Polarization and intolerance are destroying the foundations of freedom and liberty that our Founding Fathers and subsequent generations have risked their lives to preserve.  There is no debate on any issue, no opportunity to understand the point of view of others, we find ourselves in a constant quarrel based on moral equivalency.  “Well that’s all good, but President Bush developed a massive deficit,” or “President Clinton didn’t do enough to dampen the growth of radical Islamic terrorists.”

 You know how this works; in fact you’ve participated in polarized “discussion.”  I ask you a question and instead of answering you throw out a factoid demonstrating that my party or candidate did the same thing, only much worse than your party or candidate.  This approach fosters intolerance and keeps us all locked in a hopeless cycle that never results in any true, honest or positive improvements to our society.

 A great example of this futile exercise was the recent spat about the response given by the Miss California contestant in the Miss USA contest.  She answered the gay judge honestly and clearly and then pro-gay television commentators, proving that it’s not OK to disagree with their position on marriage, maliciously and viciously attacked her.  The absurdity of this polarization was clearly demonstrated when a liberal feminist blogger/ columnist was interviewed on Fox News by Laura Ingraham about the attacks being made on the young lady representing California.  The self-proclaimed feminist didn’t defend or even support the young lady; in fact she attacked her for being intolerant (sic) of gay people!  I couldn’t believe what I was seeing and hearing.  The feminist couldn’t focus on the abuse of Miss California, no she had to continue the polarization and add her own insult to the injuries already inflicted on this young woman.

 Why did the feminist have to interject her own judgments about same sex marriage in a discussion about liberals attacking Miss California in a very derogatory and degrading manner.  Why didn’t the feminist take a position about this abuse?  Isn’t that what a feminists stands for?  I could only surmise that the political agenda out weighs her core principles.  Now I find myself in a place where I can’t understand the position of the feminists because her comments appear to contradict what I thought feminism was all about and there is no tolerance for another point of view.

 On a recent flight I overheard the flight attendants talking about the Miss California situation and how she brought this abuse on herself.  I challenged the most vocal flight attendant about how unfair the young woman was being treated and portrayed in the media and he responded with, “If you live in a glass house…”  His position was that it was OK for the media to attack the young lady, to dig for all the dirt it can, because she put herself in this position, center stage with America.  Did the media investigate all of the contestants to see who had posed naked or semi-naked?  Of course not.  The only reason they attacked this lady was because she spoke her truth and the media didn’t like it.

We have lost our sense of decency!

 Then we have the Wanda Sykes monolog at the recent Press dinner in Washington, D.C. where she attacked Rush Limbaugh with outright lies and a desire to see him die.  And the President exhibiting extremely poor taste and a lack of dignity laughed at this outrageous indecency.  What was the reaction in the liberal press, “great humor; Rush brings this on himself; Rush deserved it.”  Proof positive that polarization and a lack of decency is the bulwark of American culture in this age of “Change.”

 Wanda Sykes has never listened to Rush a day in her life.  If she had she would find out that Rush doesn’t want America to fail in fact he is fighting each day for her liberty and the success of this entire country.  Rush has published a plan for economic and social recovery that Ms. Sykes and the liberal media will never read.  Rush never said he wanted America to fail, or for the President to fail.  He clearly stated, and I was listening live when he said it, he wanted the socialistic, big government policies of Mr. Obama to fail as they had wherever they have been tried before.  How do you get from a well-articulated counter proposal to Rush being a traitor and wishing that his kidneys should fail?  Polarization, ignorance and indecency, that’s how we get there.

 Where this polarizing dialog leads us is a state where open debate can’t take place and the best interest of the country can’t be determined.  It’s all about who has the power and how far the powerful can take their ideology.  We can’t talk about the facts that support either position, like with climate change or same sex marriage.  We can’t develop a prudent long-range policy because we refuse to act with grace and try to understand the opposition’s point of view.  When we offer a moral equivalent answer in lieu of a straight answer we encourage ignorance and foster division.

 What we end up with is a situation where we won’t put down our own strident views long enough to listen to what the other side has to say and upon what basis they formulated their beliefs.  I don’t understand you and you don’t understand me.

 So in the interest of developing a meaningful dialog I’ve listed my foundational beliefs so you know exactly where I stand.  Tell me where you stand!

 I believe:

Life begins at conception:  A human cell is alive and when two cells merge and divide life exists and should not be killed.

Marriage:  This is an institution, not a right and is the union of a man and a woman.

Equal Rights:  All citizens have equal protection under the law and these rights must not be abridged.  In the case of same sex partners I believe that they should have all the same rights as any other citizen and that government should get out of the institution of marriage.

Limited Federal Government:  The U.S. Constitution clearly limits the powers vested in the Federal government (Article 1 Section 8 and the 10^th Amendment).  All powers not specifically provided for in the Constitution are the responsibility of the State and local governments.

Fiscal Responsibility:  The government, at all levels must provide services that benefit the governed and do so efficiently and economically just as I must manage my own resources in a similar manner. They must spend less than they take in.

Free Market Economy:  The government, especially the Federal should provide minimum oversight of business to insure the safety and well being of the citizens.  These regulations must be constantly reviewed to insure that they are appropriate and have not resulted in un-intended and negative consequences.

U.S. Constitution:  I believe in a strict understanding of the Constitution and I don’t believe that it is a “living, breathing” document open for interpretation based on the current culture.  It is wrong to legislate from the bench and defeats the checks and balances so wisely incorporated into the Constitution.  If the Constitution needs to be changed or amended, as it has been in the past, follow the amendment process contained in the document.

Health Care:  This should be an open and free market program with no Federal Government control (other than standard of care regulations).  A single-payer government controlled system will result in rationed services and a lower quality of care for everyone.  The citizens need to be educated about health care issues and how to best deal with them (When to call the doctor and when not to) and the system converted to a competitive pay for service system.  Insurance should be limited to extreme conditions such as cancer and trauma care.

Immigration:  The United States of America would not exist if not for immigration.  And I’m fully supportive of continuing to welcome peoples from all over the globe who want to participate in this great democratic experiment and who want to share in the American dream.  I simply ask that these immigrants honor our laws and enter the country legally.  Those who have entered illegally must be held accountable for their actions and not granted amnesty.

Education:  This is the responsibility of the parents and the local communities.  The Federal government should have no part in the funding or the setting of policy.  In fact the U.S. Constitution prohibits this participation.  The closer to the home we can place the control of the educational process the better.  Just look at the statistics, we spend more today than we ever have and the test scores remain the same.

Foreign Policy/ National Defense:  The United States needs to maintain a strong and progressive defense program.  Whether we like it or not evil exists in this world and merely turning a cheek and hoping the menace will evaporate is foolhardy.  We should be careful where and when we get involved in foreign affairs but we can’t let our guard down.  Look at the military build-up of China (Whish also owns most of our national debt) and Russia to understand that our freedom, our liberty, our way of life is at risk if we become pacifists.

So there you have it.   When I layout my positions in this manner does it bring us closer together or drive us apart?  It is my opinion that each and every position I’ve presented is currently under attack by President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.  Maybe if we each take the time to itemize and share our core values we may be able to find common ground that we can use to encourage our representatives to act according to the consent of the governed instead of forcing their ideology on us.

What do you think?