“I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one” and other short thoughts on current events

Yesterday I read the story of a police officer comforting a Black 5-year-old who asked if he were going to shoot her.  This anecdote was being used to demonstrate the horror of “institutionalized racism.”  I was horrified – horrified that this child had learned this fear at such a young age.  And who, I ask, likely instilled that fear in her – her parents or other caregivers?

So, I must wonder, can all the blame for hatred go to those whom the victims claim hate them, or might some of it fall on the victims themselves?  For if a child at the tender age of 5 has been taught that police are likely to shoot her, what else has she been taught about those who are not members of her racial victim class?  How much of that is actually true or justifies a fear against a whole group?  With that fear the seeds of hate are also planted. 

And, how can we ever come together and be one nation if one group of us (whether that group is Black, White, or other) is teaching fear and hate rather than love and reconciliation against another group.  No wonder BLM and its partner M4BL (Movement for Black Lives) make demands on those whom they perceive as victimizers rather that reaching out to work with those others together to make a better world.

**

People say they want conversations, but it seems that what that really involves is dueling studies.  That is, each side will have their studies and statistics that “prove” their points and with those in hand seem to close their mind to any real dialog about those studies or diverse views supported by alternate studies. 

One can always find a study or data point to support their position.  Using them as a sort of “in your face” to those with opposing or differing views does nothing to resolve divisions.  What actually might resolve hatred and division is urging others and opening one’s own mind to understand that we are all part of one humanity that can work together to make a better world.  But we will never do that if we focus on our divisions and feel some need to prove that our position is always absolutely right and all others are absolutely wrong.

**

There is a difference between peaceful, lawful protests intended to make a point relevant to policy and urge changes in policies that the demonstrators are against, as opposed to riots, or revolts, or revolutions that simply focus on destruction.  Those who say that all are the same are actually siding with those who favor complete destruction.  

Those who would take away all police power, all lawful authority are in the process of destroying our democracy.  We do not have a first amendment right to riot and destroy other people or their property; it is the duty of our law enforcement and our leaders to protect the citizenry from unlawful acts.  

If we cease to have a safe democratic state that can only lead to having instead a safe authoritarian state.  Such a state would not even allow the peaceful protests that are not only a part of but a necessary piece of our democracy.

**

Let’s say that we: clear the nation of all confederate statues; put a large chunk of money for “reparations” in every Black person’s pocket; make it illegal to use any terms, phrases, or express any feelings or beliefs that the Black protests/demands deem to be racist; defund and dismantle law enforcement; send millions of dollars to Black communities.  Will the rioters be happy then or will they continue to: teach their children to hate, especially those who look different or think differently than do they; blame anything that is not perfect in their lives on a problem with the “system”? 

Racism will only really be resolved when each and every one of us is willing and able to take individual responsibility for our lives and when we hold individuals rather than identity groups accountable for their bad acts.  Only when we are all equally outraged at the unjust treatment or murder of any person of any color will we actually have moved forward. 

**

Identity politics is in large part responsible for bringing us to this point.  For the past 50 years mostly Democrat leaders of areas with large Black populations (especially large cities) have, despite their promises, done little to help raise Black people to a better existence, but have instead used identity politics to convince the Black population of their victim status.  This was useful for those politicians who could then claim that this underclass needed them and hence would demand their votes to keep them in power. 

Their power required this underclass and, in the name of helping our neighbors, they encouraged all of us to help to create it.  We reinforced mantras such as “you are not good enough on your own”; “you can only go so far”; the Whites/rich/republican/[fill in the blank] are out to get you and you must fear them”; and of course “you need the state, things like welfare, to survive because you cannot do it on your own.” 

Messages such as that are far more racist than demanding that Blacks simply be accountable.  Those who listen to those messages will always be victims full of hate at their perceived oppressors and ready to serve as tools for anyone who wants to “revolt” against the “system” usually for their own power, not to help those whom they see as their tools.

**

Gratitude is a key to joy.  Being filled with envy and hate destroys joy.  It also destroys one’s self.  It destroys one’s ability for self-motivation – why be motivated if others are all against you and likely will not let you succeed?  Instead of being the one in charge of one’s own life, falling victim to identity politics allows others to control your life and indeed your very identity. 

**

I am being urged to buy from Black retailers and Black business owners in order to show my solidarity with the “fight against racism.”  Well, to seek out or award someone simply because of their color seems pretty racist to me.  I tend to think the best individual should always win based on skills necessary to the contest, not simply because of a color of skin.  When I want to buy something, I will purchase from the retailer that best suits my needs be that price, quality or variety of products offered, convenience and quality of service, etc.  That retailer may be Black, White, or purple.  I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one.

Please, not the dreaded DIALOG

As the riots continue to persist, while hopefully dying out, we begin to see calls for “dialog” about race. Letters in the paper: “we need dialog.”  Social media postings: “to move forward there must be an accounting for the past”: “this group needs to accept responsibility for the pain of that group.”   Joe Biden: “I will lead the conversation” (this after he has told us that if you don’t vote for him then you aren’t really Black).  I believe that former President Obama led a few “conversations on race.”

I have been seeing this call for conversation since the 60s.  I spent my young adulthood in Detroit in the late 60s and early 70s.  This was a turbulent time that included the Detroit riots/rebellion.  When it subsided, there were “conversations.”  Back then they were called “consciousness raising.”  They then became “teach ins” that then became “dialogue” which gave rise to “documentaries” and these things continue to become slicker and more political. 

What these conversations have in common is that they focus on the identity of one or more groups rather than individuals who may have that group trait as one of their many own traits.  They put group identity first, individual identity second.  That is, well-intentioned as they are, they will tell us something about the “Black experience” as if every person who is Black experiences the world in the very same way.  This by necessity denies the individuality of individual Black persons.  It in a way makes them less than human.

In a similar way such “conversations” may focus on “White complicity” in injuries to people of color.  Again, while some Whites may be very complicit, others somewhat so, and others not at all, to group all as having an equal and identical history simply because of their Whiteness puts their membership in that identity group above their individuality, again making them less human.

When one focuses on hurt, whether physical or emotional, that hurt and its accompanying pain grows and eventually becomes all encompassing.  People deal with pain in many ways, one way being to hate the cause of the pain.  When we continually place all people with one color identity in one group and continually tell them how a different color identity group has caused them pain, we are certainly likely to create discord if not hate between the two groups.

Is it any wonder that after 50+ years of simplistically defining one group as suffering because of another group that our racial tensions have grown worse rather than better?

Our identity politics have grown far more divisive in the last 10 years or so.  When one is nothing more than a representative of one group or another simply because of their color, what happens is that the individual becomes dehumanized.  It is far easier to hurt a dehumanized being than it is to hurt a three-dimensional human being who shares humanity with you.

Identity politics grows hate.  I realize that many who now begin advocating that we look back and discuss Black pain historically – what it was, who caused it, its repercussions today – have good intentions of helping us to move forward.  But the reality is that this does not help.  Moreover, the product of these good intentions is often co-opted by those who have political ambitions that are furthered by building hatred between groups.

One traditional tool of socialism is to build hatred between the working class and the bosses.  It may allow the socialists to gain power, but that power and that socialism is always destructive, hurting most those whom it promised to help.  It the same way, there are those in this country who use identity politics to build hatred between racial identity groups.  It is simply a tool to their power, to their desire to reform if not totally change our governmental structure.  Like socialism, though it claims to have the best interests of its chosen group at its core, it is likely that group that will end up suffering the most.

The socialists today tell us that this time they will get it right.  Similarly, those who urge dialogs on race assert that this time they will get it right.  They won’t.

If one keeps focusing on a wound it will never heal and the one who is injured will never be able to move forward.  We have been pushing people to see only the bad, focusing on racial wounds in one way or another since the 60s if not before.  And, the recent days show us where that 50+ year focus has gotten us.  It is time to turn around, see every person as an individual first rather than simply a member of one or another identity group.  It is time to face forward and move on.

Talking one on one with your brother – an individual – with his own history, understanding him as an individual, what are his current feelings, beliefs, his goals for the future, and letting him know and understand you – that leads us much further towards a shared humanity than the “lectures” that try to change us by playing with our emotions by presenting us the history or emotions not of an individual but characterized for an entire identity group. 

We will not move forward unless and until we begin seeing a group as only one part of a person’s full identity.  We must stop seeing persons as members of a group first and then as individual second if at all.  Only when we understand that we each one of us has our own separate and very different identity, not only from those who look different but also from those who look the same as us, only then will we truly be able to move forward.

Standing in the way of that forward movement is a constant litany of hurt caused by one group against another.  That group-think, that identity politics, dehumanizes us all.  It pushes us to hate, to demand revenge and retribution.  It puts us in a time warp that not only keeps returning us to the mid-twentieth century, but, even worse, it destroys our individual humanity.

So please, let’s NOT have another conversation.  Not the dreaded dialog.  Let us not fester in festering wounds.  Let us all say that we are more than those wounds whether victim or perpetrator or neither.  Let’s stop the identity politics along with those who would use it only for their own gain.  Let us instead reach for Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream where we see each other not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.  Then, and only then, will we end the cycle that I have seen repeated over and over.  Let us understand one another’s individual pain but rather than stall within that pain let us look up and move on.

Stacking Opinions

Just a few quick notes on the House Judiciary Committee hearing held today, Dec. 4.   I am not going to again go into lengthy discussion about the ridiculous nature of this Impeachment Show, but rather simply reflect on what we saw today.

First, today we saw not just opinion vs. opinion, but rather opinion based upon opinion vs. opinion based upon opinion.  That is, we had four law professors who have heard no evidence but who have heard or read opinions of others about what they feel about various actions of the President, give their legal opinions about whether those opinions they read/heard about those facts create a basis for impeachment.  Yes, it is ridiculous, isn’t it?

Let’s understand:  lawyers and especially law professors enjoy examining the law and rendering their opinions about it.  OPINION is the operative word here.  In the law, issues are issues because they have more than one possible solution.  Legal minds form opinions and put that opinion forward.  It may or may not be the opinion that will be adopted in a particular case.  Think of any simple court case.  The plaintiff or prosecution puts forth its opinion that the defendant has done something wrong.  The defense puts forth its opinion that defendant is innocent or not at fault.  Opinion vs. opinion.  A legal decision – guilt, acquittal, liability, or no liability will require fact, not opinion.

Opinions cannot be proven.  They are simply one person’s view about events.  They are not necessarily right or wrong.  As one of my law professors was fond of saying, there are no right answers, only wrong ones.  The wrong ones he referred to were those that were not well supported by facts and by clear and logical reasoning.

Legal scholars will not all agree on the meaning of a law nor on the proper resolution of a case.  This is why, for example, so many Supreme Court decisions are not unanimous.  More than one well-reasoned interpretation can be put forward.  So, while a law professor may sound very authoritative in proclaiming his or her opinion, it is not a fact, it is not a law, and it is not even necessarily correct.  If not grounded in evidence or if not soundly and logically supported, it might very well be wrong.

At the hearing today, however, we saw many Democrats asking their witnesses what was their opinion about the law (remember, that is not a definitive definition but simply one opinion about the law), then taking that law as fact, then asking the witness if the “facts” as defined by one of the earlier Intelligence Committee witnesses’ opinions, met the current witness’s interpretation of “impeachment.”  So, we have the Democrats starting with an opinion and calling it fact, then taking a professorial interpretation of law and calling it actual law, and then getting a professor to assert that the fact/opinion that he has only been told about meets his definition of law (which is really just his interpretation/opinion) and using that as a basis to impeach the President.  Yes, it really is that ridiculous.

But what troubled me today more than anything is what the appearance of these four professors told me about the future of the law and justice in this country.  Three of the four have well documented biases against the President and have been actively and monetarily involved in various campaigns against President Trump since he has been in office.  They clearly were letting their own biases color and determine their legal opinions about impeachment.  If that is what they are teaching their students, then there is little hope for the future of fairness and justice.  Witness Turley was the only one of the four who was able to render objective opinions that happened to not favor impeachment even though he himself is not a Trump supporter and is critical of many of his policies and actions.

It is that ability to divorce one’s own feelings from one’s legal analysis that is critical to justice.  To be clear, Professor Turley’s opinions are, just as those of the other witnesses, nothing more than opinion.  They are not fact.  They are not law.  But the difference is that they are based on objective examination of the relevant source materials and supported by sound legal reasoning.  While I am sure that the other professor-witnesses are also capable of such reasoning, it was fairly clear that they had not engaged in such objective analysis in this case.  There may well be logical support for their opinions, but that was lacking here because those opinions were so obviously based upon their personal hatred of President Trump. 

Professor Turley urged us all to “divide rage from reason.”  That is, there is so much hate that it is preventing the reasoned approach that is necessary for an impeachment consideration.  But it goes beyond that.  The rage, the hate that consumes the Democrats is preventing a reasoned approach to nearly anything in this country and especially to the continuation of our form of government.

So, I was deeply saddened to see the hatred overcome the three Democrat professor witnesses whose credentials should have made them able to distinguish rage from reason and hold heir personal opinions at bay while considering scholarly legal analysis, especially when that analysis may be used to affect the future of our nation and whether or not an election should be overturned.

These are legal scholars.  I expect them to understand the gravity of the undertaking when they are asked to testify about impeachment.  I expect them to understand that when they engage in scholarly discourse about the Constitution or law or past cases that they are expressing their opinions only and that they are not judges rendering decisions on facts that they have not even examined.  Yet if they are willing to accept and engage in such over biased reasoning then Lady Justice has surely lost her blindfold and the concept of a fair and unbiased hearing within the justice system is at serious risk.  This is simply not OK – for those who seek justice and for our Country which depends upon our judicial branch of government as one of the three pillars that sustain us and our freedoms.

So, the Impeachers have now built a case by stacking opinion upon opinion with no clear factual foundation.  Such a structure must surely collapse – hopefully before it takes the entire country with it.

The Impeachers also seem to be perhaps moving away from their focus group determined term of “bribery” and back toward the Mueller report – the report that took 2 years along with taxpayer dollars to investigate another ludicrous charge.  It was determined there was no obstruction there.  Yet obstruction seems to be back again.  Along with idiotic analogies to Nixon, suggestions that the President wants to be king (using the President’s minor son as the butt of a joke about this), and most anything else the President has done or said as meeting their witnesses’ opined definition of impeachment. 

Really, the only thing that is constant, the only thing that is substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is the continuing rage and hatred of the Democrats toward Donald Trump.  It is time that everyone follows Professor Turley’s advice and “divide rage from reason.”  Then, and only then, can we move forward with the business of the country.

The Hate Continues (and a Plea to End It)

According to Axios, the Democrats are readying at least 85 subpoenas against Trump for when they take office in January.   Click here for Article  Is this really what those who voted for them want them to do?  Is this country so filled with hate and so driven by revenge that they would rather see their elected officials act out on their animosity for the man who beat their candidate in the presidential election than work on the needs of the people who elected them?  Apparently so, because it was no secret that was the Democrat’s intent; their agenda is focused on one thing only:  get Trump by any means necessary.

I have never seen such hatred for such an extended period of time.  While the Democrats would have us believe that somehow Trump is destroying our country, the reality is that it is they, the Democrats, who are doing so.   If one goes beyond the anti-Trump propaganda one will see that our economy is booming, that unemployment is at its lowest in years (and the lowest ever for some specific groups), they will see successes in international relations including return of enormous numbers of political prisoners, renegotiation of NAFTA in a way then benefits our country, and overall a more positive and hopeful situation than America has seen in years.

Yet all these successes for this country that at least some of us still hold dear are dismissed by the anti-Trump fervor of the Left.  And their actions post the mid-term elections show that they will do anything to stop anything Trump does, including many actions that are good for America and its people.

Are the Democrats really so distressed simply by the fact that they were beaten in 2016 by someone who was a bit rough around the edges and not an erudite phony as are many of them?  President Trump is a real person who sees the real needs of this country and its people.  He doesn’t play the identity politics games that the Left finds so endearing.  He doesn’t pretend to be perfect or to be everyone’s moral superior.  He simply (and sometimes awkwardly) tries to do what is best for this country.  But is that a reason to hate someone so?  To go beyond mere dislike of policy and try to actually and completely destroy a man?

There is something more, something terribly nefarious going on here.  The Left’s present agenda seems to simply be to destroy Trump, to thwart him at every turn by any means necessary.  Those means include attacking his every word, fomenting anger and violence against him, his staff and supporters, demeaning anyone who does not take their view, using false and misleading statements to attack and destroy his appointees, and, now, attacking the very core of our democracy – our vote. 

Yes, there seems to be a playbook for close elections:  when they seem to turn to the Republican, have the Democrat candidate refuse to concede, claim every vote counts, then suddenly produce some previously unseen absentee or other ballots that amazingly go overwhelmingly for the Democrat.  (See for example New Mexico, Florida, Arizona and perhaps others as well).  This scenario may be in part due to incompetence, but the pattern seems more than a coincidence and the use of all the big-gun lawyers of the Left to further the legitimacy of questionable ballots supports the argument that the Left, when it says “count every vote” wants more than just legitimate votes counted.   These attacks on our vote are far worse than any dirty campaign trick, yes, worse than Watergate or other spying attempts, worse than making up lies about your opponent.  This is our vote and it must be honest or we will no longer have a democracy. 

So what is it that the Democrats want?  What drives them into such a frenzy of anger and hatred that they are willing to destroy the very essence of our country?  Is it simply power or is it more?  I suggest that it is a wish for the power to destroy what this country has been for over 200 years, a wish for the power to entirely remake this country into something else.   Whether that something else is a socialist state, or a country without borders (which by very definition is no country at all), or simply some unknown, I suggest that the ultimate result will not be pleasant for the majority of the people.

What do these Democrats who are so filled with hatred envision?  These are the people who are totally incapable of tolerance for views that do not match their own.  These are the people who scorn bible owners, gun owners, pot-luck participants, people of color who are conservative (don’t fit the identity label the Left has given them), women who are anti-abortion, people who want the laws enforced equally, including immigration laws, people who believe in the concept of innocence until proven guilty, indeed, anyone who does not hold and support the views of the Left.  Such intolerance is not America.

These are the Democrats who foment mobs to harass and intimidate until they get their way.  That is not America.  These are the people who excuse violence if it furthers their cause but condemn the most innocent slight if it is by someone who is not one of them.  These are the people who use false accusation to condemn a man as a rapist because he holds views they do not like, but who elect men against whom there is evidence of sexual assault or abuse when that man holds views like their own. This is hypocrisy, this is not fair, this is not America.

These are the Democrats who create identity groups, then pit them against one another not for the good of any group but only as a means to further the hatred that they believe will ultimately lead the Left to power.  If anyone thinks that they truly care about any of these people they are using then you are living in a fantasy world.  It is all about hate and that hate is all about a means of achieving power, power not for the people but for the benefit only of those who would ultimately hold it.   This, a country based on hate, is not America.

The Left is clever.   They have co-opted the media to serve as their propaganda machine.  They have co-opted social media to push their agenda while suppressing any opposition.  Like the best snake-oil salesman they make what they are selling sound like the cure for all that ails individuals, groups, and the country itself.  But in reality that snake oil is toxic.  And if we continue to imbibe then the sickness we now have will become terminal.  America as we know it will die.

Perhaps many who voted for the Left believed that with their election the hate that we see in this country would come to an end.  Wrong!  It is about to get much worse.  The Left is becoming bolder and bolder with their hatred.  The Democrat power structure is out to destroy.  Period.  That seems to be all they know how to do.  Destroy the President.  Destroy his supporters.  Destroy his dreams for a better America.  Destroy America itself. 

The only way to stop this is to stop listening to their propaganda.  To look at what is truly going on and not what they tell you and would have you believe is going on.    Close your ears to their siren songs and open your eyes to reality.  Think beyond today and see the tomorrow to which they would take us.  The Left has no intention of stopping the hate; it serves them too well.  Only we the people can stop the hate and it is well past time that we do so.