Thinking about Rules

ONE:    Really, they just don’t understand how our democracy works.

Intensified since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrats assert their mantra that “Republicans may say they want small government, but the evidence shows they want the government to control every aspect of our lives, including our personal health decisions.” 

No, they just don’t get it.  Roe was an example of a government body usurping the rights of the people to make such decisions.  It is the Democrats who seem to worship such usurpation.

What these Democrats don’t seem to understand is that when we now see state legislative bodies made up of legislators elected by the people drafting and passing statutes regarding abortion (or anything else for that matter), it is not the government imposing control on the people.  It is the people, through their own elected representatives, exercising their voices and controlling their own lives.  

It seems that too many have forgotten that when government acts, when it passes a statute that regulates some aspect of our lives by permitting, mandating, or forbidding some action, it is the voice of the people speaking through their elected representatives.  It seems that the Democrats simply don’t understand that our government is a representative democracy in which the people are indeed their own governors by way of their elected representatives. 

The Democrats are confusing a people’s government such as ours with an authoritative form of government in which the governing body indeed imposes its own will upon the people.  And, when the Democrats demand that courts or the Executive branch create rules, mandates, requirements, and prohibitions what they are really demanding is an authoritarian regime that truly ignores the will of the people.

TWO:    Civilized society requires rules from a respected authority.

We see today’s ruling class elite creating rules without regard to the voice of the people.  We see a lot of behavior in the realm of “rules for thee but not for me” as those in power (along with those whom they favor) assert their right to seemingly do as they please.

This got me thinking about rules, authority, and, why do we all seem to find rules that we feel are acceptable to ignore.  Personally, I am strict in my belief that one must follow the rule of law – no exceptions, no emotional or “narrative” excuses.  The law must apply equally to everyone.

I feel much the same about academic rules, both from the perspective of a student and a teacher – no exceptions.  The requirements for an A should be the same for all as should the requirements to achieve various educational milestones.  No excuse.  No late papers.  Simply do the work and let the work be judged by objective criteria.

But when it comes to rules that are such things as directions for building something, whether it be a piece of furniture, or a sewing pattern, or a recipe, I feel no such need to follow those rules precisely.  Indeed, I take pleasure in deviating somewhat to make it easier or to personalize the project.

I have a friend that is a Biblical scholar who can quote probably every rule in the Bible and believes all should be followed precisely.  A Rabbi friend can similarly recite the 613 mitzvot referred to in the Torah (248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)).  These address both religious and worldly behaviors.

Less religious people, even though familiar with the Bible, probably are less inclined to be as strict with themselves about following such Biblical mandates than are the deeply and fully committed.

Which rules one follows in large part likely depends on whom one sees as a legitimate authority figure to whom one grants respect and deference and a certain amount of control.  And the reverence one grants to God or to a recipe in one’s personal private life probably makes little difference to other people. 

But the laws that govern the society as a whole must be followed or there will simply be chaos, which is what we are seeing today. 

For the members of society to follow a set of rules, the individuals making up that society must respect the rule maker.  In American democracy, the rule-maker is ultimately the people.  It is they, through their representatives, who develop the statutes and regulations that guide us and keep our civilization civil. 

There is a large body within our population that no longer respects the people as the rule maker.  There are those in power who think they know better.  There are those both in power and in the population as a whole who do not understand the basic civics of our country and as part of that lack of understanding do not understand who it is that is making the rules.  They blame government for rules they don’t like, not understanding that in the end government is not some abstract body but, in America, it is the people.  But not understanding that, they hold no respect for that abstract rule making body.

Psychology will tell you that we all have a self-critical conscience, often referred to as the super-ego, that reflects social standards learned from parents and teachers.  It is that self-regulating conscience, instilled in us as children, that helps us to follow rules rather than break them.  But if that conscience, that respect for the rules as well as their creator, is not instilled in us as children, then one will not feel the need to follow the rules that govern our societal behavior.

We are not teaching respect for our rules because too many do not understand what they are or by whom they are created.  Without an accurate understanding of our American democracy, respect for that democracy and the rules it creates is not possible. 

Today, much of the lack of respect stems from ignorance, but there are also those in power whose disrespect of, along with disinformation about, our government and its rules is fully intentional.  Either way, we cannot expect respect for our country, our society, and indeed our civilization until this is corrected.  To paraphrase Aretha Franklin:  R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to we, or you might walk in and find America gone. 

Think about what the rule of law means to you.

Our Core is in the Constitution

When people, on either side of the political aisle, begin demanding that everyone agree to a particular value or virtue system, or claim that rules of law are really establishing religion, I throw up my hands in despair that so few really understand what our democracy is or how it works.

Contrary to what many would have you believe, America is a secular country.  Although built on Judeo-Christian values, a cornerstone of our democracy is that this country would not establish or mandate religious beliefs and would allow its citizens to follow whatever faith they chose, including no faith at all. 

Our Constitution envisions our government of/for/by the people as being based on common values that may or may not belong to a religion; the key is that the rules that the people through their representatives enact are secular and apply to all regardless of individual beliefs.   It is the people who create the rights and the rules.

Thus, when SCOTUS (a panel of 9 unelected individuals) usurped the people’s power and declared a right that previously had not existed, they were wrong.  It was the people’s right to grant or not grant an abortion right and to determine any limitations on such right.  Regardless of the Justices’ personal beliefs (many are indeed Catholic), in Dobbs they correctly put the people in their rightful Constitutional position to determine what, if any, right to abortion should exist. 

Our Constitution also requires the people’s understanding that a pluralism of beliefs means that no one will get all that they would like and that everyone must be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Religious virtues often underly a secular government

A free society’s laws and government reflect the beliefs, values, and mores of that particular society.  As a society evolves, as its values modify or change, so will its governing rules.  Those rules will, however, continue to reflect the voice of all of the people.

It is in authoritarian governments that there is less likely a distinction between a mandated belief structure and mandates for societal behaviors.  That is because in such societies the people are not free to think and believe as they wish; rather, the governing body will mandate thought, belief, and behavior. (As an aside, it is really impossible to force someone to hold a particular belief; a government can mandate behavior that would reflect that belief, but there is no guarantee that a person who follows those mandates actually holds the desired belief.)

Most religions, regardless of their specific beliefs, emphasize something greater than oneself.  Religions, through their core documents (Bible, Koran, etc.), establish rules and sets of values.  The reasons for an individual to subscribe to the virtues of their religion include promised rewards for such virtuous behavior that are not immediate and perhaps not even during this life.

Concepts such as “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” and “treat your neighbor as yourself” appear in some form in most religions.  These concepts encourage one to think beyond oneself.  Such thinking is essential for a society to survive. 

It is these sorts of religious values that become reflected in the government and the society that any group of people create, whether it be a family, a recreational club, or a country.  Unless a society is established as a theocracy that will use the religious rules for the governing rules of the community and require all to be of the same faith, there will essentially be two sets of rules:  the religious rules that will guide the faithful, and the secular rules, generally reflecting those religious virtues, that will guide the secular society.

America’s secular government has Judeo-Christian underpinnings

This country was founded based on Judeo-Christian rules because that was the foundation of the culture of its people.  Those values are key underpinnings in the Constitution and the other secular rules of our society.  But this country is not a theocracy.  It is secular.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, like most religions, place emphasis on something greater than oneself.  As long as most of the American people held similar values the rules of our society worked.  Some held those values because of their religious faith, some simply held those values as their guidelines for living.  But if one does not believe, for whatever reason, in those common values, then rules based on the values will become meaningless.

We really have two guiding sets of rules that are in many ways intertwined, but in the end are separate because of the brilliance of our Founders.  The problem is that the secular rules are based upon the culture and society of those who create them.  One needs to understand these values and generally subscribe to them to understand our secular system and to subscribe to it.  And therein lies the problem.

Houston, we have a problem

Today we are facing a situation in which the underlying beliefs and values of the American people are not in accord, are not even similar, and while the core beliefs of some remain reflected in our governmental structure and laws, for others that structure and those laws are completely foreign to or at odds with their belief and value systems.

Today, fewer and fewer people hold faith in the Judeo-Christian God, or in any Greater Being for that matter.  Therefore, they are also far less likely to subscribe to the rules and mores of a secular society that is based on those beliefs.

Today much of our culture is focused not on something greater but instead revolves around the Self and its need for immediate gratification.  How we got to that point requires volumes to understand with lots of blame to go around, but we are indeed there.  As such, our secular rules and institutions that are based on a bigger picture and concern for the greater good are in large part meaningless to many. 

Many of the Left and the Woke, in satisfying their own immediate desires, ignore rules that interfere with those desires.  They see the values underlying those rules as antiquated and not relevant to themselves.  And, because they think everyone should accept what they do and the values and beliefs underlying their actions, they impose their needs on everyone else, demanding that anyone with conflicting beliefs give them up or be silenced.  Many of the conservative and religious Right also demand that everyone accept and believe as they do. 

The lack of tolerance in our nation today is astounding and potentially fatal. People on all sides misunderstand their place in society as well as the core rules of our democracy and perhaps most importantly the tolerance that it demands.

This is not really a political problem, though it plays out in our politics.  This is really a problem of the soul.  But politicians and those interested in their own power use this value vacuum to their own advantage.  And in so doing they display their ignorance of and disdain for our democracy.

Do we have a core shared value?

Before we can fix our problems we must understand that any culture, any society, must be based upon shared beliefs.  Right now we have two competing belief systems that are not compatible.  Unless we (re)discover a core principle that we all share, we are probably done as the great nation we once were.

Can we exist with very different underlying life concepts and values? The Constitution would direct us to say yes.  It allows for diverse views, for the beliefs of all to be heard and prohibits the federal government from suppressing those diverse beliefs and views.  But to do this requires a tolerance, a willingness to accept that others may not be like us, may not think like us, and never will.  While each of us may want to live our life one way, we must accept that some may disapprove of that and choose to live their lives in other ways. 

We must be able to tolerate and accept the true principle of diversity in a pluralistic society.  We must accept, indeed applaud, that not everyone will agree, that we will not always win our arguments, and that we cannot force our values upon others.

But what about when those values are in direct conflict?  Again, our Constitution guides us.  It gives to the people, through their representatives, the decisions of what laws we need to govern all of us in our interactions and behaviors; we decide what rules we need to keep the peace while being tolerant of those who would behave and believe differently than us.  We decide how we can maintain order without mandating beliefs.  We have done that for nearly 250 years and we should not give up without trying to continue.

But people need to understand that even if their personal belief is that Self is God, they must co-exist with others and that in an orderly and peaceful society they will not always be able to have instant (and sometimes never will have) gratification of all their needs and desires. 

Back to the Constitution

If we consider the values of our Constitution, we will find that it can indeed sustain us and save America in the process.  But we need to understand what it is and what it is not. 

The Constitution grants us our freedom to be ourselves, the individuals whom we are meant to be, but only if we agree to have tolerance (not necessarily acceptance) for the different, contradictory, and opposing views of others.  Just as the federal government cannot create our rights and freedoms nor take them away, we must agree that we will not impose our views on others – explain them, yes; advocate for them, yes, but impose them as mandatory, no. 

We must agree not to relinquish our power to politicians, or others, who would use it to control us.  We must remember that our power lies in the voice of all the people, not in a political party, the press, or other powerful entities and not in only one viewpoint.  We must accept our power and the responsibilities that come with it.

Once we agree that we are different people with different beliefs, values, and backgrounds we can begin to work on common goals that benefit all of us.  But this requires an amount of selflessness that is not natural for many of us today.   We must agree that we will have concern for the greater good.

If our shared belief is in our Constitution and our people, then we will be fine.  But if we choose the selfish path that we are on, even our Constitution cannot save us, for selfishness cares nothing for anyone but one’s self. 

The Founders gave us a great gift, let us not destroy it but instead continue to use it to make our “more perfect union” more perfect every day.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.  Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs.  The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

• The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power.  It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air.  It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
• On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive.  Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
• In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone.  The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.  That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
• The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion.  (Carson v. Makin)
• The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation.  As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard.  (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
• The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires:  it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case?  No.  But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people.  The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us.  We the people hold the power.  We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process.  But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove. 

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work.  While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government.  That begins when we cast our vote.  It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice.  It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things.  I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works. 

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it.  How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school.  The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

 QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget.   These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities.  It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system.  Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it.  And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold. 

Too Many Chefs in The Kitchen

Does no one understand how our representative form of government works?  I’m reminded of the old saying “Too many cooks spoil the soup.”  We’ve got too many people who think its their job to do the cooking and no one understanding what the recipe is.

In my town the city council recently passed a controversial program where council districts could propose sites meeting specific criteria on which to establish legal homeless encampments.  The intent is to create limited, contained spaces that would protect the homeless and as well as any surrounding area and would provide needed social services to the homeless.

This is a new program, just passed, and details are still being discussed.  No sites have been proposed.  The resolution promises that citizens will be made aware of any proposed sites and have the opportunity to comment before the site is confirmed or removed from the proposal.

Nonetheless, there are protests already when, for example, a group of citizens hears a rumor about a proposed location.   Citizens think they should know every site that anyone is even remotely being considered.  They want to see every draft of the proposal as it is written.  And they want all this now. They protest without any actual facts or any reason for the protest other than that they just don’t like the ordinance and think they must know about every breath their council-person takes.  Not only is this disruptive, it also tends to overshadow or eliminate any actual and productive discussion on this issue.

This is just a small example of typical reactions to governmental processes, yet it reflects two important problems that are threatening our democracy.

         1.   Lack of understanding of representative democracy and the people’s role in it. 

Ours is not a pure (direct) democracy in which each and every person has a direct say and in which, as a result, the majority or loudest voice always prevails.  Rather, ours is a representative democracy in which the people hold the power but exercise it through their elected representatives.  

Our government is defined as a Democratic Republic because it operates on principles of both democracy and republics.  It is democratic in that the power ultimately belongs to the people (though exercised by those they elect) and republican because it includes certain rights that are inalienable (not subject to overrule by the majority) and protected by a document such as a constitution, creating rule by law rather than by pure majority.

In such a system, the people must understand their responsibility to select and elect wise individuals who will represent them, and then they must trust those individuals to carry out the daily operations of governing which the people have entrusted to them and elected them to carry out responsibility.  That means that the individuals are not directly involved in every act and every decision made by their elected voices.

And yet we often have the people wanting to look over the shoulders of their representatives, commenting on every keystroke on the computer, commenting not only on drafts and works in progress but even on ideas that are nothing more than part of a brainstorming and compromising process. 

This is not a problem in government alone.  Today everyone seems to think that they are experts in everything and are reluctant to leave the real experts to do their jobs.  The difference is that in governmental duties, if we think that our representatives are not up to the task, we the people can replace them and that is how we fix it if they cannot do their jobs.  We do not jump in thinking we will do their jobs for them.

This interference in the work of the elected officials is not what is meant by government of/for/by the people.  Rather, the people’s input is first and foremost at the time they cast their vote, and beyond that, as to specific governmental functions and processes, they will include specified times and manners for input from the electorate to their elected representative.  Moreover, the people are always free to provide input to their elected officials in any number of ways including phone calls, texts, emails, letters, letters to editors, peaceful protests, etc.

To put it bluntly, the people need to wisely elect, and then let those they elected do their work.  The people need to pay attention to what those they elected do, so that if dissatisfied they can elect someone else in the future, but the people cannot actually butt in and themselves do the work they have assigned to their elected representatives. 

         2.  The unrealistic need for immediacy combined with a belief that each person is entitled to have their way

The citizenry have to allow the processes to work, understanding that for a well-reasoned and rational government there needs to be time to think and not simply react.  And, the citizenry also must understand that because this is a democracy where all and often diverse voices are heard, they will not always get all that they want and indeed at times may be fully disappointed at the outcome of the process.

Yet, we have many in this country who become hysterical at even the thought that things won’t go their way, who demand immediate and favorable to them action on their cause.  And if such immediate gratification is not forthcoming they do not wait for the wheels of government and the democratic process to turn; rather, they in one way or another try to blow it up.

Take the recent SCOTUS leak of a draft opinion possibly overturning Roe v. Wade.  A DRAFT opinion.  In the Court, as with most governmental offices, documents go through several drafts before being finalized and the final document may have little if any resemblance to the initial draft. 

Yet even the thought of Roe v. Wade being overturned sent people and advocacy groups and the press and even the Administration into such a tizzy that not only were many pro-life offices and organizations bombed and hit with other terror attacks, but demonstrators went in violation of federal law to the homes of Justices to protest and one person has now been charged with attempted murder of a Justice.  All because of a first draft that may or may not become reality and a need to immediately demand consolation and retribution for a decision that does not yet exist that is displeasing to those reacting so immaturely to it.

This is not a problem of just one political party (though currently it seems to be the only operative reaction of Democrats who raised it to an art form inciting hysteria over almost every word and even perceived thought of then President Trump).  But we must acknowledge that both sides do jump to conclusions based on rumor and innuendo and then demand that there be some fix for that which has not even yet occurred. 

This is not healthy for several reasons.  First, jumping to unfounded conclusions and then reacting emotionally and sometimes violently is incredibly destructive.  It denies any opportunity to calmly and rationally view an issue, discuss any number of ways of resolving it, and then working to find a solution that addresses concerns of all sides on the issue. 

It also denies the ability to resolve an issue based on actual facts rather than rumor, perception, innuendo and emotion.  When people take positions based on irrational and unfounded beliefs, it is hard to retract and later find common ground.   There are no well thought out objections or discussions, but simply people essentially yelling either “yes” or “no” and demanding they get their way regardless of reason, thought, or possible compromise.  It is really an adult form of infantile name calling and bullying and is in no way productive.

            We need to review and reset our roles in this government of ours.

Everyone in this country, citizens and elected officials alike, need to go back and review our form of government. 

We the people need to understand the importance of our vote, because it is that vote that determines how our voice will be represented.  We need to keep current on what our elected officials are doing and use the processes available to us to voice our opinions to them.

The elected representatives also need to review and understand what their job is.  It is to represent the voice of their electorate – to speak for those who elected them – and not to simply plow forward with their own agenda regardless of the wishes of their constituents. 

Right now we have too many chefs in the kitchen.  The people’s representatives cook the meal, but it must be the meal that their constituents have elected them to cook.  And if the meal is to be edible, then the people must let the chefs they have chosen cook that meal using the recipe given them by the people without nit-picky interference from the people.

And everyone needs to understand that doing it right takes time.  Good laws, regulations, decisions take time to consider the facts and the consequences of various actions.   Interference in government, if done without understanding, can do more harm than good.

Vocal protest is useful to a point, but citizens must understand that in our form of democracy you don’t just keep screaming until you get your way.  A protest expresses the deep passion about an issue by a group of people and it can be a way of telling elected representatives how that group feels.   But resolution of the issue requires more than passion.  It requires time and reason - two things that seem to be lost right now and with them the functionality of our democracy.

The Leak That Reveals More Than the Opinion That Was Leaked

 I am appalled by the leak of the SCOTUS draft opinion; this is truly an attack on our democracy, far worse than the demonstration/protest that the Democrats like to call the insurrection.

I am perhaps even more horrified at the Left’s reaction.  They do not condemn the leak but rather applaud it.  They are using it to fund raise as they call for Congress to institutionalize that which the draft opinion clearly explains is unconstitutional.  They are using the leak to further their political dreams:  court packing and with it an end to our rule of law.

This leak was an obvious attempt to stir things up and raise the voices of the mob in an effort to intimidate the Justices of the Supreme Court and persuade them to change their minds along with their apparent decision in this case.

The Leak of a Supreme Court Document

The Supreme Court is the last bastion of our democracy.  It consists of 9 Justices, all of whom are scholars of Constitutional law, and all of whom work together to do their best to interpret and protect our Constitution.  They trust one another and we the people trust (or should trust) them.  This institution, one of three branches of our government that place checks and balances on one another, is the only one of the three branches that is not political.  It is the branch that truly protects our democracy.

This leak destroys the necessary trust that must exist within the Court and among the Justices.  It appears to be an attempt to turn the Court into another political body, one that will be ruled not by justice but by the mob – by the loudest shouting voices responding to the leak.   The current demonstrations about the leaked opinion’s contents not only include people exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, but also include an element of attempted intimidation of the justice system.  There is an effort to intimidate the Justices to the extent that they will render a final opinion to keep the peace rather than an opinion based upon law and the Constitution.

This is a frightening situation for our democracy; this leak is an act of terrorism, an insurrection, a direct attack upon our democracy and as such an attempt to destroy America as we know it.

What the leak reveals about the Left

Assuming the Left is responsible for the leak (an assumption that I believe is fairly reasonable), it tells us what has been becoming more and more apparent:  that the Left is willing to destroy every aspect of our democracy in its attempt to turn it into their socialist power dream. 

Anyone with any respect for our judicial system and for the rule of law would not and could not commit this act of treason.  Only one who wishes to destroy America and all She stands for could be capable of committing this act against the very core of our democracy. 

For many of us who have been paying attention to the facts and not the narratives, this does not surprise us.  If you love America, the Left is not your friend.

What the Democrats’ reaction reveals about their guiding principle that the ends justify the means

Leading Democrats including Pelosi and Schumer used the word “atrocity” in response to news of the leak.  But they were not referring to the act of leaking a draft SCOTUS opinion.  Rather, they were referring to the substance of the draft opinion.  This is telling.

Democrats, who claim that they are the defenders of our democracy, should be concerned about the attack on that democracy evidenced by the leak itself.  But instead, the Democrats join the Left in applauding the leaker as some sort of hero.

The Democrats have already begun sending fundraising requests based upon the content of the opinion.  They are using the opinion as campaign material:  you must elect us so we can pass a law mandating what the opinion declares as unconstitutional.  You must elect us so that we can pack the court and create not an objective and just institution, not a co-equal but nonpolitical branch of our government, but rather a political body packed with activists who will do our bidding. 

The Democrats are using the content of the leaked document to further their continuing quest for ever more power.  And they are completely unconcerned with the damage and destruction that will cause not only to SCOTUS but to our democracy and our country.

If there is any good to come of this terrorist attack on our very core, I hope that it is to wake up the many sleeping Americans to what is really going on in this country.  Wake up to the facts, and see the Left’s ongoing narrative for what it is – the ruin of a once great country.

"Independence means you decide according to the law and the facts." - Stephen Breyer

Don’t Let Them Fool You Again

"You cannot have a free and fair election when the media, the tech companies, and the intelligence community censor information about the foreign business connections of one of the two presidential candidates."

-Joel B. Pollak, Blue State Blues: The 2020 Election* Gets a Giant Asterisk over Hunter Biden Laptop, LINK 

Since 2020 I have been saying that while Joe Biden may have won the actual vote, that vote was not fair because the media suppressed information and distorted facts into a comprehensive narrative that pushed voters away from Donald Trump and toward Joe Biden.  Time magazine, as I have previously pointed out, so much as admitted this “conspiracy” to swing the election and “save the country.” That effort to “save the country” destroyed the very democracy – the freedom of the people to decide – that makes this country what it is.

The Big Lie

But to mention any of this to other than open-eyed conservatives has been to risk being called a crazy conspiracy theorist who has fallen for the Trump and right-wing lies.  But now, perhaps, those name callers will listen.

Now the truth is coming out:  the Russian hoax that consumed the media for the entirety of Trump’s presidency and underlay at least one of the Trump impeachment attempts has been proven to have been manufactured by the Democrats.  

And, now the mainstream media is admitting what they well knew before the election:  that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop which was deemed nothing more than Russian/Trumpian disinformation is in fact real and contains incriminating emails as well as information that implicates his father, then candidate and now President Joe Biden.

It’s interesting that the Left likes to blame Russia when the anti-democratic tactics used by Russia’s government are not that different from those used by the Left here.  Russia has sham elections; those in  power, not the people, decide their results.  We are hearing, and condemning, Putin’s crack down on Russian media as he allows only his story and justification of his invasion of Ukraine to be fed to his people.  But how is that really any different than what we have in this country: a people fed not facts but narrative by an undemocratic power structure that believes it has the right to decide for the people?

Democracy Requires Information

Democracy requires freedom of thought, and freedom of thought requires a free flow of and access to information, for without information upon which to base their own decisions, the people really have no freedom to think or to decide.

In 1780 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in its Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants stated, “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state.”  Similarly, in 1776, North Carolina’s Declaration of Rights stated, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and therefore ought never to be restrained.”

Our Founding Fathers and authors of our Constitution understood that freedom of the press – the right of the people to know the facts (as opposed to a selected narrative) – is an essential underpinning of democracy.  “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. 

John Adams, our country’s second President wrote that “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.” He stated, “But none of the means of information are more sacred, or have been cherished with more tenderness and care by the settlers of America, than the press.” 

Today our Press, along with the rest of our power and information structure has decided that narrative is more important than facts and truth.  When the people lose access to that information, they lose their freedom and their democracy.

The power structure that includes mainstream media decided that they did not want President Trump to have a second term and so they withheld information from the public that would have allowed them to assess both 2020 candidates on an even playing field.  They fed the public false information that was anti-Trump and pro-Biden.  This did not “fix” the election in the traditional understanding of casting fraudulent ballots (although some of that occurred too), but it did “fix” the election in the sense that it left the voters without essential facts and with manufactured/false facts with which to choose for whom to vote. 

The author of the above quote is right:  President Biden should have an asterisk after his name for the rest of history to show that this was not a fair election in the sense of American democracy and the people’s rights to inform themselves of all facts and make their own decision about for whom to vote.  Rather, this election was manipulated by a vast power structure that was anti-Trump and either pro-Biden or more generally pro-Left.

The facts of the Hunter Biden laptop are now slowly being fed to us by the media which has decided they will now admit it exists and selectively feed us its contents.  This week Republican Rep. Gaetz asked that the contents of the Biden laptop (on a flash drive) be placed into the record of the House Judiciary Committee.  Its Democratic Chair, Rep. Nadler objected.  But, after some delay and a letter from Gaetz indicating support for its entry into the record by “majority authority,” the flash drive containing a copy of the contents is now public record.

Of course, that does not stop the attempts to deny and downplay its contents by those who benefited from it being hidden during the election as nothing more than a right wing conspiracy theory.  Indeed, President Biden continues to say it is all a lie.

Would Informed Minds Have Decided Differently?

Might it have made a difference to some voters if they had been given the information that the mainstream media had available but kept hidden that candidate Biden’s son was under investigation for tax evasion, that candidate Biden himself financially benefitted from his son’s questionable foreign dealings with Ukraine and China?

Would it have made a difference if voters had been informed that Vice President Biden was not only aware of, but also intimately involved in a corrupt, multimillion-dollar, international influence-peddling scheme run by Hunter, and Joe’s brother Jim Biden, in the countries for which Joe was point man in the Obama administration, such as Russia, Ukraine and China? 

Would it have mattered to voters that during the last two years of Joe Biden’s vice presidency Hunter in conjunction with “the big guy” Joe Biden, was using the Biden name to open doors and find acquisitions for Chinese energy conglomerate CEFC?   Or that $6 million CEFC wired into the business bank account of trusted Biden family friend Rob Walker, a former Clinton administration official whose wife, Betsy Massey Walker, had been Jill Biden’s assistant when she was Second Lady?

Would it have mattered to voters that SinoHawk Holdings, which was set up on May 15, 2017, for a joint venture between CEFC and Hunter and his business partners, was the deal for which Joe Biden was to get a 10% cut, as cited in an infamous 2017 email on the laptop, “10 [percent] held by H [Hunter] for the big guy [Joe Biden].”?

There is a lot on this laptop.  The laptop that the mainstream media and Leftist power structure asserted did not exist, even while knowing that it did.  Would it have changed some people’s votes if they had been given these hidden facts?  Perhaps.  We will never know. 

Moving Forward With Open Eyes

Along with Joe, many on the Left will continue to assert that there is “nothing to see here, move along.”  But the whole point in a democracy is that it is not for some power structure to make that decision.  It is for the people, who must be given access to ALL the facts which are available, to decide what to make of those facts.  Otherwise, how is this really any different from a state media like Russia where the people are given selective facts and through those selections are manipulated and told what to think and to believe.

Some people realized this sort of thing was going on throughout Donald Trump’s presidency in an effort to inhibit his ability to serve as President and in an effort to deny him reelection.  But, as directed by the mainstream propaganda narrative machine, most people accepted the conspiracy theory label that was attached to this and any other potentially negative publicity about the Left. 

Those who ignored mutterings from the Right can label themselves fooled.  Perhaps they were blinded by Trump’s often acerbic language which was up-played and often distorted by that same propaganda machine while it downplayed or simply failed to report his many successes for this country.  It’s hard to fight the vast power and propaganda machine that currently exists.  It’s hard to find the facts and thus the truth. 

What I wish is that, as the truth and actual facts begin to come out, that the millions who were fooled will not deny that they were indeed misled.  No one likes to make a mistake, to be made a fool of, but to ignore that it happened, to explain it away, only leaves those who fooled and took advantage of you the ability to do it again.

This country cannot survive without the freedom of information, without the assertion of the populace of their right to know and to decide for themselves.  The physical country might remain as a place on a map, but the democracy that it once was will die.

So, admit you were fooled by a propaganda machine that you once could trust but no more.  Admit that this Leftist machine has an agenda that it is determined to put into place without any real input from the people. 

Think Now or Forever Lose Your Mind

 It is not the opposing views but the lack of real thought about them that is destroying our country.

We seem to be living in a time of superficiality and unthinking acceptance, as if cowed into abject obedience by powers beyond our control.   But the only reason such powers become beyond our control is that we relinquish our control over them to those who would control us.

Sergei Dovlatov was a writer unpublished in and expelled by the Soviet Union.  He was a colleague of Joseph Brodsky who later, after his expulsion from the USSR, became the poet laureate of this country.  They, along with writers, artists, and other brave souls, had the courage to think and to stand for what they believe is right, despite every effort by their government to suppress them and their individuality.  We have people with that courage today – Senators Sinema and Manchin come to mind, and we see the hell that their own party is putting them through for having the courage to think rather than just blindly follow.

In authoritarian countries, one is officially punished for not speaking or behaving as told.  Thoughts and beliefs contrary to the official ones are kept secret to oneself.  But in this country we do still have the ability and the right to think, to question popular and party beliefs.  Yet we are allowing more and more control over our thoughts, relinquishing more and more of our individuality to others.

Perhaps we’re so conditioned by being able to google or ask Alexa, get an immediate answer and move on, that we have forgotten how to question anything. 

We used to use our minds:  if we were concerned about the upcoming weather we might have gone outside and looked at the sky, seen a storm coming, deduced that it was likely to rain this afternoon.  Now we just ask Alexa: “Will it rain this afternoon?”, accept her answer, and move on.

But the bigger issues in our society are not subject to such simple, one-word answers.  Whether we should improve America’s existing structure and cultural core or completely dismantle and then re-envision it is a question that is not subject to a simple yes or no response.  Yet that is what we are doing when we simply align with Left or Right without truly understanding the concept or consequences of their ideologies.

What are the opposing Ideologies?

During his long, meandering news conference last week Pres. Biden, while trashing Republicans once again, asked “what are Republicans for?”  The Republican Party of New Mexico answered that question.   Here is their response:

What we generally learn from the above is that the Republicans essentially are for improving the existing constitutional democratic republic structure of America.

What the Democrats are for is nowhere stated as succinctly as the Republican statement above.  Their national website (democrats.org) relies on the 2020 lengthy anti-Trump platform to describe who they are and what issues are important to them.

Reading the Democrat platform, one will be met with many lofty and lovely words, but little detail and no real specifics.  However, one can read the lengthy platform in the context of the actions of the President and his party over the last year to arrive at some concrete ideas of what the Democrats are for.

Based on their platform and actions, the Democrats are for:  

Essentially, the Democrats are for completely dismantling and then re-envisioning America as we know it.   They would alter, reinterpret, or ignore the Constitution.  Their weakening of individual and state rights while expanding federal government control over all aspects of existence is a process which is essentially creating an authoritarian power structure.

The existence of opposing views is not the problem 

These two views (improve vs. remake America) are in opposition.  That is OK; indeed, in America the idea of competing positions on issues is fundamental to our democratic system.   Strongly held opposing views need to be openly and civilly debated in depth.

What is not OK is:

1. When someone supports one or the other platform without fully understanding what it means or entails; and,
2. When those in charge of one or the other platform achieve their goals by intimidation and silencing of those with opposing views.

When either of these two problems exist, democracy is in peril.  Today, in America, we see both. 

We as individuals are fully in charge of averting the first.  We do not have to follow blindly after nice sounding words.  We have both the ability and the right to enquire further into the meaning of those words, to use our minds and think about what they mean, not only immediately but in the future.

Too many people are not doing this, but are rather following and accepting without question what they are told as true, right, and what they must do.  That is what people do in a totalitarian society.  That is not what we should be doing in America.

Of course, and this is also a key to American democracy, we must have access to relevant information to do the necessary thinking.  This is where the second part comes in, and this part is not fully in the individual’s control.

Let’s look at some of the tactics of the Democrats.  First, they have learned that a safe way to survive controversy is to blame someone else.  We hear the Democrats as well as those who support their agenda blame not only former President Trump, but Republican policies and law makers, and even the American people themselves for any and everything that is wrong with our country. 

Moreover, the Left loves to accuse its opponents of everything that they themselves are actually doing.  (Best example of this is racism and its use to divide the country.)  They repeat unfounded attacks over and over until they become commonly accepted.

Of their own people the Left demands unquestioning loyalty to their views and severely punish those who do not fall in line.  They ban opposing voices and remove all influences that do not support their narrative including literature, history, arts, and, most importantly, facts.  They are decidedly unprincipled as they see no problem with their continual hypocrisy and repeated lies.  The list of Biden lies alone reaches several pages and he may have a record for receiving the most “4 Pinocchio” ratings in fact checks.

Without actual facts, with only lies and narrative, it becomes more and more difficult to find, let alone understand, the truth underlying our issues.  We become conditioned to simply accept what we are told, either because it is easier, or because there is no other option.

This is a dangerous place for our country to be:  acceptance without question.  That is the making of an authoritarian society.  One where opposing views are suppressed, where facts are  omitted or manufactured, where the narrative is more important than the truth. 

 The silencing is all around us and is growing

Why do so many not see this happening around us?  Censorship of minority or unpopular views exists not just on social media.  The mainstream media is no longer objective or interested in mere reporting.  When was the last time a reporter asked a difficult follow-up question?  It was when they were using their admittance to press conferences to attack President Trump.  But for the last year the Democrats, from President Biden down, have not been held to account.  Meanwhile, the President weaponizes the DOJ and its hunt for “domestic terrorists” to silence those common citizens who disagree.

When a person in power makes a statement and it is accepted with no questions asked, that leaves the person in power the opportunity to create or omit facts as he or she sees fit simply to further a particular narrative – usually one designed to retain power.  And beyond simply restating the narrative without question, the Left-leaning media often actively attempts to construct it. 

Consider NPR’s respected Supreme Court reporter who created an argument between Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch about masks, and then, even when presented with the actual facts by those two justices as well as the Chief Justice, refused to retract or correct her false allegations.  Because, for the Left, it has become OK to create narratives and the facts be damned.

Consider the continual overplayed horror and prosecution of Trump and others’ questioning of the 2020 election as some sort of coordinated anti-democratic attack upon our country.   Meanwhile, downplayed if not ignored by the media are the very same assertions by Democrats (Stacey Abram’s claim and belief that she won the Georgia governor election; Hillary Clinton’s claim that the 2016 election was illegitimate; and President Biden’s assertion and prediction that if the Democrats “voting rights” bill was not passed the 2022 elections will be illegitimate, at least in red states, thus giving Democrats a green light to challenge as illegitimate all 2022 results they do not like). 

At least in the case of the 2020 election there is evidence, if not of fraud, of the strong and possibly swaying effect that social and mainstream media had on the voters and thus the outcome of the election, not to mention Zuckerberg’s actual funding of liberal groups to infiltrate election offices in key swing states, effectively taking over governmental roles. Indeed, this was celebrated by that media following the election, including in Time Magazine which bragged and rejoiced about “the conspiracy behind the scenes” that gave us President Biden.  

If it works for the narrative, then the Left will continue to assert it as true, whereas if it is not part of the narrative, they will ignore and deny.  Consider the filibuster, a core democratic safeguard within our government that helps protect us from mob rule.  The Democrats at one time, until they wanted to pass their far-Left agenda, supported and defended the filibuster.  They even used the Senate filibuster earlier this month to block a bill by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) that would have sanctioned companies associated with Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The bill had 55 votes.  Democrats for some unknown reason did not want the bill to pass so used the filibuster to stop it.  Yet when they cannot pass their “voting” bill they call those who support the filibuster and its important protections the equivalent of segregationists. 

The Left, concerned with its own power more than the well-being of the country or its people, will use any means necessary to achieve its goals.

Think before relinquishing your power to do so

We have rival ideologies in this country.  That is nothing new.  What is new is the extent to which the Left would use any means whatsoever to silence opposition and award to themselves full power over life in these United States.  

Those who are old enough may remember the words from the opening of the Patty Duke show: “[Y]ou'll find they laugh alike, they walk alike, at times they even talk alike - You can lose your mind.”  

That is actually what the Left would like to see:  all of us walking, talking, and thinking alike in accordance with the mandates of the Left.  No individual thought.  No individual mind – at least not that one is willing to speak.  This is a totalitarian authoritarian existence, and it is where we are headed. 

We must use our minds now, or we will indeed lose them.

The words of Davlatov are as relevant today as they were in 1970s Soviet Russia.  

May we all be heroes!

Presiding over the Annihilation of Democracy

Apparently, Joe Biden doesn’t just want to annihilate America as we know it, but the Middle East as well.  Perhaps it’s all part of his new world order. 

  Destroying America

By now it must be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that President Biden’s domestic agenda is incredibly destructive to every core American principle and value.  He is not merely enlarging but is totally bloating the powers of the federal government, far beyond what even the broadest reading of our Constitution would allow.  The effect of that agenda is the loss of personal freedoms and of what were until now Constitutionally protected rights.  And, if HR-1, which Biden fully supports, is passed, the voice of the people via free, fair, and integrous elections will be seriously impaired if not lost.

Beyond the seemingly dictatorial government power grab, Biden’s agenda is destroying the American spirit.  He pays people to not work.  His policies destroy any reward or incentive for hard work, whether it is removal of AP classes to satisfy “equity” (while at the same time destroying any motivation for a student to excel), or the fact that one can now earn more on unemployment than being employed (encouraging dependence on the State for one’s survival while removing any suggestion of personal responsibility), or that companies that spent time and effort during the previous administration’s Warp Speed to develop Covid vaccines can now not patent those vaccines and thus earn the financial reward to which they, until now, would be entitled for their efforts (and let’s hope we don’t have another pandemic because the drive to innovate has essentially been quashed when the innovators must share the rewards of their efforts with those who sat back and did nothing). 

A core premise of our nation, at least prior to this administration, is equality.   We don’t always manage to get it right, but we have always strived for equal treatment of all.   As has been explained by myself and many others, equality is not equity.  Equality does not guarantee equal results, but it does give (or at least strives to give) all individuals the ability to go after that which they themselves want their life to be.  And, in an America that values tolerance, we respect goals that differ from our own.

There is a fairness to equality that is not present in equity.  Equity simply strives to have the same result for everyone.  There is no guarantee that result is arrived at fairly or that it is what the individual is seeking.  Equity actually requires significant inequality and discrimination as it provides extra benefits and rewards to some while denying benefits and rewards to others so that all will have the same result; a result determined not by the individual but by those in power.

What equity does is give us mediocrity and no incentive for an individual to strive to be the best that he or she can be.

Biden’s policies are also creating a suffocating weight around the neck of our country far greater than the weight of the Albatross on the Ancient Mariner.  The country’s debt was not good, but Biden makes it far worse with his stimulus and other giveaways, all of which he and the Left seek to make permanent and all of which must be paid for by taxpayers.  His policies are causing inflation.  His energy policies not only cause gas prices to rise, but also create rising costs for any product that is transported, whether by truck, train, or plane.  While Biden says he won’t raise taxes on the middle class, the burden of all his programs will be a far more serious strain on the middle class. 

President Biden also seems to have no respect for the rule of law.  Not only did he speak out in favor of one result prior to the jurors’ decision in the Chauvin case, he regularly inserts his opinion into legal issues without actual knowledge of the facts (for instance his erroneous statements about the Georgia voting law which continued even after Washington Post fact checkers had given him “4 Pinocchios”.)   

The Biden Administration is also breaking immigration law in any number of ways.  These include not enforcing border controls, keeping children locked up for days or even weeks in horrific and crowded conditions, releasing migrants into the interior of our country without a return court date, encouraging sanctuary cities (whose very purpose is to violate and disregard federal immigration law).

The upshot of the above, and actually of just about every action that the President takes, is to tear America apart and down.  If he is allowed to keep this up for 4 years (or even 2) he will have, in effect, annihilated the America that we know, the America that was a shining star to the world.

   Destroying Middle East Peace and/or Israel

Biden’s acts of destruction go beyond our borders.  Look at the Middle East, the place where the previous administration was able to do the impossible and negotiate 4 peace accords that were a major step in achieving a new understanding between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Since his inauguration, President Biden has essentially ignored Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu while pandering to Israel’s enemies.  He provided money as well as tacit support to Iran which emboldened Iran to provide missiles and other weapons of war to Hamas. 

Hamas is an admitted terrorist organization whose goal, stated in its own charter, is to “obliterate” Israel.  Styling themselves as some sort of victim class, Hamas has begun firing rockets against Israel.

We all know that our current administration loves any victim class and will bend over backwards to support the alleged victims against their perceived oppressors.  So, rather than condemn the terrorist aggression, Biden calls upon Israel to stop defending itself and cease fire.  There is absolutely no condemnation of Hamas, no acknowledgement of its mission to destroy Israel along with all Jews, not even a nod to Israel’s right to protect its own people.  

Israel’s army is superior to Hamas, and that seems to be a reason to condemn Israel.  Perhaps Biden would like to see equity between the armies of Israel and Hamas, but such equity would probably destroy Israel.  Israel is the most humane of any armed force:  it always provides a warning of upcoming strikes when planning to strike an area where civilians may be present.  Hamas on the other hand uses civilians and especially children to shield their rocket launchers and other weapons. 

But the Left is anti-Israel, and as with everything else, Biden is either strongly Leftist or caves to the Left.  So, today, he demanded a "significant de-escalation" by Israel.  No call for Hamas to disarm.  No acknowledgement that Hamas is the aggressor.  No recognition of Israel’s need to protect its own people.  No grief over the suffering or death of the Jews.

Thankfully, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a leader who cares about his country and its citizens whom he is bound to protect rather than one or another cause du jour.  He stated that “Israel will push ahead to return the calm and security to the citizens of Israel."  That is his job, and President Biden should acknowledge the right of our longtime ally and only democracy in that region to protect itself from terrorist attack.

But Biden does not.  In the interest of pleasing the Left he seems willing to see Israel destroyed along with America.  He seems to care nothing for the people of America or our longtime ally Israel.  He seems to care nothing for democracy or freedom. 

What’s next, the world? If Biden and his far-Left policies continue, democracy will be destroyed not only in America, but in the entire world.  And then, where will those seeking freedom and the right to exercise their inherent, inalienable, and God-given rights go?