Monday, November 15, 2010
Heartland USA
Back to the basics that make this nation great!
A week spent in the Heartland of America was delightful and revealing. Here there were people practicing their patriotism to the fullest, and their rights under the Constitution to the fullest as well. There were no namby pambys afraid of guns there: guns were visible in gun racks downtown, and were being carried into the fields for hunting, including pistols openly carried in holsters. On Veteran’s Day, many of the citizens turned out in Legion hats or even old army hats; and a few were wearing their full dress uniforms from WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam.
There were speeches at the town square, which was decorated with bunting and flags on the light poles. Men that were sincere and genuinely proud of their service rose up one at a time to tell something of their war experiences, and to affirm their love for this nation in strong and emotional terms. After six or seven ex-servicemen had spoken with such feeling, you could sense that the crowd around the square was joining in the emotion and clapping and cheering louder and louder, and waving their flags in agreement and sympathy with the speakers.
The master of ceremonies, I believe he was the mayor, introduced the local representative to the state government, and he spoke in the same terms and with the same fervor of the sacrifices many had made over the years in far-away, desolate and impoverished lands in the service of their country. He was a veteran too, and had served in Vietnam. That the crowd knew, respected, and approved of this man was apparent; he had their full trust that they would be looked after in the state capitol to the best of his abilities. “He is a good man”, I heard over and over as I walked through the crowd.
It would be a wonderful thing if we could feel that way about all of our legislators, instead of believing that many of them are actually acting against our best interests and our desires every day.
Labels: American Culture, Patriotism
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Are We Too Negative About Islam?
Watch Your Words?
The US has been actively killing some kinds of Muslims (and others) in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and has just stopped the combat in Iraq after killing many Muslims there for years.
Just how much more justification does a potential Muslim recruit need to join the Jihad against us? Would a few words from the bleachers do? This "watch your words plea" I am reading about in some blogs seems to be something of a reach to me, and might be one more attempt to put some kind of moral or PC constraint on free speech about Islam in the US, lest we give the Jihadists a club! Don't they have all the clubs they need from their point of view? Do they need some kind of proof that the US is becoming a deadly enemy to all Muslims within the nation, which is silly? If they were truly assimilated into US society there would not be a problem, and for most of that the onus in on them, not us.
All of these complaints come in the face of well-documented, Muslim-based terrorist attacks and conflicts worldwide, and potentially a Muslim-based Stealth Jihad in the US, all of which are ascribed to tiny minorities of Muslims of some sect or another. Tiny minorities that we cannot readily identify and separate from the Islamic majority, either; and, so far, I have not seen or heard of enough majority action against their wayward brethren to damp the bad ones out, or to identify them to us so that we can take care of them. No one from the majority has given up OBL to authorities, for example, but I will bet that his whereabouts are known to many, even back in SA.
The image that James Joyner used is very appropriate: Islam: The Large Majority/The Medium Sympathizers/The Small Supporters/The Tiny Terrorists. The factoring out of many sects as being basically passive, as John B. has pointed out, and the lack of global organization that Lang pointed out, lead to a lessening of the perceived threat. No one, however, has claimed that the threat to the US has gone away.
So let us demand of the Muslims that wish to live here in peace and harmony inside of a Christian nation that they do not push for further Islamic favors, further accommodations or building sites that grind so very hard against their neighbor's sensitivities as does the 9/11 site, and that they show their citizenship by massive and visible support, not just words, to the elimination of terrorists wherever found, especially in the US. Someone mentioned that over 15,000 Muslims are in the armed forces. That is an example of the kind of visible support I am asking for.
Ridding themselves openly of the whole idea of a fighting Jihad would be appropriate. Showing that the constant drumming against us by way of some Muslims has ceased would be appropriate also. That is, they should become convincingly Americanized, instead of remaining a ME Muslim that happens to reside here, or a second-generation Muslim American that has not yet fully assimilated here in his heart and mind.
Then the American rhetoric will change for the better.
Labels: Jihadists, Muslims, Patriotism
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Pillars of the Conservative Movement
Bringing Common Sense into the Conservative Movement 9/3/09
Of late, I have been attempting to simplify my views on Conservatism, and to identify a few pillars of the movement that are easily grasped and sufficiently comprehensive to act as guides to rational thought. The (now) ten pillars I have come up with in this fourth revision are still tentative and subject to change, but I will post them and let them age a bit more. A major aspect of these pillars is exactly what they are holding up: the concept of an integrated or fused movement called conservatism.
I see my conservatism as a practical, realistic integration of subordinate thrusts such as fiscal, social, and moral conservative memes. One need I have beyond this integration concept is a proper descriptive name for it. For lack of a catchier name, I have called it Common Sense Conservatism.
1. Religion:
Religion, especially the Bible, forms the basis for moral instruction of our children, ourselves, and our posterity; a necessary ingredient for a civil society. The concepts of flawed mankind, faith, hope, charity and tolerance are learned from religious instruction.
We take exception, however, to any religion or non-religion that has the overthrow of our nation as a principal objective. Any person or organization that embraces this idea and direction has automatically forfeited its protection under the Constitution. The prime examples of this hostile direction are those of Islam and Anarchism.
2. Reason:
It is apparent that without the application of penetrating reason to our many and varied problems, we would descend into “feel good”, biased solutions, nihilism or chaos, on the one hand, or deeply religious dogmatism on the other, while ignoring many of the consequences of our actions.
There are reasons behind our institutions, customs, and traditions that must not be changed without due consideration of real effects. The adaptation and necessary change of our laws through legislation for the benefit of our citizens originates in reason.
Anti-Statism, anti-secularism, and anti-world government are likewise products of conservative reason, the former two because of their utter violation of our Constitution by statists and secularists, and the latter because of the immoral state of the vast majority of world governments and world organizations, such as the UN, and many citizens of these immoral or amoral nations. Peace only comes through strength and preservation of our national sovereignty.
3. Constitutional Originalism:
Our nation has been operating under the Constitution for some 233 years, with a mere 27 Amendments. It is time that we return to the original intent of the authors, rather than the fashionable memes of 5 biased justices out of the 9 serving, who have been legislating from the bench. We are a nation of law. There are valid reasons for amendments, however, if only to clarify meaning and halt dubious, unintended interpretations.
We therefore support a return to originalist Constitutional Law. By dividing roles and tasks between the federal government and state and local governments in accordance with the original intent of the Constitution, we will reach more republican governance. One key example is education, which should not be a federal role, but rather that of the states and local authorities. The main concept is subsidiarity--place the roles of government at the lowest point possible in the hierarchy. The excessive number of agencies, bureaus, commissions, and committees of the federal government, over 1,170 at this time, must be reduced to a sane minimum.
4. Public Spirit:
All together now, let’s roll! Volunteerism; Charity; proper Welfare; Education, and Tolerance pull the nation together. Then, too, proper taxation, where every citizen must pay into the common treasury, is a major objective. We celebrate the American history, experience, and way of life. We stand strong for our nation, prideful of its virtues, and are withal, patriotic. We must practice good citizenship.
5. Federal Governance:
Defense of the Constitution, defense of the nation, and defense of the citizenry are the proper roles of the federal government. We do not support efforts to modify our national sovereignty. We want our republic to endure. Further, we want our borders to be properly policed, and illegal aliens to be helped to return to their own country; but, we are not against controlled legal immigration. Fair taxation is another role that must be undertaken by our leaders; all citizens must contribute to our national financial requirements. Federal efforts for education must be ended.
6. State and Local Governance:
State and Local governance must include full responsibility for education.
7. Economic Growth:
We believe in the free market, but we also believe that some controls must exist to prevent the excesses that have plagued us today. Thus we believe in a “somewhat mixed economy”. We abhor the taxation of corporations, since it is in reality taxing the consumer, and makes our products more expensive in the world market. We believe that we should be exploiting our energy resources to curb the cost of virtually everything we use. The government must abstain from excess involvement in the marketplace.
8. Technological Advances:
Our technological and industrial capabilities must not be saddled with false or power-serving restrictions such as cap and trade, and other anthropomorphic global warming legislation. Environmentalism has become far too overbearing and intrusive. The pervasive restrictions on oil drilling and nuclear power are simply ridiculous.
9. Education:
Without proper education, citizens can expect to have in difficulty in being informed and insightful participants in our governance, and unmindful of the hard-won freedoms that we have. Then, too, to earn a living in our increasingly technological society requires training and education far beyond what we were given back in the 40s and 50s, especially how to think and use the analytical capability of the mind.
10. Traditions, Customs, and Institutions:
Preservation of our traditions, customs and institutions is an essential characteristic of the conservative position. The idea is to preserve these collections of how to act and how to interact in society because they are developed with strong societal preservation roots over a long period of time, and should not be casually experimented with or changed without due understanding of the consequences. Just because they are old and venerable does not mean that they are without meaning and value. This is not to say that change is all bad. Far from it, but the onus is on the prospective changer to show why the change is necessary and beneficial.
Labels: Citizenship USA, Conservatism, Democracy, Patriotism
Labels: Citizenship USA, Conservatism, Democracy, Patriotism
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Patriotism
Rick Moran and Peter Beinhart have posted excellent commentaries on the distinction of conservative and liberal views on patriotism. While I find much to argue about, Rick is to be congratulated on this post, and Peter as well on his. Taken together they define a sound basis for agreement on the essential love of country, and the needs for veneration of the good in the past, critique of the present, and what our future should entail.
There is the rub, however! The ideals for the future between the conservative and the liberal are poles apart on so many issues—to name one: equal opportunity versus equal outcomes. These two concepts are fundamentally incompatible, resting as they do on reward for enterprise and initiative on the one hand, and economic and social leveling and collectivism on the other. Human nature is not so malleable.
So is it true for security of the nation in this time: treating Islamic terrorism as an external threat to the nation requiring bold action, versus treating terrorism as merely a police matter not causing us to entertain much of any action except after the fact of a terrorist attack!
So is it true for poverty, secularism, morals, and the other issues of abortion, same sex marriage, and certain limits of freedom for the common good.
Thus, the question arises strongly in the minds of conservatives as to the real, true patriotism of those who would take our future into regions of thought, action and situations that we do not understand, and do not believe to be right for America—or for any people.
It is one thing to critique the truly bad situations in the nation, but it another to use those situations as a wedge to realize a political objective such as serious movement of the nation further toward socialism or communism, neither of which any conservative could possibly stand or permit without a fight.
Labels: Patriotism
