disoriented

The dis-oriented endorsement: Mitt Romney

The dis-oriented author is a conservative Republican. As a social conservative I have had a difficult time choosing a candidate this year. None of the candidates are perfect and all had some good points.

I attended the Iowa Lincoln Dinner, I have seen several of the debates and I went to the Ames Straw Poll. At the Straw Poll, I voted for Tom Tancredo. Of course, I did not believe that Tancredo would get the nomination but I felt that his presence served to underline the importance of dealing with illegal immigration.

Like Congressman Tancredo, I believe that the candidate best prepared to address the issues facing this country and win the election is Mitt Romney.

This has been a difficult decision but with the Iowa Caucuses only two days away I knew that I had to make up my mind. Mitt is not the perfect candidate. I think that he has been weak on 2nd Amendment issues and has only come lately to a number of conservative positions. But he has come to those positions and if Mitt holds firm to them he could be a great president.

Many of my Christian friends will ask why I am supporting Romney not Huckabee. I would have to say that it is for the same reason that I supported Reagan over Carter. Carter was a Southern Baptist Deacon, an evangelical whose religious views are close to mine. But I chose Reagan because he had a vision for America that I agreed with.

Two days 'till the caucus and I am caucusing for Mitt.

Death to the Alternative Minimum Tax!

The dis-oriented author is not a rich man. I have eight children,  I drive old cars and my family survives on my income while my wife stays home with our kids. Now, I do not want to seem ungrateful for what I have but I am definitely not rich. Yet every year at tax time, the government tries to tell me that I am rich.

For the last several years, I have had to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of rich individuals from using loopholes in the tax code to prevent paying any taxes. The problem with the AMT is twofold: first it did nothing to address the so-called loopholes, second it was originally targeted at a small number of super-rich individuals.

The New York Times predicts that by 2010, the AMT will apply to 30,000,000 taxpayers! The AMT has not been indexed for inflation so it now affects not just the super-rich but the middle class.

Congress is currently considering a fix to the AMT. Congressional Republicans want to simply remove the AMT while Democrats want to increase certain taxes on the wealthy to offset the cost of reducing or deleting the AMT.

Democrats look at the cost of a Tax cut while Republicans look at the cost of a tax. As a tax payer, I am concerned about the cost of a tax. As for the cost of a tax cut, I say, cut the tax and let the government clip coupons, let the government drive old cars, let the government take vacations closer to home. The American people, the middle class, have been suffering under taxes like the AMT, let the government look at trimming extraneous expenses instead.

Death to the AMT.

Larry Craig Just Will Not Go Away

The dis-oriented author believed that Larry Craig would have resigned already.  I watched, along with the rest of the nation, as revelations of Craig's arrest in a Minneapolis airport bathroom were made public. Craig was accused of soliciting sex in the men's room. He later plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct.

Craig said that if his guilty plea were not overturned, he would resign — he lied.

Larry Craig has proclaimed his innocence everywhere — except in the Minneapolis Court where he plead guilty. Craig says he is not gay.

On September 1st 2007, Craig said that he would resign on September 30th 2007. He indicated that he wanted to give Idaho's republican governor Butch Otter, time to select a replacement Senator. Well, September 30th came and went and Craig did not resign.

Next, on September 26th, Craig said that he would attempt to get his conviction overturned. If it were not overturned, Craig said again that he would resign.

On October 4th, a Minnesota judge declined to allow Craig to retract his guilty plea. Judge Porter said:

The defendant, a career politician with a college education, is of at least above-average intelligence, he knew what he was saying, reading and signing.

Hmmm... it makes sense to me. A US Senator with a college education ought to be able to figure out what it means to p[lead guilty. In his position, he must also have known that eventually this information would get out. Given rumors of his involvement in an earlier House Page scandal and othe insinuations that he is gay — he should have seen it coming.

Larry Craig is an embarrassment to the Senate. He is also a liar and a hypocrite — it is time for him to go.

The Larry Craig Memorial Restroom at MSP

UPDATE 10/16/2007

I saw the Matt Lauer piece with Larry Craig and his wife tonight. I am still not convinced. Larry Craig was not forced to plead in the airport police station that night. He was allowed to go home. Craig Was arrested on June 11th and his guilty plea was recorded on August 8th. Craig had almost two months to consider his situation. This was no rash decision made under pressure, this was a US Senator planning a course of action with plenty of time for reflection.

Larry Craig should resign.

Amnesty Will Not Die

The dis-oriented author is a first-generation American. I still oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. My father was a British subject who later became a Jamaican citizen and spent over 50 years in the US as a permanent resident alien. My mother is from Guam, she is a US Citizen by the Organic Act. The act, passed by congress in 1950, made the people  of Guam, citizens of the United States.

Earlier this year, Congress defeated the Bush Amnesty bill. The president and Congress seemed surprised by groundswell of opposition to this bill. Amnesty just will not die. This week, there are three amnesty related amendments that supporters are trying to attach to the Defense Re-Authorization Act. By sneaking these amendments into the Defense Bill, the hope is that even conservatives cannot vote against defense.

If these amendments survive, our conservative congressman need to kill the defense bill.

The worst of these proposals is the so-called Dream Act. The Dream Act, S.A. 2237 calls for granting legal resident status to illegals who came to the country before their 16th birthday and either graduated from a US high school or spent two years in a US college or the military.

The fact that illegals have access to our high schools, colleges and the military is a symbol of what is wrong with out immigration laws. How is it that illegals are even allowed to attend high school or college or even enlist in the military. This program rewards those who have come here in defiance of our laws. By so doing, we prove once again that we are not serious about immigration. This also encourages others to enter the country illegally, because they are likely to benefit from some future amnesty program.

I was at a Republican political convention last year and I talked to some amnesty supporters. They asked me whether I thought it was OK to deny illegals access to service, to keep them out of public schools and not pay them minimum wage. In essence they asked whether I thought that illegals should be a permanent underclass.

Well, my short answer is no. I do not want illegals to be a permanent underclass. Rather, I would like to see them become a temporary underclass. I would like to take away all of the incentives to stay or even enter the United States.

Call your senators, they need to defeat this amendment.

I Support the Troops but Oppose the War

The dis-oriented author has been a reluctant supporter of the so-called war in Iraq. Almost three years ago, I began posting on the topic (see my2004 post: The so-called War in Iraq) though my misgivings go back to the days before the invasion.

Let me clarify what I mean by my opposition to the war. I mean that I think it was ill-advised to go into Iraq. I also believe that if we were going to overthrow a sovereign government, we should have had a real declaration of war.

But, that was then, this is now. We are in Iraq and to pull out now would be a disaster.

Many of my Republican friends would say that it is impossible to support the troops and oppose the was. I beg to differ. I have already indicated my opposition to the war — what about my support for troops?

I am writing this post from Columbia, South Carolina. I am here to celebrate my son Jonathan's graduation from Army Basic Training at Fort Jackson. In the past two years, my oldest two sons have both joined the armed forces. My oldest son Jedidiah is currently at his Advanced Individual Training (AIT) as a US Navy Sailor. Jonathan will leave this weekend for his AIT. Both of my boys volunteered for military service in the midst of the current conflict.

Despite my feelings about the initial decision to go to war, I support the troops.

 

Jedidiah

Jonathan

Full Circle on Race

The dis-oriented author comes from a mixed race background. I am both Asian as this blog title suggests and Black as Barack. I have lived in cultures where I was part of the racial majority and others where I was part of a racial minority. Therefore I have been very keenly aware of racial politics in America throughout my adult life.

This week the Supreme Court ruled in two similar cases on racial preferences in K-12 educaiton: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Bd. of Education. In these cases the court ruled that race may not be used as a factor in assigning children to K-12 schools.

The court votes against discrimination on the basis of race and the Democrats are up in arms! It is a great day to be an Republican.

It is interesting to see the history of some of the Supreme Courts rulings on race.

In 1954 the court decided the landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown, the court ruled that states could not provide separate schools for blacks and whites. After Brown we became accustomed to hearing, separate but equal is not equal. Brown was a victory for civil rights.

In the summer of 1978  the Supreme Court rule in landmark race case: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Bakke decreed that race could be one factor among many in considering college admissions but it was largely a victory because it also declared that racial quotas by themselves were unconstitutional. It was Bakke that added the phrase reverse discrimination to the language. Bakke was mostly a victory for civil rights.

In 2003 the Supreme Court decided Grutter v. Bollingeret al. Like Bakke, Grutter was an admissions case at the University of Michigan. Unlike Bakke, Grutter was a defeat because the decision unambiguously declared:

The Court endorses Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions.

Grutter was a defeat for civil rights.

The most recent ruling is definitely a victory for civil rights. How is it that those who fought for so long to be equal — not separate now want to be treated separately but not equally? It was interesting to hear all the Democrat candidates blasting the ruling.

What is wrong with color blind equality.

Kill the Amnesty Bill Now

The dis-oriented author is a conservative Republican. As a Republican I am ashamed of my party. After the Amnesty (I know that President Bush doesn't call it amnesty) Bill failed I thought it was dead.

Well it was dead until President Bush added some more money to the pot, ostensibly for increased border security. Then in the crucial cloture vote this week — fully half of the Senate Republican Caucus voted along with the Dems to keep the bill alive.

Interestingly, the two Republican Senators running for president both voted for cloture. I am not surprised that McCain sided with the Democrats — he has to to keep up his media darling, maverick image.

The real surprise to me was Sam Brownback. I have heard Brownback at several events, he claims to be the conservative's best hope. Yet there he is voting yes on cloture to revive amnesty. Brownback just lost my vote.

Any plan that includes a path to citizenship is amnesty. I have also come to understand that any plan that includes a path to legitimacy for illegals is amnesty.

This plan, rewards people for invading our country. No matter how much money we put into tightening the borders, amnesty will only make it even more attractive for people to enter the United States illegally.

How can we claim to be serious about homeland security if we allow or worse invite illegals to cross our borders.

Black as Barack

The dis-oriented author is black. At least I am as black as Barack Obama. Barack's father was black, my father was black. Barack's mother was white, my mother is brown. Hmm... Black and brown, maybe that makes me blacker than Barack.

One of the intersting aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign is the issue of race. Barack is not hte first black candidate for president, he is not even the first from a major party. When Jesse Jackson ran in 1984 nobody asked whether he was really black. If being black has only to do with skin color than Barack qualifies. If however being black is something different — if it involves the black experience — then perhaps Barack does not.

Based on ancestry, my brother and I are both black. Based strictly skin color, my brother is black but I am not. Based on our connection to the black experience neither of us are black — and neither is Barack.

Barack's parents separated when he was two years old. Barack's mother married an Indonesian student and he lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. Afterward he moved to Hawaii and attended the exclusive Punahou School. Educated at Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law, Barack's black experience was to say the least, atypical.
Unlike Barack I was raised by both my parents. My father and mother were college professors and I grew up in a middle class college town. My black father, an intellectual schooled in the British tradition, never really lived the black experience either. When a black professor at his university stated that he was the first black faculty member at the school, my father did not bother to correct him. When black students called him brother — he was perplexed.

I recall an incident where a friend's mother asked me about the black girl she saw at our house. I had to think about it for a while, what black girl? Then I realized she meant my Jamaican cousin, Sharon. When I explained, she said to me, "I never thought of you as black." Funny, I never thought of myself as black either!

Recently Barack has taken to defending his blackness. On 60 Minutes he responded to questions about whether he was black enough, he said:

The truth of the matter is, when I'm walking down the south side of Chicago and visiting my barbershop and playing basketball in some of these neighborhoods, those aren't questions I get asked. ...

I also notice when I'm catching a cab, nobody's confused about that, either.

And Senator, when you were at your Hawaiian prep school, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, was anyone confused there?

In every way but skin color, I am white. I think of myself as white. But if I ever run for president, I will take a lesson from Barack. I will run as a black man.

The Aftermath

The dis-oriented author is a conservative Republican. Between work and the mid-term elections, it has been hard to find the time or motivation to blog. I was already depressed about the lack of conservative candidates in the 2008 Republican presidential field. Election night 2006 was a nightmare for Republicans. In Iowa, we lost the governors race and my Republican Congressman, a 30 year incumbent, lost, Iowa elected another Democrat governor and all of the local candidates for whom I worked were soundly defeated as well.

The thing that bothers me most is that at all levels — we deserved to lose.

For the last six years, Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency. Over that time we have managed to grow the size of government. We have failed to deal with illegal immigration. We have failed to implement real Social Security reform. We have grown the deficit. We have grown the federal education bureaucracy. We have been rocked by scandals.

And, regular readers of this blog know that I have not been a big supporter of the so-called war in Iraq. With the death toll rising and our military forces stretched to the breaking point, I am not the only one.

As the 2008 presidential race officially begins, the only thing left is the finger-pointing.

Polygamy and Freedom of Religion

The dis-oriented author has been watching the Warren Jeffs story with interest. I knew that Jeffs was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. In the Jeffs case the issue was arranging marriages of underage girls rather than his own polygamy. I am glad that Jeffs is behind bars as I write these words.

But on the issue of polygamy at large, I find my views more conflicted.

I heard a radio talk show host asking people whether they could name the Five Freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment. The host was discouraged because most listeners could not name more than one. Only one? I rattled them off to myself quickly:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Freedom of Religion
4. Freedom of Assembly
5. Freedom to petition the government for redress of a grievance

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Supporters of polygamy, like those who held a rally in Utah last week, claim that it is a freedom of religion issue. While I think polygamy is wrong, I have trouble disagreeing with their point of view. The Mormon (LDS) Church disavowed polygamy in 1890 as a requirement for statehood. Many in the church saw this as giving up the true faith and selling out to the government.

Warren Jeff's Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) were born because the main LDS church changed their position on polygamy or plural marriage. Clearly I am opposed to forced marriages as performed by Jeffs, especially involving unwilling minors. But from a religious freedom point of view I have some trouble saying that the government has a vested interest in preventing consenting adults from entering into plural marriage.

I guess I see it in about the same light as gay marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction homosexuals marriage but like President I am not opposed to civil unions. If two homosexuals wish to enter into a civil relation and grant each other certain property rights and end of life decision making power — so be it. I still believe that homosexual behavior is sinful but I would not make it illegal.

I have the same view of plural marriage. I do not believe that the government should sanction it but consenting adults, even more so because of the religious freedom clause of the first amendment, should have the right to enter into such a sinful relationship.

Some may say, "Wait a minute, I thought you were a Christian political activist!"

Indeed I am but I have no desire to live in a theocracy. In fact historically when Christianity has been the state religion — the results have almost always been bad.

Now, I do not believe that the government should treat freedom of religion as absolute. At the extreme few would argue that human sacrifices should be allowed even if they are a deeply held religious belief.

But in those areas that are not critical to public health and safety — I think the government should be very reluctant to place limits on our freedoms. Catholics may exclude women from the priesthood. I still feel that Bob Jones University should not have been forced to admit blacks. And consenting Mormon adults should probably be allowed plural civil unions.

Now, personally I disagree with the Catholic Church on the whole institution of the priesthood, I think Bob Jones University was completely mis-interpreting scripture in excluding blacks form campus and I think Mormons (LDS, FLDS or whatever) are a cult.

I believe these things because as an American I support the Constitution of the United States.