What is the Purpose of Government?

The other day a libertarian-leaning friend told me that he believed that the purpose of government was to protect us from each other, to protect us from foreign countries and to promote commerce.  I agree that these are all legitimate functions of government, but I think they fall short. 

For me, the purpose and legitimate function of government is set out in the Preamble to the Constitution which states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued that the Constitution gave the government the power do whatever was necessary to carry out the purposes set out in the Preamble.  Both Madison and Hamilton were proponents of a muscular federal government.  

The Constitution goes on to enumerate specific powers, such as to coin money, to regulate interstate commerce and so on.  However, I think that those enumerations do not limit the broader purposes set forth in the Preamble.

I would go even further.   Before the Constitution, there was the Declaration of Independence.   The Declaration set out founding principles of this nation. In its Preamble, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident,  that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.   That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  

Here we go to the very justification for government.  Government exists to to ensure that all men are created equal and to secure the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.   

W

When we take these two founding documents together, it is clear that the purposes of government include protecting us from each other and protecting us from foreign governments.   However, it also includes protecting the equality of citizens, perfecting the union that binds us together and promoting the general welfare.   There is also a strong commitment to justice and liberty.    

Often these purposes may compete against each other.   For example, requiring people to contribute to social security promotes the general welfare while taking away the liberty not to save for retirement.   Enacting regulations against dumping coal waste into rivers promotes domestic tranquility and the general welfare while protecting the right to life while it limits the liberty to pollute the environment.   While there will always be trade-offs, I think that government is acting properly when it promotes one of these core values without substantially limiting or destroying another core principle.  

Examining Islamist Terror Attacks in the United States

Donald Trump's justification for his executive order temporarily banning people from seven majority Muslim countries and refugees from coming to this country was to protect the United States from terrorist attacks.    Protecting the U.S. is a good thing but I wanted to look at the terror attacks that had taken place in the U.S. to see if the executive order would have prevented any of them.    

To do that, I looked for lists of terror attacks.  I started with Wikipedia, but their list seemed incomplete so I went to a website called Religion of Peace.   However, their list seemed overly broad.    I came up with the following criteria.   1.  It needed to be an attack on strangers.  The very nature of terrorism is that attacks are carried out on the general populace.   This cut out attacks on family members.   2.  It needed to be verifiable.   I could not find any confirmation on some of the incidents on Religion of Peace.  3.  It had to have been carried out by a Muslim who acted on religious grounds.   While I know this sounds obvious, Religion of Peace classified the Ft. Lauderdale shooter as a convert to Islam where this appears to be false.   

After filtering the attacks, I came up with a list of fourteen incidents starting with 9/11/01.  I started there because that was the beginning of the current war on terror.   This averages to approximately one per year. 

09/11/01   Nineteen al-Qaeda members hijacked four airliners killing 2,996 people.

07/04/02   A lone gunman killed two people and injured four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport

07/28/06  A Muslim-American walked into a Jewish Center in Seattle, Washington and shot six women, one of whom died.

06/01/09   An American-born convert to Islam shot two soldiers, one of whom died, at a Little Rock recruiting station

11/05/09   An American-born psychiatrist killed 13 and wounded 33 at Ft. Hood, Texas

04/15/13   The Tsarnaev brothers plant bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding 183

04/27/14   A man who claimed to be a jihadi shot a man in Skyway, WA.   He later shot two other men in Seattle and one in New Jersey.

10/23/14   A man armed with a hatchet attacked four officers in Queens, NY.

12/18/14   Teen convert to Islam killed an elderly neighbor in order to get money to buy an assault rifle and commit a mass shooting.  He was arrested before he could kill any more people.

05/03/15   Two men travel to Garland, Texas to attack a Draw Mohammed contest.  They wound one person before being killed.

07/16/15   A man attacked two military facilities in Chattanooga, TN killing seven and wounding two.

12/02/15   A husband and wife attack a workplace Christmas gathering killing 14 and wounding 22.  

06/12/16   An American-born Muslim killed 49 and injured 53 at a  gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

11/28/16    A Somali-born student injured eleven people in a car ramming and stabbing attack at Ohio State University.

Not counting 9/11, sixteen individuals committed thirteen attacks which killed ninety-five people. However, the majority of those were killed in the Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando shootings.    

Who are these terrorists?   Ten out of sixteen were born in the United States.   An additional three came to the US as children with their parents.   One came to this country as a teenager and two came as adults.   The six foreign born terrorists came from Egypt, Kyrgystan, the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, Kuwait and Somalia.   Only one came from a country listen in President Trump's executive order and only one came as a refugee (the same person).   The others came on tourist visas (2), a fiance visa, as a derivative asylum seeker and one I couldn't figure out (who came with his family when he was five).

Of the ten U.S.-born attackers, three were converts to Islam.    

Six claimed allegiance to ISIL (or were claimed by ISIL).   One said he was sent by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsuela.   The rest did not have ties to any group.   

Three out of four perpetrators in the three most deadly shootings were born in the U.S.

What is striking to me is that only three out of sixteen terrorists came to this country as teenagers or adults over a fifteen year period.   This suggests to me that focusing our efforts on home-grown radicals will be more effective than trying to keep foreigners out.  

What I Saw at the Trump Rally

People trying to make it to the Trump rally.

Today I tried to attend a Donald Trump rally in Austin.    I almost made it in.  There were about ten people in front of me before the fire marshal made them close the doors.   However, even without actually making inside, it was quite an experience.   Here are few impressions and a lot of photos.   

If Donald Trump  ran the country like he planned this rally, we are all in trouble.   The rally was held at the Travis County Expo Center in Northeast Travis County.   The nearby area was a combination of gentrification mixed with minority neighborhoods.  The parking filled up hours before the rally started.   However, cars were snarled in traffic waiting to get into a parking lot where they would be turned away.   People had to park on the side of a narrow rural road for miles on either side.    There was a long procession of people walking toward the rally in the hot Texas sun, Trump supporters and protesters walking side by side.   The only tense moment was when a Hispanic kid in a sports car kept revving his end and burning rubber while stuck in traffic.   He seemed like he was trying to annoy the people around him.   If he had let go of the brake, it would have been a mess.

The Joker

Whos in Bed With Donald Trump?

This is Austin so people were keeping it weird.   There was a guy There was a guy dressed in a joker costume with a sign that said "Keep America Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.    There was a pickup truck with a naked Donald Trump in the back with a sign saying "Who's in Bed with Donald Trump?"

 When I made it into the Expo grounds, I was struck by the fact that the guys selling Trump merchandise were largely African American.   I think it was good for the Trump fans to see hard working African American men.   However, they shouldn't be so sure that these guys actually support Trump.   Being the hard-working  go-getters that they are, they were probably ready to hawk merchandise for whoever was the next person to come along regardless of ideology.

 Now I'd like to talk about the Trump supporters.    As I stood in line, there was the occasional macho shout of Hillary for Prison or Build That Wall.    However, it was a diverse bunch of white people.   There was a group of teenage boys near me, one of whom was wearing a Reagan-Bush '84 tshirt that was probably older than he was.   Then there was this couple:   a cute girl wearing shorts with an InfoWars tshirt and her boyfriend with  a cowboy hat and a Hillary for Prison tshirt.    The Trump supporters were by and large very well behaved and polite.   However, as I finally made it to the front of the line, there was an announcement that the fire marshal had shut down the line and that no one more would be allowed in.   I heard comments of "the fire marshal must be a Democrat" (which he probably was) and "but I had a ticket."    Apparently the Trump campaign gave out way more tickets than they had space.  Again, this is not a sign of good planning and it resulted in a lot of annoyed people.   I wasn't that annoyed.  I was just hot.   

 

Along they way, there were plenty of pro-Trump bumper stickers and one pro-Trump protester.   In addition to the regular campaign bumper stickers, I noticed signs for InfoWars and the NRA.   Here are two that stood out.   

 Then there were the protesters.   Inside the grounds, there were only two lonely groups.   One held up an amateurish sign saying "Trump Go Home" and another one stood stoic near the entrance to the Expo Center with a sign detailing Trump's many marital indiscretions.    

Then there were the nice protesters.   I especially like the woman who held a sign saying "love, Respect, Tolerance, Kindness" and the woman with the "Love Trumps Hate" tshirt.

 

   

I would be remiss if I did not point out the other protesters.   Here are some photos of the hundred or so people opposing the Trump rally.

 

As I made the long journey back to my car, I heard a lot of Trump supporters honking at the protesters to drown them out.   However,one car slowed beside me and said "Sir, please don't vote for Trump."   I assured them I would not  and the guy said, "then you're off the hook."

 

    

Dissecting Donald Trump's Acceptance Speech

I listened to part of Donald Trump's acceptance speech last night on the way home from the airport. It was scary and bizarre. Here are some excerpts and my reactions. You can read the speech in its entirety here.

Midnight in America

Ronald Reagan had morning in America.   For Donald Trump, it's midnight.   He begins his speech by setting up a crisis.

Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country. Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities.

Many have witnessed this violence personally, some have even been its victims.

I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be restored.

This is straight out of the demagogue's playbook. Invoke a crisis and promise easy solutions. While the challenges we face are daunting, they pale in comparison to the Civil War, Hitler and the Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War. Those were real existential threats. While even one shooting of a police officer is too many, there have been fewer police officers killed in the line of duty under Obama than under any of his recent predecessors. Further, what we have been seeing in the way of both domestic and foreign-inspired terrorism in this country consists of lone wolf attacks. These are difficult to detect and prevent. So when Trump promises that safety will be restored on 1-20-17, he is not telling the truth.

Demonize Your Opponent

Then he uses divisive us vs. them rhetoric to demonize his opponent.

Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place.

They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does.

She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.

That is why Hillary Clinton's message is that things will never change.

Hillary is the puppet of big business? What a bizarre statement. In the primaries, Trump boasted about his ability to buy politicians. Trump has a record of cheating people in business deals. If he is part of the same corrupt system, how is he the one to change it? On top of that, Hillary's platform is all about change. It's just not about going back to the 1950s.

Trump then amplifies the charge.

And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities can't see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence - I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.

When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was "extremely careless" and "negligent," in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.

In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it - especially when others, who have done far less, have paid so dearly.

When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come.

Trump starts with what is true, which is that Hillary used a private email server and then just fabricates a lie that she deleted her emails to cover up the "egregious" crimes she was committing. What are these egregious crimes? Apparently it is that her charitable foundation, which earns an A from charity watchdogs, took money from foreign governments. This is a great example of the big lie. And no one is a bigger liar than Trump.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Then he went back to be afraid, be very afraid.

America was shocked to its core when our police officers in Dallas were so brutally executed.

Immediately after Dallas, we have seen continued threats and violence against our law enforcement officials.

Law officers have been shot or killed in recent days in Georgia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan and Tennessee.

On Sunday, more police were gunned down in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Three were killed, and three were badly injured.
 

An attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans.

I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: when I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order to our country.

I will work with, and appoint, the best and brightest prosecutors and law enforcement officials to get the job done.

In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate.

Once again, invoke a crisis and offer an easy solution.  This is a very real crisis and it calls for serious solutions.    However, what good does it do to appoint the best and brightest prosecutors and law enforcement officials when the people who commit these crimes are inevitably killed in the attacks? The only solution is prevention but Trump doesn't seem to recognize this. Additionally, most crime is investigated and punished at the local level. Is Trump proposing to federalize the nation's police forces?  

On top of this, when Trump says "I am the Law and Order candidate," he is echoing Richard Nixon in 1968. At that time, I am the Law and Order candidate meant I will put down the black people. Trump may not have the historical memory to recognize this but the parallel is striking.

The Big Pivot

Then Trump pivots:

This Administration has failed America's inner cities. It's failed them on education. It's failed them on jobs. It's failed them on crime. It's failed them in every way and on every level.

When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally.

Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have the same right to live out their dreams as any other child in America?

This is inspiring rhetoric but it is completely the opposite of the divide and conquer message that he has been setting out. Which of these is the real message?

In one of the stranger portions of the speech, he speaks out for the LGBTQ community but only when they are threatened by ISIS.

Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBTQ community.

As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.

This is an attempt to pivot toward inclusiveness but it is very narrow. His party's platform is against marriage equality, but he wants to protect the LGBTQ community from foreign terrorists. What about domestic terrorists? Will he support hate crimes legislation? His party opposes it.

The False Narrative

Going back to Hillary he brings up a false narrative:

We must abandon the failed policy of nation-building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror. This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel.

Nation-building and regime change was the policy of the Bush administration not Hillary Clinton. The regime change in Iraq occurred during the Bush administration. The biggest criticism of President Obama's policies in Syria is that he didn't do enough to back the Syrian rebels. This was the opposite of regime change. We did not set out to change the government of Egypt. That was an organic movement where the people of Egypt rose up against a corrupt dictator. He has a point about Libya. We intervened, although the President was criticized for "leading from behind," that is, letting our allies take the lead. As President Obama has admitted, failing to plan for what would happen next in Libya was his biggest regret. Trump takes situations which are nuanced or which are the opposite of what he is saying and puts them into a black and white narrative.

After this, Trump seems to take credit for changing the focus of NATO. Here is what he said:

Recently I have said that NATO was obsolete, because it did not properly cover terror, and also, that many of the member countries were not paying their fair share. As usual, the United States has been picking up the cost.

Shortly thereafter, it was announced that NATO will be setting up a new program in order to combat terrorism -- a true step in the right direction.

This is kind of a non sequitur. He makes his criticism of NATO and then points out that right after he said it, NATO did something right.   Is he claiming that he caused it?   He sure gives that impression.

Immigrant Bashing

After this Trump returns to the immigrant bashing that has been a consistent theme of his campaign.

Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.

My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that there's no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from.

I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people. Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be.

Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens, especially for African-American and Latino workers.

We are going to have an immigration system that works, but one that works for the American people.

On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants_Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw.

They are just three brave representatives of many thousands who have suffered so gravely.

Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.

These families have no special interests to represent them.

There are no demonstrators to protest on their behalf.

My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain.
 

Instead, my opponent wants Sanctuary Cities.

But where was the sanctuary for Kate Steinle?

Where was the Sanctuary for the children of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel?

Where was the Sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?

These wounded American families have been alone.

But they are alone no longer.

Tonight, this candidate and the whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.

We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.
 

I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America's Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system.

By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will end the cycle of human smuggling and violence. Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored.

By enforcing the rules for the millions who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.

Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied - and every politician who has denied them - to listen very closely to the words am about to say.

On January 20th of 2017, the day I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced.

We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone. But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens.

My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton.

Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief. Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness.

Her plan will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder for recent immigrants to escape from poverty and join the middle class.

There is so much to respond to in this passage. Trump talks about "massive" flows of Syrian refugees. We have taken in about 1,200. Increasing that by 550% means going up to 9,000. That is a drop in the bucket compared to what our European allies have taken in. On top of that, there are close to 0 terrorist attacks by recent refugees. While Trump claims to be a Christian, he has no compassion for the foreigner in our midst.

Then he paints this picture that immigrants are violent. Actually, immigrants are more law abiding than native born citizens for the simple reason that they don't want to stand out.    And when he says that there is no one speaking out for the families of people killed by illegal immigrants, he is just wrong.  

Trump can't help but mention his stupid border wall. It's not going to happen. It would bankrupt the country and involve a massive confiscation of private property. Give it up Trump.

And what is this about Hillary calling for sanctuary cities? It's the big lie.

Then Trump makes this ridiculous statement that by ending catch and release, "peace will be restored." Last time I looked we weren't at war with immigrants. I grew up in El Paso, Texas. It is right across the border from Juarez, one of the most violent cities in Mexico. And yet El Paso is one of the safest cities in the U.S. If Trump was correct, El Paso would be awash in blood.

Magical Thinking On Taxes and Regulation

After this, Trump turned to economic policy. Like a typical Republican, he wants to cut taxes in the magical belief that this will bring economic prosperity. Let's listen to what he said.

While Hillary Clinton plans a massive tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has run for president this year - Democrat or Republican.

Middle-income Americans and businesses will experience profound relief, and taxes will be greatly simplified for everyone.

America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies and new jobs to come roaring back into our country.

Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers of them all. Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as 2 trillion dollars a year, and we will end it.

The Republican playbook consistently calls for tax cuts. It might have made sense in the Reagan administration when the top tax rate was 80%. However, it should be obvious that the Bush tax cuts combined with the war in Iraq turned the Clinton surplus into a massive deficit.   On top of that, the Bush tax cuts did not lead to prosperity.  They to the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression.  Finally, the claim that we are one of the highest-taxed nations in the world is just absurd.

And about regulations. No one likes government regulations. However, we do like to breathe clean air and drink water that is free from lead contamination (does anyone remember Flint, Michigan). We prefer to fly on planes that don't crash and drive on roads that don't crumble. Regulations may be expensive but they just might save your life.

Making the World Safe from Government

A little while later, Trump doubles down on his plan to protect Americans from evil government with a string of non sequiturs. He said:

My opponent would rather protect bureaucrats than serve American children.

Really? When did she say that?

We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again.

And we will fix TSA at the airports!

I thought he wanted more security. What does he think TSA does?

We're going to work with all of our students who are drowning in debt to take the pressure off these young people just starting out their adult lives.

That's great. I think that was part of Bernie Sanders' platform.

We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we are protecting, at a massive cost to us, will be asked to pay their fair share.

We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My just-released Ten Point Plan has received tremendous veteran support. We will guarantee those who serve this country will be able to visit the doctor or hospital of their choice. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal - one more sign of how out of touch she really is.

The VA Scandal is bad. However, how are you going to fix it without spending more money? Is Trump willing to do that? Of course not.

My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment. I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.

No Hillary does not want to abolish the Second Amendment. However, she will stand up to the fanatics in the NRA who oppose regulations supported by 90% of Americans, including their own members.

At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical and religious community in general who have been so good to me and so supportive.

You have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits.

An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans.

I am glad to see that Donald Trump has gotten religion. After cheating on two of his wives and marrying a woman who likes posing with very few clothes on and operating casinos, it is good to see that he wants to be a role model for the evangelical community.

I am pretty much of an absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment. However, there is nothing that says that churches have to be tax exempt. If you want to take the goodies from the government that come with being tax exempt, you have to accept the restrictions. Religious people can still fully participate in politics. You will notice that there is no shortage of Christian pastors involved in politics. However, as a Christian I don't think that politics has a place in the pulpit. Pastors should preach the gospel, not the government.

I Am the Leader

And then the big finish.

My pledge reads: "I'M WITH YOU - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."

I am your voice.

So to every parent who dreams for their child, and every child who dreams for their future, I say these words to you tonight:

I'm with you, I will fight for you, and I will win for you.

To all Americans tonight, in all of our cities and in all of our towns, I make this promise:
 

We Will Make America Strong Again.

We Will Make America Proud Again.

We Will Make America Safe Again.

And We Will Make America Great Again.

God Bless You And Good Night.

Final Thoughts

By now it should be clear. Donald Trump is not my voice. He is with the American people all right. It's just that his vision of the American people excludes a lot of us. If anyone fails to support him, he will respond with blinding ferocity and venomous insults.    Just witness his treatment of Ted Cruz.

By now it should be clear that Donald Trump has not convinced me. However, will my rant convince anyone else? Probably not. We are so divided, just as we were in 1960, 1968, 2000 and 2008. President Obama did not create this divide with his so-called divisive rhetoric.  We have been divided into warring camps, each convinced that they alone speak for the American people for generations. However, there is no one person who speaks for the American public because we do not have a common vision for America. When we are most divided, a strong man will appear who will claim to speak for the American people. However, when the people are divided, the leader will speak for part of the people and against the rest. While Trump makes overtones of inclusiveness, his overall message is that if you are not for me, you are not a good American. If you are not for me, I will crush you.

Is Hillary much better? She's certainly not perfect. I could go on and on about her faults. She's certainly not my first choice. She may make this country worse off. However, I do not think she will destroy it. In this election of diminished expectations that may be enough.

Why Can't We Get Back to Government the Way the Founding Fathers Intended It? Because They Were a Fractious Bunch Who Disagreed About Nearly Everything.

We have good reason to revere our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   Moving from the divine right of kings to the consent of the governed was a major step in the history of freedom.    However, the Founding Fathers did not have a single vision of what government under the Constitution would look like.   They fought with each other about what the Constitution should look like and later what it meant.    Nowhere is this conflict more clear than in looking at Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton was an orphan, a bastard and an immigrant who came to this country with nothing.   He was a New Yorker who rose to high station through education and hard work.  Hamilton was George Washington's right hand man during the Revolution.   During the debates over the Constitution, he favored a strong national government which would have all the power at the expense of the states.   He also favored a president for life.    He didn't get the Constitution he wanted.  However, he led the effort to ratify the Constitution by writing most of the Federalist Papers along with his ally at the time, James Madison.   As Treasury Secretary under President Washington, he championed the creation of the First Bank of the United States.   He also argued for neutrality between England and France.    He lived in a era where men settled matters of honor with duels, but his personal honor did not prevent him from sleeping with another man's wife and then paying hush money to her husband.    He died in a duel at the hands of Aaron Burr.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was a lawyer, a philosopher and a Virginia planter.   He was the main author of the Declaration of Independence which contains these words:   

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.   That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

While Jefferson referred to unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, he was not a religious man.   In fact, he coined the term "wall of separation" which has become shorthand for the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.   Jefferson believed that the federal government should be limited to the powers specifically enumerated although this did not keep him from doubling the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase.  He was Secretary of State under George Washington and was the third President of the United States.   In Washington's cabinet, he favored siding with France in its conflict with England.     He was a slave owner who fathered children with one of his slaves.

James Madison

James Madison was also a Virginia plantation owner who owned slaves.   He was the primary author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.    Along with Hamilton, he helped write the Federalist Papers.   Madison was Jefferson's Secretary of State and then served as the fourth President.    Over his life, he shifted from being a proponent of a strong national government to favoring state's rights.    In the Federalist No. 44, he proposed the implied powers theory that was later championed by Hamilton.

No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized.

 In other words, the national government had the power to do anything necessary to achieve its purposes.    However, in reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts, he proposed that states could nullify actions of the national government.    As President, he sought a declaration of war against England.  However, because the Democratic-Republicans under Jefferson and Madison had reduced reduced the army, closing the Bank of the United States and limited taxation, Madison did not have a strong army or the financial means to pay for one.   The British invaded Washington and burned the White House and the Capitol.   Many state militias refused to fight and a bill for a draft was defeated in Congress.   The war ended after Napolean was defeated at the Battle of Waterloo and the English lost interest in fighting the United States.    After opposing extension of the charter of the first Bank of the United States and vetoing a bill providing for a second national bank, he eventually approved the Second Bank of the United States based on the difficulties involved in funding the War of 1812.

Lessons From Three Founding Fathers

What can we learn about today's struggles from these Founding Fathers?

1.  Enumerated Powers vs. Implied Powers

One of the rallying cries of the Tea Party is that the national government should be limited to those powers expressly set out in the Constitution.  This is one reason why many Republicans want to abolish many government agencies.   This was consistent with Jefferson's view of the Constitution until he had the chance to do something which was not enumerated, that is, the Louisiana Purchase. 
Hamilton was a strong proponent of the view that the national government could do anything that was not forbidden and he was initially supported by Madison, who later changed his mind and supported the Jeffersonian view.

2.   Strong National Government vs. Strong States

Hamilton wanted a strong national government.   If he had had his way, the states would have been stripped of almost all power.   Jefferson and Madison not only favored state's rights, but believed that the states had the right to nullify federal legislation.   It took a civil war and the civil rights struggle to establish that states did not have the right to disregard laws enacted by the national government.   However, there are still some politicians who still make this argument.

3.   National Bank/National Debt

There is a long tradition in this country of distrusting banks and expressing suspicion of a national bank.    The first and second Bank of the United States were both allowed to lapse.   We did not have a permanent national bank in this country under the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.    The Fed remains a target of conspiracy theorists today.   

One benefit of having a national bank was the ability to borrow money.   Madison learned that not having the ability to borrow on the credit of the national government was a real problem when he could not fund the War of 1812.

4.   Military and Foreign Policy

This is an area where the Founding Fathers were very contradictory.   Hamilton favored a standing army but opposed getting involved in foreign wars.   Jefferson and Madison opposed a standing army but wanted to go to war against England and in support of France.   This proved to be a disaster in the War of 1812.    Jefferson and Madison had somewhat more success with the First and Second Barbary Wars.   

    

5.   Religion

None of these three Founding Fathers were particularly religious.    According to one biographer, Hamilton was "a conventional liberal with theistic inclinations who was an irregular churchgoer at best."   However, he could embrace Christianity when it served his political purposes, such as in opposing Jefferson.    Jefferson and Madison, on the other hand, worked mightily to ensure that the United States did not have a national religion.   While there were other Founding Fathers who were very religious, the lack of religion among these founders demonstrates that religiosity was not unanimous.   

6.   Summing It Up

Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison demonstrate just how much the Founding Fathers disagreed about and how much they fought with each other.   In a very real sense, they were making up America as they went along.   In a very real sense, we still are.

A Political Journey

We throw the words "liberal" and "conservative" around a lot in political discussion, generally as an insult toward someone of the opposing persuasion.    However, what do they really mean?   I will offer my own story as an example of how subjective our understanding of the terms can be.  

Early Years

I come from Mid-Western stock.   My parents modeled and tried to pass on to us beliefs in hard work, education and personal responsibility.    They have been married for sixty years, raised three children and remain active in their church.   My parents were the first members of their families to go to college.   They held traditional jobs.  My father worked for a defense contractor for thirty years before pursuing a second career in retirement.  My mother was a teacher before I was born and returned to that profession after raising three boys.   My parents were frugal to a fault.   Our clothes were purchased at discount stores and our meals were home cooked.    Vacations consisted of going to church camp or taking long car trips to educational destinations.   

Despite this wealth of good examples, my initial political leanings came down to a single political ad during the race between Richard Nixon and George McGovern.   The Nixon ad cleverly showed a bunch of toy soldiers being knocked off a board.   The message was that if you voted for the peacenik McGovern, national defense and people who worked there would suffer.   In my eleven year old mind, a win by McGovern meant my father would be unemployed.   Then there was that whole conspiracy the liberal media called Watergate, but that's a story for another day.

High School

Fast forward seven years.   I was working hard in school and making good grades once I was finally eligible to take advanced placement courses.  I had a job sacking groceries beginning after my junior year.   Because my parents had taught me that you should never expect anything from anyone else, about 80% of my earnings went into my college fund and I had the princely sum of $10 per week for personal stuff (although you could buy a ticket to a rock concert for $7.50 back then).  While my co-workers all had cars, I walked to work until my parents got concerned about me walking home late and night and allowed to drive the family station wagon.    I was a National Merit Scholar but schools were not beating the doors down to recruit me or offer me aid.  My parents explained that because I was neither a minority or poor, I should not expect anything.    Eventually I found a school that offered me $1,000 per year (about 25% of the total ride) as a National Merit Scholar.   I had no thoughts of attending an Ivy League school because I knew we could not afford it and I was beginning to develop an attitude about the spoiled liberals on the East Coast.   

College

I was a political science major and a co-founder of the College Republicans at my school.   I was campus coordinator for George H.W. Bush who impressed me as having an impressive resume and being dedicated to good government.    Ronald Reagan scared me as an anti-Communist fanatic who would likely drag us into World War III but I liked his line that government was the problem, not the solution.   I would be working in a few years and did not want the government taking any more out of my paycheck than necessary.     Like a good Republican, I supported Reagan when he got the nomination.   I also supported our local Republican candidates who succeeded in ousting a handful of Democrats who were more conservative than they were.   In my mind, they were good government Republicans.   

During those days, I favored both personal freedom and limited government.   My initial belief was that the government had no business telling a woman whether to have an abortion or not.   However, I changed my mind after reading some feminist authors who argued that abortion was something forced on women by men who did not want to support their children.   My original start as a pro-lifer was not strongly influenced by religion.    I was a tepid Lutheran and we just didn't talk about nasty things like abortion.   Instead, I was influenced more by a view of personal responsibility, that if a couple created a child, they should take responsibility for it rather than seeking the easy way out through an abortion.   I'm not saying these beliefs were consistent.   I had very little sympathy for Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.   They were mostly Baptists and their brand of religiously inspired politics struck me as a bit nutty.   After all, they thought there was a religious mandate to abolish the Department of Education.   What did religion have to do with education?

The George W Bush Years

After college and Law School, I remained active in Republican politics.  I was asked to run for precinct chair by the religious conservatives.    I was a delegate to several state conventions.  I worked to get George W. Bush elected president.    I thought W would be great.   He had vanquished the foul-mouthed Ann Richards from the Governor's office and was going to go to Washington and talk some Texas common sense to the Eastern phonies.    I thought that W demolished Al Gore in the debates.

I would become deeply disenchanted with the Republican Party during the years 2000-2008.   First, the religious conservatives became obsessed with abortion as a litmus test.    I witnessed U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison being booed at the Republican State Convention for being a "pro-bort" because she was only 90% pro-life.   In 2003, we invaded Iraq.  I initially thought it was necessary because Saddam's weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the region.  Instead, what we got were no weapons of mass destruction, Abu Ghraib and Sunni and Shiite militias fighting against the troops that had come to liberate them.   In 2005, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.   It made bankruptcy much more complicated without offering any corresponding benefits.   It created a whole class of people who were too broke to file bankruptcy and couldn't file on their own because of all the traps built into the legislation.    Finally, throughout his terms, W tried to pass immigration reform only to be thwarted by his own party.   Immigration reform was important to me because it aligned with both my view of this nation as a land of immigrants, my economic belief in the laws of supply and demand and my personal views of Christian charity.   The recession of 2008 convinced me that Republicans were more interested in supporting big banks than helping the American people.

Two Election Cycles as an Independent

By 2008, I decided that I had had enough with the Republican Party and would consider myself an independent from that point on.    I voted for John McCain in 2008 because a felt that a free-thinking Republican who had extensive knowledge of government and had served honorably in the military would be better than a young candidate with a great personal story but little experience who might turn out to have some really dangerous ideas.   Four years later, I voted for Obama because bin Laden was dead and Chrysler and GM were alive and because he hadn't done most of the bad things I had feared that he might do.  I also did not appreciate all of the BS lying about his citizenship and his religion.   I don't like people who make up nasty slander and there was a lot of it going on.   On top of that, Romney was an out of touch plutocrat who renounced all of his prior views to get the nomination.  

Today

This year, I decided that I would no longer oppose gay marriage or first trimester abortions.   On gay marriage, I decided that it did not hurt me if two people who were of the same sex received government sanction for their union.   If it didn't hurt me and it made their lives better, then why not?   Allowing civil gay marriage does not require any church to perform a gay marriage.   Also, I seriously doubt that God is going to wreak vengeance on us for allowing gay marriage when He has not destroyed us for all the other nasty things that we do to hurt each other.    When it comes to abortion, the videos that were released this summer purporting to show Planned Parenthood selling baby parts and the subsequent shooting of a Planned Parenthood clinic convinced me that the pro-life movement is insane.  They profess so much concern about the unborn but they oppose any efforts to support those who are alive.   They support unborn life but cheer enthusiastically when the criminal justice system executes the innocent or when police officers break the law to kill and abuse the citizenry.   I will be happy to reconsider my position on first term abortions when the pro-life movement shows that they are capable of being honest and care about people after they are born.  

Definition of Conservatism

That has been a long journey.   Does it make a liberal, a conservative, none of the above?   Let's look at what the terms mean.    According to Merriam-Webster, conservative means:

1 :  preservative

 

2

a :  of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism

b capitalized :  of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) :  of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) :  progressive conservative

 

3

a :  tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :  traditional

b :  marked by moderation or caution conservative

estimate>

c :  marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

 

4:  of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism 

 

Throwing out the last definition, which is not very helpful, conservatives tend to favor supporting existing institutions and acting with moderation or caution.    To this, I would add favoring limited government and individual freedom.

 

Thus, a traditional conservative would support entities such as the church, the army, law enforcement, marriage and the traditional family and private business and would oppose expanding the role of government. A traditional conservative would support individual integrity and responsibility as well as a larger responsibility to society.    A traditional conservative would also act with moderation and caution.   

The biggest thing that I see lacking in modern conservativism is any sense of moderation and caution.  That is what initially drew me to George H.W. Bush.   The interesting thing about Ronald Reagan is that he built up national defense and confronted the Soviet Union but the only country he invaded was Grenada (and maybe Panama).    He knew the importance of projecting international power as well as the importance of using it sparingly.   George W. Bush, on the other hand, was all too ready to jump into two wars without having a well thought out plan.    That was not conservative. 

I also see today's Republicans as breaking with the narrative of supporting personal integrity and responsibility and the noblesse oblige to society at large.   Today's Republican party focuses on a radical view of Christianity that is devoted almost entirely to enforcing a code of personal morality and has little love of neighbor.    The willingness of Republicans to lie and to break the law is deeply unconservative.  While Democrats, particularly in Chicago, are good at the corruption game, Texas has an Attorney General who is likely to go to jail for securities fraud.   How conservative is that?  Today's Republican party echoes Gordon Gekko in saying greed is good.   They may talk a good game about saving the middle class but in practice all they ever propose is tax cuts that will never trickle down far enough.   

Definition of Liberal

What is the meaning of liberal?    According to Merriam-Webster:

1

a :  of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>

b archaic :  of or befitting a man of free birth

 

2

a :  marked by generosity :  openhanded liberal

giver>

b :  given or provided in a generous and openhanded way liberal meal>

c :  ample, full

 

3   obsolete :  lacking moral restraint :  licentious

 

4 :  not literal or strict :  loose liberal

translation>

 

5:  broad-minded; especially :  not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

 

6

a :  of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism

b capitalized :  of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially :  of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives 

 

This shows the dangers of relying on definitions.   The parts they got right were generosity, particularly if government is the engine of generosity and not being bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy or traditional form.   However, that is not the full picture.    Liberals believe in change, they have less respect for traditional institutions and they believe in the power of government to achieve a greater equality of result, or to provide a minimum level of support for all people.

 

Liberals are not afraid of bold, transformative action, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration and the Voting Rights Act.   They have much less respect for tradition in values.    Their biggest weakness is that their solution to nearly every problem is another government program.     Bernie Sanders' promise of free public college for all is typical of the liberal view.    My conservative friends are quite right that liberals are willing to bend the Constitution when it suits their needs, this being a subset of not being bound by tradition.    

Who I Am?  A Lutheran I Hope

I am not sure where I really fall these days, other than I know that I am not Republican.  However, a lot of what I believe is influenced by my religion.  I am a Lutheran which means that we originated as a reform movement.   While we haven't done much that is radical in the last 500 years, it is still in our blood.  I am strongly moved by the verses in the Bible which speak of love of neighbor.   I do not see the Bible as imposing a personal code with regard to sex while taking a hands off approach to everything else that we do.   I strongly believe that if you cannot love your neighbor who you have seen, you cannot love God whom you have not seen.   The obligation to love your neighbor does not necessarily mean adopting a government program for every need.   However, it certainly does not equate to social darwinism either.    I may not be a very good Christian, but I do try to let it influence my thinking.  

There Is Plenty of Religious Violence to Go Around, So Don't Demonize Your Muslim Neighbors

"Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all"

--Cathedral by Graham Nash (1977)

After the attacks in Paris, Beirut and Bamako, there is a lot of attention being paid to Islamist-inspired violence.    Republican candidates and officials want to ban all Syrian refugees from coming to this country because some of them might be terrorists.    Donald Trump has said that he would "strongly consider"shutting down mosques in the United States.    A meme on Facebook falsely claimed that there have been no Jewish or Christian terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 which listing a litany of Islamist attacks.  People still claim that President Obama loves Muslims more than Americans.  Meanwhile, Muslims cry out "not in my name" and condemn the killers as "un-Islamic."

     

I see two things going on here.   One is the very real revulsion and anger brought about by savage attacks on Western civilization.  The other, more sinister thread is the continuing battle in the culture wars to define America as a Judeo-Christian nation where Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and others who are not Jews or Christians are simply unwelcome.   

I am writing to argue that violence is a natural tendency of mankind which exists across most religions.    While Daesh has the highest body count in recent years, you can't characterize any religion as all violent or all peaceful.  

Violence in the Religious Texts

Commentators are quick to point out that the Quran is full of verses advocating death, rape, slavery and other nasty stuff.   They are correct.   However, the Quran also says "whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind."   5:32.     However, before we condemn Islam as inherently violent, it is worth looking at our own religions.    

The Jewish and Christian scriptures are full of violence.   One author added up all of the deaths attributed to God in the Bible and came up with a number ranging from between 2.8 million to 25 million.   You can read it here.   I found another article which summarized scriptural justifications for murder in Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.  Because the Christian portion includes the Old Testament, it extends to Jews as well.    You and find it in section 5 of this article.   

Religious Violence in the 20th and 21st Centuries

Much of the history of the past 115 years has been written in blood.    We have seen two World Wars, multiple genocides and too many conflicts, terrorist attacks and lone wolf killings to count.   Many of these killings had religious origins.

Genocides

Genocide is the attempt by a government or other group to exterminate an entire people.   You can read about genocides in history here.    Many of these genocides were religious in nature.    

The Nazis, who I would characterize as a Pagan/Christian cult, killed six million Jews in the largest genocide during the period.

The Muslim Turks committed genocide against the Christian Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks during and after World War I, resulting in two to two and a half million killings over all.   

In 1984, about 2,800 Sikhs were killed by Hindus in India.

In July 1995, Christian Serbs and Croatians killed about 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia.   

You can also add in the genocides by the atheist Soviet Union and China against the Muslim Chechens and Buddhist Tibetans in the 1940s and 1950s respectively.    

Wars

 Many wars have had a religious component.   In Nigeria, about 20,000 people have died in violence between Christians and Muslims.    In Northern Ireland, about 3,500 people were killed in fighting between Catholics and Protestants.

Terrorist Attacks

Terrorist attacks have lower body counts but can have a greater impact on society.   For example, the murder of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish terrorist derailed the Oslo Peace Accords.    Here are some of the major terrorist attacks since 2000 (although I had to go back to 1994 to find a large attack by a Jewish terrorist):

1994:   Jewish terrorist kills 29 Muslims in Cave of the Patriarchs

 

9/11/01  Al Qaeda Attacks on U.S.    2,977 persons killed by Islamist terrorists.   Victims included Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Sept.-Oct. 2001:   White supremacist kills a Muslim and a Hindu in Texas because he thought they were Muslim

 

10/12/02:   202 killed by Jamaah Islamiyah in Bali, Indonesia

 

10/23/02:   170 killed by Chechens in Russia

 

2/17/04:   116 killed by Abu Sayyaf in Phillipines

3/11/04:    191 killed by Al Qaeda in Madrid, Spain   

 

9/1/04:  385 killed by Chechen terrorists in Beslan, Russia

8/4/05:   Jewish terrorist kills 4 Arab Israeli civilians

 

7/11/06:   209 killed by Pakistani-affiliated Islamists in Mumbai, India

8/14/07:    Sunnis kill 796 Yazidis in Iraq

727//08:    2 killed by Christian terrorists at Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN

 

11/26/08:    Lashkar-e-Taiba kills 166 in Mumbai, India

6/10/09:   Security guard killed at Holocaust museum by white Supremacist terrorist

 

5/31/09:     George Tiller executed in Lutheran Church by anti-abortion terrorist

 

11/5/09:    Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Nadal Hasan kills 13 in Texas

1/18-20/11:   Al Qaeda kills 137 in Iraq

7/22/11:   Christian terrorist Anders Breivik kills 77 in Norway

 

9/4/11:   Al Shabaab kills 100 in Somalia

5/21/12:  Al Qaeda affiliate kills 101 in Yemen

7/23/12:  Islamic State of Iraq kills 116 in Iraq

8/7/12:     Neo-Nazi terrorist kills 6 at Sikh Temple in Wisconsin

8/16/12:  Islamic State of Iraq kills 128 in Iraq

9/9/12:  Islamic State of Iraq kills 108 in Iraq

9/11/12:   4 killed in attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi

1/10/13:   Taliban affiliated group kills 130 in Pakistan

2/16/13:   Taliban affiliated group kills 110 Shias in Pakistan

8/15/13:   4 killed in Boston Marathon bombings in Boston, MA

Jan.-May 2014:   Christians killed over 1,000 Muslims in Central African Republic

 

2/14/14:   Boko Haram kills 200 in Nigeria

5/20/14:   Boko Haram kills 118 in Nigeria

8/14:  ISIL kills 700 Sunni Muslims in Iraq

11/28/14:    Boko Haram kills 120 Muslims in Nigeria mosque

12/4/14:     Incompetent Christian terrorist shoots up Austin; only succeeds in getting himself killed

12/16/14:    140 persons, most children killed by Taliban group in Peshawar, Pakistan

12/18/14:   230 tribesmen killed by ISIL in Syria

12/14:    ISIL kills 150 Iraqi women for refusing to marry their soldiers

 

1/8/15:    Boko Haram kills at least 200 in Nigeria.

3/20/15:  135 Muslims killed by ISIL in bombing of mosques in Yemen.

4/2/15:   148 people, mostly Christian students, killed by Al-Shabaab in Kenya.

6/17/15:   Neo-Nazi terrorist kills 9 Christians in South Carolina

7/31/15:     Palestinian baby and father killed by Jewish terrorist

 

10/10/15:   102 killed by ISIS in Ankara, Turkey.

10/31/15:  ISIS bombs Russian plane killing 224.

 

11/13/15:   ISIS kills 136 in Paris

What does all this show?   Most religious violence occurs in Africa and Asia.    Islamic terrorists are just as likely to kill their fellow Muslims as Christians or Jews.    With the exception of the Central African Republic, Christian and Jewish terrorists are much less deadly than their Muslim counterparts.  With the exception of Ft. Hood and the Boston Marathon bombing, I only listed terrorist acts by Islamists that killed over 100 people.   If I had used that filter for Christians and Jews, there would not have been anything to report.    Nevertheless, it is worth noting that since 9/11, there have been more people killed  in America by right-wing terrorists (185) than Muslims (37). 

Conclusion

We certainly live in a dangerous world.    Except for 9/11, America has been largely spared from the bloodshed which has gone on elsewhere in the world. Even the terrorist attacks of the past 15 years pale in comparison to the genocides of the 20th Century.    While we should be vigilant, there is simply no cause for demonizing American Muslims or shutting down mosques.    I suspect that if you took an honest survey of American Muslims (as opposed to the piece of crap cited by Glenn Beck in his recent book), you would find that most of them are here because they want to share in our freedom, not burn it down.