New Party not Third Party

 The two major political parties are not really in sync with and do not represent the majority of Americans today.  But a third party is not the answer; rather, we need a recalibration of the two parties that currently exist.

Through Trump and MAGA, the Republican Party has come to represent a far Right that I and many other Americans do not want to be a part of.  Meanwhile, while it may not be clear what Biden stands for, his Democrat Party seems to represent a Leftist progressive socialism of identity politics, again something which I and many Americans do not want to be a part of. 

Faced with the likelihood that these two parties will choose Trump and Biden as their candidates for 2024, we hear much talk of a third-party candidate.  But, even with two such poor major candidates, we all know that a third party will likely do nothing more than prove to be a spoiler for one of those candidates. 

So where does that leave the Americans who do not find themselves on either the Right or Left extremes, who are basically moderates leaning towards one party on some issues and the other party on others?  The growing number of people labeling themselves as Independents is not a bad thing – these are the people who will vote not simply because someone wears a Red or Blue label but because of the ability and qualifications of the candidates along with the policy agenda that they put forth. 

These Independents and others who feel in one way or another abandoned by both Democrats and Republicans, need a party.  Not a third party, not a one issue party, not a spoiler party, but a real party that has the size and resources to truly contend for the high offices of this land, including President.

If such a party could rise and replace one of the current two major parties, I believe that the remaining party, be it Democrat or Republican, would, in order to survive and be competitive, move more toward its moderate aspects, which, in both parties once was characterized by bipartisanship and negotiation rather than the current divisiveness and hate. 

I believe that two such parties would provide us with two far better candidates from which to choose.  With two such parties we could perhaps find our way as Americans to come together again as one country and to work not against each other as enemies but together as allies who hold different views but want to solve the same problems. 

Our system is not set up for three parties, but it demands that the two parties we have be representative of more than just the extremes of our society and campaign on more substance than simply that they are not their allegedly evil opponent.  This could, perhaps, be the election where we could begin to build that strong replacement party.  We already have some strong possible candidates who might represent it:  Bobby Kennedy, currently running as an Independent; Joe Manchin, not yet a candidate but a strong contender for the No Labels party; Nikki Haley, currently running for the Republican nomination but whose supporters, in reality, are the moderates of both parties as well as Independents.  I am sure there are others out there who, if it did not seem futile, might be interested. 

But no third party or third candidate has a chance if the people do not give them one. We should not assume that we have no choice but Trump or Biden: neither is yet the official nominee of his party.  With concerted effort to deny one or both the necessary delegates to become that nominee, by voting for a different candidate in the primaries, then we the people can perhaps supplant one or both candidates with someone more representative of the moderate rather than the extremes of their respective party, and in so doing take a major step in replacing at least one of the two parties with one that is more representative of more Americans.

I think this could be managed against either Trump or Biden, either the Republican or the Democrat party, though I think it is more likely at this time to work in the Republican Party.  There is anti-Trump and/or anti-MAGA sentiment from both moderate Democrats and Republicans as well as Independents, and there is a viable candidate currently running along with Trump for the party’s nomination.  Imagine if many primary voters, rather than assuming the nomination has already been wrapped up, were to vote against Trump in the primaries:  they actually might effectuate a different nominee.

If this replacement effort were in regard to Trump, realistically Haley would likely rise as the nominee.  I believe she could and would move the Party more towards the center.  But it could just as easily be some other more moderate write-in candidate who would dethrone Trump or Biden. 

Assuming it were the Republicans who replaced the presumptive nominee with a more center-focused candidate, the Party would begin moving away from the quite frightening far Right of MAGA towards a more moderate center.  I believe this would push a similar move of the Democrat Party away from its Socialist Left toward its more traditional liberal base.  We actually might end up with a two-party system that would give us the kinds of candidates we were once used to in this country:  strong and wise statesmen not out to destroy their opposition but to work with them to find ways to lead America forward.

Unlikely as this may seem, it is possible.  But the people have to stand up and do this.  If they continue to cower behind the demands of the party leaders on both sides, we get exactly what we do not want but what we will deserve:  a country full of hate that continues to destroy itself from within.

Politics is smothering good Politicians

 The bodies weren’t even cold when the MAGA crowd started politicizing yesterday’s drone attacks by Iran-backed groups that killed three U. S. military in Jordan and wounded many others.  As expected, Trump immediately blamed Biden’s “weakness and surrender.”  Senator Tom Cotton (and Trump supporter) released the following statement almost immediately following the news of the attack:

 “Joe Biden emboldened Iran for years by tolerating attacks on our troops, bribing the ayatollahs with billions of dollars, and appeasing them to no end. He left our troops as sitting ducks and now three are dead and dozens wounded, sadly as I’ve predicted would happen for months. The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander-in-chief.

 

“On behalf of Arkansans, I extend my deepest condolence to the families of our brave fallen warriors. May God comfort them as He welcomes their loved ones into His embrace. And may God quickly and completely heal their wounded comrades.” 

Nothing wrong with the second paragraph of Cotton's statement, but notice how it comes as almost an afterthought to the political rhetoric of the first paragraph, rhetoric characteristic of many MAGA supporters yesterday.  One would think that someone with Sen. Cotton’s distinguished military service would have more sense.  But no, in the ever-growing insanity of the MAGA cult, politics (i.e. electing Trump) is everything. 

As to retaliation against Iran, there must be a U.S. response, but this is really a very complex issue.  Iran denies it ordered the attack.  We need proof that it did before we respond directly against Iran for that attack.  And whatever action we take must be carefully considered in light of the already potentially explosive nature of the Middle East following the terrorist attack on Israel, Israel’s legitimate response, the prisoners held by Hamas, and the many questions about Gaza.  Just a blind return of fire could cause far worse problems than a delay in order to respond with well thought out action.

But, this inability to think beyond political posturing, rampant on all sides, actually defines the MAGA Republicans today.  Consider the bipartisan immigration bill that was on a likely path to passage until Trump urged Republicans to vote against the bill because he needs to be able to attack his rival Biden over the border crisis. The bipartisan bill would have provided money to Israel and Ukraine in return for Democrats agreeing to several Republican demands that address the border crisis and immigration laws.  As one senator put it, “[Trump] doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it.”

Oklahoma Republican Senator Lankford, who continues to negotiate with Democrats to try to save the bill stated on a Sunday TV news interview:

“It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said: ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in[immigration] law.  And now, it’s interesting: A few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because of presidential election year,'” 

And what does Sen. Lankford get for his efforts at bipartisanship to solve our country’s problems?  The Oklahoma Republican Party approved a resolution censuring the Senator and attacking him for negotiating with Democrats on a potential border deal.  Just more proof that the Republican party cares little for people affected by the issues it campaigns on but rather simply uses those issues as political talking points to achieve its own power.

This is the new MAGA Republican party, and it has frightening authoritarian tendencies.  This party is led by the presumptive (but hopefully not actual) nominee Donald Trump.  While it is true that Trump’s 2016 presidency did much to improve the day to day lives of many Americans, it also had a dark side.   There is no question that Trump’s words were often acerbic and designed to get a response.  The response, beginning immediately upon his 2016 election was a series of never-ending attacks and allegations, many false and pursued out of seemingly pure hate for the man, but some with at least nuggets of truth to them.  While racial and perhaps other divisiveness became apparent during the Obama years, it increased during Trump’s presidency and continues to this day. 

Both parties have fanned the flames of this atmosphere of anger and overwhelming divisiveness since 2020.  The parties and their supporters have become true enemies of one another rather than simply political opponents and all seem ready if not eager to sue, impeach, censure, or otherwise fully attack anyone whose views or policy decisions they do not like.  This does little for the American people but seems to satisfy some political need within our current leaders. 

Since 2020, Trump and his MAGA supporters seem to be the most eager to stir up hatred and discord against any who are not 100% with them.  Since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has a track record of attacking our Constitution and our very form of government.  His claims of a fraudulent election, his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 (which I believe disqualify him from holding office) and his unsubstantiated and continuing assertions that Joe Biden was not elected and is not our real president are now joined by his actions setting up the same claims for 2024 as he currently asserts that the only way he will lose is if the Democrats cheat.  These assertions are all attacks on our elections, our institutions, and our rule of law, core elements of our democracy and the America and Americans which these folks claim to love.

But beyond these election related tirades, Trump regularly debases, ignores, and encourages others to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States.  In his many ongoing court cases he consistently ignores the court processes, procedures, and rule of law.  He then verbally attacks the courts, attorneys, and jurors for simply doing their jobs when he does not obtain the outcome he seeks.  Moreover, he uses these serious judicial matters as opportunities for campaigning.  The disrespect (which is  encouraged by MAGA supporters who, for example, urge the Governor of Texas to disobey an order of Stay from the United States Supreme Court), if not violation, of both Constitution and Rule of Law are direct assaults on the core of our democracy.  These disregarders of the Constitution are the same folks who assert they believe in its every word – apparently that’s only when they like what it says.

The MAGA cult wants what it wants, and its political ambitions trump (excuse the pun) any concern for the American people.  Sometimes their needs or desires may benefit, but that is nothing more than coincidence. 

While Trump’s rhetoric has always been acerbic, it has taken an extremely dark and un-American turn. When he says that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” (spoken at a New Hampshire rally December 2023) and then doubles down on that statement when given an opportunity to offer some less repulsive explanation, one can’t help but hear the echo of Hitler asserting Jewish blood was poisoning Aryan German blood.  And when his Christmas message is a hope that his opponents rot in hell, one can see that he is not interested in working across the aisle or finding space for all Americans in this country. (Trump’s Christmas rant included the following: “World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and ‘sick’ as the THUGS we have inside our Country.” The message ended with, “MAY THEY (referring to Biden and Special Prosecutor Smith) ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!”) Such rhetoric, in my opinion, does not belong in America, and certainly not in the mouth of a presidential hopeful.

Trump’s exclusive and authoritarian tendencies are apparent as he tries to push out of the Republican Party any and all who do no swear allegiance to his MAGA regime.  He asserted that all Nikki Haley supporters are now permanently barred from the Republican party which he now refers to as the “MAGA community.”  (So much for the big tent where all are welcome!).  MAGA, in true fascist fashion, does not really care about the people, but only its power and its own ideology. 

And, lest we forget the Democrats, they too are often more likely to attack their opponents as totally evil individuals out to destroy America rather than attack the positions and policies of those with whom they disagree.  President Biden himself has given some pretty dark and angry speeches and his view of opponents as enemy is often apparent.  Expect these type of attacks to become more common as we approach the November election.  

We have a changing world fraught with many crises.  These are not the fault of one person or one party.  The problems and complex and often interconnected.   We need politicians who want to solve these problems, not just use them to blame others for their existence.

The primary political responses to the drone attack simply underscore the overwhelming and devastating role that politics itself has taken in our country.  There are good and bad and mediocre politicians, and we vote in or out those whose policies we do or do not agree with, giving those we choose the opportunity to represent us, the people.  But when it is politics itself that begins governing our country – when decisions are made based not on what is good for the American people but on what effect they will have on the enemy/other party, then we are in real trouble.   This politicization of almost everything smothers the opportunity for real dialog, debate, and solution to this country’s and the world’s problems.

We the people need to begin thinking like Americans who believe in our country and all of its people and who can work together to find solutions to our problems, and we need to demand that our politicians do the same.  We must no longer tolerate a politics that is synonymous with a blood-thirst against those holding opposing views.  And we need to elect politicians who will help us to stand united as one country rather than trying to divide us until we fall.

Horseshoes Anyone? It Depends.

 I find that in political discussions my positions are often opposed by both Right and Left.  A current example:  I adamantly support Israel, its position on the war, on Gaza, and on its right to exist.  I also adamantly support the right to protest in favor of Palestine, Gaza, and against Jews, even though I find such views abhorrent.  I supported the Harvard president in her testimony about the Harvard student protests and oppose Rep. Stefanic and others who are keen on silencing her and other university presidents who testified.  I find Stefanic to be doing exactly what she condemns the Left for doing – trying to silence those views with which she disagrees.

This sort of hypocrisy from both Right and Left which is more and more the norm these days along with the denial from both sides that they do what they condemn the other side for doing, is more than annoying, but even worse is the fact that so few are willing to see or acknowledge it.  The extremes of both sides are dug in against one another and yet cannot see that they and their enemy are more alike than they are different.

Trying to explain this in the context of political discussions with individuals who clearly identify with Right or Left is difficult.  But recently I was reminded of the horseshoe theory of politics, and that indeed is a perfect explanation.  Moreover, it leads me to realize that if this dynamic of our politics continues we absolutely must see the development of a strong third party (perhaps as the two extremes merge into one?) if our country as we know it is to survive.

The Horseshoe Theory

The horseshoe theory holds that the political spectrum, rather than being shaped as a straight line, is in the shape of a horseshoe.  The center of the horseshoe represents the political center and as you move upward toward the end of either side you will move more and more to the Right or the Left until you reach the end of each side where reside the Far Right and Far Left. 

You will note that these ends of the horseshoe bend toward one another indicating, according to this theory, that the Far Right and Far Left, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear continuum, approach and are really quite similar to one another.

While this theory is often criticized for being too simplistic, I think that it is worth thinking about, if for no other reason than to try to objectively view one’s own viewpoint in contrast and comparison with that of one’s own political foes.

What makes the extremes similar while still appearing different?

The commonly used example of sameness is Communism (Left, strong central state, work for common good) and Fascism (Right, strong central state, work for the common good).  There are of course differences: Communist ideals include a classless society with economic equality while Fascism includes a top-down class system and rule by dictator. 

But we can certainly come up with more topical concrete examples. Consider identity politics.  The Left likes to identify people based on certain characteristics and then label these groups as victim or victimizer (e.g. white vs. black, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, etc.).  The Right complains about such identity politics and yet it also uses this approach as it condemns members of groups that advocate (usually progressive) ideas that the Right opposes (thus, enemy groups include LGBTQ, anti-traditional religion, abortion advocates, etc.). 

Again, there are differences, not only with the specifics, but Left identity groups tend to be based upon external and often immutable characteristics  while the Right’s placement of someone in an identity group more often begins with a belief that they hold that is contrary to that held by the Right.  But regardless, the end result is that both Left and Right create identity groups and then either embrace or condemn all those whom they have placed into that group.

For both Far Right and Far Left, a person’s color affects the group’s perception of them.  The Left sees white people as oppressors and racists while people of color are seen as victims of that oppression.  The Right condemns people of color for what they see as taking advantages including jobs, education, etc. from white people due to affirmative action type programs.  Both Far Right and Far Left reduce individuals to a perceived group identity.

Cancel culture and free speech are other areas in which the Far Right and Far Left are more similar than different.  The Left will gladly justify the silencing of those holding views contrary to their progressive values; for example, they will gladly shout down a pro-life or anti-transgender speaker but will assert the rights of protesters to call for the annihilation of Jews.   Meanwhile, the Right will attempt to silence those who protest or support the right to protest for Palestine and Hamas but will demand the freedom of speech for advocates against progressive ideals.  The Right condemns the Left for censorship and silencing in various areas such as vaccine debates.  Yet the Right would silence progressive views by condemning and banning books relating to gender identity.

Both sides will assert the Constitution and the First Amendment free speech right as their support for their approved speech, but they seem to forget those things when they wish to silence speech with which they don’t agree.

In deciding whether Trump should be allowed to appear on primary ballots, the Far Right suddenly ignores their previous demands that the courts and especially SCOTUS be literalists in their reading of the Constitution and not cave to or interpret the Constitution’s plain and clear language to satisfy popular demand.  Meanwhile, the Left is now looking for a simple reading of the 14^th Amendment within the 4 corners of its language.

Both sides also regularly use ad hominem attacks (directing their opposition and anger against the person rather than the position maintained by that person).  Again, while the precise form or will differ language (e.g. racist, communist, fascist, deplorable, plain stupid etc., all of which and more I have personally been called by both the Left and the Right), the bottom line is that both sides find it easier to engage in name-calling rather than to engage in a rational discussion about their differing views, a discussion in which they begin by acknowledging the other’s right to hold a view different from their own.

A horseshoe?  It depends.

Whether this horseshoe theory works depends on what you are comparing.  If you look at the specifics you can conclude that the theory fails – the sides are nothing alike.  Certainly shouting down a pro-life speaker is nothing like trying to silence someone who yells “from the River to the Sea.”  The words are different, the issue being addressed is different, the people involved are different.  And you may agree with one speech but disagree with the other.

And yet, if we go beyond the surface, they are far more alike than different.  In both cases there is an attempt to deny someone their First Amendment right to speak their opinion.  It denies others of hearing that opinion which in itself goes against one of the cornerstones of our democracy: our form of government demands a free marketplace of ideas where all will be heard and individuals will be left to make up their own minds rather than be told by government or some other majority what they can, cannot, and must believe and what they can and cannot say.

Beyond ignoring this core principle, it also violates the tolerance that is a necessary characteristic if our free society is to succeed.

Claudine Gay was attacked for saying “it depends on context” in regard to whether the pro-Palestinian protests violated her school’s code of conduct.  But that is exactly what a good American should say.  As a mentor of mine recently stated:

[S]everal decades of "critical thinking" being taught in junior and senior high schools didn't seem to deal appropriately with the meaning of "critical" in the context.   The guy who taught my [children] in the so-called "gifted" program would just review whatever he had heard on NPR on the drive to school.  

Remember my admonition to [pre-law] students - every question you are going to face should be answered, in the first instance with two words - "It Depends".   Instead each side gets its thinking orders from Fox or MSNBC and then proceeds to see everything through that lens.  All surface.

In the case of the protests and conduct codes, one would have to look at the actual activity and the language of the codes to understand whether this was within the context of speech which, though abhorrent, was within the First Amendment rights of the students to utter, or was this more, perhaps combined with actual violence or immediate threats thereof?  If we allow the silencing of speech alone, no matter how abhorrent, in essence we are advocating the end to the protections of the First Amendment for all Americans. 

It all depends. Not just determining free speech rights, but in determining most of the underlying issues of our day and of our country.   It does often depend on context.   But core rights such as free speech should not depend upon one’s view or on the speech being uttered.  Yet for too many on both the Far Right and Far Left, freedom of speech depends upon what is being spoken. 

That hypocritical ability to view the same core concepts differently depending upon what one is seeking to accomplish is the similarity that drives the two political extremes to become almost as one.  While their stated goals may be different, their means are the same and both conflict with our core democratic principles.

Think

Good Americans think.  They ask why.  The extremes of both the right and the left are too wrapped up in themselves and their mandatory causes to understand the phrase “it depends.”  They don’t think, or if they do, they don’t understand that issues can be more complex than a simple yes or no, black or white, up or down, day or night. Yet if they apply this thought process to their own views as well as those of others, they may realize that they are often doing exactly that for which they condemn their opponents.

So, if we go beyond the surface, if we look beyond the overt details to the deeper concepts directing various actions, we will likely see far more similarity than difference between the two extremes of the political spectrum.

I think it is that deeper conversation that desperately needs to be had in America today.  People need to think and ask why rather than simply accept what they are told and the soundbites they repeat from their chosen news source.  That conversation can only be had if the conversants understand the why underlying the positions they assert.  Otherwise, when their position is countered they likely feel threatened because they don’t really understand the position that they are parroting and so a simple contradiction of their position and memorized phrases becomes almost a contradiction of themselves.  It is impossible to reason and explain a position that is merely memorized but not understood. 

When the focus becomes upon only the surface dissimilarities rather than the suggestion of complexity, any hope of real understanding is likely to dissolve and become something akin to a playground dispute.   If forced to look at the deeper concepts the response is likely either to attack not the ideas of the counterargument, but rather to attack the bearer of the unmemorized, considered idea, or to simply run away.

The Parties – not for most Americans

The horseshoe theory is a somewhat simplistic way of viewing politics and political parties, but it is a good place to begin to review one’s own views as well as those of one’s opponents.

Both the Republican and the Democrat parties currently seem in large part controlled by their extremes. It would be more likely that they merge into one than that they actually distinguish themselves on underlying principles.  In the end, both sides seek power to control the rest of society – individual thoughts, beliefs, and actions would all fall under their control.   While what might be allowed or condemned would differ, both would take away individual right and responsibility to choose.  That is not American, not traditional and not progressive.

Indeed, both extremes are more than willing to dismiss the Constitution, the rule of law, and any number of core American principles to ensure that all individuals conform to what they think is proper and good.   That is not America, traditional or progressive.

I think that, divorced from their chosen Right or Left newsfeeds, most Americans would fall somewhere near the middle of the horseshoe, rising a bit to the Right on some things, to the Left on others.  But we have given those Americans (including myself) nowhere to go.  If both the current major parties are but two sides of the same extreme then Americans are almost forced to take sides against one another rather than work together for solutions to serious problems. 

We need a middle party.  A strong middle party, not just a third party stealer but a real party that represents the vast number of Americans who find themselves standing on one or the other end of the horseshoe – a place where they really don’t want to be.

2024

It is almost, but not yet, too late for the appearance of a candidate who fits more to the middle of the horseshoe.  It could come from a third party or it could come from one or both of the major parties.  Donald Trump or Joe Biden (or hopefully both) could be replaced by candidates more representative of the middle, candidates who have slid down from those horseshoe extremes to a point of moderation that allows them to represent the policy positions of their party in reasonable ways, avoiding the extremism and lack of cooperation and compromise that are the destructive stance of both parties today.

We can only hope.

Israel

Saturday morning when the terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas began, the world changed.  There is the world before Simchat Torah 5784 and the world after.  And there is the transition zone which, sadly, is where we are now.

We are not only on the brink of World War 3, but we have people cheering for annihilation of not only Israel but of all the Jews.  Pro-Palestinian protestors around the globe, including right here in the USA, shout “Kill the Jews”, “Gas the Jews”, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (meaning that the entire State of Israel, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will be destroyed). 

The history and facts of Israel from times before Christ to the present, do not support or justify the claims by Palestine against Israel.  An objective recitation of this history is hard, but not impossible, to find these days and I wish that more people would study it.  But, even assuming that the claims against Israel were true, even if one chooses to see Palestinians as some sort of victims of Israel, and even if they choose to mount pro-Palestinian protests, it does not justify supporting the heinous, violent, and inhuman acts committed by the Hamas terrorists.

We have totally lost our moral compass.   The bleeding hearts, who want to excuse every offense and create offenses where none exist, still cannot bring themselves to distinguish a terrorist from someone with an alleged grievance.  To do so would disrupt their utopian false truth; they cannot see that their utopic vision is not and never will be a reality.  And yet their hearts are cold as stone towards the atrocities committed against Jews.  That, in my book, is clear antisemitism.

The Current Dysfunction

How did we come to this point?  The answer to that has many layers.  We can start with the present which includes the current administration’s completely dysfunctional international policies and actions. America has gone from a strong international voice for, and beacon of, democracy to a weak and dysfunctional shadow of its former self.

The dysfunction of this administration includes:

• The Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco that allowed terrorists to supply themselves with American weapons.
• A failure to even attempt to understand the Russian view on Ukraine, while pushing Putin into a position where he was left with little choice but to attack Ukraine.
• Supporting not only the military actions in Ukraine but also the corrupt use of American funds to sustain the entire Ukraine economy.
• Failing to support the Abraham Accords and not only allowing but tacitly encouraging the rise in anti-Semitic behavior here and around the world.  
• Providing $6 billion to Iran, knowing that Iran is a supporter of the terrorist acts against Israel.

The press has not been silent, but it carefully edits its words to downplay the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah (also attacking Israel from Lebanon) are terrorist organizations:

• Rather than use the word terrorist they call them simply militant groups.
• The defensive acts of Israel are equated with the unprovoked terrorism of Hamas.
• Israel is blamed for collateral damage of their defensive strikes, but there is little notice that the terrorists intentionally targeted innocents, children, and babies and further that the death they imposed upon those innocents was prolonged with pain and horrendous suffering.
• The media mostly fails to report that while Israel attempts to avoid civilian and other collateral damage, Hamas actually uses civilians and especially children as shields as they place their military sites directly under or above places such as hospitals and schools.

You cannot equate the aggressive and horrendous actions of Hamas with the self-defensive acts of Israel!  Yet too many, whether with or without knowledge of the actual facts, do.

Beyond the Surface – Humanity, Purpose, and Amalek

The misguided and dysfunctional political and media actions only touch the surface.  We live in a country where the people have a voice.  Yet, that voice remains either silent or simply a thoughtless mouthpiece for the buzz words, phrases, and memes of the Left.  How did the American people lose not only their voices but their minds?

An Israeli soldier currently fighting in Gaza referred to his enemy as Amalek.   In the Hebrew Bible, Amalek is both a nation and a nomadic tribe seen to be the arch-rival of ancient Israel.   While the Amalekite nation no longer exists, Jewish wisdom holds that the memory of the devious enemy Amalek lives on in in all forms of antisemitism carried out against Jewish people.

According to Midrash (Hebrew Biblical interpretation) Amalek represents the belief in chance, of the haphazard dictates of “fate” and “destiny,” which oppose the Jewish belief in Divine providence. Amalek’s philosophy negates the concept that there is a purpose to humanity or to creation itself, again the antithesis of Jewish philosophy.   Amalek’s chief weapon is to foment doubt among the faithful.

Regardless of whether one believes in or has even read Judeo-Christian scripture and teachings, I think this description of Amalek provides a wonderful way to characterize and personify much of what we see around us and the causes of this void and valueless place in which the world finds itself today.  

Let’s just take the phrase, “Amalek’s philosophy negates the concept that there is a purpose to humanity.”  All around us we see that human life has become or is becoming meaningless, with no value.  It has become disposable.  Why is it so easy to kill another human being over such simple things as who gets a parking spot?  It is easy if one believes that humanity is meaningless.  And if one’s life is meaningless, why would several lives suddenly have meaning?  Mass shootings, if life is meaningless, then are themselves meaningless; they are easy to carry out if one need feel no guilt about killing what one sees as a purposeless nothing nor compassion for meaningless corpses.  It becomes easy to be only concerned with satisfying one’s own urges at any one moment if anyone who might be hurt by that satisfaction is nothing but meaningless and valueless.

That sentence continues “or [no purpose] to creation itself.”  If there is no purpose to creation, no need to find meaning in something greater than oneself, then, again, there is no need to even have a moral compass let alone consider whether performance of some heinous act might violate it.  Indeed, “Amalek’s chief weapon is to foment doubt among the faithful.” 

The influence of Amalek is seen well beyond Israel and the Jewish faith.  All around us we see people leaving their faith, people who have a huge void within themselves because they have nothing greater than themselves to believe in.  This loss in faith, this loss in human purpose is killing us all.

Will the world awake; will we save ourselves?

What has happened to us as a nation and a world?  We have listened to the voice of Amalek who has led us to doubt who and what we are.  But it is not just our belief in something greater than ourselves that is doubted and lost.  With a loss in faith we have lost all the values that come with that faith.  Our whole culture now leads us to doubt and deny everything that has made us the great nation that we are.   We are led to believe that we can and do take the place of God; that we need nothing but ourselves.  And with that seems to come the belief that we are entitled to whatever we desire regardless of whom that may hurt.

Those who see this as the Utopia they dream of do not want it questioned. They take command over what we learn.  Schools no longer teach children to use their minds to think and critically assess an issue.  We erase history, ignoring not only the sage wisdom that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” but also the fact that “Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” 

We evolve as a society and civilization in part because we learn and grow from the past and in part because we value our purpose as one individual within humanity at large.  And when one has a purpose, one generally sees that purpose as a part of a greater good.  As such, one values human life beyond one’s own selfish being. 

Today’s leaders leave much to be desired.  But we the people also leave much to be desired.  We have stopped thinking.  We have stopped caring.  We have stopped believing.  We are being led by false but devious dreams created by Amalek and many leaders along with their followers whom he represents.  We have lost our purpose and our soul. 

There is time.  The terrorist attacks on Israel have shaken the world as have the reactions to those attacks.  The question is:  Are they enough to shake us all awake from the nihilistic nightmare future that the devious tactics of Amalek have put before us?

Joshua fighting Amalek, A print from the Phillip Medhurst Collection of Bible illustrations in the possession of Revd. Philip De Vere at St. George’s Court, Kidderminster, England.  CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Human Dialogue, Freedom, and Censorship

 

As facts start to come out and scandals start to close in, I am reminded of the following phase that stems from Soviet era Russia:  “There is no news in the Truth, and there is no truth in the News (В Правде нет известия, и в Известие нет правды).”

Actually, this stems from the two Russian newspapers – Pravda and Izvestiye.   Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party, was considered to be filled with lies even though its name translates as “truth”, while the name Izvestiye, the other Soviet newspaper, translates as “news” and was the official newspaper of the Supreme Soviet.  The saying, at the time, was a joke because all good Russians knew that they could not get the truth or the news from state-controlled media.

Today Americans also have difficulty obtaining news or truth.  The government is too often involved in dissemination and editing of what should be accurate news and truth.  The state of the American media and Americans’ access to news, facts, and truth can be summarized as: 

Let me define truth, for the purposes of this discussion, as that which is in accordance with fact, evidence, and reality.  News I will define as new or noteworthy information in which an audience will likely be interested.

Editorial Discretion has become Political Censorship

The mainstream media today is less interested in providing facts to its readers, viewers, and listeners than it is in pleasing government and elite powers by providing their narratives to audiences rather than facts of a situation.  And audiences are often more interested in the entertainment rather than factual aspects of a story.    Hence, the truth (factual recitation) is not the news, and the news, because it is not factually accurate, is not the truth.

I am not talking about editorial discretion which has always been part of news dissemination.  What to print, where to place a story, how much time/space to give a story – these have always been decisions for editors and have always been colored somewhat by their biases, both conscious and unconscious. 

But today these decisions go far beyond and are far removed from simple editorial discretion.  We now have concrete evidence of state involvement and control of what is/is not “truth” and what information will be disseminated or hidden.   Such involvement has permeated both the actual “news” media as well as social media platforms. 

For example, House investigations now provide documentation that Facebook confirmed to the White House that it was working to accomplish “the administration’s directives” on suppressing content that clashed with its COVID vaccine agenda.  There are processes by which the government can flag certain content on social media and request it be suppressed.  There is also evidence that the White House wanted social media to change its on-line algorithms so that users would see more information from sources supportive of the White House agenda.

The News or Mainstream Media is now also beholden to powers outside of the news itself.  While news editors, as noted above, have always made editorial choices, those editors ensured that the stories presented in their news sections were factual; they left opinion for the opinion pages.  Not so anymore.

Today’s news sources clearly support one or the other political party and every aspect of their “news” reflects that.  Not just the selection of which stories to present, but the manner in which any story is presented. 

The conservative and right-leaning media will slant everything to support right wing positions and politicians while the left-leaning media will slant in the opposite direction.  Stories that cover the front pages of media with one political leaning will be close to non-existent in the media of the opposite political leaning.  Indeed, we now have proof of news sources such as the NY Times and Washington Post deliberately omitting or revising facts of key stories such as the now debunked Russian collusion or the now confirmed story of the Hunter Biden laptop.  Stories that are presented will often be filled with adjectives and other modifiers that, while perhaps appropriate in opinion pieces, are blatant attempts to turn what should be a factual news story into an opinion advocating a particular political position.

Consider the two big stories over the past few days:  the Trump indictments and the concrete evidence of President Biden’s involvement in his family’s influence peddling scheme that resulted in huge monetary payments to the Biden family.    To compare the coverage of these two stories between right and left leaning news media is to read accounts of two seemingly completely different worlds. 

It is next to impossible to find a full and objective account of the Trump charges along with the legal assertions that they are politically motivated and/or a form of election interference.  Similarly, one can barely find the Biden story in left-leaning media, and when one does it is downplayed as simply some sort of Republican witch hunt, while the right-leaning media perhaps over sensationalizes the clearly damning evidence of Biden’s quite likely illegal interactions with foreign countries and the possibility of its compromising of the President. 

The “news” from the left leaning media essentially has already found Trump guilty and Biden completely innocent while the right leaning media takes the opposite view.  This is not news.  This is not truth.  This is bias and propaganda.  And in many instances it is guided by the very people that we elect to protect us and our First Amendment rights. 

Information, Not Censorship, Heals and Sustains America

The First Amendment, a cornerstone of our American democracy, demands a free and objective news media in order that the people can voice and hear a variety of views and make their own decisions.  That others would decide what the people should and should not hear and, worse yet, make judgements about what information is made available in an attempt to do the people’s thinking for them is in complete antipathy to the First Amendment and all it stands for.

When those who should be leading our country become more concerned with their own power than their duty to the country and the people they serve, they find ways to justify their censorship and denial of free speech and the importance of narrative – their narrative – over truth or news.

Suppression of information is often done under the guise of protecting us from “misinformation” though as Robert Kennedy Jr. well-articulated in his July appearance before the House Committee regarding Censorship and Free Speech, the term is often rephrased as “mal-information” – not incorrect but just bad as in information that the government or its lackeys in the media have decided would be bad for the populace to hear, usually because it contradicts the narrative of those in power. 

Our country is split into two camps, and each wants to provide a narrative that benefits them.  To establish that narrative, censorship of truth and news becomes a temptation that is hard to resist.  That, however, is the worst possible reaction.

Words from Kennedy’s opening statement to the House Committee on Censorship are instructive.  He responded to Democrats’ concern about “the need to beat this toxic polarization that is destroying our country today and how do we deal with that?” Kennedy stated: “This kind of division is more dangerous for our country than any time since the American Civil War.  How do we [deal with] that?  Every Democrat on this committee, do you think you can do that by censoring people?  I am telling you, you cannot.  That only aggravates and amplifies the problem.”

Recently Sen. Joe Manchin spoke and wrote about the division in America, stating that the United States is “not designed for” the level of division currently seen within the country, leaving many “common-sense” Americans without a political home.   He wrote:

The extremes on the left and right now control the Democratic and Republican Parties, defining our politics and policy debates. These partisan extremes are in the business of feeding political division and dysfunction everyday – and their business is booming.

They want America divided – because they benefit greatly from it. They want us to see each other as enemies because they feed off of it. They attack our institutions, whether it is our Capitol, our elected leaders or our justice system, without caring about the lasting damage it does.

In America, leadership is not a birthright but instead it’s the choice of voters after respectful debates of ideas. And partisan leaders on both sides of the aisle are increasingly threatened by the growing desire for debate.

To be clear, while both parties are to some extent responsible for resorting to narrative and aggravating division, it is the current Administration and the hard Left that are aggressively pushing censorship and even elimination of First Amendment freedoms.

Dialogue Is Our Humanity

But why does debate and this current censorship matter?  Why not just pick a left or right bubble and live within it?  Or simply allow the government and its media to tell us what to think?  The answer is not only that this contradicts the very core of the 1st Amendment, a necessary cornerstone of our government and our way of life.  It is not only that it furthers a nefarious goal of making the American people enemies of one another.  These, of course, are serious problems, especially to those who believe in American democracy.  But perhaps an even larger problem is that it works to destroy the very core of our existence.

Life in the end is a dialogue.  We participate by speaking, asking questions, listening, writing, reading, responding, agreeing, disagreeing, learning.  A dialogue cannot be open and honest if information is restricted or denied.  With censorship we lose part of the dialogue, and we allow someone else to create a dialogue for us.  We stop learning.  We stop thinking.  We stop speaking.  And we lose part of our humanity.  We become nothing more than a tool for those creating the dialogue for us.

Currently the government and others in power through pressure on private platforms are trying to shape our dialogue.  The media gives us the stories they want discussed in a way that will create preordained narratives.  But our information is limited and therefore our dialogue is limited and we are ultimately limiting our individual humanity as we delegate our power to dialogue to the state.

To retain our humanity and our freedom we must remember that goals of personal comfort and protection from negative narratives are not in the end in our best interest.  Free thought and free dialogue are.  We must remember that good dialogue requires others and their possibly differing and uncomfortable viewpoints.  Those others are not enemies.  Silencing and censorship are the enemy as is a state-controlled media. 

As the mounting proof of censorship and silencing becomes both truth and news we must demand that our news media actually provide us with news that is truth and truth that is news.  All of it.  Only then can we dialogue as fully engaged free people.

A Brief Note on Biden’s State of the Union Speech and Sanders’ Response

 I always watch the State of the Union speeches.  Since I first began to understand America in my Junior High Civics class I have believed it is my duty as a citizen to listen to these often boring, angering, or sometimes joyful events.  I want to hear and see the entire ordeal rather than take various reporters’ interpretations of the event.  I also watch the opposition’s response.

Last night’s affair was in many ways not unusual (even if it sort of looked like the start of a real affair when the first lady and the second gentleman had a good smooch on the lips, but then I guess that’s Washington today).  Below are my brief reactions to the President’s State of the Union speech and to Governor Sanders’ response.

Biden’s speech

At some point during Biden’s long and mostly boring speech I decided that the President engages in some sort of magical thinking.  So many lies, misleading statements, and half-truths came out of his mouth that I quickly lost count.  I think that Biden gave us a litany of things he wishes to be true.  The problem is that he states these things as fact - he believes what he says and he expects us to believe it too

I am not a psychologist, but is this the pattern of a pathological liar?  Joe’s lies go back at least as far as his law school plagiarism days.  On the campaign trail he has related tales of things he has done which prove to be entirely false.

So the lies did not surprise me.  I actually expect them from this President.  I realize that all our presidents have lied to us about some things, but Joe’s lies are different.  He lies about things that he doesn’t have to.  A president might lie about something because he must, as for example when Kennedy had to keep secret the discussions he and Khrushchev were having about the Cuban Missile Crisis. A president might lie or obfuscate if he has committed some offense (think Nixon and Watergate or Clinton and Monica Lewinsky).  And of course, on the campaign trail, candidates puff up their accomplishments and records.  But Biden lies about things that don’t matter as well as those that do and about easily proven falsehoods (why has he told us he was a truck driver when he was not; why has he lied about trips to the border?).  

I really think Biden can’t help himself, and he certainly gave us a parade of untruths in his speech last night.  The fact checkers are busy and if you google the fact checks of last night’s speech you will find few statements labeled as true, some will be labeled as false, and the majority will indicate that significant context has been left out, thus making the statement misleading at best.

Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

I do not really think that what Biden gave us was an honest description of the state of the union.  It was more of a speech that took credit that was not due for past activities and a wish list of what he would do if re-elected.  That wish list included sideways attacks on Republicans who we can be sure he will blame if the many government and socialistic programs he outlined do not come to pass.

Perhaps because I expect the lies, however, what bothers me more is that people don’t question Biden’s statements.  Indeed, Americans seem to have forgotten that they can and should question what they are told.  They should at least ask for some proof of the claims being made.  But they do not.  And that indeed troubles me more than the lies themselves. 

People are grading Biden’s speech; I would give him a C.  The content of the speech was probably below that, but the fact that it was delivered in such a way that most Americans will just accept what he said without question raises it to the C level.

Sanders’ Response

Overall, I thought Sanders’ response was not effective.   I was disappointed and had expected more from her.

The speech sounded like a generic Republican campaign speech.  I was looking for a response – a rebuttal to Biden’s lies and false promises.  

Clearly Sanders had prepared her speech in advance and she delivered it with compassion, but I wondered if she had even listened to Biden’s speech.  She certainly had time to insert some specific and pointed rebuttals during the time between the end of Biden’s speech and the beginning of hers – the time while the mainstream media commentators were lavishing Biden with praise, buying all his lies without question.

But no, she gave us a campaign speech that really said nothing new.  Her story of her secret trip to Iraq with President Trump was very moving, but in the end it did not really relate to Biden’s speech.  She repeatedly told us that Republicans are the good guys and Democrats bad (or crazy).  But we hear that and its reverse every day depending on which news outlets we visit. 

Biden’s speech was open to so many attacks based on both factual inaccuracies along with political philosophy.  This response missed a huge opportunity.  My grade for this one is a D.

In conclusion

I would have liked to have seen the honesty of Pres. Ford (see below)  in Biden’s speech and a true rebuttal from Sanders.

The Power of WHY

 We all know that Biden repeatedly tells the country that we must vote Democratic as he repeatedly vilifies all Republicans.  Down the ballot most Democrats do the same.

But it is not only Democrats who demand unwavering and indeed unthinking party loyalty.  In my state the voters can vote to retain or not retain state judges who are already sitting on the bench.  The state judges are identified by party affiliation.   The Republican party recently posted an ad telling voters to vote no on every single judge who is up for retention simply because they are Democrats. 

It is not just political parties that demand unthinking decision making.  My state’s major newspaper apparently based its endorsements on the answer to one question – whether the candidate agreed with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen.  A clear No got you the endorsement but a Yes or even an answer that tried to explain the complexities of that question meant you would not be endorsed.  The paper itself noted that despite the Republican governor candidate coming out on top on nearly all the issues, he would not have received the endorsement had he not answered a clear No to that one question, while it failed to endorse a Republican candidate for House because that candidate failed to give an unexplained yes or no  (that was the only negative noted in the paper’s discussion of that candidate and her opponent who answered no and whom they endorsed).   

These demands that one decide a vote simply on one question or merely a party label are wrong on so many levels.  Let me suggest three.

First, candidates are individuals.  Voters need to look at each candidate as a full person, not as simply a cardboard cutout representing one label or one yes or no answer.  For example, in the judicial retention elections in my state voters have access to in-depth studies done by our Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.  These include surveys of litigants, attorneys, and others appearing in that judge’s courtroom as well as surveys of the judge’s staff, and the Commission’s evaluation of each judge.  That is a starting point for voters to understand whether or not they believe a particular judge should be retained.  There are judges belonging to both parties that deserve to be retained, and some of each party that do not.  The total picture of each individual judge includes far more than just their party affiliation.

Second: it’s identity politics.  Using a party label to paint a broad and unvarying picture of everyone belonging to that party is simply the game of identity politics, something that we know the Democrats are very good at.  It is the Democrats who paint all opponents as “deplorables” or “terrorists” or “destroyers of democracy.”  The Democrats have given us excellent examples of how to pit one identity group against another as they do such things as paint all whites as racist or all Christians as intolerant or all Trump supporters as violent.

When the Republicans paint all Democrats as bad judges or when the newspaper paints all people with one answer to a question as not endorsable, they too are playing the identity politics game which is simply taking one characteristic of an individual’s many facets and painting all who have that characteristic with the same broad brush.

Group-think or don’t think.  The third and most troubling aspect of these party or single-question-based directives is that they are essentially orders to the voting public not to think.  Because if one thinks, they will go beyond the narrowness that creates cardboard cutouts rather than individuals:  they will think for themselves.

The danger of labeling based on one characteristic or identity factor out of the many that we all carry goes far beyond voting.  It destroys us by dehumanizing each and every one of us.

Humanity requires thinking and debate

Interestingly, in the SCOTUS arguments about affirmative action earlier this week, the justices sincerely grappled with the need for a diverse classroom environment while prohibiting race-based (essentially group identity based) decision making.

Diverse environments are essential to open all our eyes as we learn about, debate, and understand the diverse views of our pluralist democracy.  Labeling any one view as definitive of all who may hold that view is disingenuous and destructive of every positive aspect of pluralism. 

Questioning and debating is essential to human growth, but that debate needs to be based upon reality, not cardboard cutouts based on identity factors.  The debate needs to be individualized if the debaters are to learn and grow.  But the necessary partner with debate is the ability to think as an individual about other individuals.  Demanding thought and action based on group identity defeats the entire purpose.

Yeshiva schools understand how important true debate (debate and questioning in order to grow and learn) is to education.  In such schools the students, along with their rabbis, question the Torah, debating, often quite passionately, about its meaning and its application to their lives.  They are taught not to accept, but to question.  And with questioning comes not only thinking, but an evolution in one’s thinking as they grow deeper and deeper understanding of that which they are studying.

WHY – An act of love

The idea of questioning, even questioning God Himself, goes back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  We are told that Eve’s mission is to be a helper against Adam.  The rabbinic commentators on this passage explain that this “teaches us a model of friendly antagonism, one in which, in order to support you, I challenge you.” (Prof. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Witness by Ariel Burger).  Such challenging refines the thinking of those involved, allowing them to refine and develop their ideas about the subject being debated. 

Learning about the beliefs of others allows one to challenge one’s own deeply held beliefs, something which is vitally important for one to grow in both spirit and intellect.  Disagreement and debate for the sake of learning, understanding, and growing and not simply to defeat or silence the other’s view is an act of love – for oneself and for the other.  It allows us to see one another for the complex individuals we each are.

Excluding debate, even when done with the misguided motive of protecting delicate feelings, is not an act of kindness but rather an act that serves to stifle individuality.  Demanding that someone vote or base any other activity solely on a group identity classification stifles the individual capacity to think.

Not only in voting, but in the world at large, we need to see people for the complex individuals that they are.  We need to question our candidates and the information that we have about them, not simply base an important decision on one alleged identity characteristic that may or may not be true for that individual candidate, whether based on party affiliation or single question answer. 

If we open our hearts and our minds to question and debate we can reach deeper levels of understanding about ourselves, those we interact with and society at large.  But those questions must not be in the nature of HOW CAN YOU disagree with me/say that? 

Rather, we must learn to ask WHY?  In the context of elections:  WHY are you a member of that party?  WHY do you support that?  In the broader context:  WHY do you say/believe that – help me to understand WHY you hold that view.

That simple word WHY used with curiosity and openness rather than with a closed-minded intent to shut unfamiliar or opposing views down, can go far.  Not only will it likely do more to elect the best candidates, it will also do much to heal our world.

The Truth

 President Biden clearly preached (or ranted) as a socialist in his Sept. 1 speech.  

Some may have seen some other resemblances as well.

Would you rather that you own the government or that the government own you?  That difference between American democracy and authoritarian/socialist forms of government was pointed out by someone who lived in the USSR and now lives in America.

While it may be a simplistic sounding distinction, it actually captures the essence of our American government as it has existed and the America that is being created by the Left and which was in large part captured in Biden’s dystopian prime time political rant on September first.

In our form of democracy, which to be clear is not a pure majority mob rule but rather a people’s representative democracy, we acknowledge that the people own certain freedoms and rights, including the freedom to believe as they wish and to speak those beliefs out loud.  Our democracy also requires that we each have a tolerance for the beliefs of others.  We keep order via the rule of law which is intended to be applied equally to all.  We the people choose our government by voting for candidates of our choice whom we believe will best represent us and our will.  While political parties have differing focuses, policies, and goals, each party has its right to put forward what it believes is best for America.  We do not condemn those who hold different beliefs or who support political opponents.

In authoritarian governments little if any of the above is true.  The government will tell you what to think and what to believe as well as for whom you can vote.  It will prohibit the expression of alternate views.  It will silence those who disagree with those in power.  Any rule of law is not a system that is applied equally to all but rather becomes a way for those in power to retain their power by keeping opponents in check.  Core rights do not belong to the people; rather, all rights belong to the government to dole or not dole out as it chooses, not equally but to, or not to, those whom it chooses.

American democracy does not have the certainty of socialism and it is not easy.  There are no guarantees:  each individual is free to make his or her own decisions and must live with the consequences of those decisions.  Those decisions result not in equity (in everyone having and being the same), but in the ability for each to rise to his or her greatest potential or to ignore that potential as they choose.  Each will have equal rights and opportunities, but how each uses those, along with the individual results, will differ and may or may not seem fair. 

In contrast, when the government owns you there is a certainty that exists which cannot exist when you are free to make both large and small choices about your own life.  If the government makes all your decisions for you then you simply have to live with the life laid out for you and be the person that the government, not you, design.  In the early stages of socialism that life seems easier and not all that bad.  Everyone will have the same thing – equity. 

In the abstract, socialism seems nicer – until it isn’t.  Until one realizes that it does not take into account basic human nature, that it suppresses individuality, that it creates an elite power class that feeds off the suffering of the people. “Equity” is not defined and people forget that it could mean they everyone has nothing equally.   But we are not there yet, though, as last night’s speech unintendedly demonstrated, we are well on our way.

Which brings me to Biden’s frightening show last night.

A Speech of Lies

While allegedly defending democracy, Biden revealed his authoritarian and socialist desires.  Basically, his message was that those who do not agree with his political views – mainly Trump Republicans but others as well – are a danger to our democracy.  Quite the opposite is true.  It is only in authoritarian governments where there is only one political view and those with differing views are considered dangerous.  Biden would silence about half of the country for not agreeing with him.  It would seem that he, and not those in disagreement, are the threat.

But wait, there is more.  Let’s talk about Biden and his Party.  They used the media in conjunction with the FBI to kill the Hunter Biden story prior to the 2020 election as well as delaying investigation into Hunter’s criminal acts and their ties to then candidate Biden.  They used the media to silence opposing voices on not only political issues, but health and Covid truths as well.  They used the DOJ and FBI to attack opponent Trump, President Trump, and possible future opponent Trump and his supporters.  This includes the Russia hoax, the biased Jan. 6 committee, and now of course the Mar-a-Lago raid. 

Biden and his Party are determined to silence Trump just as assuredly as Stalin sent his opponents to the Gulag.   They are not concerned with their acts or their plans or their policies, but only in retaining their power and removing anyone or any voice that might stand in their way.  They refuse to enforce valid laws against people who violently assert Left approved views (such as those that appeared at homes of Supreme Court Justices in attempts to intimidate them or BLM continuing summer riots) but place terrorist labels on parents who speak out at school board open meetings or those who advocate to end or limit abortion and killing of the unborn simply for convenience.  And there is the general silencing of language and views that are not popular.

Biden, “the uniter” apparently thinks uniting is accomplished by silencing all who disagree.  That is not democracy.  That is authoritarianism. 

I note that today Biden has backtracked somewhat on his claims that all Trump supporters are a danger – apparently his attempt to destroy his feared political opponent by name-calling his opponent’s supporters didn’t poll well.  He has not however retracted his belief that those who stand up for American democracy are semi-fascists at best.  Just another lie based on seeing in others what is true within himself.

Socialism’s Lies

Biden, like any socialism advocate, lies.  (He actually has a history of lying, going back to plagiarism during law school and his many lies about himself and his accomplishments during his many campaigns for Senate and the White House.)  His lies now tell us that what we see is the opposite of what is:  while he and his party work to dismantle our democracy and our freedoms, he tells us that it is the Republicans who are the threat.  While he fails to enforce the law equally and uses it to attack and silence his political opponents, he tells us that is what his opponent Trump does.  He ignores his many disasters (Afghanistan and other international messes; our economy and inflation; the recession which he claims doesn’t exits; science and covid; education; the border crisis; etc.) or blames them on others, especially Trump and Trump supporters.  He names a bill that economists overwhelmingly tell us will make inflation worse “The Inflation Reduction Act.”

Socialists must lie because socialism is a lie.  The lies of socialism are all around us if we look.  We already see that things are not equal.  While the workers are asked to sacrifice, the power elite and their chosen reap benefits.  Laws are not applied equally.  And eventually the mediocre life that the socialists sign on to will become far less than mediocre as money and resources to provide the promised life dry up.  Picture bread lines (actually we have already seen a preview of such shortages in our grocery stores, baby formula, manufacturing and building parts).  For a realistic view of where socialism leads, think not only of Soviet Russia, but of Venezuela today: “Venezuela is in the midst of an unprecedented social and humanitarian collapse” which includes “food insecurity, the second largest migration crisis in the world, and regional instability.” (United States Institute of Peace, Feb. 2022)

George Orwell, who understood socialism well, gave us an example of Bidenesque lies and government in his books Animal Farm and 1984.  Saul Alinsky gave us the rules for radicals intent on creating a socialist state and the author Tom Collins has given us a take on these.  Biden and the Left are doing a pretty good job.  It is they who are the threat to our democracy.  

Biden’s speech on Sept. 1 was dystopian, divisive, and dangerous.  Biden’s lies about others are the truth about himself, his party and their dreams.  And unless and until Americans realize that they are being lied to by those in power and brainwashed by the complicit media, we need to understand and accept that we will lose our freedoms, that the government will own us, and we will give up any democratic ideals we may have had.