Uncle Tom...?

I've heard much in the media about Herman Cain.

I've heard liberal commentators call him a "bad apple".  I've heard them say he's "left the plantation".  I've heard them say that he's "Tea Party's black friend".

I've heard him called an "Uncle Tom".

I was interested to hear that moniker.  See, a couple of years ago I started to wonder if I understood the aspersion "Uncle Tom" correctly.  So I read the book.  I'll tell you about the real Uncle Tom so that you can understand, then I'll talk about the implications and the reason Uncle Tom has gotten the bad rap he has from the black American community.

Uncle Tom was a slave, owned by a kind, but business-oriented man in Kentucky.  Tom was an older fellow - maybe in his late 40s.  He was diligent, hard working, humble and loyal.  He even loved his master's children and held his mistress in great esteem.  He lived in a small, but comfortable cabin (hence the name of the book) near his master's home.  He raised his children and mentored younger slaves in the art of subservience.  Tom never rocked the boat.  He never questioned his lot in life.  He never left the plantation.  He was a good person by any moral standard.  Although life brought him terrible misfortune and cruelty at the hands of less kind-hearted slavers, Tom was true to himself and would not violate his principles.

Perversely, rather than viewing honor and duty as virtues in the individual, black American culture has connected Uncle Tom's diligence with a self-interested desire to get some personal gain or comfort.  His behavior is also connected with one who would curry favoritism or a preferred place in the master's household.  In short, an "Uncle Tom" is one who has traded his dignity as a black man, submitted himself to the establishment system, found ways to work it to his own advantage and is willing to ignore the continuing injustice of the system and the suffering of his own "people".  He's a sell-out who's working the system that "Whitey" has set up.

In the case of Herman Cain, I would say he is as far from an "Uncle Tom" as one - black or white - could be. He refused the poverty of his upbringing while honoring his parents' tremendous sacrifice in his behalf.  He insisted on his own excellent effort and performance in every aspect of his life, from school to work to marriage.  When others marched and shouted about the "system", Herman Cain decided what he wanted to take from life, defined the path he would follow in order to succeed, and diligently went to work.

In that process, I suppose that Herman Cain did "leave the plantation".  He refused to accept the welfare culture that the Left was beginning to set up for black Americans 50 years ago.  He refused to accept the dogma that he was entitled to something and would not work until he got it.  He refused to accept the idea that in order to be a black "man" one had to abandon all self-control and abdicate all responsibility to "the System".

Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and other civil rights activists did the same thing in the 1960s.  They all "left the plantation".  So did many of their followers.

Some in the civil rights movement of the 1960s recognized that all black Americans would not leave.  They saw the New and Improved Plantation being built in the Great Society.  They understood that if they continued to walk away in the path of King they would lose their power, prestige and "leadership" position as black Americans realized and embraced the liberty the civil rights movement would guarantee them.

And so they decided to work within the system.  They decided that in submitting to the new masters they could curry favor.  They realized that despite the immense injustice of relegating millions of their "people" to virtual slavery under a new welfare system they would enjoy personal power, preference and privilege that would be impossible if black Americans were independent.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright.  These are the Uncle Tom's of our day.  On the backs of their own people they subsist in famous fashion.  By perpetuating the indignities and injustice of today's welfare state, they ensure their own livelihood.  By continuing this sleight of hand known as the struggle for "social justice" and "economic equity" they cement their positions as clarions of the black community.  They refuse to rock the boat and feign indignation when someone like Clarence Thomas, Bill Cosby, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell or Herman Cain speak against the dogma they preach to their befuddled disciples.

Successful conservative black people are not the Uncle Toms.  Poor black people struggling to make life better for themselves and their families are not the Uncle Toms.

Today's Uncle Toms are those who profit from the perverse and immoral system of economic slavery instituted by the "Great Society".  Today's plantation slaves are those who - black, white or otherwise - drink in the doctrine of grievance and entitlement while they eat bread and watch circuses provided by their masters.

Searching For Founding Principles (part 2)...

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

That's the preamble to the Constitution.  Sort of an executive summary, if you will.  No "fair shot; fair share" language yet.

Article 1, Section 8.1 does address Congress' power of taxation.  It says that Congress may lay taxes (and collect them) to "provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States".  The same section specifically indicates that taxation shall be uniform throughout the states.  I take that to mean that the tax on tobacco in Kentucky shall be the same as the tax on the same in Maine.

In all of Section 8 there is no mention of a redistributive function of taxation or Congress.

Article 2 does not mention taxation or redistribution in connection with the Executive branch.

Article 3 does not mention taxation or redistribution in connection with the Judicial branch.  Neither does it mention ensuring social justice or equity.

The other articles of the original Constitution fail to mention taxation or redistribution.  It is unclear if this is an omission on the part of the Founders, but such mention would be out of context.

Now let us turn to the Bill of Rights.  Most Americans would agree that this is a list of the founding principles of our country.

I'll list the amendments that mention the idea of "fair shot; fair share" below.

...

That's about it for the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 13 prohibits slavery.  No mention of a "fair shot" even for the recently emancipated slaves who were even more disadvantaged than their descendants 150 years later.

Amendment 16 allows for Congress to tax incomes.  It still doesn't grant either a "fair shot" or a "fair share".

In fact, in reading the entire US Constitution (as found transcribed at www.constitutionus.com), the word "fair" is not found.  This includes all notes and cross references.

Interestingly, "redistribution", "opportunity", "social justice", and "corporate citizenship" are not found either.

In summary, neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution of the United States of America introduce, endorse or embrace what President Obama has cited as the principles on which our nation was founded.  There is no notion of "fair shot; fair share" in our national tradition.

The president is wrong.  And so are so many others among us who have bought in to the communist "ideal" that in fact defies human nature and the Law of Nature.

America's Founding Principles...

As I've mentioned, President Obama seems to believe that the fundamental economic principles of communism are the same as those on which our country was founded.  He said as much on the 19th of October this year in Virginia.

I want to let you know what the founding principles of America were.

First, we read the Declaration of Independence.  It was "necessary...to dissolve the political bands" that tied us to Britain and to "assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them...."  In other words, there were no other options.  Reconciliation and appeasement had been exhausted.  To continue in bondage to Great Britain would have been to continue in violation of Nature's Law.  We know that this cannot be without dire consequences.  And so the Declaration was made.

We also find that Nature has decreed some individual and "unalienable rights" for mankind.  AMONG them (this is not an exclusive list) are the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The entire function of the United States Government - its founding principle - is this:  "to secure these rights...."  That is all.  From this point in the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson goes on to warn that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it...."  Hence, the continuation of the American Revolution and the eventual sovereignty of the United States of America.

Now, perhaps the principle on which America was founded is found in the exhaustive list of grievances found in the Declaration.  Let's see....
1.  Refusing to sign laws that are clearly for the public good.
2.  Encouraging his government to block important legislation or to delay action on the same.
3.  Political extortion.
4.  Inconveniences making representation impossible.
5.  Ruling contrary to the will of the people's representatives by executive authority when they disagree with him.
6.  Sacrificing national security in favor of political gamesmanship.
7.  Manipulation of immigration laws to gain political advantage.
8.  Interfering in real estate law.
9.  Obstruction of justice.
10.  Manipulation of the courts by virtue of appointments and pay.
11.  Creating an excessive number of executive agencies and encouraging government harassment.
12.  Expanding the military to interfere with civilian life.
13.  Restricting free trade and enterprise.
14.  Imposing taxes without consent.
15.  Suspension of jury trials.
16.  Fundamentally changing the way government interacts with the people.
17.  Declaring war on his own citizens.
18.  Exciting domestic insurrections and encouraging border conflicts.

Nope.  Communist ideals are not outlined.

However, it's interesting to note how many of the grievances against King George can correlate to the actions of our recent presidents - especially George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama.

If Great Britain's government and policies toward its American Colonies were oppressive, I ask what kind of government are we living under today?

I submit to you that it is very different from the government conceived and brought forth by the Founders.  As Americans we have the right and the duty to seek to remove this oppression by finding, promoting and electing good people who would not rule for the sake of power, but serve for the sake of liberty.

Next, I'll try to find "a fair shot for everyone; and a fair share from everyone", or something close to that, in the Constitution....

Robin Hood? Criminal...

On October 19th, Peter Nicholas of the Los Angeles Times reported on line that President Obama said the following at a meeting in North Chesterfield, Virginia.  "A fair shot for everybody; a fair share from everybody. That's the principle that built America." http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-ends-bus-tour-20111019,0,1982231.story

Two sentences.

Let me address the first.

Karl Marx is credited with making popular the phrase or idea that it is right to take "from each according to his ability, [and give] to each according to his needs," in his Critique of the Gotha Program.  He made that critique in 1875.

For the President of the United States of America to use a paraphrase of a statement made by someone so diametrically opposed to the American system, way of life and ideal is jarring.  But President Obama delivered the line as if it were the climax of some high school football halftime speech.

The president here is stating his belief that confiscation of personal property and the fruits of one's own labors is not only the "right thing to do", but it is morally good.  The pure immorality of the statement can be illustrated as follows.

You and I are walking down a street in Cleveland, Ohio.  I don't have any cash in my pocket because I don't carry cash as a matter of practice.  You, however, have $25 in cash in your pocket.  You drove us into the city and have to pay for parking ($7) and you need to pick up some toothpaste at WalMart ($3) on the way home.

As we come to an intersection we see a homeless woman digging for food in a trash can.  We watch her find the crust of an old hamburger.  She brushes off some cigarette ashes and takes a bite.  I can't stand her plight and I'm moved by compassion. 

With a tear in my eye and a lump in my throat, I reach into your pocket and take out the $25. I hand the woman a $10 bill and put the rest back into your pocket.  You'll have plenty in your pocket at the end of the evening.  She hurriedly rushes into the nearby diner and buys a nutritious meal.

And you look at me like I'm crazy.

What are you doing? you say.  That's my money!  You just stole it and gave it away!

What? I say.  She's starving.  And what are you complaining about?  Count it; you still have more money than you need!

In truth, the ends cannot justify the means.  Both means and ends must be just.  The virtue of the act of feeding a hungry human being is destroyed by the act of robbery that yielded the means to do it.

If it is wrong for an individual to take another's property and give it to a third party without the consent of the first, then it is wrong for a government to do the same - regardless of good intentions.

Good-bye, Colonel...!

I wonder if the Libyan rebels are worried that their mistreatment of Colonel Gadhafi's body after his martyrdom will offend the Muslim world.

I wonder where the outrage is in the Middle East and where the stunned disbelief, the confused looking faces, are in the American media.

Kabuki theater, anyone?

My "Thinking Spot"...

When I was a boy I spent a lot of time on the Sacramento River delta.  I had some favorite spots I liked to go.  One was a little island in the middle of Sherman Lake.

And one is in the picture above.  Near my home town, at the bridgehead on California Highway 160 there's a fishing pier and next to that pier is this rock.  In the picture it's partly hidden by the bright green grass in the foreground.

I used to sit and watch boats and ships go up and down the river.  And dream.  I used to dream of sailing that river out to the San Francisco Bay, and on to the South Pacific.  I used to dream of what life would bring me - and what I would take from it.

On the first day of fall this year I went to visit my old home town.  I drove out to the bridgehead.  Not much had changed.  There were the same people fishing for dinner.  There was the same brownish green water.  There were the same sea birds hoping for a snack.  There was the same wind blowing up the channel.  There was the same farmland on the north bank.

As I walked toward the water I thought back on the many hours I'd spent sitting alone on that rock.  I thought about the quiet times spent talking with friends on that rock.  I thought about the plans and dreams hatched on that rock.

I thought about how none of our lives had turned out like we'd planned on that rock.  And I wondered if the rock were there anymore; or if, like so many dreams, it too had moved on in ways unexpected.

I'm not sure if I can convey the feelings I had when I saw it.  It was as if I were 15 again, with decades more perspective, yet the same little set of hopes and fears.

Twenty-five years later, the rock is still there.  And the same intense restless hope and uncertain confidence is still there when the sun sinks orange into the evening mist.

Debt is Bad - Because Liberty is Good...

There's been a lot of talk about America's national debt.  Some say we need to increase our levels of borrowing.  Some say we don't need to worry about repaying our debt.  Some say debt is a necessary component to a government's function.  Some say debt is a way to leverage national influence with other governments.

I want to look at some more basic principles in order to understand whether or not debt is bad, and then whether or not increasing debt is good or bad.

In order to frame this discussion I posit the following:
1.  Natural laws, or laws of nature, exist (think: gravity, conservation of mass, harvest, etc.).
2.  Natural laws may not be violated without adverse consequences.
3.  Natural laws apply to individuals and to groups of individuals.
4.  Liberty is the state in which Nature designed man to live; it is one of man's basic rights.
5.  Proper government is that which preserves the liberty of the individual and safeguards the rights of all members of a society.

Personal liberty is one of the fundamental elements of our nation's beginning.  The Declaration of Independence states that man is endowed with that unalienable right by his Creator.  It follows, then, that to infringe upon the liberty of an individual would be to violate Natural law.

Man may infringe upon his own liberty, essentially placing himself in bondage by virtue of his choices.  If one chooses to smoke cigarettes, there is a real chance that he will lose his freedom not to smoke cigarettes because he may develop an addiction to them.  Likewise, a man may sell his freedom to another by borrowing money from him.  Until the debt is repaid, the borrower is not free to use the fruits of his labor as he pleases.  He has traded his right to "quiet enjoyment" of his property for ready access to the money of another.  The term "slave to debt" is illustrative and true.

If a man can lose his sovereignty by his choices, so too may a country.  Close political alliances may lead a nation into wars that are not in its own interests.  Developing infrastructure, bureaucracy and programs that cost more than tax revenues collected will lead to borrowing money from individuals or other nations.  Once in debt, the nation is no longer completely free.

If it is a violation of Natural law to place oneself into bondage, is it not also a violation - and perhaps a more serious violation - of Natural law to place another into bondage?  When a man borrows money he sells his personal liberty.  When a man with a family borrows money he sells not only his own freedom, but the freedom of every member of his family.  And a man may borrow money without the consent of his wife or children.  That he MAY do it does not make it right to do.  When that man dies, his debt descends on his family members.  They become liable to repay it, regardless of the benefit they may or may not have received and despite the fact that they were not involved in deciding to borrow the money.

We could say - and I do say - that such action is immoral.

Now, when a government decides to borrow money, all its subjects become liable to repay the debt.  (This, of course, assumes that all subjects pay taxes.)  It sells not only its sovereignty, but the individual liberty of every subject.  If the debt is too great to repay before the next generation of citizens reaches the age of majority, then that debt is passed on to those who had no say in whether or not to borrow the money.  In effect and in reality the government has then sold the children of its subjects into slavery - a state in which they will work for the benefit of another without the opportunity to "opt out".

This is the basis for my opposition to increasing our national debt ceiling.  We do not have the right to enslave our children. 

It is immoral.

What's Good For The Goose...

President Obama has recently declared that the "highest levels" of the Iranian government must be held responsible for the recently discovered plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

He made this absolute statement while recognizing that those high level officials might not have known the full extent of the plan or the operational details.  His assumption is that, as president of Iran, the buck stops at Ahmedinejad. 

I think he is right.  The president of a country is ultimately responsible for the actions of his appointed officials. 

Will Mr. Obama hold himself to that same standard with regard to "Fast and Furious"?

Signs, Signs. Everywhere There's Signs...

I'm not a person who looks for signs from God.  But I'm not past seeing them when they're put right in front of me.

In 1994 I was in love with Tina Wells.

I'd met her in a bus station in the Canadian capital of Ottawa the year before.  I'd gotten to know her and was to the point that, not only did I want to marry someone like her, I wanted to marry her!

And marriage is a big deal.  I wanted to be as sure as I could that I was not going to make a mistake.  And so I prayed and I pondered.  Then I pondered and prayed.

Then, one day I was driving in Walnut Creek, California.  Tina had been on my mind for a long time and marrying her had been in my heart almost constantly for the previous two days.  I came to the intersection of Ygnacio Valley Road and North Main Street and something happened that had never happened before, and has only happened once since.

I caught the red light there and stopped my car.  I was the first car at the intersection.  I had a clear view of the building on the northwest corner of the intersection.  There was a great little pizza parlor - and I love pizza, and there was a cool mountaineering shop where I'd bought a lot of the gear I owned.  I'd seen each of them many times before, yet I'd never noticed the tiny shop sandwiched between them.

The sign in the window said "Wells Interiors".  I took that for my sign and resolved to do whatever I had to so that I could marry Tina and make her happy for the rest of her life.

That was more than 17 years ago.  And we've had ups, downs, and an absolutely wonderful marriage.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about what makes a wonderful marriage and specifically what makes my marriage wonderful.  It's a thought that has been on my mind, especially as I've worked and traveled so much in the last 2 years.

This fall, my work brought me back to Walnut Creek and I found myself at the intersection, stopped - the first car at that red light - for the second time in my life.

I'd noticed some years ago that my mountaineering shop, pizza parlor, and Wells Interiors had been torn down and replaced with a modern office building.  I was a little sad in a nostalgic way, but I'd never noticed much more about it.  Now, as I sat at the light I looked closely and read the sign that now stands about where my sign had been.

It reads, "Fidelity".

Thank you, Tina....