Specifically, a great to-do has been made of a map, supposedly flush with cross-hairs, released by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. Palin-haters jumped at the opportunity to indict a person they already despise for inciting a shooter to fulfill her supposed secret desire of violence against those with whom she differs politically. Though the Palin camp has credibly demonstrated that the “cross-hairs” in question are, in fact, surveyor’s marks (right at home on a map), there are those who—some out of their own ignorance—refuse to relent because deep in their hearts they want Sarah Palin to be a murderous wretch; it makes her so much more defeat-able.

The counter for this idiocy, thus far, has been to point out that Democrat campaigns and committees have released maps with bulls-eyes on them and that politicians, especially President Obama, have used language referencing knives, guns, fighting, etc. This has served to illustrate something that needs to be said expressly.

There’s a sick irony in that those who want to blame harsh political conversation for the Arizona shooting have done nothing but converse harshly and politically.

And I say this as one not opposed to political debate. It’s politics. It gets rowdy sometimes. That’s the nature of the beast. What I find unfathomable is that those who are most “offended” by the harshness of someone, say Sarah Palin, are the most offensive in their uninformed and malicious finger pointing and false accusations.

The bottom line is that in language, even political language, words mean things, and often they mean more than what they say. I deal with this in the spiritual realm, where I often encounter persons who miss the point of Scripture because they overemphasize the “literal” words on the page. The Bible is literature of varying genres, and as such it should be interpreted as literature. That means that sometimes we take what we see literally. That also means that sometimes we take what we see metaphorically. Our language, including charts or maps, is full of idioms and symbols that must be taken as such—comprehending what they mean rather than what they say. It really isn’t all that hard.

No sane, honest person believes that Sarah Palin wants anyone to take up guns against Congresspersons, even if those map symbols are cross-hairs (if they truly did, they would have moved heaven and earth to secure the other Congresspersons “targeted” by Palin). No sane, honest person believes that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wants anyone to take up bows and arrows against Congresspersons, even though their map had bulls-eyes on it. No sane, honest person believes that Barack Obama wants anyone to bring a gun to a knife fight. All this just as no sane, honest person believes they might step in a poodle when it’s “raining cats and dogs.”

We understand that language is full of idioms. We understand that what people mean often goes far beyond what they say. In short, we’re adults. Let’s start acting like it. The hypocrisy and feigned “shock” by those who can’t wait to say something shocking themselves are not lost on me.

No, folks, a lone and apparently mentally disturbed gunman perpetrated this evil. He bears the responsibility for it and will stand before his God and his government to give account. May God have mercy on his soul.

I did a follow-up post January 23, 2009, in this post.

With the recent mess at Bit by Bit due to Dr. Ray Brown’s termination of interim director Trista Milliman, I thought the Walstrom case worth revisiting. I’m glad I did, because Walstrom’s case is very much still alive.

Here’s the quick and dirty background. Walstrom filed her suit against RSU, its regents, and Dr. Larry Minks and Ms. Linda Andrews, two RSU administrators (at that time; Minks has departed, Andrews remains) in Rogers County District Court, which is the state court having jurisdiction over RSU, which is located in Claremore, Rogers County, Oklahoma. Walstrom alleged some very serious acts on the part of RSU, through Minks and Andrews, which, if true, should scare anyone from working for RSU ever again. There were also several similarities between Walstrom’s allegations and those made in other suits against RSU and its agents (yes, there have been several).

Back to Walstrom. RSU’s attorneys pulled a maneuver whereby they moved to have the case removed from the state court to federal court. The Rogers County courts have delivered some fairly harsh decisions against RSU in the past, and it’s likely that RSU attorneys view the federal court friendlier to their client. There’s another reason as well. It’s the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

For all practical purposes, the courts interpret this to mean that U.S. states cannot be sued in federal court, for which the term is “sovereign immunity.” This is not absolute, and there are a couple of exceptions. One of these exceptions is if a state gives permission to be sued in federal court, the federal court then has jurisdiction to hear the case. In the Walstrom case, RSU’s attorneys filed a motion to move the case from Rogers County court to the federal courts, the United States Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, based in Tulsa. Once in federal court, RSU’s attorneys then moved to dismiss the case because, they allege, RSU (an arm of the State of Oklahoma) is immune from suits in federal court because of the Eleventh Amendment. Pretty snazzy, huh? Move to go to federal court, then move to dismiss because you’re immune to federal court, and call it a day.

To me, as a non-attorney, is seems preposterous that a party could make the motion to move a case to federal court then claim it hadn’t given permission to be sued in federal court. But the argument has been successful before, which, one assumes, is why it was tried again. But this time, the court reached the same conclusion I did, Judge Eagan ruling that RSU’s motion to move the case to federal court granted Walstrom permission to sue it in federal court, stating:

Plaintiff argues, and the Court agrees, that removal of a case to federal court constitutes an intentional waiver of the RSU’s defense of sovereign immunity. … Therefore, RSU has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and it is not immune to plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim.

Win one for Walstrom.

Because the case was not dismissed, the federal court went on to Walstrom’s claim that her Constitutional rights were violated by Dr. Minks and Ms. Andrews, who were acting under the color of state law, which is referred to as a §1983 claim (after the numbered section in which it appears in the statutes). There is a precise methodology for stating a claim under §1983. In the Walstrom case, the federal court ruled that Walstrom had failed to state a claim, meaning that she did not adequately meet the requirements of a 5-prong test in her allegations. The court’s opinion is that the Walstrom didn’t satisfactorily satisfy the 5-prong test, so her §1983 claim was dismissed.

Win one for RSU.

Since the §1983 claim was the only federal issue of Walstrom’s case, the court then ruled that state court is the best place for the remaining issues, all related to Oklahoma state law, to be decided, thus the federal court declined to exercise jurisdiction over what remains of the case and remanded it back to Rogers Country District Court for further action. So, Walstrom’s case is back in Judge Post’s Claremore court.

Win one for ??? Only time will tell. Rogers County judges have been fairly good at getting to the truth and issuing good opinions. We’ll see if that remains the case. I have every confidence Judge Post will do well. According to OSCN, the parties have agreed on a scheduling order. I’ll try to get by the courthouse this week and see what else has been filed recently.

And that’s all I have to say about that (for now). If you’d like to see the court document I have referenced for this post, it is here. Feel free to comment if you feel I have made an error in my analysis. I’ll be glad to correct mistakes.

And special thanks to the WynnBlog friend who helped me get the court document. You know who you are.

WE THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA, Invoking the guidance of almighty god, in
order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty; to secure
just and rightful Government; to promote our mutual Welfare and
Happiness, do establish this proclamation and call upon the people of
the great State of Oklahoma, and our fellow Patriots in these United
States of America who look to the Lord for guidance, to acknowledge
the need for a national awakening of righteousness in our land.

WHEREAS, “It is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the
Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by Religion and
Morality” (John Adams); and

WHEREAS, “Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious
people” (John Adams), and

WHEREAS, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization,
not upon the power of government…. But upon the capacity of mankind
for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern
ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the
Ten Commandments of God” (James Madison); and

WHEREAS, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a
right that belongs to us by the laws of God” (Benjamin Franklin); and

WHEREAS, “God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberties
of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm
basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties
are of the Gift of God” (Thomas Jefferson); and

WHEREAS, “Whether any free government can be permanent, where the
public worship of God, and the support of Religion, constitute no part
of the policy or duty of the state” (Joseph Story); and

WHEREAS, “We hold sacred the rights of conscience, and promise to the
people…. The free and undisturbed exercise of their religion” (Roger
Sherman); and

WHEREAS, “This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by
Christians” (Patrick Henry); and

WHEREAS, “When you…. Exercise the right of voting for public
officers, let it be impressed upon your mind that God commands you to
chose just men who will rule in the fear of God” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, “The principles of genuine Liberty and of wise laws and
administrations are to be drawn from the Bible” (Noah Webster); and

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance
upon the Creator of the Universe; and

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater
national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion,
pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate
births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America
is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was
built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the President of these United
States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past
presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the President of these
United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and
pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned elected
officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of
the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world,
solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of
these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and
Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, believers in the One True
God and His only Son, call upon all to join with us in recognizing
that “Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord” and humbly implore
all who love Truth and Virtue to live above reproach in the sight of
God and man with a firm reliance on the leadership and protection of
Almighty God; and

BE IT RESOLVED that we, the undersigned, humbly call upon Holy God,
our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, to have mercy on this nation, to
stay His hand of judgment, and grant a national awakening of
righteousness and Christian renewal as we repent of our great sin.

Signed on the Second Day of July in the Year of our Lord Christ Two
Thousand and Nine.

So there you have it. It’s long, as proclamations tend to be, and it employs many good words—some from our Founders, and most of the sentiments I find biblical and worthy of support. But, there’s one thing in particular that bothers me.

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater
national moral crisis; and

Really? Sorry, but I don’t buy it. What if our current economic woes are due to persons at all levels making bad economic choices  and/or many being the victims of fraud and/or the federal government being altogether too entangled in the affairs of her subjects citizens?

Can and does God bring economic calamity as a punishment for moral lapses. Certainly. Is every economic travail an indication of rampant sinfulness in the lives of those affected. Certainly not! This is some of the wrong-headed thinking about the Gospel that I can’t stomach, and I hate to see that my fellow Baptist Sally Kern has made this leap into what I can only term as error.

Think about Christians down through the ages. We Christians, historically, have certainly not been characterized by wealth. What about those Christians today who suffer both abject poverty and acute persecution? Are they paying economically for their views on abortion, homosexuality, and pornography? I know it’s counter to a whole segment of prosperity preachers of this modern age, but Christ said that foxes had holes and birds had nests but the Son of Man had no place to lay His head. This, from the same Guy who said that a servant is no better than his Master. If we believe Him, and I think it’s a pretty good idea that we do, we understand that there is no guarantee of financial blessing because we claim Him as our Lord.

We have, no doubt, been a supremely blessed people. Being born in this country is a blessing above all blessings. And even in a nation that is currently slouching toward the false promises of socialized this and government-guaranteed that, we are freer, richer, and better off than most people on the planet in any era of history. Why? This thing called Liberty.

The same liberty that allows persons to choose other than Christ allows persons to shift gears mid-stream and embrace the offer of grace. I know it’s a silly notion, but what if abortions plummeted not because they were illegal but because our collective hearts were changed to the point that the physical expression of love occurred between committed, married couples who would welcome a child into the world? What if smut no longer sold because the market dried up due to God’s replacing hearts of stone with hearts of flesh? What if child and elder abuse died because we simply loved life? I know, I know. I am an idealist trapped in a realist’s body. It is right and proper that we have laws against these things on the books, but I long for the day when His government rules and the law of love is perfected. For now, though, dark as the world is, it sure looks white unto a harvest. Does this Proclamation for Morality do anything to bring in the sheaves? I’m unconvinced it does.

And so for now, though I can agree with much in Kern’s proclamation and the sentiment behind it, I cannot endorse it or encourage others to do so. If I need to get behind a proclamation, I’ll continue to support the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am convinced that committed Christ followers elect better representatives, so if we want morality to reign in the halls of government, we best share Christ.

The Tea Party crowd was friendly and lively, with an interesting array of witty and creative signs expressing dissatisfaction with our current national fiscal policies. As an eyewitness to this sizable gathering, I was surprised the way these groups have been portrayed by national media. There was no anti-government, anti-American, or anti-establishment attitude, as one cable news network described them. Taxpayers did want to be heard regarding their distaste for the current fiscal strategy. The tone was civil and friendly as I walked through snapping pictures with my Blackberry. Watching this group actually made me proud to live in a country where this type of civil communication is allowed. I haven’t seen official estimates, but my unofficial estimate puts 5,000 or more American patriots in attendance as our group walked through. By my estimation, this is an example for other protestors to follow.

That’s strikingly different from the report provided by his underlings in regard to Claremore’s event. It’s nice to see a reasoned head at the helm, and I am hopeful that he continues to improve the paper’s reporting and editorial pieces. His staffers should take a page from his book (or should that be paper?).

This is a good sign. I’ve been critical of the Progress many times, but I have to give credit where credit is due. At this rate, they may get me back as a subscriber.

In response to my (and others’) claims that the Claremore Progress’ audio report posted on their site was inaccurate (see original post below), whoever Twitters for the paper as WillRogersPaper just tweeted this:

Some RC folks upset as being characterized as being “angry” while at TEA Party and not in street. Todays Progress

And as proof that participants were demonstrating in the intersection, they offer a link to this twitpic (click for big):

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? What you see here are not tea party demonstrators protesting in an intersection, though the Progress intends you to think that. You see one man (“Born Free – Taxed to Death”) standing off the curb, though not being a hindrance to traffic, holding his sign. The rest of the people in this picture, which the Progress obviously intends you to interpret as protesters in an intersection, are actually crossing the street at the designated point (i.e., the crosswalk). You see a couple young men transporting signs (obviously not waving them) crossing from east to west, and another group, appearing to be mostly women, crossing from west to east. Notice they all have a raised foot, caught by the camera in the action of walking across the street, at the legal place to do so (presumably after receiving the illuminated “Walk” indication). The woman in the red hoodie holding up her sign is on the sidewalk (notice her height). All in all, a weak attempt to substantiate a fabrication with a misleading picture. Seems the Progress continues to ratify everything people have been saying.

This goes perfectly to my previous point. One can report what actually happened, or because of bias, agenda, or just sloppy journalism, they can report what they want and offer up a clearly mischaracterized picture  as support.

I reassert my previous points: protesters were not demonstrating in the intersection, the demonstrators were certainly not a disturbance to traffic, they were not angry, raving maniacs. It was an orderly demonstration by patriotic Americans, which–judging by the public response as it happened–has significant support. Guess it’s too much to ask that the Claremore Progress get it right, or at least correct the record when they are shown to be wrong.

Oh, and just one question for Progress reporter Krystal Carman, who received photo credit for previous Progress pictures and presumably this one: “Did you cross the street, and if so, where? If you were photographed doing so, would it be fair to accuse you of practicing the craft of alleged journalism (or photography) in the intersection?” Didn’t think so.

[End of Update]

[Original Post]

I was on the scene at yesterday’s Claremore tea party. Loyal readers will recall I provided audio reports from the scene throughout the morning demonstration. I did this using a nifty little program called AudioBoo. Lo and behold, today I see that the Claremore Progress has updated its report about the tea party by uploading an audio report using AudioBoo. I wonder where they got that idea? I don’t mind being a trendsetter. But, the Progress is missing the point. The beauty of technology is that it allows one (in this case, me) to do reports from the scene of the action as it happens. It’s a waste of the technology to use it as the Progress has.

What did they do? Well, according to the Progress website:

Progress Managing Editor Randy Cowling and Staff Writer Krystal Carman talk about the event.

Click the play button below to listen to their commentary.

What a joke! Were these people even at the same event I was? Aside from seemingly missing the metaphorical meaning of a tea party, they seem to be awfully concerned with the distraction to traffic. I was at the 11 a.m. event the entire time, and I never once saw anyone in any intersection. There were ROCO sheriff’s deputies on scene who I witnessed showing demonstrators where they could and could not stand (from the sidewalk out). If there were ever anyone in an intersection, the deputies would no doubt have dealt with it. Demonstrators were lining the streets at intersections, but that is not being in an intersection, and they were certainly not a distraction to traffic. In fact, if you listen to my reports from the scene, you will hear lots of honks of support from the allegedly distracted passersby.

Further, I spoke with several people there, and no one was emotionally angry. Sure, people are passionate about where they stand. But it was no hateful crowd ranting and raving. It was a very collegial and good-spirited gathering. Again, if these were raving lunatics, you could have heard that in my reports. Judge for yourself. It’s also shocking to hear the surprise in their voices as they share that the public is allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights without a permit. Maybe the Progress should be required to get a permit to exercise theirs.

And finally, I would challenge the numbers quoted. There were far more than 50 at the 11 a.m. event, and if they’re off by that much once, how many other things are being slanted by this rag? I’ve alleged the Progress‘ bias for a long time, and these two hacks have proved my point. For too long, certain papers (which are rapidly dying) have reported the news after the fact and after it has passed through a less-than-objective filter. And in print, they can use certain verbiage that makes them seem fair. Audio is another thing. You can hear the bias in the Progress‘ audio report. Just give a listen and judge for yourself.

I was your man on the scene at the Claremore OK tea party today. I used a nifty little program that allowed me to post audio from the scene via my iphone. (I know this may be a little more geekiness than you need to know, but it uploads to my AudioBoo, which is linked to my Twitter, which is linked to my Facebook (search for me there)). For your listening convenience, here are all of today’s audio reports from the scene.

^Wayland Smalley speaks to the small crowd which gathered before the event began. He didn’t know there were approximately 100 others already demonstrating. (I wasn’t in especially close proximity to Mr. Smalley, so the audio quality isn’t as good as those below.)

^Denise Clinton (no relation), coordinator of the Claremore tea party talks about the event. She also didn’t know how many more were already gathered.

^Interview with demonstrator Steven Knight

^Interview with Sherri Stone, Rogers County GOP Chairman

^Interview with Erin, 16-year-old coordinator of Claremore Homeschool Young Republicans

^Interview with Don James, retired state trooper and tea party participant

^I provide post-tea party wrap up

Pics (Click to Bigify)

And This

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on AudioBoo

This is especially prescient because of the recent discussion here on the WynnBlog regarding Second Amendment rights. It has long been my position that First Amendment rights to free speech are as potentially dangerous—if not more so—than the Second Amendment right to possess weapons. Yet, we require no license from the government to exercise one’s right to free speech. Any schmuck former political operative can end up hosting a supposedly objective news program one one of the dinosaur media’s networks.

And just as some irresponsible idiots can abuse their Second Amendment freedoms and do great harm, even evil, some of the talking heads America relies on for news and information abuse the right of free speech and abandon all objectivity for the sake of politics.

From the column:

Every morning, a group of old friends have a nice chat. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CNN’s James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have a wide ranging conference call, usually starting just before dawn. Democrat Pollster Stan Greenberg is a frequent participant. They examine current events and how they fit into the new administrations policies. They determine how to best get their message to the public.

***

When they next appear on various programs as interviewers or interviewees, their comments do not conflict with each other. They have coordinated the broad themes and the topics, and after that early morning phone call they coordinate with their personal networks and associates, influencing and coaxing the comment and reportage on specific issues nationwide.

But why should this bother us? Shouldn’t we all just get along?

From an information consumer’s standpoint it is disturbing that several main networks are so tuned into White House message shaping. How can the citizen expect accurate analysis and reportage when the “journalists” that present it are so tied into the party in power? Obviously they cannot, as we have so clearly seen in the blatant bias and advocacy of last year’s campaign media coverage. The “prevailing political and media interpretation” is a nice way to say “political message.”

Those in the media should remember that it is the nature of those in power—from any party or political persuasion—to do everything possible to retain it. If you choose to be willing accomplices, there will be a price to pay, which we are already seeing with the mass downturn in traditional media viewership and readership. When you start doing your jobs—objectively—you might save the industry…and maybe the country. If you choose to stay in either party’s back pocket, you will feel the considerable heft of their backsides bearing down upon you eventually.

Oh, and there will be new permit program established to authorize you to exercise your First Amendment rights. You will be required to take an 8-hour training course at a cost of approximately $60, provide pictures and fingerprints to your local sheriff’s office (at a cost of approximately $35), undergo a background check, and pay a fee of $100 per five year period of licensure. The line forms to the right (or would you be more comfortable on the Left?).