Apology to Mia Love

The British philosopher Antony Flew conceptualized the “No True Scotsman” argument in 1975. The presentation of this logical fallacy often takes an appearance similar to this exchange:

Paul: All Scotsmen wear kilts.

Lauren: My uncle, Duncan Machaggis, is a Scotsman and he doesn’t wear a kilt.

Paul: Well, all true Scotsmen wear kilts.

The latter party attempts to refute evidence against a universal claim in a manner that has no foundation in reason: by making the claim a prerequisite, or necessary qualifier, to the subject at hand.

So from the Left, I’ll offer an apology to Ludmya “Mia” Love.

Ms. Love is the mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, and the GOP’s candidate in the state’s 4^th Congressional District. She is an African-American of the Mormon faith, and for those reasons her Wikipedia page was vandalized after her base-pleasing speech at the Republican National Convention.

The edited remarks in question were heinous – not something you’d say in front of your mother, your spouse or even as drunken banter in a barroom.

An aside – Ms. Love’s post-RNC money bomb is likely to be inflated as a result of this character assault. Thanks, guys. Way to help the team.

  

I won’t say no true Democrat would ever stoop to such levels – even though the Democratic Party's platform is a model of tolerance and inclusion. I will say the anonymous actors were cowards, operating behind the Invisibility Cloak of the Internet, and that they do not represent the party's views. 

Regrettably, these vile attacks are not limited to the extreme Right of the political spectrum – and this is part of the larger problem. How can we expect our elected officials to reach solutions when we use epithets and slurs to criticize the opposition? Our civil discourse has degraded into uncivil disses.

The Left ought to embrace the policy chasm between the parties to iterate our argument. Use facts, numbers, quotes, studies, reports, evidence and reason. There’s more than enough on our side – believe me.

Here’s a taste:

  

House Majority PAC Ad

Partial transcript: “On the Saratoga Springs City Council, Love voted to raise property taxes three times, up 116 percent in one year, and allowed spending to nearly double. And as mayor, Love took a 30 percent pay increase. If you like how she raised taxes in Utah, you’ll love Mia Love in Congress.”

Some may note that I'm potentially making a “false equivalency” argument here – that while left-wing extremists vandalize Wikipedia pages, Republican extremists attend conventions, and, too often, occupy seats in Congress or run for the Presidency. But I digress.

The point is that there is no room in a just society for ad hominem assaults on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed and the like. By anyone, for any reason.

A Republican President freed the slaves.

A Democratic President signed the Civil Rights Act.

Both sides have been part of the solution in the past – Democrats should not become part of the problem, in any way, shape, or form.

Let’s return to the good old days when Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan would knock back a few beers, and the only peanuts thrown were shells on a barroom floor.

It's the Economy, Stupid: Manufacturing.

The series comparing Obama/Romney's records and plans for different sectors of the economy continues with manufacturing - an industry I've got a lot more knowledge on than agriculture.

Available at:

http://www.allthingsdemocrat.com/2012/08/its-the-economy-stupid-manufacturing/

Future topics include:

-Energy

-Taxes

-Regulation

-Deficit Reduction

-Health Care

And anything else I can think of/care to write about. Feel free to comment and leave suggestions!

Atlas Debunked: Private Charity vs. Government Assistance

On CNN’s Your Money this weekend, Christine Romans ran a segment attempting to reconcile the economic and philosophical views of Ayn Rand. Her guest, Stephen Moore, was palpably elated to be included in the discussion of his self-proclaimed favorite book. Moore took no issue with Republicans cherry-picking Rand’s economic views while denouncing her avid atheism. He characterized Atlas Shrugged as a contemporary to the state of our economy – struggling, and hemorrhaging from the stabs of a failing government pulling out all the stops trying to fix it.

Some brief background on Stephen (no relation to Michael):

• Senior economist on team that developed the Armey flat tax in 1995;
• Member of Wall Street Journal Editorial Board;
• Founder of Club for Growth, which invented the “RINO Watch” list;
• Co-Founder of Free Enterprise Fund, which lobbied to privatize Social Security and repeal the estate tax.

After his spiel, Romans deftly noted that Rand leaves no room for morality or God in her books. Moore’s response ventured into the realm of the unreal as he chimes a popular Republican talking point: private solutions work better than public ones.

Moore:  “[…] conservatives believe you should help your fellow men, you should be charitable. The issue is whether the government should compel you to do it or whether government charity works better than private charity.

I would make the case, you know, give your money to the Salvation Army, not to the food stamp program.” (emphasis added)

Moore’s hardly alone in criticizing the efficiency of government-run programs. To justify turning Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers over to the states (with funding cuts), Mitt Romney demonized the high costs added by Washington bureaucrats:

Romney: “[…]you have massive overhead with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs. Very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.”    Meet the Press Debate, (01/08/12)

That’s odd. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities disagrees. Their report found that more than 90 percent of spending on Medicaid, SNAP, housing vouchers, Supplemental Security Income, school meals and the Earned Income Tax Credit. A graph from the CBPP below provides a breakdown of program expenses.

Full circle- this brings us back to Stephen Moore’s assertion that the Salvation Army deserves your money more than the food stamp program (SNAP). According to the CBPP, “94.6 percent of federal spending went directly for food” in fiscal year 2010. SNAP currently serves over 45.5 million Americans, approximately 15% of the population. By contrast, 18% of Salvation Army’s costs are related to overhead according to their expenses from fiscal year 2010 (shown below). Overhead is assumed to be the aggregate costs of both the “Management & General” and “Fundraising” expense items.

By no means am I denigrating the work done by the Salvation Army, nor any not-for-profit providing such services. However, conservatives need to acknowledge not only the breadth of government-run assistance programs but their efficiency, as well.

SNAP versus the Salvation Army is a microcosm of the larger debate about the role and proper function of government – a debate in which one of the sides believes that the free market always wins.

Well, in this case, as in many others…Atlas Debunked.

Introducing the Republican Party: Video

Have you ever wondered why there’s never been an attack ad composed of the most asinine, absurd statements to come out of Republicans’ mouths, set to classical music?

Well, so did I. Harnessing the power of the late great Steve Jobs and a little elbow grease, I’m able to bring you one.

During the editing/producing stage of this whole endeavor I really grasped  what a tough gig those campaign-marketing professionals have – but these were prime exhibitions of verbal diarrhea/Republican honesty. Very little editing needed – they can speak for themselves. Enjoy!

Credit to ABC News, CNN, Forbes, Fox, GETTY, Huffington Post, Now Public, Raw Story, Talking Points Memo, Washington Post and YouTube for video, images and content.

Cross-posted, along with a lot of other great stuff, at All Things Democrat.

It's the Economy, Stupid: Agriculture

It’s the economy, stupid. This phrase, initially coined by James Carville as an internal message for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, has been revived en masse by conservatives seeking to make this election a referendum on President Obama’s handling of the economy.

Tepid growth, continued mass unemployment and a growing, crushing burden of debt – these are the charges laid at the President’s feet. Yet, the Romney campaign, which seemingly became more ‘substantive’ with the addition of Paul Ryan, has notoriously avoided specifics on economic matters.

The economy is a dynamic, multi-faceted and complex entity, and a winning economic vision and message certainly require more than a four-and-a-half word mantra. Moreover, the millions of Americans who deserve a better-functioning economy (and Washington) are entitled to compare the particulars of each candidate’s policies pertaining to different sectors of the economy.

Agriculture

President Obama has a laundry list of accomplishments for rural communities, including:

• Record-high farm income
• Record-high agricultural exports
• Millions of acres enrolled in conservation programs
• Agriculture is now one of the fastest-growing parts of our economy, creating one out of every 12 American jobs

Of these, Obama can take special credit for his extension of conservation programs and expanded exports, spurred in no small part by soybean shipments to China.

The most striking feature of Obama’s agriculture policy is that it is not, strictly speaking, solely related to agriculture. The President views rural farms not as islands unto themselves, but rather parts of their economic community. Growth of agriculture will not occur in a vacuum, but rather through initiatives to develop other profitable industries and rural infrastructure. As such, Obama has provided access to credit for 50, 000 rural small businesses which helped create over a quarter of a million jobs. The President also supports increasing access to broadband for previously isolated rural communities – something the private sector shies away from, as it offers limited opportunities for profit.

The Food and Jobs Act of 2012, a five-year omnibus known as the Farm Bill, passed the Senate in June. The President advocates the bill’s passage, which would reduce the deficit by $23 billion while providing crop insurance and food assistance programs vital to farmers and the impoverished, respectively.  Although the Act includes modest cuts in SNAP, it eliminates approximately $5 billion in direct payments made to farmers per annum, which primarily benefitted Big Agribusiness, in favor of subsidizing crop insurance for farmers.

President Obama filled out a survey for the Iowa Corn Growers’ Association (IGCA) outlining his positions and earned a grade of B – the same grade received by his opponent, Mitt Romney. However, Romney declined to fill out this questionnaire, forcing the IGCA to cobble together his stance on agricultural concerns including ethanol, trade, EPA, and farm programs based on prior statements. In two areas – federal crop insurance and conservation programs – the IGCA deemed that there was no information available with which to formulate Mitt’s position.

A lack of disclosure has been the Romney campaign’s staple thus far (re: tax returns), with the candidate often referring the press to “Believe in America”, his 160+ page economic blueprint, for specific policy details. However, the word ‘agriculture’ is used sparingly –once by ex-CEO and failed gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman in a section on Human Capital, and by Governor Dave Heineman of Nebraska in a portion dealing with trade.  By contrast, China is referenced 59 times. Romney’s announcement of a “Farmers and Ranchers for Romney” failed to contain any policy details – talk about putting the cart before the horse! However, Chuck Conner, a former Department of Agriculture staffer in the Bush administration, was happy to offer a few future ‘Day 1’ actions made by President Romney to promote agriculture:

• Expand trade opportunities
• Repeal the estate tax
• Restrict regulatory authorities

Substantively, Mitt Romney seems to have a plan for agriculture that is as vague as Mark McGwire at a hearing on steroids. Nor are these aforementioned details relevant or specific to agriculture. After investigation, his plan for agriculture seems to be the same as his one for health care/small business/the economy at large: cut taxes and let the free market handle the rest.

We don’t have to take his spokesperson’s word as the iron-clad truth, but as most political observers know, it’s difficult to pin Mitt down on any one position. For instance, in January 2012, Mitt championed his support for farm subsidies, stating that domestic food stability was a “national security issue.” Three months earlier, he had hinted at cuts to crop insurance programs, saying that he’s “not running for office based on making promises of handing out money.” Like his running mate Paul Ryan, Mitt seems ready to let farmers take the heat – no pun intended – for the drought and ensuing ruined crop.

Since he’s not helpful, we’ll have to do what the ICGA did, and piece together Romney’s agriculture stances ourselves. Remember, Mitt only needs be able to handle a pen to be Grover Norquist’s dream President. Therefore, the best – and only – place to start is the farm bill proposed by House Republicans, who purposely failed to hold a vote on the Senate’s Farm and Jobs Act before vacation.

The House Republicans’ proposal isn’t a bill – it’s an assault on the social safety net. It cuts SNAP by $16 billion – four times the amount of cuts contained in its Senate counterpart. Despite a commanding majority in the House, the GOP has been unable to pass its own measure because many Republicans remain philosophically opposed to subsidies in general.

I’d love for Mitt Romney to clarify his stance on agricultural issues, but first, he’d have to present some. Barack Obama seeks to strengthen rural communities, enable farmers and rural small businesses to access funding and ensure safe standards in food production.

For rural communities, the choice is clear: there’s a man with a plan and another without a clue. You can bet the farm on it.

Chain of Fools

On Tuesday, Joe Biden made a small gaffe when speaking to a crowd of supporters in Danville, Virginia. He indicated that listeners would help the Obama-Biden ticket carry North Carolina – not Virginia – another 2012 battleground state. However, another Biden off-the-cuff comment has elicited a manufactured outrage from conservatives for his alleged racially loaded language. The comment in question:

BIDEN: He said in the first hundred days he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains.

To anyone with a modicum of common sense, Biden is using a metaphor to express the notion that deregulation which favors the financial sector necessarily subjugates Main Street. Such analogies using ‘chains’ or ‘shackles’ in reference to economic matters are common fare by politicians. Soledad O’Brien, hosting Anderson Cooper 360, showed a reel of GOP lawmakers from John Boehner to Paul Ryan using similar expressions to describe the effects of tax increases or regulations on free enterprise by the Obama administration.

Nonetheless, the backlash from the conservative community was swift and condemnatory. Romney’s National Press Secretary, Andrea Saul, released the following statement in response to the Vice President’s comments (emphasis added):

After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Governor Romney, the Obama Campaign has reached a new low.  The comments made by the Vice President of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama Campaign will say and do anything to win this election.  President Obama should tell the American people whether he agrees with Joe Biden’s comments.

I’ve been paying pretty close attention and have yet to witness any slanderous or baseless accusations made against Governor Romney, which the exception of Harry Reid and his inside source. Romney pays a lower tax rate than the average working American. Bain Capital was a pioneer in outsourcing. The Salt Lake City Olympics relied on public, government funds. Romney uses the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter and has held a Swiss bank account. These are facts that refute the artificial persona being built around St. Willard of Success, and a fair and integral part of the campaign.

The setting of Biden’s speech may have played into the overreaction from the Right. Danville was the last capital of the Confederate States, featured a boycott of white merchants in 1963 during the Civil Rights movement and has a population evenly divided between African-Americans and Caucasians. The Romney campaign is no stranger to racially tinged appeals. Washington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore accuses the campaign of race baiting in its factually errant focus on Obama’s welfare revisions. As Kilgore notes, this particular tactic of dividing the electorate into the industrious haves and the lazy have-nots was popularized by RIchard Nixon’s Southern Strategy. 

Despite extensive coverage, CNN has done this dispute a disservice by turning it into a prime exhibit of false equivalence. The ‘chains’ controversy was featured not only on360, but also the Situation Room, OutFront, and Piers Morgan Tonight. Yet none of these programs showed, or even mentioned, the explicitly racial and offensive comments made by none other than Colonel Allen West, Representative from Florida’s 22^nd District. Speaking at a campaign rally on July 1, Col. West made these remarks (no emphasis needed):

REP. ALLEN WEST, R-FLA.: He does not want you to have the self- esteem of getting up and earning and having that title of American. He’d rather you be his slave and be economically dependent upon him.

Is it fair that Col. West escapes media scrutiny for these remarks because he is an African-American? I’ll let the reader decide.

In the meantime – to Col. Allen West, the Romney campaign and the mainstream media, this one goes out to you. Take it away, Aretha!

Revisiting Ryan's Right-Wing Manifesto

            With the selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney, the polygamist of policy stances, has married himself to the Ryan Budget whether he likes it or not. Not surprisingly, within a day of the announcement, Mitt had already taken multiple positions on his commitment to his running mate’s plan. Immediately after the announcement, the campaign released a statement indicating that Romney would present his own budget and plan for deficit reduction as president – in effect preemptively divorcing himself from the Ryan Budget. However, in the Romney/Ryan joint 60 Minutes interview, Romney indicated that as VP, Ryan would take the lead in certain issues where his passions and expertise lie. Unless Mitt plans to let Ryan attempt to privatize Social Security again, Ryan’s areas of expertise are undoubtedly the budget and deficit reduction.

            Paul Ryan has explicitly stated what the GOP fears: that he means for his budget to be the basis of an election. The introduction of his Path to Prosperity states that “Americans, not Washington, deserve to choose the path their nation takes, and this budget presents a clear choice.”

            Summaries of Paul Ryan’s budget are as plentiful as they are damning. His transformation of Medicare into a voucher system has received the most attention, but his plans to turn SNAP (also known as food stamps) and Medicaid over to the states have been condemned. Catholic nuns and bishops alike denounce Ryan’s disregard for the poor and needy in favor of tax cuts for the rich.. Nonetheless, his 96-page budget plan reveals many more unpalatable policy priorities and intellectual dishonesty that demonstrate he is unfit to be one heartbeat removed from the Presidency.

            On Monday’s Out Front, CNN reported that Ryan’s plan would not cut military spending, whereas President Obama’s proposed budget would cut nearly $550 billion, if combined with the sequester mechanism, over a period of ten years. CNN is correct, but incomplete. Ryan would counteract these cuts by spending $6.2 trillion on national defense spending over the next ten years. His justification? “A safer world and a more prosperous America go hand in hand.” This so-called intellectual leader of his party fails to provide any empirical evidence to support his argument.

            Ryan’s budget denounces Obama’s alleged crony capitalism, particularly his investments in green energy which “allow the government to play venture capitalist with taxpayers’ money.” Absent from his rhetoric is the recognition of generous subsidies enjoyed by Big Oil. Ryan prefers to promote private development of nuclear, wind, and solar energy. If so, the American solar industry will remain behind global leaders, such as China, and domestic solar manufacturing will be perpetually crippled in favor of domestic solar retailers who purchase less expensive foreign solar panels.

            Like Romney at Bain Capital, Ryan’s plan for the economy promotes outsourcing. He disagrees with the current approach whereby US multinationals are taxed at foreign rates on profits earned abroad, and taxed at US rates on the repatriated profits. This system is designed to keep this money in the US to begin with and discourage foreign investment by companies whose headquarters are in the United States. Instead, Ryan wants US multinationals to pay foreign taxes, and nothing more – a policy which fundamentally incentivizes outsourcing.

            Ryan’s antipathy to the poor has been well documented, as previously mentioned, and is reflected in his attitude towards the expansion of SNAP in response to the recession. He decries the “additional funding to the states if they achieved higher enrollment levels.” Simply, Ryan thinks it is a bad idea for people to get food in times of dire need.

            The American agricultural sector is currently in a very precarious state, as sweeping droughts have ruined most crops. Ryan is indifferent to the plight of farmers, and wants “agricultural producers to assume the same kind of responsibility for managing risk that other businesses do.” Without government-supported crop insurance, many farmers would be immediately impoverished due to the poor yield. Ryan thinks they should take responsibility for the weather. In addition, his budget cuts fixed payments to farmers. This portion of Ryan’s budget has received minimal attention, and should be trumpeted by rural Democrats en masse as the election campaign progresses.

            Ryan’s misguided priorities, reflected in his budget, are matched only by his intellectual dishonestly. Examples include: 

§  Ryan critiques the Obama administration for ignoring the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, while omitting that he voted against the very same proposals.

§  Ryan states that “government spending is no substitute for a true recovery led by the private sector” when no recovery in American history has ever been led by the private sector. 

§  Ryan claims that marginal tax rate increases decrease economic output, blatantly ignoring the growth experienced during the Clinton era. 

§  He believes the recovery is hampered because “borrowed money and debt is fueling uncertainty for businesses and job creators, who know that today’s deficits are tomorrow’s interest rate and tax increases.” If that were the case, businesses would invest now to avoid higher interest rates in the future. The problem is that there is not sufficient demand to meet an expanded supply, if it were to occur.

President Obama has a poignant, concise, and correct diagnosis of Ryan – a decent man, a family man, but a pioneer and spokesman for a vision fundamentally at odds with American values and detrimental to the development of an American Dream that you don’t have to be asleep to believe.

Why Ryan?

Saturday morning, standing in front the USS Wisconsin, Paul Ryan – Mitt Romney’s newly announced running-mate – delivered an impassioned speech to conservative supporters. Now, I find it difficult, if not painful, to listen to the Right for any longer than it takes to make Ramen noodles. Somewhere after Ryan’s declaration to small business owners that “You did build that!” – the GOP’s answer to “Yes, We Can!” – my analysis of the man’s added value began.

A brief biography – Paul Ryan served Wisconsin’s 1^st District for seven terms, developed the budget plan that contains the heart of the GOP platform and is part of the trio of House Republicans leaders who call themselves the “Young Guns.” Like Romney, Ryan lacks any foreign policy experience – besides supporting high levels of defense spending. Romney’s deficiency in this area belied the need for a running mate with a strong foreign policy record according to conservative pundits like Matt Drudge, who concocted a movement to have General Petraeus as Romney’s right-hand man. However, the rationale and necessity for the Ryan VP pick are abundant.

Youth + Enthusiasm

At 42, Ryan serves as an injection of youthful energy to a flagging campaign. On the campaign trail, Vice Presidents typically take the role of the attack dog. Ryan offers strong-handed criticism of Obama’s with a charisma that far surpasses Mitt Romney. Then again, that bar is harder to limbo under than step over. Many pundits claimed that Mitt Romney would not select a running mate that would overshadow him, but he did – which reinforces the narrative that Mitt’s stump speech has thus far failed to sway the electorate. 

A Conservative

The past two elections, the GOP nominee has selected a running mate which galvanizes the base. Paul’s conservative bona fides far surpass those at the top of the ticket – though he wasn’t always such a fiscal hawk during the Bush administration – without the embarrassment of any Momma Grizzly comparisons. The Tea Party and right-wing activists have found their white knight, as recounted by Erick Erickson.

A House Republican Leader

This selection reinforces the common belief that Mitt Romney, the weather vane, is beholden to the conservative wing of the GOP. It is no coincidence that Mitt chose his running mate from the House of Representatives, where the influx of Tea Party representatives who have controlled the party since 2010 are concentrated. Mitt will faithfully rubber-stamp the Ryan Budget – or for that matter, any piece of legislation sent to him by a Republican-controlled Congress.

Wisconsin

Mitt’s handlers know the electoral math, like his tax plan, just doesn’t add up. Karl Rove has written about Romney’s 3-2-1 path to the White House. The plan is, simply, that after taking all red 2008 states, Romney needs to win:

3-Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia – traditionally Republican states that went to Obama

2-Florida and Ohio, the two battleground states

1-Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, or WISCONSIN

No doubt, the re-election of Gov. Scott Walker in the WI recall along with the                                                           most recent Rasmussen poll, which shows Romney trailing Obama by three percentage points in Wisconsin, has emboldened Republicans to believe the state is on the table. However, whatever value added by Paul Ryan in Wisconsin may be negated by his impact in Florida, where a high population of senior citizens will surely hold him responsible for his budget, which ends Medicare as we know it.

Favorability

Mitt Romney has taken it on the chin recently, seeing his favorability ratings plummet in the past month. Though a third of voters express no opinion on Ryan, his net favorability rating is +14. Mitt barely polls that well within his own family. In his speech, Ryan denounced the mud-slinging tactics of the Obama campaign which appeal to the lowest common denominator. The selection of Ryan is a sign that the GOP will attempt to “go positive” to appeal to voters. However, Mitt’s record has taken a beating, so what is left to go positive on but…

The Issues

Undoubtedly the most important implication of Paul Ryan is that his presence signals an abrupt turn to policy. No longer can Romney campaign on his record at Bain and success as a “job creator.” Colleagues describe Ryan as wonkish and an intellectual leader. Ryan needs to be that and more, for he has a daunting task ahead of him. It will be his job to champion the conservative policies of deregulation, tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy and inadequate health care – because the GOP, and Romney, its standard-bearer, have nothing left to run on but their past failures. 

Piece originally published at All Things Democrat.

The Right to Bear AR-15s or Whatever You Please

The recent mass shootings at a movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado and a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee have reignited the discussion on the optimal methods to provide domestic security, and more specifically, the role of guns in promoting and perpetuating such heinous crimes. Despite the attention paid to these atrocities by the media, gun control – a polarizing subject – is likely to be a non-issue in this election campaign. That being said, an investigation into both parties’ stances on domestic security and gun control is no doubt warranted, as is a historical analysis of the language and intention of Founding Fathers in crafting in Second Amendment.

The Republican Party is, on principle, against any restriction on the sale of firearms to Americans, with the exception of sophisticated military-grade weaponry. To the GOP, gun control laws are a case of legal adverse selection – law-abiding citizens are most likely to be compliant and are therefore endangered, as a higher percentage of guns will be in the hands of violent criminals. This line of reasoning has merit, but the Republican claim to be the party of law and order certainly does not. A party of law and order would take all domestic security matters seriously.

In the interest of public safety, the GOP elects to practice the new-age McCarthyism of Michele Bachmann. Rep. Bachmann suggested Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Hilary Clinton, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood through an associate of her late father and has called for an investigation into the matter. Given that the constitution fundamentally guarantees all people the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this degree of racial profiling is not only an affront to American values but is also a blatant disregard for the totality of credible threats facing the nation.

The Republican safety plan is, substantively, a comprehensive war on Islam. In 2009, John Boehner blasted the Department of Homeland Security for investigating white supremacist domestic terror groups instead of focusing on al Qaeda.

Peter Bergen of CNN and the New America Foundation reports that since 9/11, there have been more attacks on US soil by right-wing extremists (9) than by Islamic terrorists influenced by al Qaeda (4). Including the massacre at the Sikh temple, the death toll by these different organizations is similar: 15 by right-wing terrorist groups, and 17 by Islamic terrorist groups.

            Democrats, on the other hand, lack the political will, capital and consensus to advance gun control legislation. In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would pursue a renewal of the assault weapons ban signed by Bill Clinton in 1994, which expired in 2004. Recently thereafter, 65 House Democrats signed a letter to Holder opposing the ban. Obama will look to protect Democrats running for Congress from being unduly targeted by the NRA and other pro-gun groups and avoid the issue in order to preserve party unity. At least the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have investigated all terrorist threats thoroughly during the Obama administration.

            The lack of public consensus for gun control measures makes advancing legislation on the matter politically unviable. A Pew Research Center poll conducted July 26-29 illustrates the split in opinion, with 46% of Americans prioritizing the need to protect right to own guns, and 47% favoring more control over gun ownership. A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines of ammunition, which would have a significant impact in preventing or mitigating the fatalities in mass shootings, enjoy a strong majority of public support according to a CBS News/New York Times poll conducting shortly after the Tuscon shooting in early 2011. The reality is that the majority of homicides by firearms are perpetrated with handguns.  However, not only does the public oppose a ban on handguns by a ratio of 2:1, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that such bans are unconstitutional.

            Within the past four years, the Supreme Court has issued a pair of landmark rulings demonstrating its interpretation of the Second Amendment. In Heller v. D.C. (2008), which struck down the city ban on handguns, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right that enables people to carry “all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” The implication which can be inferred is that society and Congress get to define what comprises a bearable arm. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is a related case where the Supreme Court ruled that city’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. The ruling stresses the importance of protecting an individual’s right to self-defense through the Second Amendment, vis-a-vis handguns. Prior to these judgments, U.S. v. Miller (1939) did not affirm the Second Amendment as an individual right, but rather through the collective right of each state’s ability to maintain a militia. Thus, ownership of a firearm could only be restricted on the basis that the weapon in question had no connection to military activity, and as such fails to provide for common defense. The Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has evidently changed drastically over the past 75 years. Therefore, a review of the amendment’s language and the purpose for which it was developed is justified in order to judge the Court’s fidelity to the Constitution.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

            The rationale for the Second Amendment is deeply ingrained in the Declaration of Independence – the ability for free men to take up arms against a tyrannical government. George Washington once remarked that:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

This celebration of firearms and their guaranteed place in the Constitution is, in this light, a partial homage by the Founding Fathers to themselves for their accomplishments during the American Revolution.

           

            Explicit statements made by several Founding Fathers assert that the Second Amendment is intended to promote a strong militia. The quartering of British soldiers (forbidden by the Third Amendment) and the revenues raised by the Stamp Act to pay for standing armies were primary causes for the Revolution. As such, the Founding Fathers were wary of standing armies, especially in peacetime, though they recognized their pragmatic necessity, especially since the young America was surrounded on all sides by foreign powers. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson blatantly state the intention of the Second Amendment – as a safeguard for individual citizens to protect themselves against the standing army of a tyrannical government.

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”

-       Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

-       Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

These men intended for the militia, which in that era referred to all white men able to operate a firearm, to be superior to any standing army. Gun control advocates will note that the Second Amendment calls for a “well-regulated militia” and that this language implies that the government can impose restrictions on militias. However, in Federalist Paper No. 29, Alexander Hamilton indicates that “well-regulated” means, simply, well trained:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.  (emphasis added)

            Adding all this up shoots a few holes in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The founders did not intend for individuals to have bearable arms for their own personal defense, but arms that enabled them to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Thus, the array of weaponry owned by citizens should necessarily equal the sophistication of weapons carried by the government’s standing army. AR-15s? AK-47s? RPGs? Nukes? Under a strict constructionist view of the Second Amendment, all of these weapons are legitimate and legal for US citizens in order to match the force wielded by the State.  To read into the intent of the user and the thoughts of what constitutes a “bearable arm” for self-defense, as the Supreme Court rules, is an exhibition of judicial activism that ignores the desires and intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Reality changes. Technology changes. Hell, even the meaning of the words in the Second Amendment has changed.

If we, as a country, swear blind and eternal fealty to the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the wishes of the Founding Fathers, rather than treating the lot as living, breathing documents, sometimes the results may seem incorrect, out-of-touch, and downright dangerous to the public.

We can continue indiscriminately following the wishes of the Founding Fathers – who agreed that black men constitute three fifths of a person – or maybe it might be time to update the 221-year-old how-to manual on the rules for governing a Republic.