Thoughts from the Middle

School Prayer and Christianity

By Robert Fischer

 

I had planned to write my next article on the influence of the dollar and political decisions.  However, two days ago, I received a forwarded email from a former high school classmate and friend.  The email she forwarded was a well written piece regarding the states of Maryland, Michigan and Arizona.  The author noted that these states were allowing Muslim students to prayer at school, something that the author says Christian students weren’t allowed to do.  The article went on to make claims about the Muslim prayer and prayer day in the United States.  I couldn’t let the comments go without correcting the author’s misstatements.  I wrote the following:

 

I’ve been concerned about the misconceptions regarding religion for a number of years.  This email confirms that truths do not always tell the full story.  First, let’s remember that our founding fathers were concerned about religious persecution.  That’s why they included “freedom of religion” in our Constitution.  We are all “free” to believe whatever we wish regarding God, creation and the universe.  As a former school board member and President, I am very familiar with the school prayer issue.  At one time I had two board members who wanted to start each board meeting with a prayer.  A third member, an ordained minister, was asked what type of prayer we should offer given the diversity of opinions in our community and the Supreme Court decision regarding prayer.  He jokingly suggested it might start with “To whom it may concern,” or “thoughts to the universe.”

 

In  1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school “sponsored” prayer was a violation of the spirit of the Constitution.  It did not make it illegal for students to pray as individuals.  Students are free to pray alone or in groups during the school day as long as it does not disrupt school activities.  As for the Maryland, Michigan, Arizona references to allowing Muslims to pray at school, while true, it is also true that Christians and others may pray or meditate.

 

Presidents Truman’s and Reagan’s prayer day recognized prayer, not a specific religion. Citizens are free to observe that day just as they observe others.   It is not true that Obama declared the US no longer a Christian nation (325,000,000 Americans, over 220,000,000 self-declared Christians}.  And, he did not dismiss the 21^st Annual National Day of prayer.  Whether Muslim Prayer Day was observed in Washington D.C. near the Capitol Building should not be an issue.  Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.  Muslims may observe prayer day wherever they wish.  Obama did not take part in this event. Claims that Obama encouraged schools to teach the Quran were posted on social media in 2016, but no major/credible news source ever reported on such an event!    This type of undocumented information has no place in a civil discussion!

 

Our nation has an overwhelming majority of Christians.  The faith is not threatened by those who believe in other gods or no gods.  As a” recovering” Catholic, I believe that today’s Christianity is threatened by its own failure to continue to evolve.  Christianity was not a static religion.  It started with three very different approaches, James (Jewish/Jesus/works movement); Peter’s Christian/Roman church approach and Paul’s Salvation movement.  It took centuries of infighting and bloodshed for the early church to develop the theology of the Council of Nicaea.  It was centuries later that Luther and others challenged the Catholic approach.  I personally will not challenge anyone who has found peace in their belief system.  However, I don’t want them to force their opinions on me!

 

Thoughts from the Middle

He Said, She Said—

By Robert Fischer

Several weeks ago a last minute introduction of an accusation of sexual assault concerning Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh started something bigger than most Americans clearly understand.  Dr. Christine Blasé-Ford, a credible witness, accused a former classmate of sexual assault when she was 15 and he was 18.  After years of service on the federal bench and having completed what most thought was a thorough vetting process, Kavanaugh, had been assured of approval given the political makeup of the Senate.

What do we make of this situation?  There were three issues at play in this drama– politics, individual rights, and the recent “me too” movement.  What does each contribute to the dilemma?

First, consider the political environment.  Partisan politics has become more bipolar than it has been for many decades.  Republicans are enjoying having control of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, and relish their further option of shifting the Judicial branch to a conservative perspective.  In consideration of the move to get as many conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court, the Senate previously blocked President Barrack Obama’s nominee from appointment in order to allow the next President to make the appointment.  They were successful, and President Trump appointed his first conservative Supreme Court judge.  Then the second appointment was stalled by an accusation that benefited the Democrats.  Their view was that by stalling the appointment, they were not only gaining retribution for the Republicans blocking of the Obama appointment, but possibly gaining control over the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate following the November elections.  What was there to gain?  The Democrats really didn’t want a Supreme Court judge who has, in his written works, declared that a sitting President should not be questioned regarding his/her actions while in office.  By blocking the appointment, they hoped to buy time to swing the Senate away from the Kavanaugh appointment.

Second, individual rights have made the legal issue of “innocent until proven guilty” part of our culture.  Every accused person is presumed innocent, and. it is the duty of the accuser to prove that the accusation is “true.” Thus, in the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the probability of proving an alleged sexual assault was nil.  Dr. Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh was at a party, drunk, and took her to a bedroom, might have been provable through collaborative statements of others at the gathering.  However, no one except Dr. Ford and the accused will ever know what might or might not have happened in that bedroom.  Judge Kavanaugh had to be given the benefit of the doubt since there was no tangible proof of an assault.  Senator Collins, in her statement before the Senate on October 5, 2018, clearly showed her understanding of this principle.  However, if the judge lied to the Committee regarding his attendance at the party (or other behavior), he was a liar and should not have been considered suitable to serve on the Supreme Court.

Third, what about Dr. Ford’s accusations?  It is fortunate that the “me too” movement has again brought to light decades of treating a woman’s accusations as less credible than a man’s denial. Dr. Ford’s experience is far too similar to that of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings. The social values of the 1950s through 2000, regarding sexual assault and unwanted sexual advances, are slowly  changing.  Dr. Ford had no known ulterior motive for coming forward with her accusations.  The Senate Judiciary Committee generally found her to be a credible witness, with even President Trump stating that he found her testimony credible.  It is time that society fairly evaluates the way that some men have treated women sexually.   In today’s world, “No,” means “No”.  The old days of “No” means “maybe” or “yes” are gone.  However, the caveat still remains that while the complaint needs to be taken seriously, the presumption of innocence is still there.  There must be proof!  It can’t simply be a “He said, She said.” Accusations cannot be enough to convict!!

Thoughts from the Middle

Why All the Scare Tactics?

By

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

It seems that wherever we turn, the news is almost always negative—global warming, too many guns, too many big city murders, bad weather impacting millions, an influx of illegal immigrants set on killing us all, killer viruses, invasions of predatory insects, terrorist around every corner, and many other sensational headlines.  Is the United States really that dangerous?  I don’t think the facts support most of these exaggerations!  While the reports may be true for specific events, the overall impact is less than most of us are lead to believe.  The following will examine a few of the fears that are prominently promoted by our government officials and the media.

Crime

Does the average American need to worry about being a victim of crime?  No!  The statistics gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that overall crime has been decreasing over the past 20 plus years.

Weather

Do we need to be concerned about the millions in the path of destructive storms?  While weather-related disasters have been increasing for the past 100 years, the number of people dying from them has actually decreased.

Invasion of Illegal Immigrants

Are non-English speaking people invading our lands?  We certainly see more people who look different than most white Americans.  There are plenty of Hispanics, Indians, Middle Easterners, Asians, and others who are now here in the United States.  The irony is that most of the people we see are American citizens, some with several generations of family who have lived here for decades!  While illegal border crossings are an issue, the truth is that the number of illegals has declined over the past 2 decades.  Demographers have predicted that white Americans will be in the minority by 2024.  However, this is a function of past immigration policies encouraging Hispanics, Asians and others to immigrate.  It is also a function of the declining birth rate for white Americans.

 

 

Terrorists

After 9/11 many Americans came to believe that there were terrorists lurking everywhere.  We passed the Patriot Act which established the Department of Homeland Security.  We increased security at airports and other mass transit transfer points.  While there are certainly individuals and organizations that harbor ill will toward the United States, most of our mass casualty events have been the result of individual, non-terrorist attacks. With over 30,000 firearm related deaths each year, gun-related deaths exceed any violence associated with terrorism. Our own government tells us that our chance of dying in a terrorist attack is 1 in 20 million.  It may actually be that we have more to fear from our own right wing nationalists than from foreign terrorists.  These militia groups have disrupted numerous events over the past 20 years.

The Real Threats

The media and government entities have focused on the above as threats to our way of life, but the real threats are everyday occurrences.  Things like:

• impaired driving fatalities,
• texting while driving injuries and deaths,
• disease and illnesses that do not receive adequate attention and research funding,
• the growing gap between the wealthy and poor,
• the world growth in population,
• the increase in the number of elderly who need “warehousing” since we have failed to deal with the right to die issue,
• a growing problem with general literacy.

More people are injured by texting drivers than from gun violence. Annual gun deaths are over 30,000, but injuries from texting while driving are over 391,000 (3,400 result in death).

The class system in the United States is usually broken down into 3 categories—rich, middle class, and poor, which can be further divided in subcategories.  Within the rich category are the super-rich.  This group makes up approximately 1% of the population, or 320,000 individuals.  Their monthly income exceeds $300,000.   The middle class- middle class comprises 45% of the population (14,400,000) and earn between $60,000 to $75,000 per year.  The middle class- working class comprises 40% of the population (12,800,000), making $30,000 to $40,000 per year. The bottom tier, the poor, constitutes approximately 15% of the population (4,800,000).  They live below the poverty line with incomes ranging from $18,000 to $20,000 per year. The real secret is the emerging class of corporate elites who are multi billionaires.  While liberals and conservatives point fingers at each other, the real issue is globalization.  Companies can make the same product for lower costs in other parts of the world.  They are not willing to pay more to American workers.

The population of the world is now 6.5 billion.  By 2078 it is project to reach 13 billion.  If you are living in a low growth rate country, you don’t feel the pressure created by too many people and too few resources.  We do see the problems of mass starvation in countries where these conditions exist.  The problem can be addressed through birth control.  Unfortunately, there is little attention paid to this, probably our greatest challenge as a species. Although recent studies do indicate that there is hope in the future.

As our population in the United States ages, we are faced with the issue of how to care for the elderly who can no longer care for themselves.  The current solution is a home care system that allows for various types of nursing/supervision, depending on the person’s health.  Independent living is a choice for those who want to be free of the burdens associated with home ownership or rental.  Assisted living is a choice that allows those with limitations to have a care assistant when needed.  Full time nursing care is the third level, and often not a personal choice, but one made by family members.  These Individuals have reached a stage in life where their quality of life makes it difficult to see why life is being maintained. While Oregon, Washington and Vermont have specific laws regarding death with dignity, and Montana and New Mexico have legislation supporting that decision, most of the country does not address this important issue. Those who oppose euthanasia have probably never witnessed the suffering and extremely poor quality of life that many of our elderly experience.

Conclusions

Could it be that as consumers of news, we do not want to face these difficult problems.  Perhaps it is easier to consider the news headlines that are shocking, but have little to do with our own quality of life.

Thoughts from the Middle

Questioning America’s Greatness:

Poverty

By

Robert Fischer

 

I have always believed that America is the best country in the world.  So imagine how shocked I was to read an article that provided a brief overview of a December 15, 2017 report to the United Nations on poverty in America.  While I have never doubted that we had a portion of the population that was poor, the article not only confirmed this belief, but also indicated that it was much worse than I had imagined.  As a police officer in the 1970s, I saw poor neighborhoods and wondered why a nation so rich in so many ways was unable to solve the problems associated with poverty.  After reading the article, I decided to take a deeper look at the issue.  I still couldn’t believe that our nation might not be prosperous for the majority, as I had assumed.  I wondered what our humanitarian founding fathers would think of their great experiment in a democracy that was supposed to provide for the common good of all Americans.

Extreme Poverty in America – The UN Special Monitor’s Report – A Summary, (Alston, Philip, United Nations Report on the USA, December 15, 2017)

 

Philip Alston is the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.  He spent 10 days visiting the United States during the latter part of 2017.  During his visit he spoke to state and federal government officials, civil society organizations, and experts on American poverty.  He also talked with many homeless people and individuals living in extreme poverty.  What he saw and reported is more than sad, it is criminal.  For example, there are many people living in poverty who have lost all or most of their teeth because there is very limited dental care for the poor.  He also heard about the increasing number of deaths from opioids, possibly partially created by a broken health care system.  He saw people living next to mountains of coal ash which will likely cause illness and possibly premature death.  To quote Alston, “American exceptionalism was a constant theme in my conversations.  But instead of realizing its founders’ admirable commitments, today’s United States has proved itself to be an exception in far more problematic ways that are shockingly at odds with its immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights.  As a result, contrasts between private wealth and public squalor abound.”  Is Alston correct?  After all, he was only here for 10 days!

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Countries

This group of 39 countries was established following World War II with a goal of avoiding the mistakes that led to World Wars I and II.  The group’s primary purpose in 1948 (originally called the Organization for European Economic Cooperation) was the oversite of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe.  The group focused on the interdependence of economies.  Canada and the United States joined in 1960 and the OECD was officially created.  Japan joined in 1964, later joined by Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, South Africa, and Indonesia.  The 39 member countries currently account for 80% of the world’s trade and investments.

How Does America Compare to Other Developed Nations?

According to Philip Alston’s report

• The U.S. is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than the next 7 nations combined.
• We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare than the average of OECD countries. Yet, on the average, there are fewer doctors and hospital beds in the United States, compared to the other 39 prosperous nations.
• The mortality rate for infants is the highest in the developed world.
• On the average, we have shorter and less healthy lives than citizens of other developed countries.
• On the average, we have the highest obesity rate in the developed world
• The inequality between rich and poor is higher than that of our European counterparts.
• Our nation has an estimated 12 million people living with a neglected parasitic infection.
• We rank 36^th out of 39 in access to clean water and proper sanitation
• We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The rate is five times that of the average among OECD nations.
• Our youth poverty rate is the highest of the OECD nations. Twenty five percent of our youth are living in poverty, compared to 14% on average.
• Of the top ten wealthiest nations, we rank number 10 in wealth inequality, safety net protections, poverty and economic mobility. Of the OECD nations, we rank 35 out of 37.

Economic Policy and Poverty

While the present report from the United Nations is shocking, from an historical perspective, this isn’t the first time that the United States has seen disparity between the haves and have nots.  Even our founding fathers struggled with how to establish a system where the moneyed interests wouldn’t dominate policy.  Over the years, the influence of money has ebbed and flowed.  In recent history, it took Theodore Roosevelt to stand up to the big monopolies and bring balance to the economy.
And again, following the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt attacked the problems associated with poverty brought on by the gap between the rich and poor.  Following WW II, it appeared that nothing could stand in the way of American progress.  The working person earned a good wage and had a reasonable standard of living.  Many were living the American Dream.

But, by the 1990s the American Dream seemed to become more elusive.  It soon became a major topic in political discussions.    Working class wages seemed to stagnate, small rural communities were struggling, and the two income household became a necessity.  The blue collar jobs of major manufacturing were being replaced with growing automation.  While the corporate and stock holder incomes continued to climb, working family income was stagnating.  The corporate focus was on making money.  Good returns on investments didn’t square with increased salary and benefits for working families.

The irony was that the average American didn’t see big business as the problem.  Instead, they thought that It was big government and its entitlement programs.  Taxes were the problem.  Government was taking the hard earned dollar and giving it to the “lazy” poor and illegal immigrants. While many people blamed the government, they chose to avoid engagement – i.e., not voting.  By the mid-80s some called the non-voter the fastest growing party in America. (Burnham, 1982)

While the non-voters complained, the Republican Party focused on “open” Capitalism – free markets, and aggressive accumulation of wealth. Under Ronald Reagan, it was believed that wealth would “trickle down” to the working classes and improve their standard of living.  Thus they falsely believed the American Dream was alive.  The Democrats, also Capitalists, supported these same general economic principles. However, they also considered the Populist reaction to huge corporate profits and a growing gap between the corporate hierarchy and working persons.  The Democrats, traditionally liberal in their social thinking, chose to focus on moving the excess profits to the people. They emphasized the need to increase taxes on the wealthy for the common good of the country.

By the end of the 20^th Century, control of the political machinery was moving back toward the conservative “open” Capitalism.  The final blow came in 2010, in the Citizen’s United case, when the Supreme Court decided that corporations were in fact citizens and could contribute to political action committees (PACs).  Citizens United created a political environment where the wealthy now have undue influence over our elected officials. Tthe truth is that politics has always been influenced by money in one way or another, but not to this extent!  Our current President is a major player in the economic/political struggle in the 21^st Century.  His campaign focused on improving the economic status of the working person through increased support for “open” Capitalism.  The irony is that the working class which wanted more opportunity to build the American Dream, again bought into the “trickle down” economic argument. .  If unleashed Capitalism is the answer, they are for it.

The problem with this type of thinking is that “trickle down” economics hasn’t worked.  The current low unemployment figures and amazing growth in corporate investments does nothing to protect the working poor or the unemployed  The question might be “Who cares,” as long as the middle class is able to afford a decent standard of living.  We should all care if we believe that America was founded on the concept of the “common good.”

According to a 2016 study by Bankrate.com, 63% of Americans don’t have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency.  The Pew Charitable Trusts also reports that 1/3 of American families have no savings. Few have any type of plan for retirement.  The wonderful benefit programs for the working class have either disappeared or been dramatically modified so that the worker is paying a large portion of the costs.  Along with the changes by corporate America, the Trump administration is working to reduce government “entitlement” programs.  Food stamps, medical care, housing, education and support for those who are not working are being reduced or eliminated.  While I support the idea of workfare, I also realize that there are some who cannot work and need assistance. They should not be abandoned! According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 estimates, 3.1 million Americans (12.7%) live in poverty, and  eighteen million live in “deep poverty.” These are individuals who earn less than 50% of poverty level wages (Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016 Census Bureau, September 2017).

The parallels between Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Reagan’s “America is Back” are many.  The lessons of the 1980s under Reaganomics should not be forgotten.  The American people need to consider the current climate of economic inequity, and be actively involved in change.  Part of this effort needs to be getting rid of the “not voting party.”  Our founding fathers believed in the common good for all, not a social structure that would be controlled by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy.

 

 

Thoughts from the Middle

The Constitution

Article II

Presidential Powers

By

Robert J. Fischer

 

Introduction

According to the news during the last few days, the lawyers for the President seem to be saying that the Chief Executive has almost unlimited powers—pardoning, immunity from prosecution, control of our jurisprudence, etc.  They claim that he may even have the authority to pardon himself.  What does the Constitution actually say about Presidential power?

The Constitution

It is important to remember that the writers of the Constitution wanted balance among the three branches of government.  Balance meant that each area had certain responsibilities which included monitoring the other two branches.

Section 1 simply spells out the terms of office and the electoral process.  The language was changed by the 12^th Amendment which established our current electoral system.  This section also established the requirements for the Office.  Today, only a natural born citizen can be President.  He/she must be 35 years of age and have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.  This section also sets out the procedure for replacing the President should she/he be unable to complete the elected term.  The salary of the President is discussed.  In addition, it states that the President cannot receive any other Emolument. Finally, it sets out the Oath of Office.

Section 2 sets of the powers of the President.  (1) The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, including the Militia when called into actual service of the United States.  (2) The President may require each Executive Department Head to provide opinions on requested topics relating to their respective offices.  (3) The President may also grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except for Impeachment.  (4) The President also has the power to enter into treaties with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate.  (5) The President nominates ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, judges for the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States as established by law.  These appointments must be approved by the Senate.  The President also has the power to fill vacancies without the consent of Congress when they are not in session.  These appointments expire at the end of the Senate’s next session.

Section 3 provides that the President shall give the Congress information through a State of the Union message and recommend policy.  The President has the power to call Congress into session at extraordinary times and may adjourn them when he/she thinks proper.  The President will receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.  The President will also make sure that the Laws are faithfully executed.  Lastly, the President shall commission all Officers of the United States.

Section 4 provides for the removal of the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States through the Impeachment process for the following reasons:  treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Power from Executive Responsibilities

As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has broad powers that allow for the conduct of government business.  The President can issue rules, regulations and other orders (executive orders).  As a routine these orders do not require Congressional Approval, but are subject to Judicial Review.

The President has also been granted budget power by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.  While the President prepares the budget, Congress must approve it.

The President also has the power to veto Congressional legislation.  All legislation must be signed by the President before it becomes law.

The President is also the leader of the Party and while not true power, the position holds great power over public opinion.

The President may also have Emergency Powers if granted by the Congress.

While Executive Privilege was not given to the President in the Constitution, President George Washington claimed the privilege during his presidency.  Washington created the precedent for executive privilege.    President Nixon claimed executive privilege during the Watergate scandal.  The Supreme Court did not agree with his claim, saying that the “fair administration of justice” outweighed the President’s interest.  The Supreme Court affirmed its position when President Bill Clinton attempted to use the privilege during the Lewinski affair.

Claims of Presidential Power by President Trump’s Administration

Although the powers given to the President are broad, they are also defined (as noted above) in our Constitution or through legislation passed over the years.  The various claims of power to fire Special Counsels do not seem to have much support in our Constitution.  While the President does have the power of appointment of cabinet positions, tradition does not support the President’s reach beyond the Agency Heads.  The President may order an agency head to terminate an employee.  However, the termination is completed by the agency head.

Can the President pardon himself?  I suppose in an absurd way he could pardon himself for criminal behavior, but he has no authority to pardon himself if he is impeached.

It appears that the current President has been “stretching” the limits of the Constitutional powers .  While other presidents have claimed greater powers (Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman) these men were presidents during times of great national and world conflicts.  This time of Trump’s presidency is not one of those times.

Thoughts from the Middle

Civics Education

By

Robert Fischer

 

Like many of you, I have been busy with life!  Lawns need to be mowed, flower beds cleaned, etc.  However, it is time to think about some of the more important things in life outside of family, friends, and home.

Introduction

How many of you have taken time to read our Constitution?  If you were lucky, you were probably required to become familiar with at least parts of it when you were in either junior high or high school.  You may have even taken a Constitution exam in order to graduate.  I’m not too sure how many of us remember what we were taught, and actually practice good civic involvement.  I am even more concerned that the younger generations, who had less exposure to civics, are letting our democracy slide into the hands of the few.  What has happened to civics education and citizen activism?

A Brief History

Our founding fathers envisioned a democratic nation where the average citizen participated in the election of representatives who voted their constituents’ views.  They repeatedly stated their belief that a public education to prepare our youth for active participation in our self-government was essential to the survival of a healthy democracy.  Citizens should be able to debate using critical thinking.  Name calling and “one lane” thinking were not considered to be valuable skills!  They wanted our educational system to teach responsible engagement in government affairs.

George Washington said, “A primary object . . . should be the education of our youth in the science of government.  In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important?  And what duty more pressing . . . than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?” Thomas Jefferson believed that an educated population was essential to keeping the government in check.  He said, “ I know of no safe depositor of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion [freedom of choice], the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.  This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Civics Education Today

Our founders wanted not only an electorate that would understand the concepts of self-government, but who also could be critical in their thinking, and able to debate issues with passion–  not anger.  One sided belief was not good for the country.  Fifty years ago, it was not uncommon for American high schools to have three civics oriented courses.  (http://neatoday.org/2014/90/02/the-testing-obsession-and-the-disapperaing-curriculum-2/)

Today, most schools only have one civics course.  All 50 states require some form of government class; however, many of these offerings are nothing more than preparations for state mandated constitution tests.  The attention is on rote memorization rather than meaningful interaction with the subject matter.  Students should be required (or at least encouraged) to look at pending legislation, learn to debate (seeing both sides of an issue), study superior and Supreme Court decisions and their impact, and perhaps volunteer for community activities.  The students at Parkland and their supporters are certainly getting a hands on experience! They are to be commended.

What Can Be Done?

The National Education Associates suggests the following actions:

• Provide formal instruction in government, our history, and democracy that is more than rote memorization to pass a Constitution test.
• Include discussion of current events in classroom discussions.
• Find ways to allow students to experience what they learn in the classroom – e.g., simulated elections and debates.
• Encourage community involvement.
• Expand the role of student government organizations. Give them real issues and real power to find solutions.
• Support teachers who talk about politics and current events.

Unless we provide the information and tools needed to make our democracy work, we will end up losing that which we cherish most — our freedom.

Thoughts from the Middle

 

The Confused Twenty-first century American

by

Robert Fischer

 

 

Who’s confused?  Not Ricky “The Rock” Nemo, former navy seal and now a defensive tactics instructor at the federal law enforcement training center.  The Rock could handle anything.  Yet, he had his concerns.  Not fears mind you, but concerns.  There were mixed messages in the news like keeping his cholesterol in balance; his blood pressure under control, how much coffee was really good for him and now cancer from salmon.  How much wine should he drink to help prevent high cholesterol without becoming an alcoholic? And then there was his government, which over the past two years has promoted the fear of illegal immigrants, and possible terrorist cells  operating in his backyard.  The terrorists could be from international organizations or they might be home grown nuts.  Who could you trust?  That’s a good one.  Everywhere the Rock turned there were advertisements and news reports that played on the fear factor. 

 

What ever happened to the good old days when Americans drank milk and ate steaks, eggs and bacon without fear?  Life certainly seemed simpler then.

 

In today’s news, reporting includes commentary and opinion on almost every major event, and commercials promise many fixes to all types of ailments.  And if that weren’t bad enough, the events are covered on multiple media sources with pundits who sometimes spin the stories to a point where they are no longer recognizable.

 

It seems as if those we used to trust with providing us with information about the world we live in have turned against us, with the intent of keeping us in a continual state of confusion.  Why?  I’m sure that it has something to do with ratings, as well as our own perverse interest in war, murder, and other types of mayhem. (“If it bleeds, it leads!”)

 

Still, wouldn’t it be nice if the news were reported in the manner of Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Merle?  And won’t it be nice if  we could trust our politicians  again, like we did before Watergate, Arms for Hostages, the Iraq misinformation war, and the more recent issues relating to the 2^nd amendment, and Russian collusion in our election.

 

How do we go about restoring that which we have lost?    What can we do to get our news sources back to reporting news honestly and reporting  all the news, not just things that promote company agendas or a drive for ratings?

 

First, an historical footnote.  While many of us lament the growth of social media sources and pundits, a look into our history makes it abundantly clear that political favoritism or promotion of editor positions has been with us since before the formation of the United States.  The big difference is that most consumers of information knew the sources were biased, or publications were clearly marked as editorials.  Of course, there were exceptions, such as when someone using a pseudo name wrote a less than truthful letter to the editor concerning political opponents.

 

Our founding fathers believed that in order for our democracy to succeed, the country needed an educated and informed citizenry. At that time, Information was provided by newspapers and pamphlets.  Later radio, magazines, and television became part of the dissemination process.  Today, we add social media through the internet and cellphone.

 

Today we live in a world where the information available is greater than ever.  At the touch on a keypad or a query to Contina or Siri, we can have a potential answer to almost any question. This technology makes it possible to do research without visiting a library.  However, people must learn to evaluate the sources that they use in their research.

 

The sad truth is that most readers are not critical of the material that they consume.  Some just don’t have the time to consider that there might be alternative views, or that the facts might not support the their conclusions.  Others are just happy to read something that supports their own views.  And there are still others who might want to critically review their reading, but do not know how to go about it.

 

In today’s world of “fake news,” we all need to be skeptical.  We should all be asking for evidence that supports the materials that we read..  If you are interested in the truth, try the following popular sites:  www.snopes.com, www.factcheck.org, www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/, and www.politifact.com.

 

A few simple suggestions may also help.  Remember that opinion pieces are usually not entirely factual. Questions to be asked include:  Is the story believable? (Does it seem to present something that doesn’t make sense?)  Are quotes taken out of context? Is the story looking at the future?  (Articles that discuss what might be in the future can’t be taken as fact.) Who is the news source?  (Are you reading someone’s blog or an established publication with years of recognized reporting?) Are alternative points of view noted? (If you are only getting one side of the argument, you need to look for opposition options.)  Look for the reporting of facts.  Don’t accept some pundits interpretation.

 

I would suggest that whatever your political leaning, you need to read a variety of articles from both the left and right.  The truth is possibly closer to the middle. Also, don’t disregard the main stream press.  Network news, news magazines and newspapers that have been long established are still generally reliable sources. They have been here a long time.  Experience in reporting is a plus.  However,  the interpretation of facts by pundits and the 24 hour news cycle has made it more difficult to determine the real facts.

 

Good luck!

 

 

 

Thoughts from the Middle

To Vote for Freedom

Robert James Fischer

Over the past few weeks I have been cleaning old file boxes.  In a box from my high school days I found a booklet distributed in my hometown by the Liberty Trust & Saving Bank.   The final page contained an article entitled “To Vote for Freedom.”  This short article is worth sharing.  Today, many Americans seem to have come to take our freedoms for granted.  This attitude has allowed interest groups (Political Action Committees, corporations, labor organizations, and other interest groups) to fill the void. The article is as follows.  I have taken the liberty of editing the article for clarity.

Most of us who can vote have plenty of other things to do on Election Day. We’re busy, too, on the other days when decisions affecting our health, security, welfare and taxes are being made—with or without our help—by the people who are elected.  Besides, we may feel that “one vote can’t make any difference” or that “politicians are all alike.”  But no matter how we explain it, the fact remains that voting intelligently is work, and however important that work may be, “it’s a free country;” there’s nobody around to make us do it.

Yes, it’s a free country—for one reason, because about half the people who can vote do take the time and make the effort to prepare themselves and go to the polls.  Freedom survives and grows today through the personal efforts of the dedicated in every nation.  We’re free because some of the first Americans believed strongly enough in the people and cared enough about the future to establish the principle of equality in representative government and then set out to make it work.

The experiment they started is still going on, and the issue is by no means decided.  Its challenge to each new generation is to seek and earn the privileges of freedom anew by living up to the responsibilities of free citizens. In a world much dominated by fear, poverty, and despotism, perhaps it behooves all of us Americans to vote for freedom by—

• Learning more about how our system works to give Americans the highest living standard, the greatest opportunities and the most freedom of any people on earth.
• Discovering and supporting those measures that resolve public issues in ways that work best for everyone. (Compromise, not confrontation.)
• Finding and supporting the candidacy of persons whom we can expect to work for all of the people if elected or re-elected to public office, and then voting for them! (Humans, not corporations/organizations.)

I suggest you follow your elected legislator’s voting record.  Are they representing your interests??  For a list of your federal legislators, see www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.

 

Thoughts from the Middle

“We the People”

Our Youth are Leading the Way!

By

Robert James Fischer

While most Americans are familiar with the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, many have not really considered what these words mean.  I often hear people complain about government.  It might be the state government which fails to fix state highways, pass meaningful gun control legislation, or local units of government tax people too much.  What we seem to have forgotten is the simple fact that we are the government.  “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Founding Fathers did not define “people.”  They didn’t need to.  These Founding Fathers, acting on behalf of the “people” of the British colonies, declared independence.  The Declaration of Independence acknowledged that the source of our statement of independence was the “people.”  The people inherited all the rights associated with the King and Parliament, as well as through the application of common law.  The People declared the law and held the authority to modify that law in the future.  This statement is supported by Amendment X.  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

While we are the “people,” citizenship is defined in Amendment XIV.  “All persons born or naturalized in the United State(s) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Citizenship is important to the federal government in that it makes citizens subject to the federal jurisdiction.  What does this mean?  In simple terms, it means that federal laws are binding on citizens.  However, since “We the People” are the government, it is possible to change the law.  Government by the majority has now been clarified from a Constitutional point of view.  As a citizen, you are subject to government jurisdiction.

For example, as persons (people), we have the right to own a gun.  However, the government may set limits on gun ownership subject to definition and regulation.  As another example, you have the right to travel.  However, as a citizen you may not travel by automobile unless you are licensed.

Still, the regulation of citizens is by the government.  Who is the government?  It is us!  While we do not have a pure democracy in the United States, where each person’s vote counts in all decisions, we do have a representative democracy.  (Whether it works as conceived by our Founding Fathers is a subject for a future discussion.)  The point of this piece is that as “We the People,” we have a responsibility to speak out and elect representatives who reflect our values.  When we fail to vote, we are giving up our right to govern.  In Presidential election years, no more than 60% of us vote.  In off election years the percentage drops to less than 40%.  We have no right to complain about government if we fail to make our opinions known.

Currently, a major issue is gun legislation.  Our youth are doing what the Founding Fathers believed was their duty.  They are speaking out about gun legislation and will, as they become of age, vote according to their views.  Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of Americans support some type of legislation to ensure safe gun use.  This might include universal background checks, strict training standards for gun ownership, or banning certain types of weapons or accessories.  If all of these people, young to old, vote according to their views, their goals could be realized.

However, even if voted in as purported supporters of gun control legislation, after they are elected many legislators seem to avoid serious discussions and fail to vote for pro-gun control bills, because the National Rifle Association contributes large sums of money to their campaigns. This once great organization has been a political lobby group for the minority since the mid-1970s.  It is time that this outside monetary influence ends.  We the People need to take control again. Know how your representatives and senators vote on issues like gun control.   VOTE!! And if addition, call/email/write letters to your legislators regarding your stand on this issue and other issues that are important to you!

Thoughts from the Middle

 

What Keeps Congress from Passing Sensible Gun Legislation?

Robert James Fischer

March 2018

 

On February 18, 2018, ABC News “This Week” reported that since Sandy Hook, 400 people in 200 schools had been shot. As the weeks pass since the last mass shooting, the discussions continue over how to prevent these tragedies.    From my point of view, the answer isn’t that complicated.  While I’m a gun owner, I do not support unrestricted rights to own whatever weapons

 

Guns

 

How many guns do all of the people in the entire world own?  According to a 2007 study by the Geneva Graduate Institute for International Studies, there are 650 million privately owned guns worldwide.  Of that number, 270 million are owned by Americans. In other words, American own 41.5% of all guns in the world. Furthermore, there are almost 4.5million new guns purchased each year in the United States.  That is equivalent to 50% of the 8 million new guns produced annually worldwide.  Similar figures are reported by the U. S.  Congressional Research Service.  In 2009, they reported that 310 million guns are owned by Americans.  Of this number 114, million were handguns, 110 million rifles, 86 million shotguns and 1.5 million assault style rifles.

 

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

While I have written on the 2^nd Amendment in the past, some of the information is worth repeating.  First, most supporters of the unrestricted right to bear arms fail to note the opening clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”  There is a failure to realize that our founding fathers did not intend to have an open ended right to “keep and bear” arms.  Saul Cornell, Chair of the American History Department at Fordham University, recently reminded us of this historical truth.  Dr. Cornell has been researching gun regulation as it relates to our founding fathers for over 20 years.  His research supports the idea that the writers of our Constitution believed in the need for an armed population, but they also supported gun regulation.  The following sums up the regulations of that time.

 

Registration

 

All colonies, soon to be states, enrolled their citizens in the militia.  Those enrolled reported their privately owned weapons, as required for militia service.  There were often fines associated for reporting to militia duty without a working, well-maintained firearm.

 

Public Carry

 

Since our colonies were part of the British Empire, the newly created states (and thus the United States) inherited English Common Law.  To date, Common Law has continued to exist within many of our states.  In Common Law, armed travel was restricted.  It was generally only allowed when assisting justice officials.  Members of the ruling class could also request exceptions.  Concealed carry was not allowed.  There was no general right to travel with firearms– especially concealed– at the time the 2^nd Amendment was passed.  Twenty years later, as hand guns became more readily available, some states began to loosen regulations as murder rates began to increase.

 

Deadly Force

 

Common Law allowed for the use of deadly force only in the protection of the home—known as the Castle doctrine.  Common law set a standard of retreat.  Deadly force was justified ONLY when there was no other alternative.  There was NO “stand your ground!”

 

Safe Storage

 

In our nation’s early years, there were laws which prohibited the storage of loaded firearms in any domestic dwelling within a city.  This was a practical law, since the black powder used in these firearms is corrosive, as well as explosive in the event of a fire.

 

Protection from Tyranny

 

While there is some truth to the idea that the 2^nd Amendment implied a concern over governmental tyranny, the facts indicate that the tyranny was considered to be  external.  We had just defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world.  In addition, we also had other powerful nations as neighbors, including Spain and France.  The truth is that we needed an armed militia to protect us from these external threats, not our citizens.  Because there were still British loyalists among the population, our Founding Fathers asked those who were part of the militia to swear a loyalty oath.  If the citizen refused, their firearm was confiscated.  The Constitution defines taking up arms against the government as treason!

 

The NRA

 

A Brief History

 

The organization was founded in 1871 by William Church, editor of the Army and Navy Journal, and Captain George Wingate, a Civil War officer.  Union General Ambrose Burnside was elected as its first President.  The organization was founded to improve marksmanship training in the United States. To further its goals, the NRA opened its own firearms range and published a marksmanship manual.  It also organized amateur rifle clubs.  Several other distinguished Generals have served as President, including Ulysses S. Grant and Philip Sheridan.

 

In 1934, the organization supported the National Firearms Act, the first federal gun-control legislation passed by the United States.  NRA President, Karl Frederick, testified, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons.  I seldom carry one.   .. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns.  I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”  Thirty-two years later, the NRA also supported the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), creating federal licensing of gun dealers and restricting certain classes of firearms.

 

The group continued to focus on sportsmen, hunters and marksmen.  As a very young man, I remember the American Rifleman, and hunting courses sponsored by the group.  The NRA was considered by most gun owners as representative of our interests.

 

The Modern NRA

 

In 1975, a number of NRA gun rights activists, who had been upset by the GCA language restricting classes of firearms, started a campaign to “take over” the organization.  They were ultimately successful.  What became known as the Cincinnati Revolution of 1977 changed the leadership of the organization and its mission.  From that point forward, the NRA has focused on political issues with the goal of weakening the GCA.  In 1986 the NRA was successful in getting Congress to pass the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA).  This legislation established protection of firearms owners from confiscation of their firearms. The group has also sought to limit the powers of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATFJ). For example, they have opposed ATF’s efforts to trace guns to owners electronically.    In 1994, the group failed to stop the passage of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB).  However, they blocked its renewal in 2004.  In 2005, the group successfully pushed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevents firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when their guns are used in a crime.  They have also been active in fighting city laws restricting firearms, suing Chicago and San Francisco over their restrictive bans on firearms.

 

Two decades ago, Fortune magazine reported that the NRA was the most powerful lobbying organization in the United States.    According to Lee Drutman of the Sunlight Foundation, in 2012, 88% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats in Congress had received NRA contributions at some point during their career.  A full report on recent contributions is available from Aaron Williams, The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/ .  According to Williams’ study, 48 Senators (out of 100), and 283 Representative (out of 435) received direct funding from the NRA.  Only 15 Democrats received funding.  His figures do not include money spent by the NRA PAC in support of candidates.  The New York Times reports the top ten recipients of NRA support including PAC contributions, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-  The list includes the following:  John McCain ($7,740,521), Richard Burr ($6,986,620), Roy Blunt ($4,551,146), Thom Tillis ($4,418,012), Cory Gardner ($3,879,064), Marco Rubio ($3,303,355), Joni Ernst $3,124,273), Rob Portman ($3,061,941), Todd Young ($2,896,732), and Bill Cassidy ($2,861,047).

 

In 2008, the NRA spent $10 million opposing the election of Barack Obama.  In 2016, the NRA spent a total of $412 million for political causes.  And this does not include dollars from its Political Action Committee.

 

The Good Side

 

While the issues presented in the last section are bothersome, the NRA continues to do many good things.  Among them are  the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia and the National Sporting Arms Museum in Springfield, Missouri.  They also continue to support many firearms safety and firing range programs.  The group also maintains ties with the Boy Scouts of America and 4-H.

 

 

Who Does the NRA Represent Today?

 

While I supported the NRA’s objectives when I was a young man, I can no longer support its current initiatives.  I’m not the only one.  After Dana Loesch, NRA spokesperson, presented an NRA ad statement in July condemning our media, schools, and celebrities (and repeated this month in another ad). An NRA member and Marine Corps veteran  said, “I’m looking at this and, you know, just thinking that this isn’t me, this organization which I belonged to for a number of years is coming out in such a dark, hostile and fear-provoking way. I was just, like, I’m done.”

 

The Board of Directors, which guides the organization, is composed of 76 members.  These 75 individuals choose the president, vice president, executive vice president, secretary, and treasurer.  Most nominees for the Board are vetted by a 9 member Nominating Committee.  The process is not public.  MSNBC has called the group “kingmakers.”  Only 7% of eligible members, out of a claimed membership of 4 million, vote.

 

A 2017 poll conducted by the PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, reported that less than 40% of gun owners polled believed the NRA represented their interests.  Sixty-seven percent agreed with the statement that the organization had been “overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost it original purpose and mission.”  A 2013 study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, reported that 84% of gun owners supported universal background-check systems for all gun sales.  Seventy-four percent of NRA members also supported this system.  This was not the position of the NRA organization.  William Cummings of USA Today reports that the NRA is projecting an “vision of American life that encourages the NRA’s fans to see liberals… as monsters.”

 

My Conclusions

 

The NRA of my youth needs to re-establish its control over the organization.  Leadership and membership need to recognize the original charter and the direction followed between 1871 and 1977, a 106 year legacy.  The NRA is out of touch with the reality of gun ownership, particularly when it comes to assault style weapons.

 

In past posts and comments, I have discussed the disconnect between the logic that “guns don’t kill” and the deaths of thousands of people.  People with guns kill!  Guns of the type that are now prevalent in this country are not needed by anyone other than our military.  A gun is a tool.  In my mind there are 3 purposes for gun “tools” – hunting, safety, and military.  Our great grandparents and grandparents knew this, and used these tools to hunt or to protect their homes.  In addition, there were weapons used in war.   A good shotgun is better protection in a home invasion than a semiautomatic weapon.  Hunters don’t need semi-automatic weapons.  In fact, most game laws do not even allow the use of automatic assault style weapons when hunting.

 

Gun regulation and ownership can and do exist side by side.  Sensible gun laws should be enacted!!  We must restrict semiautomatic, assault style weapons!  Other countries have been successful in reducing deaths by gun.  We can make this happen here. It is likely that the number of gun related crimes will decrease as well as the number of gun related homicides. Most Americans are not asking gun owners to give up their guns.  They only want reasonable and responsible ownership with regulation.