Tom Kovach
Short Bursts: Volume 07-02
Pouty punditry, smoke signals, bare-bones basics
By Tom Kovach
pouty punditry
The first of these Short Bursts is some "suppression fire" over a column that I just read in the Conservative Voice. In his column, "Is America Ready for a Third Party?", Ken Hughes tries to pooh-pooh the Constitution Party (CP). Doing so is a mistake, for several reasons.
First, he claims that he "lives and breathes politics," yet he opens his column by saying that he gets e-mails "from something called the Constitution Party" Given that the CP was originally formed in 1992 (as the US Taxpayers' Party), and that the CP is the third-largest political party in America, one would think that Mr. Hughes would know something about us. His choice of phrasing indicates either woeful ignorance or an intentional slight against fellow conservatives. Neither is flattering to his qualifications as a political commentator. (And, the idea of Republicans bashing conservatives is precisely why the Constitution Party was formed in the first place.)
Mr. Hughes claims, "Having lived through 20 presidential elections I can attest the voter's interest in politics is short lived." Given that presidential elections are held only once every four years, that would mean that Mr. Hughes is at least 80 years old. But, if that is true, then is this profile of the author really accurate? If that is a photo of an 80-year-old man, then he should be modeling or making movies instead of sitting at a computer making political comments. But, if Mr. Hughes is not at least 80 years old, then he has exaggerated the scope of his political experience.
The column is long on "what is not" and short on "what is." I counter with a Chinese proverb: "The man that says a task is impossible should get out of the way of the man doing it." Although he asserts that a "third party" is not viable, he gives no facts to support that assertion. (Does he realize that there are dozens of political parties in America right now, and that there used to be many more? Does he realize that only one of those "smaller parties" can actually be third?) The fact that the 2004 election featured the Constitution Party candidate in many of the TV-network charts (thus showing that he had "visible," if not "viable" numbers) was remarkable in itself. If he was not aware of those charts, then perhaps Mr. Hughes doesn't "live and breathe politics" quite as much as he thinks he does. Any political naysayer that thinks the CP doesn't stand a chance hasn't been reading the political undercurrents lately. Show me a Republican that wants to secure our national borders, and I'll ... well, there's no need to finish the sentence. Some Republican officials might talk about border security, but President Bush is running the show, and he is doing everything he can to undermine border security. That is why the Constitution Party not only stands a chance of surviving, but also actually stands a chance of winning the next presidential election.
Conservatives are a loyal bunch. But, that loyalty has been burned beyond recognition by duplicitous Republicans. Want some proof? If the Republican Party is the party of the pro-life movement, then why did Halley Barbour become a paid spokesman for Planned Parenthood after leaving his job as GOP chairman a few years ago? If the Republican Party is the pro-America party, then why is the United Nations still located on American soil after a twelve-year Republican reign of both houses of Congress (and six years in the White House)? If the Republican Party is the party of "limited government," then why is there still a US Department of Education, or a National Endowment for the Arts? If the Republican Party is the party of strong "defense," then why is President Bush sending 30 times as many troops to secure Iraq as he did to secure only one of America's own land borders? (And, why do the American troops protecting the American border have more restrictive rules of engagement than those protecting Iraq?) And, why did neither the White House nor either house of Congress move — before last year's elections — to put a stop to the travesty of imprisoning two Border Patrol agents for doing their jobs? I could go on, but you get the point.
Is America ready for a "third" party? Yes, thanks to the Republicans.
smoke signals
The Associated Press has reported that the Cherokee Nation has voted to expel the "freedmen" — the descendents of Black slaves previously owned by the Cherokee. Now, if one believes what one reads in the Left-tilting "mainstream" news media, then this situation would be impossible. Why? Well, as the MSM and "all thinking people surely know," because we were told so by the likes of Leonard Jeffries, "It is impossible for people of color to be racist." Yet, here we have the oppressed Red man voting to expel the oppressed Black man from their community. Could there be another reason, besides race itself?
Well, try "money." How so? Well, with the Democrats back in power in Congress, there has been revived talk about Black reparations — an idea promoted by Socialists. (Most of the arguments that I've read in favor of reparations are vitriolic, and just as racist as the policies that they rail against. There is one notable exception. Read John Doggett's reasoned discourse in WorldNetDaily: Part 1, and Part 2.) If the Cherokee Nation is forced by Congress to pay reparations, then they will be in a bind. So far, many of the Aboriginal Americans (a more precise term — a "native American" is anyone that was born here; I am a "native American") have benefited from legal loopholes that allow their nations and tribes to own casinos but not pay taxes. (The loopholes were built into the law as "reparations" for past American treaty violations.) Depending upon the precise language that makes the final version of any Black reparation bill, the Aboriginal Americans might end up paying part of the tab. (Well, didn't they own part of the slaves?)
Rather than wait to see what portion, if any, they might be required to pay, the Cherokee Nation voted by a 76 percent margin to expel the Black descendents of the "freedmen" that have been a part of the Cherokee Nation for over a century. That is the aspect of the story that has not been reported by the MSM outlets. But, the timing of the vote cannot be dismissed. Two recent movies have rekindled societal discussion about slavery in general, and the Black experience in particular. A few months ago, Jack Abramoff (a powerful, high-priced lobbyist that had several Aboriginal American casino clients) went to prison. Two months ago, the new Congress (with a Democratic Party majority) took office. In that new Congress, members of the pro-Socialist "Progressive Caucus" (all members of the Democratic Party) can now push their agenda. Congressman John Conyers, a Black PC member from Michigan, has sponsored the latest version of a Black reparations bill.
Black people in America have good reason to "never forget" the negative experiences of slavery. But, there is a difference between ensuring future freedom versus enforcing perpetual pandering. It seems to me that all of the "affirmative action" laws and initiatives that have been enacted for the past 43 years (since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) are certainly a form of reparation. But, instead of giving "economically oppressed" people a boost, it seems that affirmative action has done more harm than good. It reinforces the stereotype that Black people can't make it without outside assistance. (I've written in the past about my disdain for racism. Black Americans have more than proven themselves, especially in our military.) Every day, I see the negative effects of the "entitlement mentality" at my current full-time job in a predominantly Black public school. (For the past two years, I've worked as a Sign Language interpreter. I have a very good relationship with my Deaf student, who is also Black.) The entitlement mentality is so pervasive that some people — especially Socialists — practically blame the weather on government-approved racism.
So, whether right or wrong, the timing of the vote to cast out the freedmen from the Cherokee Nation seems to be linked to a rekindled movement for government-sponsored reparations for Black Americans. Does that vote constitute a "smoke signal" of impending societal friction on this matter? Time will tell.
(Side note: I've done months worth of research to write a very historically accurate screenplay for a Western movie about a little-known aspect of American history, and a little-known military unit. The relationship between escaped Black slaves and some Aboriginal American tribes figures into the story. The screenplay is not yet written, but extensive story notes have been written. If any producer is interested, please contact me via my Web site.)
bare-bones basics
Once again, the Discovery Channel has aired a "documentary" that twists truths and flouts facts. This time, the "PC-DC" has given prime time to a claim to have found the bones of Jesus in a tomb in Israel. There were, of course, several flaws in the presentation. And, several archaeologists — among others — have already gone on record against the assertions in the movie.
Others will give lengthy explanations of the flaws of the program. Certainly, people more scholarly than I will quote Saint Paul on the matter. (see 1st Corinthians 15:12-19) Let me use this Short Burst to get down to the "bare bones" basics. How do I know that the tomb in the movie is not the tomb of Jesus? Simple: it wasn't empty.
© Tom Kovach
pouty punditry
The first of these Short Bursts is some "suppression fire" over a column that I just read in the Conservative Voice. In his column, "Is America Ready for a Third Party?", Ken Hughes tries to pooh-pooh the Constitution Party (CP). Doing so is a mistake, for several reasons.
First, he claims that he "lives and breathes politics," yet he opens his column by saying that he gets e-mails "from something called the Constitution Party" Given that the CP was originally formed in 1992 (as the US Taxpayers' Party), and that the CP is the third-largest political party in America, one would think that Mr. Hughes would know something about us. His choice of phrasing indicates either woeful ignorance or an intentional slight against fellow conservatives. Neither is flattering to his qualifications as a political commentator. (And, the idea of Republicans bashing conservatives is precisely why the Constitution Party was formed in the first place.)
Mr. Hughes claims, "Having lived through 20 presidential elections I can attest the voter's interest in politics is short lived." Given that presidential elections are held only once every four years, that would mean that Mr. Hughes is at least 80 years old. But, if that is true, then is this profile of the author really accurate? If that is a photo of an 80-year-old man, then he should be modeling or making movies instead of sitting at a computer making political comments. But, if Mr. Hughes is not at least 80 years old, then he has exaggerated the scope of his political experience.
The column is long on "what is not" and short on "what is." I counter with a Chinese proverb: "The man that says a task is impossible should get out of the way of the man doing it." Although he asserts that a "third party" is not viable, he gives no facts to support that assertion. (Does he realize that there are dozens of political parties in America right now, and that there used to be many more? Does he realize that only one of those "smaller parties" can actually be third?) The fact that the 2004 election featured the Constitution Party candidate in many of the TV-network charts (thus showing that he had "visible," if not "viable" numbers) was remarkable in itself. If he was not aware of those charts, then perhaps Mr. Hughes doesn't "live and breathe politics" quite as much as he thinks he does. Any political naysayer that thinks the CP doesn't stand a chance hasn't been reading the political undercurrents lately. Show me a Republican that wants to secure our national borders, and I'll ... well, there's no need to finish the sentence. Some Republican officials might talk about border security, but President Bush is running the show, and he is doing everything he can to undermine border security. That is why the Constitution Party not only stands a chance of surviving, but also actually stands a chance of winning the next presidential election.
Conservatives are a loyal bunch. But, that loyalty has been burned beyond recognition by duplicitous Republicans. Want some proof? If the Republican Party is the party of the pro-life movement, then why did Halley Barbour become a paid spokesman for Planned Parenthood after leaving his job as GOP chairman a few years ago? If the Republican Party is the pro-America party, then why is the United Nations still located on American soil after a twelve-year Republican reign of both houses of Congress (and six years in the White House)? If the Republican Party is the party of "limited government," then why is there still a US Department of Education, or a National Endowment for the Arts? If the Republican Party is the party of strong "defense," then why is President Bush sending 30 times as many troops to secure Iraq as he did to secure only one of America's own land borders? (And, why do the American troops protecting the American border have more restrictive rules of engagement than those protecting Iraq?) And, why did neither the White House nor either house of Congress move — before last year's elections — to put a stop to the travesty of imprisoning two Border Patrol agents for doing their jobs? I could go on, but you get the point.
Is America ready for a "third" party? Yes, thanks to the Republicans.
smoke signals
The Associated Press has reported that the Cherokee Nation has voted to expel the "freedmen" — the descendents of Black slaves previously owned by the Cherokee. Now, if one believes what one reads in the Left-tilting "mainstream" news media, then this situation would be impossible. Why? Well, as the MSM and "all thinking people surely know," because we were told so by the likes of Leonard Jeffries, "It is impossible for people of color to be racist." Yet, here we have the oppressed Red man voting to expel the oppressed Black man from their community. Could there be another reason, besides race itself?
Well, try "money." How so? Well, with the Democrats back in power in Congress, there has been revived talk about Black reparations — an idea promoted by Socialists. (Most of the arguments that I've read in favor of reparations are vitriolic, and just as racist as the policies that they rail against. There is one notable exception. Read John Doggett's reasoned discourse in WorldNetDaily: Part 1, and Part 2.) If the Cherokee Nation is forced by Congress to pay reparations, then they will be in a bind. So far, many of the Aboriginal Americans (a more precise term — a "native American" is anyone that was born here; I am a "native American") have benefited from legal loopholes that allow their nations and tribes to own casinos but not pay taxes. (The loopholes were built into the law as "reparations" for past American treaty violations.) Depending upon the precise language that makes the final version of any Black reparation bill, the Aboriginal Americans might end up paying part of the tab. (Well, didn't they own part of the slaves?)
Rather than wait to see what portion, if any, they might be required to pay, the Cherokee Nation voted by a 76 percent margin to expel the Black descendents of the "freedmen" that have been a part of the Cherokee Nation for over a century. That is the aspect of the story that has not been reported by the MSM outlets. But, the timing of the vote cannot be dismissed. Two recent movies have rekindled societal discussion about slavery in general, and the Black experience in particular. A few months ago, Jack Abramoff (a powerful, high-priced lobbyist that had several Aboriginal American casino clients) went to prison. Two months ago, the new Congress (with a Democratic Party majority) took office. In that new Congress, members of the pro-Socialist "Progressive Caucus" (all members of the Democratic Party) can now push their agenda. Congressman John Conyers, a Black PC member from Michigan, has sponsored the latest version of a Black reparations bill.
Black people in America have good reason to "never forget" the negative experiences of slavery. But, there is a difference between ensuring future freedom versus enforcing perpetual pandering. It seems to me that all of the "affirmative action" laws and initiatives that have been enacted for the past 43 years (since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) are certainly a form of reparation. But, instead of giving "economically oppressed" people a boost, it seems that affirmative action has done more harm than good. It reinforces the stereotype that Black people can't make it without outside assistance. (I've written in the past about my disdain for racism. Black Americans have more than proven themselves, especially in our military.) Every day, I see the negative effects of the "entitlement mentality" at my current full-time job in a predominantly Black public school. (For the past two years, I've worked as a Sign Language interpreter. I have a very good relationship with my Deaf student, who is also Black.) The entitlement mentality is so pervasive that some people — especially Socialists — practically blame the weather on government-approved racism.
So, whether right or wrong, the timing of the vote to cast out the freedmen from the Cherokee Nation seems to be linked to a rekindled movement for government-sponsored reparations for Black Americans. Does that vote constitute a "smoke signal" of impending societal friction on this matter? Time will tell.
(Side note: I've done months worth of research to write a very historically accurate screenplay for a Western movie about a little-known aspect of American history, and a little-known military unit. The relationship between escaped Black slaves and some Aboriginal American tribes figures into the story. The screenplay is not yet written, but extensive story notes have been written. If any producer is interested, please contact me via my Web site.)
bare-bones basics
Once again, the Discovery Channel has aired a "documentary" that twists truths and flouts facts. This time, the "PC-DC" has given prime time to a claim to have found the bones of Jesus in a tomb in Israel. There were, of course, several flaws in the presentation. And, several archaeologists — among others — have already gone on record against the assertions in the movie.
Others will give lengthy explanations of the flaws of the program. Certainly, people more scholarly than I will quote Saint Paul on the matter. (see 1st Corinthians 15:12-19) Let me use this Short Burst to get down to the "bare bones" basics. How do I know that the tomb in the movie is not the tomb of Jesus? Simple: it wasn't empty.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
