Brown (R-MA) was out lamenting the idea that O’Donnell’s win meant that there is “no room for moderates” in the GOP, mirroring exactly the braying of the liberals who always say just that when one of their favored RINOs gets his tusks mounted on a conservative’s wall. But if Brown were intellectually honest he would look around the Senate and realize that the problem is not too few “moderates”, but too many of them; Snowe, Collins, Graham, McCain, Hagel, and Brown just to name a few. And I don’t seem to recall Mr. Brown complaining about conservatives when it was the Tea Party that propelled him to his seat, after the GOP establishment decided that he wasn’t “electable” to the so-called Kennedy seat in the Bay State.

Personally, I am damned happy that the conservative base has finally decided to rise up and become the force it should have always been in the Party. We have the RINOs on the run, they know it, and they are as nervous a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. We have put them on notice that they need us a hell of a lot more than we need them and we need to keep up the pressure. Its RINO season…tally-ho! (And yes, I know that’s a fox hunting thing!)

The situation involving the proposed Koran bonfire in Florida on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks has become an international story in a very short amount of time. It has also become a story that has caught my particular interest on a few different levels, and has pointed out the continued hypocrisy of many on the political left in this country. The way this story is being covered and discussed is to me very revealing of the shifting sense of morality and respect for fundamental rights by the left, as well as the ability of the national media to create mountains out of molehills…especially when it suits their particular agendas.

The decision by Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove Outreach church in Gainesville, Florida to burn Korans on the anniversary of 9/11 has caused quite the firestorm, and pointed out the amazing abilities of liberals to pick and choose when the rights protected by the Constitution should be respected. Personally, I don’t care whether or not Pastor Jones burns Korans at his church, or anything else that he and his congregation do, mainly because it does not affect me. I think the move is one that is inflammatory in nature, and will likely bring some backlash on the pastor and his flock, but they had to understand that when they decided to turn the alleged words of Allah into an ash heap. What has been so interesting to me is how silent the vast left wing 1^st Amendment defenders have fallen in regards to this situation. How is this planned protest against Islam, if that is indeed what it is, any different from the protected symbolic speech of burning an American flag? We hear the ACLU, Alan Dershowitz, and every other left wing legal hack out there waxing eloquent about how burning a flag or desecrating a crucifix, while highly offensive to many Americans, is nonetheless speech that demands all the protections that the 1^st Amendment can cover the action with. So how is this any different? It is a political statement against the spread of a virulent ideology masked in the guise of religion, just as much to be protected as any similar demonstrations launched by America’s leftists…yet the left has nothing to say in defense of Terry Jones. I guess the 1^st Amendment is only applicable to demonstrations that denigrate the faith, morality, and patriotism of the majority of Americans. To paraphrase Orwell, all constitutionally protected symbolic speeches are equal but some are more equal than others.

Another fascinating aspect of this whole saga has been the lack of people decrying the insistence of government officials, both civilian and military, on telling Pastor Jones that he should stand down on this protest. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that this may cause diplomatic trouble in the Middle East; General David Petraeus has warned that this Koran burning will put our soldiers in further jeopardy in Afghanistan, and thus should be stopped; and President Obama has weighed in calling the whole thing a “stunt” and advising the pastor not to do it as it may have a negative impact on certain national security concerns. Voices from the highest reaches of the federal government and US Armed Forces are calling for a minister to not hold a perfectly legal demonstration, and are using the specter of complicity in the killing of soldiers in Afghanistan to assert pressure on him to conform to their wishes. Now, where are the voices that just last week were screaming about the absolute right of Imam Faisal Abdul Rouf and friends to build their Cordoba complex near the Ground Zero site? Why are their voices not raised in this instance when it is clear that actual government pressure is being brought to bear on a religious figure to sublimate his speech and religious rights to the wishes of governmental authorities? Those usual voices from the left have gotten so quiet that you can hear a rat pissing on cotton on this issue! Moreover, when you do hear one of them speak up they are making the exact argument that many conservatives are making in relation to the Cordoba project, namely that even though the right to do this is not in question it is simply perceived as terribly poor judgment and an unnecessary provocation. But in the close minded world that the allegedly open minded liberals inhabit, these two situations are apples and oranges…when in fact they are red delicious to golden delicious arguments. But the ingrained hypocrisy inherent in liberalism will not allow them to understand or acknowledge their inconsistencies on the issues involved.

Finally, I am amazed at how this planned protest became an international story in the first place. Until just a couple of days ago, the only people who had probably heard of Pastor Terry Jones and his congregation were the people in the Gainesville community where his church is based. I don’t know how long this guy has been a pastor, what he preaches and teaches, what his church mission is, or anything of the sort. But thanks to the national media, I know that he plans a Koran-fired tailgate on what looks to be a beautiful Saturday for football all around the country. Before hearing about this on Fox News, my biggest concern about Saturday was if Notre Dame could get off to a 2-0 start by whipping Michigan when they visit South Bend, or how the Alabama-Penn State game was going to turn out. Now I am wondering what the response to this will be in Gainesville to this bonfire and how many riots will take place overseas as a result (allegedly) of this action undertaken by one small congregation in the heart of Gator Country.

But what is doubly fascinating about this is how the media has fanned the flames of a little demonstration in Florida to make it seem as if every Christian congregation in America is somehow involved. You see, this was tailor made for a legacy media that has been pushing the line that America is “islamophobic” since the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Back then the legacy media made dire warnings and wrote dark stories of rising anti-Muslim sentiment in America and cautioned against a rise in religiously based hate crimes. The only thing is, the hate crime wave never materialized; in fact the percentage of hate crimes against Muslims ( around 7%) is muck lower than for Jews (upper 60%), slightly higher than crimes against Catholics, and trails crimes against the “other” category. But this story allows the legacy media to resurrect images of evil, backward Christians in the South plotting terrible violence and injustice against the put-upon, peaceful Islamic minority. It allows the legacy media to demonize two groups or one if you prefer to see it as such, that it despises: Southerners and Christians. It plays into the media’s stereotypes of the ignorance and intolerance that is supposedly found in the Southerners as a group and the entirety of the Christian faith. It doesn’t matter that those are false impressions created by an elite that is as dogmatic in their beliefs as they believe the benighted Christians to be. They have adopted those images of Christians and Southerners to be true and nothing will dissuade them from that belief. And this slanted, over the top coverage of this event to be held by one small Florida congregation has been blown up to the point that Pakistanis are ready to riot over it, and Pakistani officials are predicting that the event will have dire consequences for relations between our governments. All because insular media elite have latched onto this one insignificant activity, by one obscure congregation among thousands, as emblematic of American Christian attitudes towards Islam.

In the end, this story is not about Pastor Terry Jones or his plan to publicly roast a few Korans; it is about the hypocrisy and mendacity of a significant portion of our legacy media, leftist activists, and government officials. It is about the propensity of the media to create scandals out of whole cloth; activists who claim to care about freedom, but really only care about their viewpoints; and public officials who fail to see the incongruence in arguing for the right of the Cordoba project to proceed apace as an act in furtherance of religious liberty, while simultaneously bringing public pressure to bear on a minister to halt a lawful, constitutionally protected Koran burning.

As for me, I say burn the Korans if you like. It doesn’t affect me one way or the other, as I sit here in North Carolina looking on from afar. Like the Cordoba initiative, I think it may be a bit provocative and evidence of poor judgment, but Pastor Jones has the same right to his protest as Imam Rouf has to his “cultural center.”

September 2, 2010 marked the beginning of the Obama administration’s attempt to do what successive administrations from the days of Richard Nixon have tried to do, namely broker some sort of peace agreement between the Israelis and their “Palestinian” antagonists. With much media fanfare Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was paraded in front of the cameras with Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu and “Palestinian” leader Mahmoud Abbas in tow, all to show that there would now be face to face negotiations between the two groups that will create the mythical peace in the Middle East that the West has long sought.

What the Secretary of State and the American legacy media fail to recognize, either due to ignorance or design, is that as long as Islam predominates in the M idle East and Israel exists, there can be no peace between the two sides. Further, so long as the United States exists alongside the religion of Islam in the world, there can be no peace between Islam and the United States.

The reason that these peace plans and proposals always fail, and always will fail, lies in one simple fact about Islam that most people either do not recognize or willfully ignore. At its very heart, Islam is not like other religions in that it not a universal religion, but a doctrine of supremacy.

Most of the “great” religions of the world believe and espouse a notion that they have the ultimate truth that leads the followers to an eternal salvation. Hindus believe that through meditation techniques that man can become one with the universal life force; Mormons believe that following the dictates of the Church and completing the temple endowments ultimately lead to man becoming a God who will rule over an universe of his own creation; Jews believe that belief in Jehovah and the coming messiah will lead to salvation; Christians believe that acceptance of Jesus as Lord of your life brings salvation. All of these disparate beliefs come with the doctrine that they are open to anyone to embrace, and that acceptance of the doctrines is strictly voluntary. You must choose to become a Mormon, a Hindu, a Christian, or to be a practicing Jew; no one is going to force that upon you. And just as importantly, there is no hint of a belief that those doctrines are to be the supreme religion of the entire world. In essence, you can take them or leave them at your own discretion.

Islam is fundamentally different from those other faiths, in that it contains within it the strong belief that Islam is to be the supreme religion and that all others must bow before it. Koran itself makes this clear in passages such as this from the sura titled “The Table”: “Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a diversion…Say: ‘People of the Book [Jews and Christians], is it not that you hate us only because we believe in God and in what has been revealed to us and to others before, and because most of you are evil doers?” Or take this passage from “The Spoils”: “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion [Islam] shall reign supreme.” Or this from “Repentance”: “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians] as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” And for good measure, this passage from “She Who Is Tested”: “Believers, do not make friends with those who are enemies of Mine and yours. Would you show them kindness, when they have denied the truth that has been revealed to you and driven out the Apostle and yourselves, because you believe in God, your Lord?”

Nowhere in the sacred texts of the Bible or the Torah are such sentiments expressed as they relate to people of other faiths; nowhere do those books betray such a need for supremacy on earth. Some may say that the Bible expresses such sentiments, but always in the Bible sentiments such as these are linked with the judgment of the world by God Himself, and never are the followers of Christ encouraged to fight to establish the supremacy of the faith, or to mock non-believers as ‘evil-doers’, nor to withhold their friendship from non-believers. Yet Islam makes these very demands upon the faithful, and there can be no disagreement as the Koran is the literal word of Allah, and any such disagreement is to dispute with God Himself!

Until the world recognizes that Islam is not just a faith, but a supremacist ideology, attempts at peace will continue to be made….and continue to fail. Just as reconciling the Ku Klux Klan to the idea of Blacks having equality with Whites is a pipe dream, so to is the idea that Islam can be reconciled with the idea of allowing a Jewish state to exist in peace with its Muslim neighbors.

November is fast approaching and we conservatives are all atwitter about the upcoming elections. There is a very good opportunity to take back both the House and the Senate, and possibly unseat such liberal stalwarts as Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer in states where they have held their positions in a near mortal lock. And that is worth being excited about.

But as much as that day may excite us, I have this sinking feeling that what we do may not matter. The problem is that we the people have lost our power to the "least dangerous branch". Look no further than two recent judicial decisions to prove my point: the decision against Arizona's SB1070 and the recent overturning of the California constitutional amendment that prohibited "gay marriage".

Those two rulings show just how out of control the federal courts have become, and how much authority we have seen ceded to them. In both cases we see liberal judges step into state political matters and overturn the will of the voters of those states. In Arizona, a judge in the federal courts decided that Arizona was out of line in passing a law that made federal immigration law into state immigration policy, and in California a judge decided that the will of the people there to ban "gay marriage" was unconstitutional. All by himself he found in the Constitution a federal right to gay marriage, that if upheld by the federal courts, would make that the law for the western part of the US.

The problem with this scenario is that the voices of the people are being lost, and in at least one case (California) the court really had no right to intervene in the case at all. In Arizona, the federal court was allowed to hear the case because the federal government was a party to the case as it was the DOJ that brought suit against Arizona. But in California, I can see no reason why the federal court had any constitutionally sound reason to intervene in the case. According to the Constitution in Article III, Section 2 the federal courts have jurisdiction "-to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." Unless I am mistaken, Prop 8 is a controversy within the state of California over an amendment to their Constitution passed by the voters of the state, and that is not one of the criteria issued by the US Constitution to determine the cases heard by the federal courts.

And therein lies the rub; we have allowed the federal court system for so long to act as a de facto legislative body, that we have effectively stripped ourselves of any readily applicable political power. As the courts have taken over more of the responsibility of "making new law" and enacting their policy preferences, we have lost the power of the ballot. In short, with an ascendant court system our republican system begins to wither and die. Our votes really mean little when we have come the point where we don't look at our representatives to fix our problems, but hope that a judge or panel of judges makes decisions that show fidelity to the Constitution. The irony of that is that our acceptance of this perversion of the system exists because we have abandoned the very limits and constraints contained within the Constitution itself.

So until we have the courage to challenge our representatives in Washington, DC to force the courts back into their rightful place in the system set forth in the Constitution, our votes really don't matter very much. I am not saying not to vote, because that is still important. But we need to put the pressure on our congressional reps to rein in the courts and help us reclaim our rightful place as the ultimate authority in our republic.

here, and here.

As the controversy surrounding the proposed opening of a mosque in New York City very near Ground Zero raged in the last few weeks, I have heard the excuse that the idea was a good one because it was proposed by a group of moderate Muslims. That didn’t bother me as much as the reintroduction into the discourse the idea that this group could somehow work to reform Islam, as if it could ever actually be reformed. I am not saying that as an attack on the Muslim faith, but as a simple statement of fact. So, to rip a line from our illustrious Commander-in-Chief, let me be clear, Islam cannot be reformed.

The mistake that many people make when they start down that path is to equate Islam with Christianity. While both religions grow from the seed planted by Judaism and are monotheistic in nature that is just about where the similarities end. While Christianity could undergo a reformation, Islam is simply not set up in that manner. Christianity could be reformed because no matter how different the modes of worship and the structure of church services, there is a well stated and universally accepted orthodoxy in the Christian faith. Every Christian, whether Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, or Orthodox holds the same basic articles of faith. To wit; Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of God, born of a virgin, crucified for our sins, resurrected from the grave after three days, ascended to Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father, and He will return to this Earth for his Bride (the church).

Further, Christians believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of God, and recognize that there may be some mistranslations involved. There are simply some words in the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek that do not translate well into English, so some things may be lost in translation. But the Bible is universally accepted by Christians the world over as the guidebook of life left to us by God, and revealed to his prophets. Because of that orthodoxy, Christians share more similarities than differences, and when a denomination or individual strays outside of those boundaries, we know that the boundaries have been crossed.

Islam, however, is a horse of a different color, as they said in The Wizard of Oz. The only orthodoxies in Islam are that Allah is God, Muhammad was His Prophet, and the prophetic line ended with the Prophet. After that, all bets are off in Islam; Sunni, Shi’a, Sufi, and Kharijite all believe that they have the singular truth of how Islam is to be practiced and what it means to be a Muslim, which explains why there is always so much sectarian feuding within the faith.

Further complicating matters, and serving as the reason that Islam can never be reformed, is the place the Koran holds in the faith. Unlike the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, which are accepted as the revealed Word of God to his people, the Koran is taught to be the literal words of Allah. According to Muslim theology, the Koran (written in Arabic) is co-eternal with Allah; it has always been just as Allah has always been…from the foundations of the universe the Koran has existed. With that as the view of what the Koran is, it stands to reason that there is no possibility of reforming Islam, because to do so would be to change the literal word of the Creator of All Worlds. And if the Koran, co-eternal with Allah, is flawed, then the entire religion must fall. In that type of religious and spiritual setting, who has the authority to change the religion from what it was when revealed to Muhammad?

That is why the talk of reforming Islam is at best a pipe dream, and at worst dangerously delusional. Islam cannot be reformed; it can only be accepted as truth or rejected as a religious delusion. No self respecting Muslim, moderate or radical, will ever seek to reform Islam because to do so would be to render the religion meaningless. And who among the Muslim throng has the drive or guts to tell his fellow travelers that several centuries worth of religious faith has been not only wrong, but ultimately a grand deception? I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to ever happen in this lifetime.

  I didn’t want to write about this, but something that I saw on television just set me off. I was watching the July 16^th edition of The O’Reilly Factor where guest host Monica Crowley was interviewing Kevin Jackson and Ellis Henican about the NAACP smear of the Tea Party as racist. I had just tuned in, and had missed most of the segment, but what I saw and heard set me off like a Roman candle.

Full disclosure: I cannot stand the sight of Ellis Henican. He reminds me of a lab rat, with his white hair, whiny vice, too little for his face mouth, and his constantly leaving his mouth open after he finishes speaking. Just the sight of him irritates me to no end, so I usually avoid seeing him whenever I can. That said, I would have had the same reaction if it had been Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, or any of the other good liberals that Fox News employs as contributors in an effort to give balanced coverage to their opinion programs.

What set me off was an exchange where that rat-faced b@stard Henican so graciously tells Mr. Jackson, who writes The Blacksphere blog (found in my blog roll), that he and any other conservative black people have “every right to his conservative views”, but that he (and I apparently) are outside of the mainstream of black America. As if Ellis Henican knows what black folks think, respect, and value because so many of them vote against their interests by supporting the Democratic Party!

Well thank you Mr. Charlie! See, us po’ nigra folk sho’ do need you to tells us that we can have our opinions! An’ you not even givin’ them to us! Why, Massa Henican sho’ is a good massa, to be lettin’ us think for ourself some a da’ time! Why, Massa Henican and his kin even gives us thangs like dat affirmative action to help us out, an’ tells us what it really means to be black dese days, a’ even tells us what leaders we ‘posed to follow…like Rev. Jessie an’ Rev’run Al! Why, thankee, thankee, thankee ‘cuz us po’ nigras ain’t got sense enuf to figure dat out on our own! Why, where would we po’ nigras be wif’out our beloved liberal massas?

I wonder if that is the reaction that Henican and so many other white liberals actually want to hear when they presume to speak for blacks? It damned sure feels like it, even if it’s not!

I am so sick to damned death of white liberals acting as if they know what’s best for blacks, or any other minority group. They act as if taking some damned multiculturalism seminar gives them insight to who a whole ethnic group is, how it thinks, and how it will behave. What they never stop to think about is that I am not an ethnic group member; I am a man who thinks for himself…as are the other “group members.” What seeing us as members of a group allows for liberals to do is discount us as people, while pretending to care about us. But that care is but an abstraction, which allows the white liberal to feel good about himself, while never having to have any real meaningful relationships with any blacks at all, and especially with those who have strayed off the plantation.

Sorry about the rant, but I just had to get that off my chest!

 Having recently received my BA in History from my beloved Winston-Salem State University, and not having had much luck on the job hunt (yet), I decided to put my stellar education to work here at my blog. Actually, this idea popped into my head as I was watching America’s History Teacher, Scourge of the Progressives Glenn Beck talk to a couple of writers about the Civil War. What interested me was their discussion of the role that slavery had in the War, and how deeply ingrained it was into the minds of the Confederates. Their conclusion was that despite what some Lincoln-bashers think, or the neo-Confederate apologists think, slavery was at the heart of the rebellion, not just a desire to protect the rights of the states to self determination.

As a Southerner (by the grace of God!), I have always had a tendency to lean towards the Confederacy in their fight; maybe it was the awful glory of fighting to the bitter end for “The Lost Cause”; maybe it was the bravery and cunning of Confederate leaders like Lee and Jackson; or maybe it was simply the belief handed down in a million ways in the South that we were the victims of Yankee aggression. Whatever the reasons, I have had a bit of a fascination with the Civil War and a bit of a soft spot for my Southern people in that epic struggle. Now, I never wanted to see the Confederacy triumphant, because that would have been bad for my forbears, but I have always been partial to the Southern-held arguments that slavery was not the major factor in the war. I suppose it was just more comfortable to believe in state’s rights as the driving force, since it made it easier to absolve my fellow Southerner’s of the sin of slavery in my beloved America.

However, after hearing that bit of the Beck show, and starting out furiously to prove that slavery was not at the heart of the Confederacy, I had to stop and consider the hard fact that slavery was the very heart and soul of the Confederate States of America. That was a bitter pill to swallow, but like any good medicine, it makes you feel better even if the taste is awful.

The argument that most neo-Confederate apologists like to fall back on is the idea that there was nothing in the Constitution that prohibited the States from simply leaving the Union whenever the mood struck them. That argument would be a strong one if the United States had still been operation under the Articles of Confederation, which basically treated all of the states as independent nation-states. But our Founders saw how poorly that system would work once it was out into practice, and devised a federal system that created a strong central government and severely restrained the autonomy of the various states. True, the states were given great power by the Constitution in the ways that the document limited the federal government, and the Tenth Amendment specifically reserved to the various States and the people those rights not specifically enumerated to the federal government; however, the States understood that by ratifying the Constitution, they were giving away their rights to act as sovereign nation-states. By creating a federal government with broad powers, and by assenting that the Constitution and any laws flowing thereof were the supreme law of the land (Article VI, Clause 2), the States gave away any pretense of constitutional justification for their secession from the United States. Furthermore, Article IV, Section 4 should put to rest any lingering doubts about the position of the States vis-à-vis the federal government when the States agreed to make the federal government the guarantor of the promise that “every State in this Union” would have a “Republican Form of Government.” If that is not an acknowledgement that the states were no longer sovereign entities, I don’t know what is. What sovereign nation-state allows an outside entity to determine the type of government to be practiced within that nation-state?

However, the most convincing evidence to the centrality of slavery to the Confederate cause is found in the Confederate Constitution that was adopted in 1861. It is true of the United States that the clearest example of who and what we as a nation strive to be is found in the words of our Constitution, and I would hazard a guess that such was the same for the founders of the CSA. Both Constitutions have at their hearts the desire to create and protect free societies from the encroachment of rapacious federal governments, and both speak eloquently the language of freedom in most respects.

It must be acknowledged, however, that despite the often lofty rhetoric of freedom in the documents, slavery is enshrined in the documents as well. Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1-2 of the Confederate Constitution mirrors Article I, Section 9 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution using nearly identical language to set an ending to the international slave trade, while standing silent on the internal slave trade and the very practice of slavery. Further, both Constitutions contain Fugitive Slave laws (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 USC; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 CSC) that forced any non-slave state to return to slaveholding areas any escaped slave in the “free” states. This had the ultimate effect of making slavery the de facto law of the land, which has been an ugly blot on our national character that some of us are still struggling to come to grips with.

As bad as those parallel passages may be, and as much as they may seem an indictment of the United States, they pale in comparison to two passages of the Confederate Constitution that made slavery a virtual requirement for admission to the Confederate States.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Confederate Constitution reads as follows: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of the Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”[Emphasis mine.] Let your mind slowly digest that statement again…………..and I bet it still doesn’t seem quite real to you. Here were the supposedly “noble” Confederate leadership enshrining the soul rotting practice of slavery as one of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the newly formed Confederate States of America.

As bad as the “privileges and immunities” clause was, it gets even worse. Read on dear readers.

The piece-de-resistance of the Confederate Constitution can be found in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 which states: “In all such territory [new states]the institution of N**ro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”  Just marinate on what that means, people! The Confederate States of America decreed that their Congress must protect the institution of slavery in any new state added to the Confederacy! Does that leave any doubt about the centrality of slavery to the formation of the CSA? It doesn’t for me, not anymore.

None of the reasons that are used to justify the secession of the Southern states carries any real weight when weighed against the words written into the Confederate Constitution. The Civil War was about many things, but just taking the Confederacy at its (written) word, there can be little doubt that the animating force behind the Confederacy was the protection and propagation of the South’s “peculiar institution.”

 Since US Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to use the power of the federal government to crush the sovereignty of the State of Arizona, I have been thinking quite a bit about the way the State could argue its case in defense of SB-1070. Now I am no constitutional scholar like our esteemed President Obama, and I am sure that Governor Brewer has excellent legal representation but this is my blog, and so I get to indulge in giving my learned legal opinions and dispense unsolicited advice…and that is just what I am about to do right now.

If I were arguing the case, my first and most compelling argument would be that contrary to federal claims in the lawsuit, there is no conflict between SB-1070 and the myriad federal immigration laws on the books. As has been repeated more times than we can count, SB-1070 was patterned on existing federal statutes, and in no way steps outside of them to the detriment of anyone who happens to be questioned under the new statute. In fact, by explicitly banning the use of race as criteria in questionings, and by requiring training to law enforcement officers in avoidance of racial profiling, SB-1070 actually adds a layer of protection for the public that is missing from the federal laws.

Further, the US claims that the passage of SB-1070 is in violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution does not seem to hold water. The US Constitution states in Article VI, Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land…[the] laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” It is the stated position that US immigration policy as adopted by the federal government flows from Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution which allows Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” regarding new immigrants to the nation. But nothing in SB-1070 runs counter to either of those clauses, but in fact upholds them. SB-1070 does not establish any new ideas on federal immigration policy; instead, the statute simply does what other parallel laws do by making state laws that mirror their federal counterparts. In essence, SB-1070 simply incorporates federal statutes at the state level.

Also, the state could argue its right to pass this law and enforcement provisions relying on Amendment X of the US Constitution, which states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That is the firmest constitutional grounds the State of Arizona has to stand on in this case, because other that mentioning the power to establish naturalization rules, the Constitution does not specifically grant power over immigration law solely to the federal government. Arizona could argue that SB-1070 falls within their purview as part of its police powers, which allows the state to make laws for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Or, it could point out that SB-1070 is a prime example of the concurrent powers shared by the state and federal governments, especially as the Arizona statute is a virtual carbon copy of the existing federal statutes.

What I hope is that the State gets a fair hearing before a judge or panel of judges who understand the simplicity and clarity of the Constitution. For the federal government to ultimately prevail would be a virtual repeal of the Tenth Amendment, because if the states are not allowed to pass laws that incorporate federal law at the local/state level, then no law that is written by the states will ever be immune from challenge. That is one precedent that I surely do not wish to be set for this nation going forward.

When Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharon Angle in Nevada won the GOP primaries for Senate seats , almost immediately the hue and cry went up that they were “the wrong candidates”. Most of the braying came from the left, as expected, and also from the GOP itself…also as expected. It seems to me that far too many Republicans, both politicians and talking heads, still don’t understand just what the Tea Party is and is not. So it is left to me, your humble correspondent (Ha! I always wanted to say that!) to give the GOP a primer on who the “right” candidates are, and just what the Tea Party is.

First, let’s tackle the subject of picking the “right” candidates, using Paul and Angle as examples. People on both the right and the left have taken after Paul and Angle since their primary victories, claiming that they are “kooks” or unfit to run for office. Their judgments of the candidates seem not to be formed primarily on the records Angle and Paul bring to the table, but because they are more conservative than the GOP establishment has been in years. While I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Paul believes, or that Angle professes, I can agree with the vast majority of their stances and hope that they prevail in November. We need more people who believe that the limits placed on government by the Constitution are firm limits, not toothless suggestions. We need more people who understand that profligate spending by our government is a recipe for disaster by making us more and more beholden to foreign creditors who have no love for us at all. And yes, we need more people in the Senate who realize that the problem with American education is not at the local level, but comes primarily from federal involvement in the educational system. After all, a fish rots from the head…and the Department of Education is a prime example of that. If that makes you a kook, then sign me up for the North Carolina Kook Brigade!

Furthermore, a good deal of the GOP establishment has started whining about how the candidates will be portrayed by their Democratic opponents in the general election. Why, according to some of the GOP “enlightened”, Harry Reid is just salivating at the chance to call Sharon Angle a right-wing extremist because of her Tea Party backing….as if he WOULDN’T have called Danny Tarkanian the same thing if he had won the primary. It wouldn’t have been true in that case and it won’t be true in this case, but that doesn’t mean that the Democrats aren’t going to take that route. Hell, that’s what they always do! According to them in 2008, John McCain was as far right as Barry Goldwater had ever been…and we all know how true that is! But the GOP establishment longs for a candidate that has the much sought after “electability” that such former GOP presidents as Dole, McCain, and Ford had. Oops, my mistake…all those highly electable candidates failed to get elected, didn’t they?

Finally on this point, the establishment does not get to decide for the voters of any state or commonwealth who the “right” candidate for them is. Sitting here in my perch in North Carolina, a state that has generally been pretty conservative at the national level over its history, I can look at members of Congress from other states and say that they aren’t my cup of tea, pardon the pun. Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, and even Chuck Grassley may not have been elected if they ran here, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t the right people to represent their constituencies. The only people who get to decide who the “right” candidates are in the various states are the voters, not the establishment politicians. And by the way Rand Paul trounced the establishment candidate Trey Grayson, and the way Sharon Angle went from unknown to nominee the people of Kentucky and Nevada obviously felt that these were the right candidates for them.

As for the Tea Party question, the first thing the GOP establishment needs to understand is that the Tea Party is not a political party. It is a political/ideological movement based around several principles that the GOP claims to embrace in their words, but recently has abandoned when it came time for action. The Tea Party stands for limited government, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, fealty to the Constitution, and personal freedom. That’s about the gist of it, and it is not something that is in the least bit radical. Because of the ideals and principles espoused by the Tea Party movement they have generated a great deal of excitement and support from all over the political spectrum, and have energized the electorate. If the GOP establishmentarians weren’t so caught up trying to safeguard their own lofty positions in the traditional political order of things, they would see that the Tea Party is not their rival but would like to be an agent of change within the Party and the nation. But has been pointed out here at the Spade, and at myriad other TH blogs, they don’t call the GOP “the Stupid Party” for nothing!

So to sum up for all the Republicans out there masquerading as conservatives, the Tea Party is not trying to displace the GOP…but the movement may just have to displace some of you. As for picking the “right” candidates, I think that the people who picked Angle and Paul know a whole hell of a lot better than the Party establishment which candidates are right for them.

After nine years of fighting in Afghanistan, the “good war” is no longer looking so good to me. I have had debates with some of my best friends at this site (mainly Brian) in the past about our military chances of success in the region, and while I still think that what we did in both Iraq and Afghanistan were initially right, on Afghanistan I have come to the conclusion that enough is finally enough. I don’t claim to understand all of the complexities of waging war in that part of the world, but it is becoming more and more apparent to me that this fight can’t be won the way we’re fighting it.

In the time that we have been engaged in Afghanistan, I have watched my son go from an elementary school student to finishing his first year of high school/early college; I have reunited with my wife, had a daughter, watched her go through kindergarten, and separated from my wife again; and I have lost my longtime job, started college, and finished a 6 years of college. And after all of that time, we are really no closer to whatever our new goals in Afghanistan are than we were when we started.

Now don’t misunderstand me, I am not some dove who doesn’t think that our military should ever sally forth and meet an enemy. I am well aware that we need a strong national defense, and I wholeheartedly supported our original mission in Afghanistan; we went in to root out and destroy Al-Qaeda and to topple the Taliban regime that allowed them to launch their terrorist strike on us on 9/11. But somewhere along the way, we went into nation building mode there, just like we did in Iraq, but with much worse results.

In Iraq, there was at least a chance of building a stable nation with a form of democracy there, mainly because the Iraqis shared a sense of national identity. Afghanistan is a far different story than Iraq.

Afghanistan is not so much a nation as a loose confederation of tribes, that as often of as not, are vying with each other for regional supremacy. They are much like the American Indians in that regard, which is why when we look at the history of the Indian Wars in this country we all understand why things were as one sided as they were; the Crow did not see themselves as “Indians” who shared a common heritage with the Lakota. When they looked the Lakota, they did not see a fellow “Indian”, but a generations old rival. That same sense of tribal identity is present in Afghanistan today, as certain tribes are willing to work with the coalition troops in fighting. Therefore it is imperative that we understand that they are not so much working to establish a stable Afghanistan, as much as they are to eliminate a tribal rival. And when viewed through that lens, it starts to become obvious that the idea of building an Afghan nation is nearing pipe dream status.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that we are dealing with a government that is monumentally corrupt. From week to week we do not know if Hamid Karzai is helping us, the poppy growers in the drug trade, or about to open a dialogue with the Taliban. Karzai is only in this fight as a way for him to consolidate his own power and enrich himself off of the monies that we have invested in trying to build a functioning nation in Afghanistan. Why should the members of rival tribes support a Karzai-led government in Kabul, when they can see more clearly than our leadership just how venal and corrupt the current government really is? Why would they support our efforts if we are seen as fighting to prop up this corrupt strongman?

Finally, I have become convinced that the surge will not work in Afghanistan, and even if it does, it may not be worth the blood and treasure already expended there.

First, I have serious qualms about the idea that a surge in conventional forces in Afghanistan will work as well as it did in Iraq. In Iraq, the surge was able to work because the fighting was in and around cities and towns. It isn’t easy to do counterinsurgency operations work anywhere, but it is much easier in an urban setting than it is in godforsaken mountainous tribal regions like we see in Afghanistan. This isn’t to disparage the men and women of our armed forces carrying out those operations, nor the commanders who drew up the plans. It is a critique of the plan that I feel is as valid and any other. I just don’t see how using conventional forces to tramp around in the mountains after people who know the area by heart is going to work.

Also, it seems to me that there has to be a better way to spend the money of our taxpayers and lives of our soldiers than we are currently engaged in. Since our invasion in 2001, we have spent an estimated $400 billion in Afghanistan waging this war, with around $100 billion of that having been allocated for this year alone. And what have we gotten for the money we have spent there? Not a whole lot, in my estimation. We are seemingly no closer to establishing a functioning national government in Afghanistan today than we were when we toppled the Taliban. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda remain in the country, the various warlords remain a thorn in our sides, and the drug trade has gone on nearly unabated. If that’s what nearly one half trillion dollars buys, we should be demanding a serious refund.

But even more importantly are the lives of the men and women that we have put at risk in this endeavor. Since the invasion, the coalition has had 1,725 deaths as of June 7, 2010; 1,016 of those have been American service members. Furthermore, there have been over 6,100 service members injured during the campaign, to come to a stunning total of 7,865 combined casualties. I recognize that we have suffered far more casualties than that in other wars, but those other wars did not seem to be as…senseless…as this has turned out to be.

Again, I am no expert on military strategy, but it seems to me that there is another course of action that we should seriously consider taking. We probably should give up on the nation building aspects of this mission ASAP and get back to the original mission: destroying the Taliban, smashing Al-Qaeda, and eliminating Osama bin Laden. And to do that we would enhance our chances of success if we were to draw down our conventional forces in the country, and let the Special Forces operators and the drones do the job they were made for. The loss of life and limb would decrease and maybe we could accomplish our goals there if we made those adjustments.

However, if we keep on our current path in Afghanistan I fear that we are trying to complete an impossible mission.