Jim Fitzgerald

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, one fear that surfaced was whether Obama would implement restitution for racial minorities if he were elected. Part of that fear was based on restitution we provided to the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II. On the other hand, that fear was mitigated by knowing that we never provided restitution for Native-Americans that were placed on reservations located where no one else wanted to live. Our history of dealing with non-whites has not been a pretty one and flies in the face of democratic principles that we hold to so dearly, such as equality for all.

Even though one outcome of the Civil War was that no one could buy and sell another person, non-whites were still denied access to equal opportunity until the 1960’s and the Civil Rights Act. I graduated from a segregated high school in 1963 and still remember the arguments surrounding “separate but equal.” There was a glass ceiling set so low back then that in spite of legislation to the contrary, non-whites, nor women, had a ghost chance in hell of acquiring jobs or privileges available to most any hard-working white man. The conditions of the 60’s and 70’s came to be known as “white privilege.”

To break that glass ceiling, legislation created affirmative action programs that were designed to level the playing field and give non-whites an advantage in a system that had been gamed against their success. Over time, these programs were applied to all people of color. In other words, everyone but a white person was receiving favorable treatment, even legal immigrants that had never been discriminated against by our government. The previous whites-only system got turned on its head to the point that anyone but a white could receive favorable treatment.

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) argues, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece (7/23/2010), that the time to dismantle diversity programs is here. He points out that “America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all ‘people of color’ are unfair.” He goes on to say, “Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.” The Senator makes a very persuasive argument that the government should enable opportunity for all and not be in the business of picking winners. After 25 years, it is time to bring diversity programs to a close. It is time to truly level the playing field.

I think it is fair to say that the Obama administration leans heavily in this direction. In fact, they lean so heavily on the side of demonstrating fairness to all that they over-reacted to the Sherrod story. By wanting to show America that this administration does not tolerate racism, they fired a black woman on incomplete information. They have egg on their face, as does Andrew Breitbart, the conservative who selectively, and deceptively, posted a video suggesting reverse racism. Another case in point is Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who has been in Congress since the 1970’s and unless he resigns quickly, will be put on trial for significant ethical violations. Most of you know that Rangel is black. No one is defending his actions, neither the Democratic administration nor the Democratic Congress. It is the Democrats that have brought one of their own into the public spotlight during an election year for egregious misbehavior.

Remember that a black President can bring an end to diversity programs without significant rancor or charges of racism, something a white President would find very difficult. So, is Obama leaning toward restitution? The evidence would point in the opposite direction.

Jim Fitzgerald

When Social Security (SS) was signed into law in 1935, the poverty rate among seniors exceeded 50%. As far as I know, there were no private retirement programs at that time. Unless a senior was wealthy, they either had to work until they died or depend upon family to care for them. I will not go into the discrimination (against women, minorities, and certain types of employment) that was later legislated out of the original bill but, in general, for the first time this country took a stand that protected many, but not all, of the elderly from abject poverty. Today, it is estimated that all that stands between poverty and 40% of the elderly is Social Security.

As first established, the payroll tax to fund the system flowed into the general revenue fund for the federal government. However, in 1939, Congress created the Social Security Trust Fund to manage surplus funds and this Trust had the power to invest the surplus in marketable and non-marketable securities. In other words, like a private retirement account, the growth of surplus funds was intended to handle future retirements. In 2007, according to one source, there was a cumulative surplus of $2.2 trillion dollars in taxes and interest after benefits were paid.

Unfortunately, the Trust loans any excess money to the federal government in the form of bonds, giving Congress a ready source of funds. Of course these bonds have to be repaid, with interest, by more taxes later. The system is in trouble because the government borrowed the surplus, spent it, and now does not have the resources to repay the Trust. The way it looks, Bush was correct in referring to these bonds as “just IOUs that I saw firsthand.”

In 2000, during the Presidential campaign, Al Gore talked about placing Social Security funds into a “lock box.” Everybody laughed at him and thought the idea of a “lock box” was silly. Essentially, what Gore proposed was to stop lending surplus funds to the government. He wanted SS and Medicare placed off-limits to politicians. If this had happened, and that is a very big IF, projections were that SS would be self-sustaining, essentially forever.

The current debate would lead one to think that SS is a flawed system. Not so. It is the huge debt owed the Trust by the government that is the problem. The flaw is that both parties raped the system by “borrowing” the surplus with no plan to repay it and now we have to deal with the consequences.

Unless the current commission working on the problem demands that any and all surplus funds be placed off limits to politicians, there will be no effective solution. Keep the surplus money in a “lock box” where it belongs. And demand that the government make yearly contributions until the bonds have been repaid. There is no need to increase the retirement age or raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits. Stop lending the excess to fund other programs.

Jim Fitzgerald

You would not know it by listening to pundits but Obama’s less than two years in office has been a bittersweet experience for the left. Many progressive ideas, like an affordable public option for health insurance, have been left off of the table. Obama, contrary to what conservative pundits would have you believe, has hewn far more to the conservative middle than progressives would prefer. He has managed to upset the traditional groups that form the Democratic base. Still, Obama has been able to accomplish far more than most people realize during his short tenure.

Most people believe that Obama is anti-business. It goes without saying why Wall Street reform, coupled with regulatory agencies that actually regulate, was necessary. To expect businesses to behave is neither a right nor a left issue. That the government has to provide oversight simply reflects the uncontrolled greed that can overcome an unregulated free market system. To regulate the heart of the financial system, which has the power to destroy this country in ways Al Qaida does not, is simply reasonable. History has taught us that no industry is self-regulating. Moreover, don’t you expect businesses to be as patriotic as we? They ship our jobs overseas and we end up with the most product recalls in history. To blame the government for this is beyond the pale.

You might not like the stimulus package passed last summer but you probably liked the tax cuts. Payroll taxes were cut and we have all enjoyed a modest increase in our checks as a result. In fact, over one third of that stimulus package was tax cuts – a policy that conservatives believe increases government revenue. Reagan did the same thing when faced with a similar toxic mix of recession and high unemployment. You would be hard put to see this as socialist.

The stimulus bill also pumped $100 billion into our crumbling infrastructure. But, you say, such spending adds to our national debt. True. But let me say two things about that, problematic as it is. First, Cheney is famous for his “deficits don’t matter” statement but still has considerable credibility with conservatives. Second, Reagan tripled the deficit during his tenure, bringing Perot on the scene with his charts and graphs, but we outgrew those deficits during the Clinton years. We can outgrow them again – and will. As I have said before, I see the deficit argument as a red herring.

Doing something no other President has done, Obama has actually addressed our energy dependence in a way that can move us toward that goal. He is pumping $60 billion into renewable and clean energy, an investment that must be made if we are to stop supporting the Middle East, have clean air and water, and avoid environmental disasters. Progressives have been disappointed that he opened more areas to offshore drilling because of concerns that have, unfortunately, come true. But he has put us on a path to energy independence, a policy for which previous President’s have only provided lip service.

Obama has corrected the unequal pay that women have received for the same job as a man, signed a nuclear deal with Russia, allowed the FDA to regulate tobacco for the first time, overhauled the student loan system, and I could go on. But, Obama is not the progressive we thought he was in 2008.

Jim Fitzgerald

I hate to be cynical but the next conspiracy theory I am waiting to appear concerns the tanning bed tax. I’m sure the spin will be that the tax was designed to be a whites’ only tax since blacks and Hispanics are unlikely to need a tan. Then the logic will leap to a black President forcing whites’ to underwrite the health care reform bill since the tanning tax is to help fund the health care system, much like the new super speeder fine will be funding Georgia’s trauma centers. They might even say the tax is revenge for the tea party movement, 99.9% white, which did not exist until a black man was elected.

However, I have a conspiracy theory of my own and it concerns the Republican strategy for the November elections. Key elements that drive an election are fear, financial desperation, and a bleak view of the future. Obama was elected because he brought hope during the financial disaster of 2008 and, in fact, actually turned the economy around. Okay, so the recovery has been very weak but the situation is not dissimilar to a dying patient being brought to the ER and resuscitated but still hanging to life by a thread. Slowly, the patient has been clinging to life and gradually getting better even if much of the progress has been from life sustaining machines. Now, at a critical juncture, the Republicans want to pull the plug. They have been doing everything possible to kill off the patient and now they may actually, and tragically, succeed.

After eight years of reckless spending and wild partying – and doubling this nation’s debt – they have become purveyors of fear over that debt. Suddenly they want us to feel the full effects of their freckless behavior. They want to remove life support and let the patient die. They say they do this because the debt is too much and must be immediately addressed, regardless of the pain. This argument is a red herring.

Their strategy is really quite simple. Since they lost power by decimating the economy, they believe they can regain power by making sure the economy does not recover. They may have voted to bail out the banks but since then they have voted or blocked every measure designed to ease this country back to prosperity. They voted against the stimulus package last summer, voted against re-regulating the very institutions they voted to salvage, voted against health care reform designed to reduce the future burden of those costs on the economy, voted against those lazy people who would rather draw unemployment than go find a non-existent job, and voted against any further stimulus as soon as the economy shows signs of revival.

They know that if the economy improves, people will most likely vote to maintain the status quo and that leaves them in minority status. You have to hand it to them, their strategy may work. Saying no like a petulant child and crying wolf may just be enough in these times to drive the voters to put them back in power. The same Republicans who drove us off a cliff are still in Congress. If they are successful in regaining power, I hope their driving skills have improved.

Jim Fitzgerald

November midterm elections may be the rout that Republicans are predicting, or maybe not. As I have said before, it is still too early to start predicting which way the fickle American public may swing when the time comes to pull the lever in the voting booth. As a supposedly concerned citizenry, we are notoriously sidetracked rather easily by the current news cycle and seem to forget the bigger, longer-term picture. The firing of General McChrystal passed in the blink of an eye but we continue to hear about the Gulf oil spill daily. Pundits wonder why Obama has not plugged the leak yet, suggesting they have little new to add to the story so to justify air time, and their inflated salaries, they have to prattle on, as my grandmother would say. This environmental disaster just defies a quick solution and seems to outstrip out technology. Our primary hope is that going forward we implement policies and procedures that will prevent another such disaster while recognizing the need to shift our energy sources.

Underneath the daily news stories, the real story that unfolds is the basic, philosophical differences between the right and the left. Of course we hear the extremes from both sides but rarely do we hear rational and articulate voices discussing the differences in governing philosophy. Listening to pundits, you would think the right hates the poor and the left wants to coddle them. That the left wants to provide illegal immigrants all the right and benefits afforded legal citizens while the right wants to ship every single one home, regardless of the consequences. The void between the two sides appears vast but, in reality, not so much. Extreme talk makes for great political theatre but does little to force us to find workable ideas that blend both left and right solutions.

At the peril of sounding dramatic, I do not think the left found anything to praise – or like – during the eight years of Bush II’s reign. Now the right finds nothing to praise – or like – about Obama’s governance. But to assert that America is being ruined by either the right or left is melodramatic.

The left does not believe that people should not be held accountable for their behavior. The left does not believe that free-loaders and shiftless individuals should get a free ride on the backs of working people. But, the left does believe, and I do not think the right holds a markedly different view, that people fall on difficult times through no fault of their own and it is in the Christian ethic to give them a helping hand. Personally, I do not have the time to find out where these people are or find out what they might need; so I am happy that a portion of my taxes goes for this purpose.

The left does not hate business. I was a small business owner for over 40 years and understand the issues that come with owning your own company. However, the left believes that business is not just about making money; that business has a responsibility to the community that makes their success possible. Business should not be successful by taking advantage of its workers. In essence, business should not benefit the few by riding on the backs of the many. I believe something is wrong with a system that forgives a business for shipping its jobs overseas and still giving it a tax break, tax credits, and little or no taxation. In my mind, that is akin to rape. We are all in this together and individuals should not be required to make most of the sacrifices while business enjoys most the benefits. I would be surprised if the right has a markedly different view.

Jim Fitzgerald

The ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee apologized to BP for what he called the “White House shakedown!” Representative Joe Burton from Texas, the man who would be in charge of the Energy and Commerce Committee if Republicans were in control of the House of Representatives, told BP officials that he was “ashamed” of the “shakedown” from the President.  The White House had just negotiated a legal and financial framework for BP to compensate the Gulf coast states and peoples for the biggest environmental disaster in our history. The negotiations included a fund of $20 billion that would be managed by a specially appointed overseer controlled by neither BP nor the White House.

Before this legal arrangement was negotiated, BP was legally liable for no more than $75 million dollars, a small amount that would not even cover cleaning the wildlife that survived swimming in the muck. At least BP was willing to step up to the plate and take financial responsibility for the awful mess created by the failed blowout preventer. Otherwise, the US taxpayer would be on the hook for such costs.

Rep. Burton’s remarks, which were preplanned and deliberate, make you wonder what actions he would have taken had he been in charge of the committee. This guy is no Republican backbencher; he is one of the powerbrokers, so his comments cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a fringe member.

To his credit, John Boehner, the House minority leader, immediately recognized that he had to contain this contagion lest the general public think Burton was speaking for the Republican Party and reflecting their views about the Gulf oil spill. It remains likely that Burton will lose his seniority on the committee and rightly so.

We are all affected by the oil spill whether we know it or not. One of our natural resources is being ruined – for us and for future generations. As has been pointed out with the Exxon Valdez disaster, you can still dig six inches on the shore and strike oil. But what makes Burton’s comments even more egregious is that the entire coastline and states hit by the disaster are Red states.  It is like a mother abandoning her children. What ideological purity was he spouting when protecting the financial interests of this country and those states is considered a “shakedown?”

I suspect Burton is preparing to move out of the country, that is, if he actually meant what he said. Just so you can understand the importance of what he said, let me quote him: “I do not want to live in a country where anytime a citizen or corporation that does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.” That was his second apology to BP executives that morning. His second apology that they would be held responsible to pay for their mess, not the US taxpayer. His second apology that Obama will not bail them out at taxpayer expense.  The second apology that the cleanup costs will not add to our national debt.

It is instructive to know that he received more than $1.5 million dollars from the oil and gas industry in political contributions. Is that what swayed his remarks? And to think that he, or someone who thinks like him, could be one election away from formulating the government’s response to future disasters. In this case, Burton has let us know his position. US taxpayers, you and me, would be held accountable for the damages and whatever company reeked disaster would be relieved of responsibility.

I can only think that this philosophy, or something similar, must be behind the resistance to the individual mandate for health insurance. Rather than require that every individual take responsibility for their health care, they want the US taxpayer to continue to pay for those people who visit the ER without insurance or assets. This is called the free-rider effect and in the early 1990’s Republicans proposed the individual mandate as a means of eliminating it. When Republicans proposed this mandate, it was not a Constitutional issue. This happened only when the Democrats proposed it. Such is politics.

Jim Fitzgerald

As more tea party candidates are winning primaries across the nation, we are beginning to get a glimpse of their view of small government. I have wondered many times what conservatives mean by small government because without a sense of what government would look like after they finish reshaping it, how could you make an intelligent decision whether to support it?  Maybe our favorite programs would be eliminated. Would we be willing to let it go in the name of downsizing government?

Now, I am the first to say that government could be trimmed. I would like to see it operate more efficiently; more lean and mean. As with any large institution, it is not difficult to identify waste, pork, and ineffective programs. Of course, the major problem with the government is that there are 50 states and thousands of counties and cities to accommodate. They all like different things so that someone’s pork is someone else’s butter.  Maybe that is why even conservatives make across the board spending cuts; rarely eliminating or downsizing programs.

However, if the spending and philosophical priorities of the tea party, the new conservatives, are ever enacted into law, this is what I think we will see.  The first glimpse we have suggests that all social safety net programs will be the first to go. Republicans have tried to downsize or eliminate such programs in the past and now the new conservatives may force their hand. I say force their hand because prior attempts have been half-hearted and without enthusiasm.

Social Security would be a thing of the past. The new conservatives are willing to turn the program over to Wall Street in what they call privatizing it. Since they do not talk about eliminating the payroll tax that funds Social Security, I suspect they will enact an individual mandate. Would you have a choice? Could you opt out of the system? They do not address these issues so I suspect you will be mandated to continue your contribution into a retirement account. They will just redirect your money from the government to Wall Street. What happens to all of the people that cannot afford to contribute, such as minimum wage folks, I do not know. I am sure they will not redistribute anyone else’s wealth to fund the poorest of the poor. I suspect we would see the end of the Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs as well.

Unemployment compensation would, most likely, become a distant memory. The new conservatives believe that such payments encourage people not to work so you know this program will also be among the first to disappear. Interestingly, the average unemployment check is $1,280 a month, and that is taxable. If you find that amount enticing, or an allure as John Linder says, to not find a job, then you are already living very low on the hog (A family of four is considered to be below the poverty guideline with a monthly income of $1,837. Unemployment payments are not based on family size). I am sure we will see food stamps disappear along with any other form of welfare programs such as excess food distribution.

Since Republicans have been pushing to provide vouchers to seniors instead of Medicare, it has become obvious that their ultimate goal is to eliminate the Medicare program. Since the vouchers will be government driven, I suspect that the voucher payments will be small and eventually disappear.  Of course, that will mean the end of health insurance for all but wealthy seniors. We will not need death panels because this system would bypass them.

Ultimately, corporations would run the country, or I should say the US Chamber of Commerce. They already have a hefty influence, and with unlimited political contributions, they will have the capacity to buy all branches of government. One could say that elections are already bought because usually the candidate who spends the most money wins. Ironically, every time we buy a product we are funding the corporations to usurp our control over government.

Regulations will be a thing of the past. Industry will be allowed to self-regulate. If it is oil-related, taxpayers will pay for any cleanup but if financial, allowed to collapse. Until it becomes clear which industries will be protected with taxpayer money and which will be left to dangle if they get in trouble, we will just have to wonder. The new conservatives are all over the map on this one.

The conservative slant to free markets and deregulation suggests that business will be given greater latitude to dictate social policy. Rand Paul may have backtracked over his comment about discrimination but the right of business to discriminate is a deeply held belief. Their motto is business should be able to do what business wants without any government interference. I suspect we will see the end of the minimum wage. I wonder what will happen to child labor laws. Are we headed back to the robber barons? Will we lose all of the hard fought worker protections that took decades to implement?

The new conservatives want to base the tax law on consumption, like the Fair Tax or the Value Added Tax, and do away with the income tax. I agree that the former method would make sure that most everyone contributes to the function of government but there is an element of socialism (wealth redistribution) built in to the models that ruin their ideology. The fact that poorer families will be subsidized under either system is socialism. I suspect they do not have a fundamental disagreement with wealth redistribution, just in who implements such a plan.

I have just touched the surface here but I am sure more ideas will come to those who have been listening to the new conservatives. In general, they have slide so far to the right that their ideas transport us into the past, the distant past; not the future. They want to take America back, way back.

Jim Fitzgerald

Forgive me if I sound confused but I think conservatives have made a philosophical about face. The very people who have shouted against big government and for states’ rights are now screaming for the federal government to stop the oil spill in the gulf. The “business knows how to regulate itself” crowd suddenly transfers all responsibility for the gulf oil environmental disaster to the big government they want to downsize. Bobby Jindal, who laughed off volcano monitoring, is now yelling daily about the disaster that has polluted his beaches and marshes. However, instead of yelling at BP to clean up its mess, he is yelling at the big government he despises to get the job done. The red states of Louisiana and Mississippi suddenly look to big government to save them when the disaster is in their backyard. Apparently, they think Obama should don scuba gear and close the undersea valve all by himself.

The very people most upset about bailing out the banks and GM are now agitating for a bailout of BP. The Republicans in Congress, spearheaded by Alaska’s Senator Murkowski, are working overtime to block legislation that would increase BP’s financial liability. They want taxpayers, by default, to become financially responsible for all environmental and economic damage caused by BP’s mismanagement. If conservatives succeed in this struggle, they will be forcing taxpayers to pick up all costs above $75 million. That is, they are trying to force a redistribution of income from unaffected states to the gulf. I guess they missed the news that BP, on April 27, 2010, reported a profit of $6.08 billion dollars in the first quarter of this year. Multiply that figure by four quarters in a year and BP is well set to pay for all cleanup costs and not even dent its bottom line.

When Obama did swoop in to save the economy from the worst financial disaster in decades, he was roundly criticized, called a Nazi, and referred to as a dictator. He was told that he should have just allowed the financial firms and businesses to collapse, i.e., let nature take its course regardless of the consequences.  However, when he puts a little faith in BP to clean up its mess, he is roundly criticized for not swooping in and taking immediate control! I suppose if the disaster is in your backyard, your view of big government changes. I wonder what twisted logic small government adherents will use to justify the calls for the government to take responsibility for the oil spill cleanup but not hold BP financially responsible.

The government that cannot do anything right is being begged to “takeover” the BP mess. Apparently, they do not believe that BP is properly equipped to clean up its mess but the big government they loath is capable of doing what BP, an oil industry expert, cannot. Rep. Issa, a Republican from California, says that once the oil was in the gulf, it was the government’s responsibility to make sure the oil did not make it to shore. Really? It is the taxpayers’ responsibility to assume BP’s liability and clean up its mess? We, the people, should stockpile all of the equipment, vessels, and workers necessary to clean up after the oil companies? Do Republicans really think we should be the oil industry’s handmaidens?  BP, and all off shore drilling companies, should stockpile the necessary equipment to contain any oil spills, not the federal or state governments.

Fox News has gone wild with reckless charges that reverse over 18 months of anti-big government rantings. Hannity accuses the government of, of all things, “outsourcing” the crisis to BP! Palin wonders what is taking so long for big government to take over the BP situation. According to conservatives, big government is, suddenly, more capable of cleaning up BP’s mess than BP! Fox has claimed that Obama is in bed with big oil even though conservatives received more than twice the political donations from big oil as progressives. But then, FOX does not allow facts to get in the way. One gets the impression that if Obama had immediately swooped in and taken over the situation, these same people would be singing his praises for doing so.

The tea party elected Rand Paul and to the extent he reflects their views, big government should have a hands off policy for business. After all, he says, mistakes happen. Perhaps Wall Street’s collapse was a mistake. Paul said it was un-American to criticize BP, in spite of the fact emerging evidence is revealing the colossal, cost-cutting mistakes BP made to increase their profits. What happened in the gulf was not an accident to ignore. People made the fatal decisions that lead to the disaster. Whatever happened to accountability, a conservative platform plank?

Where is the consistency of Republican and tea party philosophy? They have proved, once again, that their policies are reactive – anything Obama does, they are against, whether his actions agree with their principles or not. They easily suspend their beliefs for cheap political shots. Their shifting beliefs leave one confused as to how they view the role of government. Conservatives have a chance to clarify their position on the role of government and it is my wish they will take this opportunity to do so.

Jim Fitzgerald

As you may know, Newt Gingrich is on a book tour selling his latest book, To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular-Socialist Machine. In his book, he writes that the administration is “a corrupt bureaucracy which uses manipulation, bribery, and dishonesty to steamroll the will of the people and destroy America’s core values.” He goes on to say, “The secular socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” Of course, I wondered what he could possibly mean by comparing Obama’s administration to two of the worst regimes known to modern man.

Intrigued by Newt’s claim, I Googled the phrase “comparison of Obama and Hitler.”  I received over 600,000 “hits.” After reading the first page of links, I felt like I was strolling down Paranoid Lane in the State of Delusion. The claims made by different bloggers/writers clearly had not been fact checked but it was obvious that the claims had widespread, conservative acceptance. Moreover, their “claims” seemed to have formed the basis of Newt’s book.

One writer said, “What if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new ‘Fairness Doctrine.’ That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases [sic] like state-run media in communist countries?”

Apparently, this writer did not bother to check his facts. If he had bothered to do so, he would have found that in June 2008, Obama:  “[Did not] support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters … [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible….” “In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine.”

Another writer made the following charge: “The Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms….  That Obama’s Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.” In actuality, the Obama administration has done nothing to limit the sale of guns or ammo. Moreover, the only plans announced by Attorney General Holder (May 21, 2010) was a desire to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons which expired under Bush in 2004 (but which Bush was willing to sign if it came to his desk). Besides, the US Supreme Court has addressed this issue, in favor of private gun ownership, and will address this issue again in the near future.

Of course, anyone who believes Obama is leading us down the communist/fascist/socialist path agrees with this writer:  “And the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. “  Fortunately, Obama has been in the process of reversing Bush policies that did exactly what the writer was fearful of in his statement above.  In May 2009, website TMP reported:  “For years, California and a number of states had sought to enact car emission standards, yet had been blocked by the Bush Environmental Protection Agency which refused to allow those standards to go into effect. Obama not only embraced those state standards in action this week but affirmed the right of states in the future to enact additional environmental standards beyond any federal minimum standards.” Obama went on, they report, to establish a sweeping new policy for all heads of federal executive departments and agencies.  That policy says, in part: “The Federal Government’s role in promoting the general welfare and guarding individual liberties is critical, but State law and national law often operate concurrently to provide independent safeguards for the public. Throughout our history, State and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national Government.”

I could go on but you can see that the outrageous claims are being made up – and are not rooted in fact, or reality. Conspiracies are built into full-blown theories from small kernels of truth, embellished with fear and misunderstanding. Such thinking is able to gain traction because the conspiracies play into conservative fears – restrictions on guns, loss of control over government, gross limitations on free speech, and other restrictions on individual liberties.  There seems to be little recognition, or acceptance, that the Patriot Act is a far more severe loss of individual liberty and freedom than anything Obama could ever do to lead us down the path so feared by conservatives.

I suspect that Newt’s socialist machine is referring to Social Security, Medicare, workers compensation, unemployment benefits, and other government programs that establish a safety net for seniors, the disabled, the poor, the unemployed, and so forth. Something will have to be done to address the financial burden these programs impose on our future but they are well-accepted programs – whether considered socialistic, communistic, or not. To rail against them after they have become part of the mainstream makes you wonder where Newt is headed with his complaints. Personally, I think his only purpose is to fan flames and keep people “hot” for the November midterm elections. Oh, and to sell his book. Extreme rhetoric and beliefs might appeal to the conservative base but neither are winning messages in a general election.

Interestingly, no less a conservative than Ron Paul has said that to call Obama a socialist is wrong. That is what he told the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in April of 2010. I wish he had reminded his listeners that our government is working just as our founding fathers intended. We, the people, still control our government. Every person in DC is constitutionality and legitimately elected to serve, just as established by our founding fathers. If the country elects the people who serve, how can America’s core values be destroyed? It is time to stop demonizing and start having constructive dialogues.

Sentinel Columnist

Rumors and misinformation make the rounds regularly but what intrigues me the most are the people that repeat them, apparently without question. It is almost like listening to Fox news without ever turning on the television.  For the millions of people who hear these rumors and have not been exposed to other sources of information, I suppose they believe whatever slant has been put on the “news.” Sometimes they become anxious and share the news through letters to the editor and mass emails.

The other day, a friend of mine forwarded just such an email. Everything in the email sounded plausible – and what we would expect from politicians – so he did not question a single talking point. However, whenever anything sounds too good to be true, you can bet it there is a smell lurking underneath the surface. Therefore, I went to snopes.com, the website where you can verify the veracity of mass emails and, sure enough, 99% of the email assertions were false.

The email started out innocently enough. It addressed a proposed 28^th amendment to the Constitution that would mandate all laws passed by Congress must apply to Congress as well as the general population. Sounds good, right?  We all suspect, and have heard, that the laws of the land do not apply to Congress. We are led to believe that Congressmen are free to do what they want with whomever they want without legal recourse.

In reality, the email was using a proposed 28^th amendment – which has not been proposed by anyone but a backroom political geek who wanted to use something official sounding to spread antipathy toward the government – to spread malicious rumors. The first false rumor asserted that members of Congress are eligible to draw full retirement pay after serving one term in office. See, this is the first thing in the email that sounds too good to be true – but believable. We would suspect the crooks in DC to apply just such a ruling to themselves. To anyone who bothers to check this out, they find it to be erroneous.

The second rumor, asserted as fact, said that Congress does not contribute to Social Security. Whoever cooked up this “fact” has to be at least as old as I am and remembers the time when this assertion was true. However, since 1984 Congress has been contributing to Social Security just like the rest of us.

The third assertion is a real juicy one because it deals with sex. Sex is such a sensitive, and taboo, subject that we believe just about anything said about it. After all, about the only exposure we get comes from XXX rated videos (surely the positions they get into are not comfortable or pleasurable!) and our personal experiences. Therefore, when the rumor comes along that Congress is exempt from prosecution for sexual harassment, we believe it. However, it is false and you might have suspected.

Then we come to the assertion that appears to be the real reason for generating the mass email in the first place. Okay, I am sure you guessed it pertains to the current health care bill. The rumor says that Congress exempted itself from recently passed health care reforms. Moreover, since the bill was passed without a single Republican vote, it becomes obvious that the entire email, though sounding bipartisan, is aimed at the Democrats. Given this focus, I will amend my above statement about backroom political geeks by adding the term Republican – as in Republican backroom political geek. I am sure there are Democratic backroom political geeks but I, for whatever reason, rarely see their mass emails. Nevertheless, back to the rumor. In fact, it is mandated in the bill that members of Congress and their staff only have access to health insurance plans created by the bill or through the health care exchanges to be established under the reform legislation.

In letters to the editor, I have seen several common themes emerge recently that indicate common talking points being spread around. The first, and the only one I will address in this column, is that the Obama administration has added more national debt in one year than all previous administrations – combined! That sounds a lot like a Karl Rove line and Karl Rove has never been known to speak with a non-forked tongue. Whoever believes this line – and I suspect there are plenty – has had their head in the sand for the last decade. Cowboy George added over five trillion dollars to the national debt in his over-extended time in office. He is the one that added more national debt than any administration in history. Obama, by contrast, has added just over a trillion dollars – in preventing a worse economic catastrophe.

If something is repeated often enough, it assumes the mantle of truth. It is this principle that underlies the campaign to spread false and misleading rumors. Before you forward an email or write to the editor, make sure that your information is grounded and verified in fact. It seems to me the Bible says something about spreading false rumors so if you are a believer, pay closer attention to the information you disseminate. You have the power to contribute to a better world.