Glenn Beck Check, Part X: "The Constitution is Based on the 10 Commandments"

It has been a while since I checked in with America's favorite conspiracy theorist/doomsday prognosticator.  To be honest, I've grown tired of listening to this clown, as have most Americans. Glenn Beck's audience numbers (for radio, Internet and books) have been dwindling for quite some time now, as most people with a functioning brain have grown wise to his antics.  For the most part, Beck is left with just the extremists on the right, who gobble up his ilk like candy. If Beck were to say that the Founding Fathers were the Vulcan offspring of Spock they would probably all rush out to buy pointed ears! But since I am looking for a quick blog post to do this morning, debunking Glenn Beck (a relatively simple task) will have to do.

Last week, on his radio program, Glenn Beck was discussing the proposed Satan monument that has been suggested as a compliment for the 10 Commandments monument already standing outside of the Oklahoma State Capitol.  The monument is the brainchild of a small New York-based religious group called The Satanic Temple.

To be honest, I'm in 100% agreement with Beck when he rips into this stupid and insignificant organization that is simply looking to stir the pot and gain attention in the process.  Their movement is bogus and their proposed monument is a mockery.  Pure and simple.

But Beck didn't leave the issue on those terms.  Instead, Beck decided to go on a tirade in which he proclaims that the United States was founded as a "Judeo-Christian nation" and that the 10 Commandments "is a monument of where we got our laws."  See for yourself in the following clip:



Again, I agree with Beck when he essentially argues that our society is not as moral as we could/should be. That's probably a true statement, even though one could argue that today's society is more moral than ever (we've abolished slavery, given women equal rights, etc.).

It is with Beck's assertion that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation" that his argument derails. This argument, which is getting REALLY old as well, simply baffles me.  The notion that the United States was founded as a Christian nation is not only bad for America, but it's bad for Christianity.  The separation of church and state is a good thing, folks...for everyone!  And it's not anti-American or anti-Christian to point out the FACT that the United States was NOT founded as a Christian nation.  But don't listen to me; listen to what these folks said on the matter:

1.) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (my abbreviation).

2.) "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion." -John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 (my emphasis).

3.) "We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814. 

4.) Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions more than our opinions of physics or geometry." -Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1777. 

Those are just four out of literally hundreds of examples of our Founding Fathers explaining (in the plainest of terms) that the United States is NOT a Christian nation. Unfortunately for Beck, who regularly cherry-picks his history, these FACTS do not fit with his political agenda.

The second part of the Beck clip has him ranting through his microphone that, "the 10 commandments" is "where we get our law...We get our law from the laws of Moses."

It completely baffles me how anyone who HONESTLY thinks about what Glenn Beck said could actually believe it.  Sure, it sounds good to our Christian and patriotic instincts to say that the 10 Commandments serve as a foundation for our Constitution but reality is this couldn't be further from the truth, and either Glenn Beck is too stupid to recognize this or he just doesn't care.  To prove my point, let's look at each of the 10 Commandments and see just how constitutional they really are:

1.) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  This one should be obvious to everyone.  To force anyone to believe in any god is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. In the good ol' U.S. of A., everyone is free to believe in whatever god they want, as many gods as they want, or to believe in no god(s) at all.  Clearly the 1st Commandment has nothing to do with where we get our laws.

2.) "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." Again, this one is blatantly obvious. Any American is free to have as many graven images as they see fit. There is no law prohibiting it. The 2nd Commandment is out as well.

3.) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Another obvious one here as well, folks. Yes, it's crass when people swear and use the name of God to do so, but it isn't a crime.  No way, no how.  The 3rd Commandment is out.

4.) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." Heh, if this one isn't obvious then maybe you should just ask the NFL, NASCAR, shopping malls, public parks, etc. if they face any legal repercussions for the various activities they carry out on every Sunday across the nation.  The 4th Commandment is out.

5.) "Honor thy father and thy mother." This is some great advice, and I would hope/encourage anyone I know to abide by this counsel, but is it in our Constitution? The 5th Commandment is out.

6.) "Thou shalt not kill." Winner, winner, chicken dinner!  We have one!  Yes, the laws of our land do not allow you to kill others.  Glenn Beck finally has one in his column.  The 6th Commandment is in.

7.) "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Again, this is some really good advice, and I believe anyone with half of a brain would agree, but it is NOT protected by law. It used to be in some colonies/states, but case law has shown this to be unconstitutional.  The 7th Commandment is out.

8.) "Thou shalt not steal." Here's another one for Beck's column.  The laws of the land do not allow you to steal.  This is considered a crime.  As a result, the 8th Commandment is IN!

9.) "Thou shalt not bear false witness." This is a tricky one. I'm going to go ahead and give this one to Beck (and I'm being VERY generous here) because it is a crime to lie in court and in a few other settings. It's called perjury.  So the 9th Commandment is in...but BARELY!

10.) "Thou shalt not covet." Nope, in America you are free to covet to your heart's content.  Heck, in some respects it is even encouraged.  The 10th Commandment is out.

So, in the end, we have 3 Commandments (and barely 3) that fit with what Glenn Beck is saying, while 7 are clearly out.  Again, this impulse to say that the United States is a "Christian" nation and that the 10 Commandments played a role in the establishment of our laws sounds good and may make us feel warm and fuzzy inside, but it simply isn't based on reality...and we should be glad for this. The separation of church and state is as beneficial for religion as it is for government.

Sorry, Beck, but once again you have revealed to the world just how little you know about history, constitutional law, etc.  Go back to telling everyone to prepare for the apocalypse by stocking up on their supply of pointed Vulcan ears!

David Barton as a U.S. Senator???

Yeah, you heard me right. America's favorite pseudo-historian and Glenn Beck's nearest and dearest doomsday buddy is seriously considering making a run for the U.S. Senate.

According to insiders close to Barton, Tea Party officials met with the Texas Looney Tune to discuss a potential run against John Cornyn in the Texas Republican Primary. A Facebook group with nearly 1,500 supporters has also been created to help convince Barton to take up the challenge.

If you have followed my humble little blog at all, you are more than aware of the fact that I strongly detest Barton's work as a self-proclaimed American "historian."  Simply put, David Barton is to history what Tim Tebow is to being a quarterback: nice guys with good morals who suck at their respective jobs.

Let me be clear on one thing: I do not think that David Barton is a bad man.  From everything I have seen and learned about him I believe that Barton is probably a very good man.  The problem, however, is that Barton is woefully ignorant of the basic realities of American history.  Barton has made a career out of twisting the truth for political reasons, and as a result, I believe he would be a serious liability as a U.S. Senator.

Historian John Fea sums up the problem of Barton becoming a U.S. Senator best at his personal blog. Fea quotes from the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Gordon Wood, who stated, "If someone wants to use the past to change the world, he should forego a career as a historian and run for public office."  Amen to that!  Perhaps Barton is a better fit for the fiasco that is Congress than I originally thought!  If you want a man who can twist the truth without batting an eye then Barton is your man!

The following are a few of the many David Barton (and Glenn Beck) "highlights" that I have commented on over the past few years:

Barton on why the Lincoln movie was a fraud...even though he never actually saw it: Link
Barton lying about George Washington and the history of the Valley Forge prayer story: Link
Barton's nonsense about the "Black Robe Regiment" (which, incidentally, went nowhere): Link
Barton's idiotic belief that Thomas Jefferson supported prayer in public schools: Link
Barton confronted and destroyed by Chris Rodda: Link

Stay tuned, I'm sure there will be many more "hits" to come!

Glenn Beck Check, Part IX: Beck Quotes the Book of Mormon (and Makes a Fool of Himself in the Process)

A few weeks ago, whack-job extraordinaire Glenn Beck went on the air and said the following:

 

I LOVE it when Glenn Beck pretends to play the role of preacher man. He comes off looking like such an ass!

Of course, this isn't a new act for Crazy Man Beck.  He has made a career (quite a lucrative career actually) of pretending to be a politician, historian, theologian, economist, etc.  But in the end, he's a shameless fraud who does nothing more than prey upon the fear of his audience. And make no mistake; through the mechanisms of fear, ignorance and hate, Glenn Beck has profited to the extreme.

But quoting from the Book of Mormon is a new all-time low.  It's low because Beck is twisting the words of his (and my) faith to make a lame political point.  But, in true Beckonian fashion, Crazy Man has once again revealed to the world just how big of an idiot and fraud he truly is.

The following is taken from the Book of Mormon (yes, the same BoM that Beck tried to use as a political tool):

Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden. He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion. Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is clove. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish (2 Nephi 26:29).

So, the next time you want to wield religion as a political sword, Mr. Beck, try to first UNDERSTAND the message of that book!

Jon McNaughton: Bringing Hate to a Canvas Near You

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are probably well aware of just how polarized American politics has become. It seems that you can't look anywhere these days without seeing some sort of a political spin applied to even the most mundane of daily activities. Everything from Dr. Seuss movies to Christmas trees has become fodder in the never-ending, supercharged, back-and-forth drama that is American politics. The 24/7 media blitz of talk radio and cable news seems to have only exacerbated the problem, as pundits spew hateful rhetoric that depends less on journalistic integrity and more on sensationalized entertainment and doomsday predictions. We have become a society where we prefer to listen to the man/woman yelling at us the loudest through their microphone instead of considering the quiet, steady reflections of level-headed and thorough thinkers.

But this rhetoric isn't limited exclusively to the spoken word. Though political rhetoric does depend greatly on the vocalization of a particular viewpoint, artwork too has an important seat at the table. Whether taking the form of cartoons, posters or campaign ads, the visual image is arguably the most effective and important arrow in the quiver of both partisan and politician. An inspiring painting, a poignant photo, a stirring motif, all have the ability to rouse the soul to higher (or lower) levels of thinking than almost any discourse or poem could hope to accomplish. As the saying goes, a picture really is worth a thousand words!

And sadly, some “artists” have embraced this reality to the point of virtual insanity. Case in point: Jon McNaughton. My Mormon friends are probably more familiar with McNaughton's ilk...er..."art" than are others. As a devout Mormon, his "art" is often a feature in stores like Deseret Book and (until recently) the BYU Bookstore (that is, until BYU became too "liberal" for the uber-sophisticated McNaughton and banned his crap). To put things as simple as I possibly can, Jon McNaughton is a troubled individual. He has taken what I would consider to be a truly remarkable gift (painting) and used it for nothing more than to make a series of cheap, lame, classless, tasteless, mindless, heartless, pointless, idiotic, rude, obscene, hateful and downright pathetic pieces of political propaganda. See for yourself:


Of course, for some, this "art" probably seems like an appropriate summation of "reality." To those of such sentiment I will simply say this: I don't begrudge you your right to your own political views, nor to I deny the fact that Mr. McNaughton has some real talent, but please, for the love of Karl Marx, QUIT BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE DAMN RADIO!!! For once in your life, set your political beliefs aside and consider the following: 1.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" uplifting in any way, shape or form? 2.) Is Jon McNaughton's "art" the type of stuff that invokes peace and harmony? Or does it breed anger and contention? 3.) Would Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Gandhi, Mother Theresa or any other remarkable person of great character choose to hang Jon McNaughton's "art" in their home? Or would they not even give it the time of day? If you can answer "yes" to any of these three questions, then chances are you probably hate my humble little blog for its "socialist" leanings and have already de-friended me from Facebook for being an evil fascist. That's ok, no hard feelings. Chances are you haven't even read this far into my post anyway, so you won't have the chance to hear me say, "I just won the Mega Millions jackpot and want to buy you a new car!"

The truth of the matter is this: Jon McNaughton is not the problem, but is the SYMPTOM of the problem. McNut...er...McNaughton is the end result of a society that has diluted its political discourse to little more than short, apocalyptic soundbites bent on spreading fear and hate for the "other guy." McNaughton's "art" is essentially a fancy political bumper sticker that tells the world, "My political views are better than yours. Na-na nana boo-boo" Simple-minded men like McNaughton are easy prey for all of the Limbaugh's Hannity's and Beck's of the world. They feel the "call" and begin their "quest" to "save" America from all that is evil in society, which, coincidentally, just happens to be everything found on the other side of the political isle. This is how they can justify creating "scary" pictures of evil, liberal Black presidents burning the Constitution, destroying our freedoms, and receiving the heavenly rebukings of Jesus Christ and our Founding Fathers (while, of course, those of conservative leanings are showered with the gifts of eternal life and always being right). American politics at its best!

We live in a world where religious fervor and political passion are virtually synonymous, so much so that it can be difficult work to separate the partisan politicians, priestly pastors, and philosophical professors from one another. And this convoluted mess has created a labyrinth of confusion that makes almost any sincere political discourse virtually impossible. Any rational or thoughtful inquiry is rendered completely helpless to the impenetrable wall of the prideful partisan mob mentality. This is precisely where Jon McNaughton resides. He is not a critical thinker. He is not a valiant voice crying in the wilderness. He is a bitter, hateful, silly little man. This may sound too harsh or hard but that's ok. I'm sure that Mr. McNaughton is familiar with the verse from the Book of Mormon which states: "the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." Besides, most hate-mongers rarely if ever realize that they are hate-mongers. They see themselves as brave voices of change who are misunderstood by the "evil" majority of their day. In addition, they usually rationalize their hate by appealing to religion as a justification for their actions (i.e. the KKK, Civil Rights opponents, etc.) But these weak appeals to religion serve as nothing more than temporary salves for their cankered souls. Hate, no matter how it is camouflaged, will always be hate.

In conclusion, if given the chance to meet him face-to-face, I would simply say to Jon McNaughton's the following: Don't give up on your passion for politics. Don't give up your religion. Don't give up on your amazing artistic talent. But please...PLEASE spare us this pointless nonsense. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain with the "art" you have produced as of late. As a professional artist, I am guessing that you are probably familiar with the RIDICULOUS work of one Andres Serrano. If not, let me introduce you to him. He is the IDIOT "artist" who created the "Piss Christ." The "Piss Christ" is a picture of a crucifix that was submersed in the artist's urine. According to Serrano, the purpose of the "Piss Christ" was to "get people thinking" and to "question what we believe." Shockingly, this pile of nonsense was even sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts. Not shockingly, the public saw the "Piss Christ" for what it really was: cheap shock value nonsense masquerading as sophisticated "art."

And though you haven't urinated in any of your own art (more like vomit than urine), isn't your political "art" essentially the same thing, Mr. McNaughton? Like Serrano, didn't you also say that the purpose of your "art" was to "get people thinking." Aren't you just wielding your brush as a weapon of mass DISTRACTION that does nothing but piss people off? You may have avoided urinating on your art itself, but you have certainly pissed all over President Obama. Again, I don't begrudge you the right to your political views. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe. But is that really what you want to call the fruits of your amazing talent? If so, I pity you. But, if not, I look forward to your other art...your REAL art. The good stuff that I would be more than happy to display in my home:


“In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” -Thomas Jefferson

Dear GOP: Thomas Paine Wouldn't Like You

Over at his excellent blog, historian J.L. Bell takes Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to task for a recent (and fake) quote he used during his Nevada Caucus speech. Here is the video:



This is a stirring quote and Romney supporters gobbled it up like there was no tomorrow. Only one problem: it's bogus. As J.L. Bell points out via Buzzfeed:

The quote is widely attributed to Paine online, but searching through his works [also easily done online] revealed that the quote doesn't appear in any of them. Fred Shapiro, editor of the authoritative Yale Book of Quotations published by Yale University Press, told BuzzFeed that "the notion that Thomas Paine said this is extremely ridiculous."

Apparently Mitt Romney got the message...kinda...sorta. A couple days after making the historical faux pas, Romney abandoned referencing Thomas Paine but not the quote:


Sorry, Governor. Thanks for trying. You still failed.

But in fairness to Governor Romney (and I personally have no problem with the man or his candidacy), this is not the first time that a GOP figure has misused Thomas Paine. I am reminded of a few years ago when radio nut-job Glenn Beck kept invoking the legacy of Thomas Paine to support his conservative talking points. Heck, Beck even went so far as to write a book entitled "Common Sense" (just like Paine's), which he claimed was written in part to honor one of his favorite revolutionary characters. Beck also invoked Thomas Paine on his television and radio programs on numerous occasions. For example:


Yes, it is fair to say that Glenn Beck once had a deep love affair with one Thomas Paine, and GOP activists surely gobbled up this bogus actor's intense portrayal of a modern day, Tea Party-loving Thomas Paine, who not only just happened to agree with everything they believe, but also presents himself as a creepy Dracula figure.

But, sadly, Glenn Beck has given up on Thomas Paine in recent years. Why is that, you ask? Because Beck eventually learned the painful truth that Thomas Paine had almost nothing in common with modern day conservatism. I guess this is what happens when you try to preach history at the same time that you are learning it. Things can get a bit messy, a lesson Glenn Beck has learned first-hand as he came to the realization that the REAL Thomas Paine stood for almost everything Beck hates. For example:

1.) Beck believes that America is a "Christian Nation" and that religion in America is under attack. Thomas Paine believed that religion was a fraud and a plague in society. As Paine stated, "The Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any” and " “We must be compelled to hold this doctrine to be false, and the old and new law called the Old and New Testament, to be impositions, fables and forgeries.”

2.) Beck believes that progressive taxation is unconstitutional and destructive of American society. Thomas Paine believed strongly in progressive taxation. Paine wanted estate taxes, land taxes, revenue taxes, taxes on the rich, etc.

3.) Beck believes that America was never meant to be a welfare nation. Thomas Paine believed that it was one of the duties of the new republic to provide welfare for the needy.

Thomas Paine also favored feminism, large government, government programs, animal rights, restrictions on religion, and a number of other things that Glenn Beck believes are "evil." In short, Thomas Paine and Glenn Beck are about as far apart from one another as you can get. Perhaps this is why Glenn Beck has moved on to hijacking and pretending to be a different founder these days?

So what is the deal with modern day conservatives invoking the legacy of arguably our most liberal founding father? Are they just stupid?

I believe it is because Thomas Paine is such a quotable founder and his rhetoric appeals to virtually everyone these days (as it did back in his day). Paine was a FANTASTIC writer. His words cut as deep to the 21st century reader as they did to the 18th century citizen. For this reason, Paine is a desirable man to have in your corner. But the fact remains that Thomas Paine was not supportive of the type of government/politics that Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck and most of today's GOP proclaim as gospel. And I am not criticizing those political views. There is much in modern day conservatism that I find valuable. With that said, this bizarre GOP love affair with all things Thomas Paine needs to stop. Thomas Paine was NOT a conservative, and I believe he would detest today's Republican candidates, windbag talk radio hosts and Tea Party protesters.

Sorry folks, Paine was an evil "progressive."

The Power of Angry Words in our Political Discourse

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. ~Ephesians 4:29-32

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
~Matthew 15:11

"Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth."
~Proverbs 6:2

"The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked."
~Proverbs 10: 11

Today is a sad day for America. Shortly after 10:00 a.m. local Arizona time, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner entered a local grocery store and opened fire at a crowed that had gathered for a peaceful town hall meeting, featuring Congresswoman Gabrielle Gliffords. Sadly, Loughner (and possibly an assailant) succeeded in killing six people, including Federal Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl.

The early accounts from investigators is that Mr. Loughner (and a possible accomplice still at large) suffered from "some severe mental issues" that caused him to be "extremely susceptible to political vitriol." Other accounts stated that Mr. Loughner had a deep hatred for our current government, detested non-English speaking immigrants, and was upset over what he saw as monetary conspiracies (click here to see his youtube video)

Now, I want to make it clear right from the beginning that I am not interested in turning this event into a political rant. We can all rest assured that the political pundits and talk radio shock jocks will do their own bang-up job in the coming weeks. Instead I want to focus on something that one of my blog buddies has already addressed, and I hope he'll forgive my "borrowing" of his material. Over at his blog, Christian Salafia writes the following:

The rise of the TeaParty and their “ballot or bullet” style rhetoric has only made things worse. For example, Sarah Palin, in her “20 to target”, had a map on her website with 20 Congressional districts targeted in crosshairs! One of those districts was Arizona Congressional District 8, Gabrielle Giffords’ district. The website has since been scrubbed.

People who support this sort of rhetoric and support the political candidates who say things such as using “2nd Amendment remedies” to deal with your political opponents or telling people “don’t retreat…reload” or showing up to political events armed or carrying signs that say “we came unarmed….this time” bear some of the responsibility for what happened today. There is not a single doubt in my mind about this.

All the arguments about ‘free speech’ or ‘they didn’t actually tell anyone to do it’ or ‘most people know not to shoot anyone’ arguments are, in my mind, complete and utter garbage. They’re simply rationalizations used to mollify their guilt.
I’ve been saying this for over two years now. Violent words will become violent actions.

That. Is. Fact.

Now, I know that some people will be quick to anger when they see accusations being levied at their political comrades and to a point I agree. This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. Every ideology has their nut-jobs. With that said, I do blame those irresponsible "shock jock" voices on our televisions and radios for helping to create an atmosphere of animosity that has served to incite the intellectually illiterate in the name of patriotism. When people in a position of power irresponsibly spin their rhetoric by using an aggressive tone they may not be guilty of violence themselves but they are guilty of helping to incubate it. This crazy Jared Loughner character is, no doubt, exclusively responsible for pulling the trigger, however, his motives (and all early indications point to political motives) may have deeper roots. How can we possibly expect the weakest and most polluted minds in our society to NOT act rash when they are pumped full of hateful rhetoric? When we hear pastors and pundits encouraging revolution and hatred under the guise of patriotic sanction, can we not expect to reap what we sow?




Again, I am not saying that one political ideology is better than another. I have no political leaning and no agenda in posting this. I didn't vote in the last election and doubt I will vote in the next. I don't care if Barack Obama is president or Mike Huckabee. To each their own is my creed. In addition, I don't presume to believe that we can all set aside our partisan views and join hands in perfect harmony. No generation of Americans (including the founding generation) could do that. With that said, I do believe that the current political dialogue is out of control. We've come to a point where television networks have become more concerned with ratings than with journalistic integrity. They know that violence, fanaticism, and emotionally-charged political punditry sells...and it sells BIG! Telling audiences what they want to hear v. what is true and right has become the standard, and by painting the "other guy" with wide brush strokes, they have reduced our national political discourse to little more than finger-pointing and shouting matches. Liberals are nothing more than evil, fascist, Marxist, Nazi, communist progressives, while conservatives are ignorant, Bible-thumping, gun-loving fanatics. And for the extremely simple-minded or mentally unstable, this "reality" can evolve into a personal crusade, which can become violent.

Now, am I saying that I can conclusively link the violence of today with the political rhetoric of the radio and television? No, and perhaps this nut-job was simply out of his mind. However, I sincerely doubt that anyone out there, including the fans of these various radio "shock jocks", can justify the need to continue the current trend of political fanaticism and intellectual diarrhea. In the end it makes everyone look shameful.

I am reminded of a talk I recently heard from a leader of my faith regarding the sin of pride and its dangerous impact on the individual and society at large. He states:

Pride is a deadly cancer. It is a gateway sin that leads to a host of other human weaknesses. In fact, it could be said that every other sin is, in essence, a manifestation of pride.This sin has many faces. It leads some to revel in their own perceived self-worth, accomplishments, talents, wealth, or position. They count these blessings as evidence of being “chosen,” “superior,” or “more righteous” than others. This is the sin of “Thank God I am more special than you.” At its core is the desire to be admired or envied. It is the sin of self-glorification.For others, pride turns to envy: they look bitterly at those who have better positions, more talents, or greater possessions than they do. They seek to hurt, diminish, and tear down others in a misguided and unworthy attempt at self-elevation. When those they envy stumble or suffer, they secretly cheer.

Perhaps there is no better laboratory to observe the sin of pride than the world of sports. I have always loved participating in and attending sporting events. But I confess there are times when the lack of civility in sports is embarrassing. How is it that normally kind and compassionate human beings can be so intolerant and filled with hatred toward an opposing team and its fans?I have watched sports fans vilify and demonize their rivals. They look for any flaw and magnify it. They justify their hatred with broad generalizations and apply them to everyone associated with the other team. When ill fortune afflicts their rival, they rejoice. Brethren, unfortunately we see today too often the same kind of attitude and behavior spill over into the public discourse of politics, ethnicity, and religion.

May we all be a little more careful with what we say and how we say it!

When Did Dirty Campaigning Begin in America?

Today is election day! As we are all aware, every two years in this grand nation of ours citizens invoke their right to elect the candidates to office whom they feel best represent their views, hopes and goals for the future. It is a time-honored practice that we as a nation have enjoyed (to differing degrees of course) for more than two centuries.

And as is the case with these election cycles, negative ads have become a staple item on the menu of American political dialogue. Virtually every candidate for almost every office up for grabs in today's election has engaged in some form of "mud-slinging" towards his/her opponent. Whether it takes the form of automated phone calls, mailed letters, television commercials or radio sound bites, this election has, for the most part, been like those of recent history: a dog fight.

With that said, we still see candidates who either deny their personal participation in negative campaign tactics or who claim to soar above such trivial and hostile banter. They claim to be invoking the extinct heritage of long ago, when Americans could somehow set aside their partisan politics and focus exclusively on the issues at hand. Oftentimes we see these same individuals calling upon the legacy of America's founding fathers as "evidence" of their innocence. These candidates state they (and their cause) are on the side of Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, whose purity and grace transcended political division, giving rise to an era of cooperation and contentment that our generation's political circus is incapable (or unwilling) to rekindle.

And though I am not a fan of today's 24/7 political media blitz and the constant bombardment of campaign ilk every election cycle, I think there is a grave misunderstanding as to the nature and history of American politics. We seem to be under the delusion that this "dog-eat-dog" street brawl style of campaigning is something new. It's not...and not even our blessed, holy, infallible founders were exempt from it.

210 years ago, at the turn of the century, two of the biggest players in the American Revolution exchanged blows over some of the same issues that still occupy us to this day. John Adams, the incumbent who had taken the Federalist reigns from the great George Washington, squared off with his on-again, off-again, on-again Virginia friend, Thomas Jefferson. Contrary to what we are often led to believe, this contest was incredibly fierce and oftentimes took a very negative tone. For example, when the Adams camp learned of Jefferson's desire to thwart the Federalists they accused Jefferson of plotting to destroy the very fabric of society by eliminating god from American life. As one broadside stated:

The attacks didn't stop with mere broadsides. Having discovered some of Jefferson's personal religious declarations that could prove problematic to his campaign, the Adams camp went on the offensive. In his infamous letter to the Reverend William Linn in 1800, Jefferson stated, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Along with this declaration, Jefferson went on to state the following about Christianity:

Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

Needless to say, such comments proved to be extremely distasteful to the American populace, who actually believed that a Jefferson election might actually lead to:

Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest [being] openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood and the nation black with crimes.

And:

Female chastity violated [with] children writing on a pike.

Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind and a threat to our way of life." (Gee, you NEVER hear that kind of stuff about our current leaders!).

To capitalize on these comments, the Adams campaign took swift action. Acting as if they had been handed a gift from the divine, Adams' men pounced Jefferson in the public arena, accusing him of being "an enemy to his country and his God." Steven Waldman, author of the book Founding Faith sites a poem that was used against Jefferson throughout the campaign:

I am the first of men in the ways of evil,
The truest, thriftiest servent of the Devil;
Born, educated, glory to engross
And shine confess'd the Devil's Man of Ross.
Here's three to one I beat even him in pride;
Two whores already in my chariot ride. (Founding Faith, 170).

But the fight was far from one-sided. To counter the Adams onslaught Jefferson decided to take off the gloves. On one public occasion, Jefferson called Adams, "a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man or the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." (David McCullough, John Adams, Pp. 500). But Jefferson didn't stop there. Taking advantage of President Adams' foolish Alien & Sedition Acts (a law that essentially tried to make it illegal for people to speak or publish anything negative about the president) Jefferson created the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, in which Jefferson claimed that:

The several States composing the US. Of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…and one of the Amendments to the constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, therefore the act of Congress…are altogether void and of no force.

As election day drew closer, President Adams found himself in a political mess that virtually consumed him. The Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson's clan) had effectively used the Alien & Sedition Acts to brand the President as a tyrant by calling them, "the most abominable and degrading Executive act that could fall from the lips of the first magistrate of an independent people." In an effort to demonstrate just how "tyrannical" the Adams Administration had become, Jefferson called on renowned pamphleteer James Callender, a long-time enemy to the Federalists who had attacked the likes of Alexander Hamilton by exposing his affair with Maria Reynolds to the public. This time, Callender was to turn his sights on the president himself. In his popular pamphlet, The Prospect Before Us, Callender pulled out all the punches by boldly proclaiming that John Adams had become a miniature version of King George III:

The reign of Mr. Adams has been one continued tempest of malignant passions. Indeed, the president has never opened his lips, or lifted his pen without threatening and scolding; the grand object of his administration has been to exasperate the rage of contending parties to culminate and destroy every man who differs from his opinions.

The Federalist response to Callender's "treason" was swift. Callender was quickly jailed in Richmond and sentenced by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase to five years in prison. In consequence, Callender quickly became a poster boy of sorts for the Jefferson campaign. Callender's imprisonment illustrated to the common man just how far Adams had gone. In essence, Callender became Jefferson's 19th century version of "Joe the Plumber."

In the end, the Alien & Sedition Acts helped to solidify the popular message of the Democratic-republicans, which in turn led to the election of their beloved Thomas Jefferson(even if he was an evil, godless man whose reign would surely lead to rape, murder, etc.). The popularity of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, combined with the "mud-slinging" efforts of James Callender and Jefferson himself, helped to ensure the demise of the Adams Administration. But the election was close...VERY close. See for yourself:

In the aftermath, Federalist supporters were devastated. Alexander Hamilton (one of Jefferson's biggest rivals) made the claim that a Jefferson presidency would surely usher in an era of violence unprecedented in American history, in which the guillotine of France would replace the civility of American republicanism (Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton, 429). Former First Lady Abigail Adams wrote to her husband stating, "'What an inconsistency,' said a lady to me today, 'the bells of Christ's Church ringing peals of rejoicing for an infidel president!'"

But somehow America survived. After all, here we are 210 years later. And while many things have changed over those two centuries, other things have stood the test of time...namely our tradition of crazy, over-hyped political partisanship. Yes, some may feel that an Obama presidency is a surefire catalyst for fascist, socialist, Marxist, Stalinist, Nazi, communist totalitarianism, while a Tea Party regime is sure to bring about racist, homophobic, idiotic, psychotic, leadership. But in the end all of this rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. Is there really any difference between the crap we hear today and the crap our beloved founders threw at one another? Not really. The only difference is that we're inundated with more of it today (thanks Fox News and MSNBC).

So the next time you drink the Chicken Little Kool-Aid and freak out over the possibility of the sky falling because the "other team" has won political power, remember that we've been down this propaganda road many times. If we can survive the "HORRIFIC" tyranny of John Adams and the "DISASTROUS" atheism of Thomas Jefferson, I'm pretty sure we'll be ok in the here and now. In conclusion, check out the following videos. They do a wonderful job of capturing some of the fear that surrounded the election of 1800:

Do "Reagan Conservatives" Follow Reagan?

Another Example of History
Being Misrepresented

Let's get right into it. Do "Reagan Conservatives" actually follow Ronald Reagan?

The quick answer: NO! Very few "Reagan Conservatives" today would be able to tell you very much about the man and his policies as president. Of course they are more than able to spew the rhetoric they've gleaned from their "Holy Trinity" of conservative doctrine (the Limbaugh, the Hannity and the Holy Beck), but beyond that, few have bothered to take an honest look at what "Good Ol' Dutch" actually stood for.

Why? Because if they did they would realize that Reagan himself would detest the tea-bagging, Paul Revere wannabe, doomsday rhetoric of 21st century neo-conservatism, which is more interested in twisting history, inflating a false sense of patriotism and making simple-minded stupidity a virtue (remember Joe the Plummer?). The conservatives who summon Reagan’s ghost for use in today’s arguments usually use him as a stand-in for doctrinal purity. Why? Because they have no real doctrine themselves.

Now, before you de-friend me on Facebook or start labeling me an evil, fascist, Nazi, Obama socialist hear me out. I am not trying to level an attack on Reagan here, nor am I saying that conservatism is a bad thing. As a person who generally favors conservative principles (i.e. fiscal responsibility, limited government, etc.) I believe that most RATIONAL Republicans embrace sound government principles that are far superior to those of their tax and spend, larger government opponents. Now, I say this in the general sense because I realize that there are Dems who favor less taxation and government, just like there are Republicans who are downright insane and stupid (Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc.). In addition, I also recognize that Ronald Reagan was a successful president who did a lot of good for this nation. However, I do NOT believe that he was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I share the sentiments of the "Reagan Conservatives" who embrace the man as the Messiah of truth, justice and the American way. I also think it's silly for these "Reagan Conservatives" to hold the man up as something he was not. How do I know they are wrong? See for yourselves:

When speaking with a "Reagan Conservative" you will typically hear something in line with the following:

"I am not a Republican. I am a Reagan Conservative who stands for the principles which Reagan embodied, those being lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, a strong military, zero tolerance for terrorism, Christian values and immigration reform. In short, I believe, with Reagan, that government isn't the solution to problems; government is the problem." ~Sean Hannity, Conservative Victory, 2010

Reagan created the greatest economic expansion in American history...He slowed the growth of domestic spending by vetoing spending bills and by shutting down the federal bureaucracy. In fact, Ronald Reagan proved something that to this day economists, elite economists do not believe. Ronald Reagan lowered inflation during the midst of one of the most unbridled economies and its growth period in history. No economist thought that possible, but he did. He brought inflation down to 4.8% from its double-digit figure when he took office, and significantly. ~Rush Limbaugh, June 7, 2004.

Well, that sounds good to me too. Only one problem: It's not really true. Ronald Reagan didn't embrace these things like the "Reagan Conservatives" think he did. Here's what Reagan really believed:

Taxation and Spending
We've all heard the rhetoric about how AMAZING Reagan was with taxes. If you listen to the pundits its almost as if nobody paid any taxes of any kind during the "Glorious 80s." Sadly, the truth is something very different. As economist Paul Krugman points out:

Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

[...]

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility; or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was a huge increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent more in taxes than they did under JFK, Johnson and Carter.

In short, the man actually RAISED taxes when he knew it would benefit the country. That is one major reason he was a successful president. Reagan, like his idol FDR, knew that you had to be flexible with the economy. Sometimes you need to spend, other times you need to save. In short, Reagan understood that no fixed political position would solve problems. One needed to be willing to admit that the "other guy" had a point as well.

And how about fiscal spending? Wasn't Reagan the most fiscal president in the history of history? Isn't that was Rush and the like tell us?

Not so fast. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, Ronald Reagan's presidency incurred the third highest level of deficit spending in American history:
And though I recognize that Reagan's deficit spending was not as bad as some might think (Reagan and his advisors knew that they could outspend the Soviets into oblivion) this chart illustrates the fact that Reagan was not the anti-spending guy that the tea-nut "Reagan Conservative" crowd believes. Anti-spending? Anti-taxes? Not ol' Dutch!

Military and Terrorism
Ok, on this one we need to clarify a few things. One of the main reasons Reagan spent so much $$$ was to create a strong military. That's a reality. Sadly, the "Reagan Conservatives" seem to believe that this simple fact means that Reagan was for increasing ALL aspects of the military. Not so.

On page 222 of his "book" Conservative Victory, Sean Hannity, the self-anointed founder of "Reagan Conservatism":

We must be committed to retaining our position as the world's greatest superpower, by maintaining the world's strongest military and supporting our troops on and off the battlefield. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons and must persist in perfecting our strategic missile defenses. We must not dismantle our nuclear weapons, we can never return to a world without them.

So "brave"; so "Patriotic", Sean. Only one problem. Here's what Reagan had to say on the issue:

Let's make no mistake. Reagan HATED war. He was from the WWII generation and knew first hand the horrible nature of it. In consequence, one of his primary goals was the complete eradication of all nuclear weapons. In December 1987, President Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the Soviet Union, which "requires destruction of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force." Not only did Reagan want to control the Soviet nuclear stockpile but of ours as well!

As for terrorism, "Reagan Conservatives" are usually the first to uphold torture as a responsible, reliable practice:

On nearly every issue since the war on terror bean, Democrats have stood for the wrong principles and policies and have proved incompetent in carrying out their own policies as well...They [terrorists] have declared war on us and we're fighting a war and we know there is about 60-some odd detainees that have gone back to the battlefield. Why for the first time ever would we give rights to enemy combatants?...Waterboarding is a safe and effective tool for intelligence gathering." ~Sean Hannity on Fox's Hannity, broadcast Mar. 10, 2009.

Waterboarding is not torture. It's a horrible experience that does no harm." ~Glenn Beck, January 17, 2008.

Now let's see what Reagan had to say about torture. When speaking of the United Nations convention on torture he said:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Reagan was admant about prosecuting torture; a practice he detested. In fact, Reagan prosecuted those who were found to be practicing waterboarding, including this Texas Sheriff. So clearly it is impossible for a "Reagan Conservative" to approve of torture...that is...if they truly want to emulate Ronny boy.

These are just a few of the MANY obvious differences that exist between Ronald Reagan and the "Reagan Conservatives." If you want to see more, follow this link (which was one of the many sources used for my post).

In conclusion, I want to make something clear. Ronald Reagan was an effective president not because he clung to some rigid political dogma like the tea-baggers, but because he understood that different situations require different solutions. Reagan could effectively read America's economic and political barometer better than most, and as a result, he knew when to spend and when to save; when to tax and when to not tax. In short, he knew when to be more conservative and more liberal. Contrary to today's idiotic political division, which insists on complete and total subjugation to one rigid form of government (all of which claims to be the supreme guardian of American patriotism), Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism knew when and how to adjust. It was a living, breathing and evolving idea, not a cold, dead and rigid fiction.

So, to the "Reagan Conservatives" out there I only ask one thing: will you follow the REAL Reagan? Or will you continue to believe the myth? Perhaps Reagan's own words best apply. Instead of the word "liberal" I will use "Reagan Conservative":

The trouble with our Reagan Conservative friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

The Founders Would Be Spinning in Their Graves Over Healthcare...Right?

Ahhh...the crazy, convoluted and downright bizarre world that is American politics! These days I am beginning to feel more and more that George Washington's prophetic message regarding political parties is coming true:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Yes, patriotism, nationalism and even God's "will" are now wrapped up in a political party's stupid partisan doctrine!

And as is common with these political parties, both sides are engaged in a continual tug-o-war over the legacy of our founding fathers. After all, if they can prove that the founders were on their side, everything else is colored bubbles. As a result, you see Democrats and Republicans try to articulate how the founders favored their brand of partisan despotism. Both sides grab a handful of quotes, often out of context, which they feel is adequate support for whatever cause they have taken up.

But most of the time they are just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Take, for instance, the healthcare debate. If you have even listened to 5 minutes of talk radio, you probably have heard pundits ranting and raving about how "unconstitutional" and "immoral" Obama's plan is. And certainly our founding fathers would be appalled at the President for creating such a massive program...right?

Well, certainly some founders would be upset. Thomas Jefferson, the quintessential small government/low taxes guy, would probably make Obama his new project of disdain and ridicule that only Jefferson could deliver. Other founders, however, might not feel the same.

In 1798, for example, Congress passed a law "for the relief of sick and disabled seamen." Under this law, tax funds were used to establish several hospitals where sick and injured seamen were able to receive government-funded healthcare. Eventually this program grew to include other groups of American workers, most notably members of the Merchant Marines. For many of our founders (most notably J. Adams, A. Hamilton and even G. Washington) the health of America's workforce was of paramount importance and was, at least in some form, even a responsibility of the federal government to safeguard. Historian Gautham Rao further explains why this issue was of importance to the founding generation:

That the federal government created this health care system for merchant mariners in the early American republic will surprise many. This is due in no small measure to the tenor of political debate about health care in American society. Advocates of government structured, universal health care plans claim that the times are too fast and costs too high to return to the old days of "pay-as-you-go" care. Deregulationists counter that only by removing the stamp of government from health care can society relive the great success of decades and centuries past. Both sides presuppose that government regulation and provision of health care is a new development. But the story of the marine hospitals in the early American republic suggests that the United States has a long history of using institutions to manage public health. Through the marine hospitals, the federal government used health care to regulate a crucial labor force in an age of maritime commerce. Treating sick and disabled merchant mariners helped stabilize the maritime labor force. More broadly, through the marine hospitals, we witness the actual points of interaction between government, community, and individuals. A glimpse within hospital walls reveals the rich, diverse personal experiences of working in, or being treated in, an early federal marine hospital. To be sure the marine hospitals were effective instruments of politics and policy. But within the marine hospitals, medical practice and administration was far more than an abstract tool of political economy. Rather, the stories of sickness, injury, admission, treatment, resistance, and regulation that characterized life within the marine hospitals reveal how the federal government shaped the social, economic, and political order of the early republic to a degree scholars have only just now begun to appreciate.

In fairness, it's important to note that while some of the founders did support at least a small type of national healthcare, this doesn't necessarily mean they would agree with something on the scope of Obama's plan. Perhaps they would, perhaps not. One could easily see somebody like Hamilton or Adams, who advocated for a strong national government, possibly being in favor, while men like Jefferson and Madison would most likely be beside themselves with anger over such a plan. In the end we'll never really know. I suppose that ascertaining the founders' position on national healthcare would be akin to uncovering their opinion on atomic energy. Different times have different problems.

And it is for this reason that appealing to the founders isn't always the best idea. Or as Jefferson put it, "The earth belongs to the living, not the dead."

Newt Gingrich on the Founding Fathers: Ugh...Here We Go Again!

Over at one of my favorite blogs, Historiann comments on the ongoing (and never ending) "custody battle" over the legacy of the founding fathers. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's comments that the founders of this nation "would all be appalled" by the Obama Administration's spending spree has caused some historians and fans of early America to cry, "foul!"



Yes, these two intellectual "heavy hitters" (Hannity and Gingrich) have succumbed to that ageless American tradition of proclaiming to one and all that early America was a perfect Utopian world free from political strife, where all Americans embraced political unity and shared in the superior intellect and understanding that was exclusively unique to only that generation of Americans.

Only one problem: early America wasn't all a "happy, happy, joy joy" time. As Historiann points out:

Let’s not romanticize the early Republic, m’kay? This is a period in which the modest revolutionary promise of the 1770s was thoroughly and utterly strangled. Maybe this is why I’ve never been drawn to do research in this period: I find it to be an utterly depressing and demoralizing period in American history, but many people like to pretend it was totally awesome for every American, when clearly, it wasn’t: there’s ethnic cleansing of Native Americans in the Northwest Territory and later in Cherokee country, Anglo-American women are being told to shut up and sing louder about how awesome things are, and get this: slavery is going to become even more dehumanizing and unendurable! More African American families will be further destabilized because of the invention of the Cotton Gin and the expansion of cotton culture into the Old Southwest. States like Maryland and Virginia that have been aggressively farmed since the seventeenth century discovered that their most profitable export crop would be slaves.

And though I certainly do not share her utterly depressing view of early America (I am probably biased...it's my favorite era of history to study) I do agree that the founding era of this country is often misrepresented in our current pop-culture. Life wasn't pure bliss for many women, poor families, Native Americans, Blacks (free and slave), immigrants, etc. Now, with that said I also agree with historian Gordon Wood who states in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, that of all the places to live on planet earth in the 18th century, the American colonies/early America was probably at or near the top of the list. Let's just be careful with assuming that it was a PERFECT society, shall we!

And then of course there is Newt's "brilliant" statement that ALL the founding fathers would be united in their disgust for the current Obama Administration. Now, perhaps Newt is right in part. The founders would be utterly shocked to see a Black man as president. After all, they lived in an era where African Americans had zero say in government affairs, so I guess Newt is right in a roundabout way. However, if we put the racism of early America aside, I think Newt gets this one wrong.

Sure, several of the founders would be appalled at the current economic plan of the Obama Administration (and the Bush Administration before him). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison certainly come to mind. Jefferson was, among other things, passionately against government involvement in almost every facet of life. He strongly believed that government intervention in the affairs of man could be equated to slavery. In essence, Jefferson was very much a Libertarian. However, there are others who would be extremely happy with America's massive bureaucracy and federal involvement with the economy. To be certain, Alexander Hamilton is probably not be rolling over in his grave with anger but is instead smiling with glee. After all, this is the man who essentially proposed America's first ever "bail out" (a topic I have written on before and which you can read by clicking here). In addition, most of the Federalists would probably be close to as happy with things as Hamilton.

And this brings me to an important point: this whole argument over government intervention v. individual autonomy is far from new in the American experience. In fact, it's as old as is the nation itself. It was this debate which caused Vice President Jefferson to openly attack his "superior," President John Adams, who in return passed the unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts which he hoped would squash any and all of his critics. It was this basic issue that caused Jefferson to dramatically reduce federal spending in virtually all arenas during his presidency, and which caused his successor, James Madison, to confront the British in the War of 1812 with almost zero military of any kind. It is this basic issue that even caused the "father" of our nation, George Washington, to create the unpopular but economically driven Jay Treaty with Britain; a treaty that cost Washington a great deal of political support as his critics (again, led by Jefferson) openly questioned the president's bold decision.

In conclusion, I have no problem with Gingrich's questioning of Obama. I myself am against massive government spending. With that said, whenever I hear someone exclaim "What would our founding fathers do if..." or "I'm sure the founding fathers would be flipping in their graves over..." it tends to get my blood boiling. Like today, there was no consensus in early America over these and other issues. In reality, early America was arguably one of the most contentious eras we have ever seen (with an obvious exception being made for the Civil War of course).

So, let's quit "hijacking" the legacy of the founders just to make us feel better or to garner support for our respective positions. Chances are, no matter what you believe, that there are SEVERAL founders out there who would disagree.

Scare Tactics: Nothing New to American Politics

If you are like me, you probably feel like every single election, particularly presidential elections, both the Democrats and the Republicans act as though the literal fate of the planet hangs on the outcome of that year's particular election. We've heard this rhetoric so many times that it isn't a surprise why some actually feel that the world could end if their candidate is not elected on November 4th. Conservative media outlets have been screaming from the housetops that the Obama presidency is ushering in the demise of responsible government and free market capitalism, while the Democrats have, in the past countered with their spin that George W. Bush is/was the worst president in the history of America and that it was HE who destroyed responsible government.

But is this type of "scare tactic" rhetoric new? Of course not. People like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the other "shock jock" talk radio personalities may have taken it to new heights, but it doesn't begin with them. Just check out the "scare tactic" rhetoric of this 1800Presidential campaign ad, which was produced by John Adams' supporters:

THE GRAND QUESTION STATED

At the present solemn and momentous epoch, the only question to be asked by every American, laying his hand on his heart, is: “Shall I continue in allegiance to

GOD—AND A RELIGIOUS
PRESIDENT;

Or impiously declare for

JEFFERSON—AND NO GOD!!!

And here is a funny (but somewhat accurate) Youtube "campaign" video on the election of 1800:



Yes, even our Founding Fathers believed that an impending doom was sure to destroy the nation if their chosen candidate failed to win the election.