Gene Wisdom featured in Guardian story.

Gene Wisdom

My friend Gene Wisdom, with whom I went to CPAC this year, is featured in the below article in The Guardian. This article was published March 16th, but it just now came to my attention. Gene Wisdom is a local conservative activist and heads the Conservative Fusion book club. His essay's have appeared in this blog.

CPAC 2013: An angry and beaten US right fires out scattergun wacky policies in hunt for victory

Gene Wisdom, a 55-year-old conservative from Nashville, Tennessee, was no fan of Barack Obama. Clutching a book called The Communist, he was waiting eagerly to meet the book's author, Paul Kengor, so that he could sign it. The book, which detailed the life of black American journalist and labour activist Frank Marshall Davis, bore a startling subtitle: "The untold story of Barack Obama's mentor." That worked for Wisdom. "It is very convincing," he said.

Believing that the president is more or less a communist would be surprising in many political circles, including many Republican ones. But Wisdom was not just queuing at another book launch. He was one of the crowd at the largest and most important conservative gathering in the American political calendar, where the outlandish is commonplace. (read more)

I would disagree with the view expressed in the Guardian that says the Conservative Political Action Conference, "fires out scattergun wacky policies in hunt for victory," or "does not do moderation or restraint," or "it appears to maintain only a loose connection with political realities," or "where the outlandish is commonplace."

While the conference is unabashedly conservative, as the name implies, there was very little presence of the nutty right. There were paleoconsevatives, and libertarian conservatives, and religious conservative and conservatives whose primary focus was economics and conservatives whose primary focus was traditional values. However, there were very few right wing nut jobs. There were no racist or right wing militia-types.  There was only one session, out of about two hundred or so, that openly advocated nullification. There was no booth of the John Birch Society or the conspiratorial Alex Jones's Info Wars. There was not even a Glenn Beck booth. There was no seminars on Agenda 21 that I recall, and no talk about FEMA concentration camps.  This was a gathering of mainstream conservative, but a fairly big-tent gathering, and not all conservative agree on all issues, so on some issues there were panelist or speakers who advocated moderation on the issue of abortion or gay marriage or the war on drugs and there were some who ademantly advocated immigration reform while others denounced any immigration reform as amnesty. I think the Guardian wrote their story before attending the convention.

To read more on my experince at CPAC, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Chief Justice John Roberts is still one of us.

by Gene Wisdom

Gene Wisdom

The recent Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare is obviously distressing to us conservatives.  The linchpin of the “progressive” agenda of President Barack Obama, this legislation met and fed a firestorm since it was first introduced.  It has provided arguably most of the fuel to the Tea Party and the conservative electoral gains (because for most of us Republican gains are meaningless except insofar as they serve conservative positions) in 2010.   

Obamacare threatens our Republic in a myriad of ways, least of all the disaster that it represents financially to our country, in terms of dollars lost in that toilet spiral that is the federal budget.  It is, as we all know by now, a government power grab of one-sixth of the economy, and much of the slump we see in the economy is due to the uncertainty and fear employers have over the impact of that law.  And it is but the first step toward the goal State Senator Barack Obama envisioned years ago of a single payer health system—national health insurance.  When we hear or speak the word “socialism” in regard to this President our first thought is Obamacare. 

Because of the threats and deleterious effects of Obamacare we conservatives had placed great hopes on the case as it wound its way to the Supreme Court.  Serious Constitutional issues were at stake: misuse of the Commerce Clause, the extent of the taxing power, not to mention that health care is nowhere listed in the Art. II, Sec. 8 enumerated powers of Congress.  

If there is a benefit to this outcome, a silver lining, it is that it has animated the conservative base.  To be overturned now will almost certainly require a 60-vote filibuster-proof conservative Republican majority in the Senate and of course hanging on to the current lead in the House.  It will mean consecutive Republican—rather, conservative, Revolutions in Congress, not to mention re-taking the White House.  Conservatives know that and will renew their fights now in all of these battles.  Where I had made several small contributions to conservative candidates to the House and Senate around the country in the last election I have not done so yet in 2012.  Now I will. 

One product of this decision, however, I believe, is misdirected.  It is an animus aborn toward Chief Justice John Roberts.  To be certain, he has lent his vote and voice to a terrible and possibly disastrous decision.  Spitfuls of venom have been directed at him from our side, labeling him a turncoat to conservative hopes, and saying that we were misled that he would be a conservative Justice. 

Conservatives would do well to ponder his record to date.  Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, while a member of the D.C. Circuit, Roberts was part of a unanimous panel in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which upheld the constitutionality of the military tribunals passed by Congress to try terrorism suspects.  In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) Roberts voted with the majority to uphold the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.  He is most often on the same side of important issues as Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.  
  

It is time for conservatives to step back into character and reflect.  While I am very disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts I am not angry with him.  I believed him to be a man of integrity and I don't think he suddenly sold himself out in the side he chose in this.  I believe he is simply in error.  A grievous error to be sure, but not a wound to his character.   

One of the undergraduate courses I am most glad I took at Jacksonville State University was in Constitutional Law (actually one in Criminal Justice; and two in Political Science, the instructor a conservative and avid reader of National Review).  Those courses taught me that there are often two defensible positions on Constitutional questions.  That doesn't mean that both are right but only that one can reasonably find support in the Constitution for oftentimes opposing positions.  It is up to sincere and thoughtful Justices to search the Constitution and the Founders for the correct position.  It is not always an easy search.  

Two examples that I quickly think of are (1) Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), in which liberal Justice Stevens made a strong originalist argument against the federal term limits law, and Clarence Thomas, whom I deeply admire, wrote the dissent.  I found myself agreeing strongly with Stevens; and (2) another case (I think it was Kentucky v. King, 2011) in which liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a lone dissenting opinion (Alito wrote the opinion for the majority) against no-knock entry.  I believe the other eight were wrong. 

All that to say that reasonable minds can differ and reasonable minds may also err.  Although a very major and consequential case to do so on, that is all I believe that Roberts has done.  Have no fear, conservatives, and be of good cheer.  Roberts is still one of us.  

Gene Wisdom is an Alabama native but has lived in the Nashville area since 2007. He, his wife Vicki, and their dog Savannah live near Nolensville.  Gene is a conservative activist and leads the Conservative Fusion Book Club.

Top Stories

The Lie That Will Not Die

Gene Wisdom

by Gene Wisdom - Like a bad horror movie the twentieth century gave birth to a monster. We are told it came to us suddenly in the form of a Revolution in Russia. But no, the beast gestated for decades in the minds of those thinkers who also gave us modern liberalism. The evil twin carried the same genes of a focus on economic equality, on the ability to create a utopia here on earth, and more fundamentally in the view that man’s nature is malleable; no, even more—perfectible. In the even earlier—by millenia—promise made to Adam by one who said he had Adam’s best interest at heart. Satan. “I’m from hell, I’m here to help.”

The promise? You shall be as Gods. If possible that would indeed be quite an improvement on man’s nature which eons of evolution have yet to dent.

Jean Jacques Rousseau tickled man’s ears telling him that he was born a noble savage, that the society into which he was born corrupted his soul. If man would but subsume his will to the General Will embodied in the State and eliminate those intermediate associations and influences and obligations he could live the tranquil life. Karl Marx simply gave a different cast to the baleful society; for him, the evil was in the economic arrangements, in exploitation by a powerful class. Still, the evil was not within man’s heart but again “out there” in the world. The goal was the same. General Will became the State, centralized and all powerful.

Lenin went on to weaponize these perversions, the ancient promise. Class warfare became coup d’etat, a sudden taking of power. But to effect the promise, to seal the lie, required a revolution in society, in government. Once power was taken, the real revolution began of overturning society. The intermediate associations were abolished as Rousseau required. Private organizations were eliminated, churches closed, priests imprisoned as in the first Rousseauan experiment, the French Revolution, opponents tortured and eliminated. Individual farms had to be abolished in the government’s absorption of individuals and the economy. Millions died in the ensuing orchestrated famine. To remake man, millions had to die. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, Lenin said. Millions.

And the millions multiplied. By the count of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, that number is over 100 million. The bodies piled up. In the USSR, where this nightmare first took form, the number was over 30 million, according to the late scholar Robert Conquest. In China, 65 million. Eastern Europe, Angola, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Nicaragua. And in North Korea, Cuba, and China, the bodies continue to pile up. For those who doubt China’s place in Communism’s ongoing horrors, you need but read human rights activist Harry Wu’s report on the Chinese laogai prison system.

And these numbers are but the bodies, the lives taken. Communism’s toll, its lie, also counted in the souls and minds destroyed. The horrors of the Soviet Gulag, the ongoing hideousness of the North Korean concentration camps in which over 200,000 are currently imprisoned, Cuba’s political prisons, and the systemic campaign of rapes of German women by the Red Army at the end of World War II are the short list.

In addition to the torment behind its Iron Curtain were the efforts to subvert free countries in the Marxian mandate of the Communist Manifesto, “Workers of the world, unite!”, the infernal version of the Great Commission, except that instead of freeing individual souls, it sought to subjugate peoples behind its barbed wires and guard towers. It began with the Communist International, the Comintern, in a worldwide campaign of subversion. The discipline of world Communist parties is captured in J. Edgar Hoover’s classic, Masters of Deceit. While not remembered as a moral high point it should not be forgotten that Senator McCarthy’s campaign was a response to that effort of subversion and espionage. And in addition to this are the countless numbers who have died fighting to defend against Communism’s attacks. American lives alone in Korea and Vietnam are over one hundred thousand.

President Trump, whom I otherwise am loathe to mention in the same sentence as Ronaldus Maximus, in a very Reaganesque move declared November 7 as National Day for the Victims of Communism. But is Communism a lesson not to be repeated? On that day one hundred years ago Lenin declared war on civilization, giving pallid life to the dream of Rousseau. We’ve long heard the adage from George Santayana that “those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it”. Unfortunately, given modern liberalism’s spoiled fruit in the West, which is our public education system and the attack on learning and real history, has given us a generation of “millennials”, most of whom in recent polling prefer Communism to free enterprise and liberty. And so, this system that has cost the lives and souls of millions of people, this lie that has had more human cost than centuries of warfare lives in the prison countries of North Korea, Cuba, and China, and in the weakened minds of Western youth.

Gene Wisdom, a retired naval officer, is a lifelong conservative Republican.  He is a native Alabamian, and he and his wife have recently moved from Nashville, where they lived for ten years, to Knoxville. While in Nashville Gene was moderator of the Conservative Fusion Book Club.

Top Stories

Great Time at CPAC!

Rod Williams and Gene Wisdom at CPAC

I just returned from the three-day annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D. C. and had a wonderful time! For a conservative political junkie activist like myself, the experience of CPAC must be similar to what a hard core country music fan feels when they attend fan fair. CPAC is three days of political rally, workshops, education, training, and networking. It is educational, motivating and exhilarating.

The event was actually in Maryland, across the river from D. C. at the Gaylord Hotel and Convention Center in National Harbor. I went to the event with my friend Gene Wisdom. We flew up together and shared a room at the Hapton Inn, directly across the street from Gaylord Hotel but a lot less expensive than the Gaylord.

CPAC is sponsored by The American Conservative Union which is America’s oldest and largest grassroots conservative organization founded in 1964. The ACU has hosted CPAC in the Nation’s Capital since 1974. I never did get a confirmed count of the number of people attending but heard numbers of between 8000 and 10,000. There is no liberal equivalent of CPAC.

Senator Marco Rubio

It is hard to summaries the three days, there was so much going on. At any one time there was one big event going on in the big room and from one to four other break-out session going on at the same time. In addition, there was the exhibition hall with several hundred booths where you can talk to the representatives of various organizations promoting their various causes. In the exhibition hall you can learn a lot about what these groups are doing and about issues and how to get involved. You can also get lots of freebies. I came home with nine tee shirts, a ball cap, four books, several tote bags, a poster of Ronald Regan, and numerous ink pens, and label pens and buttons.

At the back of the exhibition hall there is a place where book signings occur. While I did not pursue getting autographed copies of books, for those who do it is a chance to get the autograph, shake hands with and get your picture taken with the big names in the conservative movement. Even though I did not get in line to get a book autographed, I accompanied Gene to get several autographs and it is fun to see the famous politicians and authors up close. In addition to all of this there are movies and documentaries being shown in a theater. Not being able to do it all, I skipped all of the movies but many of them sounded interesting.

Sarah Palin pokes fun at New York Mayor Michael

Bloomberg's call to ban large sodas

While it is great to be in the big hall hearing the leading conservative luminaries of the day making their speeches, the room is so big that you are not close to the speaker. Unless you are in the VIP seating, which is more expensive, you are really seeing them on big screens. While it is a thrill to know you are seeing them live and be in a big hall with maybe eight thousand people joining in the applause and cheering, you are not up close and personal with the speakers. In the break-out sessions, you can be close. Those events are much more intimate and most have a question and answer period following the speech or panel discussions.

There is no way to see it all, so I missed Allen West (who I saw in the hall), Dr. Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gringrich, Jeb Bush and others. I don't feel any great loss in missing some of them but others I wish I would have seen but could not be two places at once. I did however get to see Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Phyllis Schlafly, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Ann Coulter and several others. Some of the speakers were only given fifteen minutes so they gave a cheerleading-type stump speech; others had more time. Ted Cruz was the closing speaker and he must have talked for an hour but it never got boring. He was able to more fully developed a thesis.

Gene gets Ann Coulter's autograph

Who did I really like? It is hard to say; I liked so many of them. Surprisingly, I loved Ann Coulter. She has never been one of my favorite conservatives but she was charming and funny and clever with a biting sarcastic wit. Sarah Palin was a delight. She was entertaining and is full of personality and is so darn cute. Rand Paul, fresh from his filibuster was a crowd favorite and had people cheering. I also liked Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Ted Cruz. I guess Marco Rubio was the politician who impressed me most.  His speech was less raucous and more inspirational, yet it was close. Rand, Ryan and Cruz were all good.

The break out session covered a broad range of topics. There were sessions on how to win with generation X; the legacy of Andrew Breitbart; tax policy including discussion of the Fair Tax, the Flat Tax, and tax reform; using social media; Conservative journalism; liberty and environmental issues; immigration; fatherless children and the problem of poverty; fracking and energy policy issues; religious freedom (Diane Black was on this panel); fundraising; the social issues of abortion and gay marriage by sociologist and award winning author Charles Murray; "Can we cut defense spending and still defend America;" "How to get a job in Politics;" the status of the pro-life fight forty years after Roe v Wade; Benghazi and Middle East foreign policy, conservatives in Hollywood, and many, many more.

A few of my favorites were those put on by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. One, was "still questing after all the years" and was a discussion of Robert Nesbitt's The Quest for Community. Four distinguished scholars discussed the legacy of this book and the issues of place, community and the problem of alienation in society.

 I guess my favorite of the breakout sessions was, "The Conservative Intellectual Movement: Then and Now." The speaker for this event was George Nash, the author of the influential book, The Conservative Intellectual Movement, first published in 1976. Our book club had read this book recently and it was such a thrill to hear a presentation by the author. He spoke for about 30 minutes and then afterwards he stood in the hall answered questions and engaging in discussion for about another thirty minutes. I felt fortunate to get to have a conversation with this great scholar of the conservative movement.

Gene Wisdom and M. Stanton Evans

Another thrill was getting to chat with M. Stanton Evans, former long-time associate editor of
National Review, managing editor of Human Events, one time head of ACU and author of numerous books.

In addition to all of the official programs, it was fun to just talk to so many other conservative activist from across the country. One thing that pleased me is that there was almost none of the right wing nut fringe featured at this event. There was no John Birch Society or Alex Jones Inforwars booth and very little of the embarrassing elements of the conservative movement.

If you are a conservative activist and have never been, plan to go next year. I hope to return.

Top Stories

Two Cheers for 9-12 Project

by Gene Wisdom

Gene Wisdom

It was with mixed feelings that I read through Lee Douglas’s email posted here which also appeared in my Inbox.And it was with somewhat less mixed feelings that I read Rod’s response to it. 

First of all, Lee’s motivations and those of the 9-12 group are nothing to instill fear in the minds of liberty-lovers.  Their concern is to protect our freedom from expansive government as well as some threats to our nation’s survival.  I disagree with some of their legislative priorities, such as the so-called Sheriff’s Bill in Tennessee, which as I understand would require federal law enforcement to notify a local sheriff before they perform a raid or execute a warrant.  

 As a Constitutionalist conservative I believe that it is in violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution as well as the principle of federalism.  In my brief email discussion last year with its chief sponsor, state Senator Stacy Campfield, when I raised these issues he said that it is supported by Printz v. United States, a Supreme Court decision.  I read that decision and see no basis there for this bill.  That decision is regarding unfunded mandates, in that case commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.  When I mentioned this out along with several other passages from the Court’s decision in that case Sen. Campfield chose not to respond further.

I also disagree with 9-12’s focus on Agenda 21, an opposition which is rooted in the fever swamps of the John Birch Society.  My knowledge of that issue is admittedly sparse so I’ll defer to Rod, who has taken a close look at it.  I’ll certainly agree that Lee’s group is more familiar with it than I but the roots in JBS conspiracy “thought” is unmistakeable.

Those differences aside, 9-12 is grounded in a view of limited government inspired by the Founding Fathers.  While I disagree with them on some of the legislative direction they take from that foundation it is clearly rooted in principles we should all recognize as conservative—smaller government, distrust of internationalist institutions, lower taxes and government spending.

I guess my point of departure, besides the specific legislative issues above, is the vitriol with which they label those who disagree or “fall short” of their own devotion.  The Republican Party as “those loyal to King George”?  The “treasonous votes and behavior” of “rogue officials”?  Rogue?  That’s no big deal—lots of folks in politics wear it as a badge of honor such as the sweetheart of some of those in the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, who said she was Going Rogue.  But “treasonous”?  That is a highly defamatory term if there is not some serious evidence behind it.  At least the Founders gave us a long list of “injuries and usurpations” by the King. 

On one point of disagreement with my friend Rod, I do believe that 9-12 is correct in its concerns about Muslim influences within state government—and national.  Although I have not educated myself about the specifics of the individual noted in 9-12’s full page ad in The Tennesseean (seen at this link: http://www.912projecttennessee.com/Sharia_Law_in_TN/), I am well aware of the threat posed by Muslims within our country and their devotion to imposing Sharia law.  That awareness is largely due to 9-12 (and ACT for America)-sponsored local events featuring well-informed speakers, including a former Muslim cleric.  It is a danger about which I wish Rod would seek to become better informed through a variety of excellent conservative—and non-fevered—sources.  Rod’s ignorance about it, however, is not due to a lesser love for this country (he served our country in the Army in Vietnam--toward which this peacetime Navy man renders a smart salute and deep thanks) or an unconcern over its security.

9-12 is also to be applauded for its conservative orientation on social issues though I confess ignorance as to the extent of its direct involvement on them.  Rod and I disagree, I believe, on whether social conservatives should be welcome within the Republican Party.  Or maybe Rod believes they should just keep quiet.  I will detail more on my position in a separate essay here and perhaps Rod will engage me in debate on this, here on his blog. 

Regarding Kevin Kookogey’s role in the intra-GOP controversy I have no specific knowledge other than having met Mr. Kookogey at a local Heritage Foundation event.  I found him to be a soft-spoken very well informed conservative.  One to whom a Republican Party looking for strong roots in its conservative base should listen.

My hope is that 9-12’ers don’t, as Lee’s email suggests, define “moderate” necessarily as “unprincipled”.  The equation is sometimes well-placed, as in the case of our two U.S. Senators.  Sen. Corker’s national reputation as a bargainer and a dealer far surpasses any regard for him as a leader of principle.  A choice, seeking conservative principles, between him and a Jim Demint (Republican Senator from South Carolina and founder of the Senate Conservatives Fund) would find Mr. Corker back in business as a home builder in Chattanooga. There are others who I consider “moderately conservative” such as Rod, however, who, while he may not peg out as a 100 on a conservative index, is grounded in good common sense with conservative instincts and principles.  Such moderation in my view calls for education and persuasion, not reproach (that means I’m gonna keep working on you, Rod).      

It is my hope that 9-12 will welcome debate within its ranks.  I understand it is not a discussion forum such as (shameless plug here) a group I belong to, Conservative Fusion (www.meetup/ConservativeFusion) but is rather an activist group focused on an agenda as such groups are.  I hope that there is room, however, for principled, thoughtful debate that doesn’t define someone as “outside” for holding a position contrary to its program.  Both sides should listen. 

Lee, meet Rod.  Rod, meet Lee.    

Gene Wisdom is an Alabama native but has lived in the Nashville area since 2007. He, his wife Vicki, and their dog Savannah live near Nolensville.  Gene is a conservative activist and leads the Conservative Fusion Book Club. 

Top Stories

Why I am Supporting Rick Santorum

By Gene Wisdom

Vicki and Gene Wisdom

This year’s field of Republican candidates doesn’t give one a lot of hope. Fault lies both with the candidates (there is no Ronald Reagan) and us the Republican voters (there is no Ronald Reagan). We had our dream candidate in the 1980’s and are still looking for that hero. We keep hoping Reagan will top the next hill and fight off the liberals for us again. He ain’t there, folks.

And we see a reprise of 1980--George Bush played by Mitt Romney and a bunch of Gipper wannabees auditioning for the role. Mind you, if there is a role to strive for it is that of Ronald Reagan—principled conservative, who knew deeply what he believed and had been in the trenches struggling for those values, stepping onto the stage as a voice for the first real conservative Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater. Reagan further was the voice for, well, Reagan Democrats, understanding that everyone benefits from a freer economy and society, not just the wealthy.

“Where is our Reagan? Where is our Reagan”, we cry. Our nation’s predicament is perhaps more dire than then—a Democratic President with a history deep in American socialism, who has buried our grandchildren in government debt, adding crushing layers of regulation to a weakened economy, bows to foreign leaders, and has sought to strip our military capabilities to the bone. And recently tossed the Constitution to the curb with illegal appointments. He makes Jimmy Carter, by comparison, look like a cross between Milton Friedman and George Patton.

Do we have someone, though, principled to the core, who fits quite comfortably into President Reagan’s boots? I believe we do, in Rick Santorum.

In areas that matter to conservatives, Santorum is one of us. On social issues, he is of course opposed to abortion. As a Catholic of deep faith, he is also opposed to contraception. While not a kooky, extreme idea (it is a core tenet of Catholic teaching) it is certainly a minority position even among conservatives. He has specifically said he would be against imposing that view. It is a personal position of morality. Are conservatives so co-opted by the mainstream that we have no appreciation for firm moral values?

Same-sex marriage is also an area to ask this question. There are certainly different positions in a spectrum of opposition to this experiment ranging from Ron Paul’s personal opposition while saying that marriage is a personal event that has no place for government at all to Rick Santorum’s position that the family is such a central institution (nay, THE, central institution) that it must be protected on a national level and that societal order calls for avoiding a hodgepodge of state laws. I don’t know what the polls say but I would venture to guess that even the mainstream in this modernized society agrees with conservative affirmation of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Modernization is not necessarily progress. That is a core understanding of conservatism.

It is these same core values that animate Santorum’s principled belief in limited government. Government is not the key to a stable and secure society—strong families are. Government should not replace fathers, an insight reinforced by the studies and insights of George Gilder, Charles Murray and neoconservative Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Neither should government replace the market. Ronald Reagan knew that freedom was both right and that it works. Rick Santorum sups from that same wellspring of values. Many cling to this notion that Rick Santorum can play only one note when the truth is he knows well the symphony that is conservative political philosophy. His program is one that speaks to stopping the madness of crushing federal spending and deficits, and regulations that stifle production and jobs.

Do I agree with all that Rick Santorum proposes? Of course not. On his website he proposes freezing defense spending. With military budgets already slashed and military capabilities withering in a world brimming with challenges around the globe it is shortsighted even though rooted in the knowledge we can’t send future generations over the cliff of national bankruptcy. Our military capabilities, that is, our ability to defend our interests (which does include keeping commitments to allies) around the world are already cut into muscle. Our Navy is at pre-World War I levels, the Air Force mission is severely compromised as the F-22 was frozen and now there is talk of cutting the F-35. Our nuclear arsenal is aging and losing reliability while the missile defense program to protect us from nuclear attacks by such freak states as North Korea and Iran, not to mention the growing threat of China’s nuclear arsenal and the renewed threat of a rebuilding Russian arsenal, continues to be cut. I do believe, though, that Rick Santorum has voiced a clear understanding of the threats to our nation and that he will act intelligently on that understanding.

Electability? Let’s not forget a key reason conservative voters have been so passionate about finding the right candidate in this race—Barack Obama. He is the reason that any Republican starts with a strong measure of electability in this race. His Administration has been a failure at nearly every level, except that of advancing this country on the path to socialism, economic ruin, and weakening us militarily.

Even the successes of the defensive war against radical Islam are due to the measures put in place by his predecessor and which Obama opposed in 2008. Rick Santorum understands this is a war begun by barbarian enemies. It is a war that requires both clear sight and resolution. The “electable” candidate has neither. Clear sight would have kept Governor Romney from flip-flopping on important issues and from defending the program that inspired Obamacare.

But Obama’s failures do not guarantee Santorum’s success against him. It does, however, give him a baseline to work with. He has added to that baseline with firm values and a firm understanding of the principles that conservatives understand to be the bedrock of America and the reason for her exceptionalism.

Electability? That is what some said Gerald Ford had against Jimmy Carter in 1976. He failed where the clear-eyed conservative beat Carter four years later. Had we nominated the candidate in 1976 who had “that vision thing” that Bush 41 derided we might have avoided the four painful Jimmy Carter years. Electability in the case of Gerald Ford, and I believe Mitt Romney may not mean clarity of values.

Rod, you asked why you should vote for my candidate. You should vote for Rick Santorum because both you and he are conservatives. You may disagree on some important, even key, areas but at bottom he is a candidate who holds deeply to the view that government is not the source of our nation’s strength, and certainly that a bigger, stronger government actually saps that strength. He doesn’t hold to the atomistic individualism of Ron Paul, nor the muddle-headed “pragmatic” establishment Republicanism of Mitt Romney. Nor is he simply a committed 2nd and 10th Amendment conservative who doesn’t understand the roots of those beliefs as I believe is the case with Rick Perry. Vote for Senator Santorum because he is a clear-thinking, well-spoken conservative who believes firmly in reducing the role and size of government and keeping our nation free and secure. 

Just like you do.

Gene Wisdom is an Alabama native, has lived in the Nashville area since 2007. He, his wife Vicki, and their dog Savannah live near Nolensville. 

Gene submitted this article in response to my call for readers to tell me who they are supporting for the Republican presidential nominee and why.  I would like to hear from you. Please leave a comment or submit an essay for publication and please vote in the poll posted to the left.

Top Stories

Rod, come back to the Tea Party

by Gene Wisdom, May 23, 2014 -

Gene Wisdom

Rod Williams is not everyone’s idea of a conservative. The local 9-12 chapter decided a while back that he just wasn’t one of them—and they kicked him out. I know that Rod didn’t lose any sleep over that. Hell, I’ll bet good money that he went to sleep that night chuckling. And I know that I’m not everyone’s idea of a conservative. One libertarian friend jokingly (?) calls me a neo-conservative. For some that would be fighting words. Since there are some fine “neo-cons”, beginning with Charles Krauthammer, I’ll take that as a compliment. Even though I’m not one. I don’t really give a rat’s hindparts if I meet anyone’s definition of a conservative because I know what a conservative is and I know I are one. And I would put some more good money on the fact that Rod feels the same way.

Which is why I’m confused. I am perplexed over Rod’s recent decision  to disavow the Tea Party label. We know he is a “disgruntled Republican” but apparently now also a disgruntled Tea Partier. The difference is that while he still considers himself a Republican he has left the Tea Party.

As a conservative I know that words mean things. It’s what allows us to converse with one another and to exist with our fellow human beings in society. It is a core assumption of Western civilization that is just one more reason for its success. Hopefully that notion will survive the postmodern assault on truth. On justice. And on the American way. And even though the word “conservative” includes many strains of thought and conservatives will argue with blue faces over who is truer, we as conservatives all know what the Tea Party is.

Yes, of course we’re smart enough to ignore the Left’s smears and attacks on that term and on Tea Partiers. We can ignore that because they do that to everyone on the Right, everyone who doesn’t agree with them. Because the Left is dominated by bullies who preach tolerance. Oh, they see an alternative, all right. There’s their way. And there’s the highway.

But we know. Taxed Enough Already. Ben Cunningham’s Nashville Tea Party best summarizes the core principles: (1) Constitutionally limited government, (2) fiscal responsibility, and (3) free markets. Anything else is extraneous. Though most Tea Partiers are social conservatives—and I would guess, vice verse—not all are. And foreign policy is almost irrelevant to the Tea Party vision. If you believe in those three things you are a “member” of the Tea Party. By definition.

In his column Rod bemoans at length the involvement in the Tea Party of members of the John Birch Society. I’ll here offer a brief opening defense of the JBS by way of a disclaimer: I was a member a long time ago, for a year. What attracted me to the organization was the education I received through JBS books and publications on the nature and menace of Communism, both nationally and around the world. As I read more, though, I began to learn of “the conspiracy”, the diffuse cabal going back, as Rod explained, to the formation of the Illuminati in 1776 down through the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. I obtained from the CFR copies of some of their annual reports which included their membership list (not a very effective conspiracy, huh—they tell us who they are. But there wasn’t a picture of the secret handshake). A quick perusal of that list turned up some stalwart conservatives, including several who were in the Reagan Administration: Richard Allen, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elliot Abrams and many others. It also included the godfather of the modern American conservative movement, William F. Buckley, Jr.

Thus ended my affiliation with the John Birch Society. I also began to learn, as I studied liberalism, that among its core elements is internationalism. They see things not through a prism of what is good for America or for the principles represented by America but they seek rather to advance international institutions, which is also rooted in their view of the “brotherhood of man” and a Rousseauian view of man’s nature as good. So I began to understand that what the JBS saw as a plot was often little more than liberals being liberals. That still makes them and their worldview dangerous but not the machinations of a secret society.

What Birchers have brought into the Tea Party is this misguided paradigm which skews the focus into chasing phantoms like, as Rod noted, Agenda 21. These issues distract the Tea Party from its identity of restoring fiscal sanity and limited government to the halls of power. While I suppose I remain a member of 9-12 despite my dampened enthusiastic two cheers, I disagree with them on such issues and perhaps with them, and others, on the nullificationist approach also detailed by Rod. There is a wide range of strong support for the Second Amendment short of arresting federal agents at the state line and stripping employers/property owners of the right to refuse to allow guns in the workplace and on their property.

One area where I tend to agree with them and greatly credit them for their efforts to educate the public is on the issue of radical Islam. While I believe that reasonable people can disagree on the issue of Governor Haslam’s hiring of a Muslim woman to his administration there can be no doubt of the dangers of a Muslim Brotherhood organized effort to ingratiate jihadism into American society. Including the building of a Wahhabist mosque in Murfreesboro. Though I respect Rod’s holding fast to First Amendment religious liberty, I disagree with my friend that this is a benign development in our community.

But again, I believe that Rod has allowed himself to be distracted by these agenda items of some local Tea Party organizations. Though I disagree with them on Agenda 21 and nullification and for the most part agree with them regarding radical Islam, neither is a part of what the Tea Party in general stands for.

And yes, the Tea Party has made some poor choices in politicians. On that I would just offer that (1) hey, nobody’s perfect. Some choices don’t pan out; and (2) hopefully the Tea Party will learn from these mistakes and perhaps do something that principle-based organizations and causes have a hard time doing, which is to learn to temper their enthusiasm with prudence. Don’t give up the principles but be wise. Sounds like something Rod Williams might say.

It is also true that such efforts, however misguided they might seem, especially in hindsight, are based in what I’m sure Rod knows is frustration that we all feel as conservatives. The liberal agenda has crammed some foul-tasting policies down America’s throat that have made our country sick and weak. We have truly become a nation of takers growing increasingly dependent on a welfare state that becomes bigger and gains political support—votes—from more people on the dole. Our culture is being pushed downward by a Hollywood hostile to traditional values and pulled by a culture already sunk into that pit. Personally, I wonder if America has reached a tipping point.

It is my hope, though, that Rod will decide not to leave the Tea party but will come to see that many there, including some fine organizations with some fine people, have allowed themselves to become disoriented. And maybe that’s not fair. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that some Tea Party organizations have other or additional objectives. Others, though, aren’t driven by JBS views, such as Americans for Prosperity. And some, like the Nashville Tea Party, are driven by the animating ideals of the Tea Party as originally conceived. Take your pick, Rod. Don’t let the disparate and even disagreeable agendas of a few groups push you out of what you know is your ideological home—commitment to sound government, fiscal responsibility and free enterprise. Proudly don your “Don’t Tread on Me” shirt and come back. You know it fits.

Gene Wisdom is an Alabama native but has lived in the Nashville area since 2007. He, his wife Vicki, and their dog Savannah live near Nolensville.  Gene is a conservative activist 

Top Stories

More on the Williams-Horwitz-Tatum Supremacy Clause/Nullification debate

This is the fifth in a series of post on this topic. To see the previous post, follow this link, which will then link to the other post. Rod
 
by Gene Wisdom

Gene Wisdom

I find myself disagreeing here with my friend, Tracy Tarum, on an issue dear to both of us: our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  While I agree with most of what Mr. Horwitz argued in response to Mr. Tarum, I hope to address this from a more originalist standpoint and rely on the Framers and their sources rather than statutory or case law.  Let me start out in agreement with Rep. Carr that the Second Amendment is not meant to protect hunters.  It was meant to ensure the security of the citizenry from assault and tyranny.  Elbridge Gerry in the First Congress debating what became the Second Amendment asked:

“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins….”

But is that right absolute?  William Blackstone didn’t think so.  In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in 1776 and very influential and heavily read in our early history by our Founders, he wrote

“The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” (emphasis added)

My basic point here is that we are far from a position where our laws are “insufficient to restrain” tyranny. 

Now, do I defend the federal government’s right to pass legislation contemplated in Tennessee HouseBill 42?  That bill is designed to prohibit federal enforcement of “[a]ny federal law, statute, rule, regulation, or executive order implemented or executed on or after January 1, 2013” which “attempts to: (1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi automatic firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition; or (2) Require any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to be registered in any manner.”  If such legislation indeed were aimed at semi-automatic firearms I believe it would be unconstitional (a) for vagueness and (b) as a general restriction of a fundamental right.  Semi-automatic weapons includes virtually all handguns.  I believe such federal legislation would be patently unconstitutional. 

This bill, however, is the wrong way to deal with it.  First of all, the bill itself has problems with its language.  It targets legislation passed only after January 1, 2013.  What if such laws are identical with previous laws, such as the previous assault weapons ban?  What if an executive order references existing law and prescribes rules for federal agency enforcement?  What if such law expands background checks to provide further protections against possession by those insane or mentally unfit?  Such checks would surely, on the face of them, “restrict” ownership or possession.  Paragraph (b) of the bill would prohibit any firearm dealer in the state from attempting to enforce such restriction no matter how reasonable or consistent with existing law. 

Mr. Tarum, in his response, accuses Mr. Horwitz, incorrectly, of “not once” referring to original sources when the truth is plainly otherwise.  Horwitz referred to the history of the Kentucky (Thomas Jefferson) and Virginia (James Madison) Resolutions reminding us that the more radical Kentucky Resolutions were not only ignored by the other states but repudiated by some and that this contrary view has remained accepted throughout our history.  Additionally, Horwitz pointed to the Federalist Papers, including Number 78, in which Alexander Hamilton put forward the doctrine of judicial review.  Though Tarum may not value Hamilton’s influence (I’m not a big fan of Hamilton myself) he is certainly to be counted among the Framers of the Constitution. 

We have been through worse, even in our Founding.  John Adams’ Sedition Act, passed by a Federalist Congress, directly attacked the First Amendment, making it illegal to criticize the President.  Journalists (and other citizens, if I recall correctly) were imprisoned.  The discussion has been around the right of gun ownership to protect other fundamental rights.  Well, surely, free speech is to be counted highly among those “other rights”.  It came under attack by the federal government and those responsible were repudiated.  Adams was turned out of office as were the Federalist majorities in both houses. 

Our Constitution provides the means to overturn attacks on our rights to gun ownership.  This remains available through: (1) overturning such federal law, rule, regulation, or executive order through further laws passed by a still-elected Congress; (2) “throwing the bums out” as the voters did to Adams and company; and (3) appeal to the federal courts.  (Another avenue, by the way, used to address the abusive Sedition Act was President Jefferson (who defeated Adams)’s pardon of those convicted under it.)  Though Tracy is dismissive of judicial review, it remains a means of overturning unconstitutional legislation.  

 While I believe that judicial review is a valid power of the Supreme Court, both under the terms of the Constitution (“cases arising under the Constitution”) and, as noted, as explained by Hamilton, I have not always agreed with its exercise.  I could cite a long list of cases where I believe the Court has been grievously wrong, beginning of course with Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson’s “separate but equal” but through to the present day with such decisions as Everson v. Board of Education’s “wall of separation” and more recent cases such as Roe v. Wade (and much of its progeny) and Lawrence v. Texas’s finding of a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.  Just for starters.  But it’s here and it is available and, in fact, the Supreme Court has done pretty well by gun rights in its recent decisions in McDonald v. City of Chicago and D.C. v. Heller.  Neither one perfect but both very well grounded. 

I would argue that a fourth possible method of resistance exists: impeachment of the President for the “high crime and misdemeanor” of infringing on fundamental rights.  While I don’t believe that impeachment should be lightly considered or become a political tool, as I think it arguably was used against Bill Clinton, James Madison argued that it should be available as a protection against “negligence or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.”    

Those means do not include state or local police officers arresting federal law enforcement officers.  I agree with the motivations behind the bill—protect our fundamental rights, limit the national government to its enumerated powers, preserve the states police powers under the Tenth Amendment.  And as Tracy well knows, I’m certainly no fan of this President or Administration.  Barack Obama’s agenda is one of socialism, of making a mockery of Constitutional limitations, of attacking the family, and of weakening this country and its military perhaps irreparably.  The program he outlined in his inaugural address was described even by some in the liberal mainstream media as to their Left.  That’s saying a lot. 

But as Rod put it so well in his essay this is not best dealt with by having Barney arresting federal agents.  That is a recipe for chaos.  First of all, as Mr. Horwitz points out, it is rightly against federal law, the Supremacy Clause, and years of our history.  Not even George Wallace in his stand in the schoolhouse door sought to arrest the federal officers whom he confronted.  He moved aside after his speech.  Secondly, it invites federal agents seeking federal troops to put down what would essentially be a state-led  insurrection.  Our Constitution was designed to protect liberty and preserve order.  HB 42’s solution is an attack on that Constitutional order when other peaceful, orderly, available and prescribed methods for resisting federal encroachment exist.

In concluding, I can’t ignore the repeated cheap shots and insults by Mr. Tarum against his opponent.  He justified it by the “well, he did it” defense, arguing that his comments were comparable to Mr. Horwitz’s against Glen Hughes and Tami Kilmarx.  On the contrary, Horwitz’s references to these two weren’t snide, belittling remarks.  Tracy, you’re better than that.

 Gene Wisdom is an Alabama native but has lived in the Nashville area since 2007. He, his wife Vicki, and their dog Savannah live near Nolensville.  Gene is a conservative activist and leads the Conservative Fusion Book Club.

Top Stories

The Insufferable Become Sufferable: The Evolution of A Never-Trumper

Gene Wisdom

by Gene Wisdom - There are few things that does the soul good like admitting you’re wrong. Having officially entered the ranks of the elderly in turning 60, I have certainly had my share of those occasions. But fortunately, just as “love means never having to say you’re sorry” (OK, that’s a lie, right, men?), being a conservative means rarely having to admit to error. Well, now it’s my turn.

When Trump entered the Presidential race (which I’m convinced he decided to do when President Obama ridiculed his “birther” position, shortly after Obama was elected, at a White House correspondents’ dinner) I was like most, I think, surprised at that move. Throughout the nomination process I remained a devoted Ted Cruz supporter. I still think he would have made a better President. Whether he would have beat Hillary, who knows?

As you might guess from my support of Cruz, I am a lifelong Reagan Republican. The postwar (WWII, I suppose I now should add for clarification) conservative intellectual movement consisted of three legs of a stool: traditionalism, represented by Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet; libertarianism, best represented, at least early on by Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman; and the anti-Communists which included James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers. As the differences sharpened between these three groups, there was an effort to bring these strains of thought together, to fuse them. Hence, “fusionism”, propounded by Frank Meyers. The best-known examples of individuals who combined all three influences together were William F. Buckley, Jr., who was arguably the founder of the movement, and Ronald Reagan. I have spent my life reading, studying, and advancing the ideas of conservatism. I know what it is and I are one.

Donald Trump, I am convinced, is not. There is nothing in his biography that gives any hint that he has said or done anything to advance conservative principles. As is well-known, he contributed to Planned Parenthood and a list of Democratic (i.e., not conservative) candidates. His history as a successful businessman was often advanced as suggestive of someone who would make sound decisions but it says nothing of what he even believes. It certainly doesn’t make one a conservative unless one wants to put George Soros, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos on the Right side of the divide. Further, his record of ruthlessness and bankruptcies in business says nothing about principles except a readiness to sacrifice all, including his creditors, in pursuit of the dollar. Between God (or other principles) and mammon, his choices in favor of the latter have been clear.

Even while “God’s spokesmen” lined up to support and endorse him. Shamefully so, in my opinion.

Trump’s behavior on the campaign trail gave me no further reason for confidence. There is no doubt that he lacked polish; he also doesn’t have the judgement, character, or temperament to occupy the Oval Office. And there is much reason to have such doubts to this day. He plays fast and loose with the truth. His virtually daily outbursts on Twitter display the maturity of a stunted 12-year old. A pathological narcissist and adolescent.

We conservatives became well-known—and mocked by the media and Hollywood elites--in the 90’s for insisting that character still matters. Congress not only impeached Bill Clinton but we cast aside our own for sexual misconduct: Bob Packwood, Bob Bauman, Mark Foley, and Larry Craig. And it still matters as Republicans wrestle with the proper response to the candidacy of a very popular Senatorial candidate, Roy Moore, accused of sexually assaulting a minor.

But in Trump’s case, at what point do his negatives cancel out accomplishments of his Presidency? Do they require that the positive entries in the ledger never be considered or even entered? We know that the media rarely give even a passing glance at them. For myself, I have remained a continual critic of Trump while acknowledging those “few” things he got right.

It is time for me to take a second look. And there is much there for conservatives to celebrate. My friends, who often accused me, rather ridiculously I might add, of being a Hillary supporter during the campaign, often reminded me of Trump’s commitment to appoint solid conservatives to the Supreme Court and other federal courts. And then came Neil Gorsuch. A knock out of the park. Trump came through. Though Reagan’s legacy also included Antonin Scalia and Ed Meese, who arguably began the originalist debate and revolution, his appointments also included Anthony Kennedy whose proximity to the Right side is belied by his reputation as a “swing” voter on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch’s legacy, I will be presumptuous to predict, will equal the intellectual heft, if not the wit, of Antonin Scalia, and the fidelity to text and history of Scalia and Clarence Thomas. And Trump’s appointments to the appeals courts will only deepen that legacy as we see with the appointments of Kyle Duncan and Davis Stras.

We soon saw President Trump’s much-maligned and miss-distorted travel ban. He campaigned on tightening immigration, both from south of the border and of Muslims. He sought to clamp down on immigration from nations that did not adequately vet those leaving. Those nations included Venezuela and North Korea. The Supreme Court recently validated this executive prerogative in a 7-2 decision.

On the national defense side, the pluses start with the appointment of General “Mad Dog” Mattis as Secretary of Defense. Need I say more? OK, I will. Among the military accomplishments was the elevation of Cyber Command to a “Unified Combatant Command”, raising their profile and priority. For a glance at how far that capability has come I suggest that you read Fred Kaplan’s Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War. There was also the reversal, by President Trump, of President Obama’s decision to allow transgender individuals to serve in the military.

Diplomacy is again being used to advance U.S. interests. As a recent example, North Korea has again finally been re-designated as a “state sponsor of terrorism”. Long overdue. Just this week, Trump declared that the U.S. embassy will be moved to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, by which policy will reflect reality. Again, long overdue. The Trump State Department is also cutting funds to some United Nations organizations, such as the UN Population Fund.

The Justice Department under Attorney General Jeff Sessions (a particular favorite, being formerly a strong conservative Senator from my home state of Alabama) is a particular bright spot for conservatives. While there is a significant negative in Sessions’ commitment to civil asset forfeiture, he has sought to restore the rule of law in cracking down on sanctuary cities. Toward restoring the integrity of the election process, he demonstrated commitment to election integrity with the DOJ’s recent stand with Texas on its voter ID law. Justice also recently ended the Obama-era Operation Chokepoint initiative which sought to block some businesses, including firearms dealers and payday lenders, from having access to bank loans.

The Obama Administration’s collaboration with the far Left in the “sue and settle” strategy was ended. With “sue and settle” an environmental group, for example, would sue the Environmental Protection Agency and then reach a settlement by which a consent decree would be entered effectively extending regulations without benefit of legislation or even the formal regulation process. Regulation by litigation. Over.  For more on “sue and settle” read the Heritage Foundation study at http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/regulation-through-sham-litigation-the-sue-and-settle-phenomenon.

President Trump promised to trim down the Leviathan of regulation, saying he would do away with two regulations for every new one implemented. In this case, he has over-accomplished. In a presentation I heard from a representative from Freedom Works this past weekend (which was the inspiration behind this essay) I learned that the ratio is actually SIXTEEN to one.

A list of Trump accomplishments would be incomplete without mentioning the absolute paroxysms of hate and rage his election and presence in the White House has elicited. Oh, the joy this gives me. Beginning with the feminist protests and their pussy hats immediately after the inauguration to snowflake college students who simultaneously require safe spaces on the hearing of Trump’s name while also violently protesting conservative speakers, much of the “resistance” has more ideological affinity—and sympathy--for Venezuela’s government and Jane Fonda than protecting American interests. CNN programming is a continual drumbeat of anti-Trump “news”. Positives? If mentioned at all, they are covered as negatives.

Am I now a Trump supporter? Don’t rush out and get me a MAGA hat. Trump is still Trump. But Trump’s accomplishments? Many would make Reagan proud.

Gene Wisdom, a retired naval officer, is a lifelong conservative Republican.  He is a native Alabamian, and he and his wife have recently moved from Nashville, where they lived for ten years, to Knoxville. While in Nashville Gene was moderator of the Conservative Fusion Book Club. 

Top Stories