Transformation, Reality, and Dreams.

Joe Biden tweeted Sunday that if he gets elected, his administration “won’t just rebuild this nation — we’ll transform it,”

Seems like I’ve heard this nebulous sort of promise before.  Candidate Obama promised us “hope and change.”  The problem with such a chameleon-like phrase is that it leaves each of us to decide for ourselves what it means. 

Obama’s “hope and change” slogan sounded great.  Was it?  For some perhaps.  For others it meant the rise of identity politics that create more and more discord in our country.  To some it meant continuing to be left jobless and hopeless in the inner cities of America.  For some it meant the rise of the deep state and the ability to weaponize our federal agencies against political opponents.

And who was a part of that “hope and change” administration?  The man who now claims he will transform our country.  The man who spent his life as a political leader apparently making a country that he now suddenly decides must be “transformed.”

Transform it to what?  He says he will not just rebuild.  To rebuild presumes that something was unbuilt that needs to be rebuilt.  In this instance it means that he is with those protestors, progressives, and socialists who would unbuild – destroy – America as we know it so that it can then be rebuilt.  And, in the words of Joe (or his handlers), not just rebuilt, but transformed.  So, it will not be America as we know it.

What will it be?  A dictatorship commanded by those elites or intelligentsia who think they know better than we do what is good for us?  A socialist state which begins with a Utopian sort of dream where everyone will be happy but quickly devolves into horror for all but those in power who, by the way, are rarely the ones who were used to bring the destruction of the old regime about. 

Is this the transformation we are to look forward to with a Biden presidency?  Will he tell us?  Or will he, like Candidate Obama, use some words that have the potential of conjuring up positive visions in the mind of the hearer but which may not be the actual intent of those words at all?

Wake up.  Everyone who fell for the unsubstantiated and dreamlike promise of the Obama-Biden candidacy should see the truth underlying Biden’s campaign promise of “transformation.”  Repeat the words:  fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Do not vote for the unstated destruction, then the rebuilding with transformation unless and until you are absolutely sure what those words mean.  Demand specifics.  What will be destroyed?  What will be rebuilt?  What will be transformed?  And how?

Do not assume you know what those words mean.  And do not assume that even if they do mean what you want them to that the promise is possible:  consider what must be given up to make it possible.  For example, let’s say you believe that transformation means a perfect world in which we all are happy and healthy and have all that we need and want.  The socialist or Utopian dream.  But what would you give up to have that dream?

In Episode 24 of the original Star Trek’s first season, the crew of the Enterprise end up on a planet where everything is perfect – health, happiness, love abound – it seems a true Utopia.  Seems, but is not.  Captain Kirk realizes that things are not as they seem, the crew is under the spell of some strange spores, and that strong emotions will counteract the effect of the spores.  Once everyone is freed from the spores and have left the planet, the following conversation ensues:

Dr. McCoy: Well, that's the second time man's been thrown out of paradise.

Captain Kirk: No, no, Bones, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

In many ways this exemplifies the American spirit, something which needs America in its present (though always improving) form.  The American spirit is not a pretty Utopian creature.  It is the spirit of someone who is not dealt a perfect hand, who has missteps and misfortunes and is sometimes stepped upon, but gets up and moves forward. It is the spirit of someone who dreams beyond what is, who fights and struggles to make things better, always moving up, always improving, never perfect.   It is the spirit of someone who believes that he can, of someone who works hard for what he wants and needs and takes individual responsibility for his successes and his failures.  It is the spirit of someone who is real in a real world, someone who is not content to live statically strolling to the lute.

I can easily equate the spores in this Star Trek episode with the unrealistic dreams purveyed by those who would turn this country to socialism.  Socialism is nothing more than a dream of a perfect world.   Sometimes it is presented with specific images, sometimes with ambiguous words like “hope and change” or “transformation” that suggest your own dreams.  But those dreams are not real.  They are sold by those whose own dreams, not yours, are the goal.

These dreams require that one must give up the American spirit that allows one to be their own individual.  That Utopian dream has only the “music of the lute.”  It denies to us the other passions and emotions that make us human.  It requires us to suppress all that makes us each the individual that we are and instead bow to the behavior, thought, speech, and very being that the Utopian leaders, the spores, mandate.  No drums, just the lute – their lute.  No real emotion, just that which is approved.

Utopia is not freedom.  It is a cage.  And to achieve the socialist dream, to “transform” our current America to something different, relinquishment of individual control is necessary.  The leader of the Utopia will decide what thoughts, words, and, behavior is allowed.  There will be no dissent.  No contrary emotions allowed. 

And, be very clear, the class or identity group that is used to fight for socialism will not be the ruling class of the socialist state.  The workers may have been used by Lenin to destroy the old order and bring his Marxist socialism to power, but the new state was then "rebuilt" from the top down; the workers were not the ones who ruled its brutal Communist state for 75 years.  The workers in Venezuela similarly bought a Utopian dream, but that dream become a nightmare for them once their usefulness to those in power ended.  And, after Obama’s election, the voters who had bought his promise of “hope and change” and given him victory, languished in the same inner cities of crime, unemployment and hopelessness.

The American spirit is sometimes rough and hard and not pretty.  Its music is seldom that of the lute, but more often loud and sometimes discordant.  But it is also full of energy and hope and, perhaps more importantly, it is never static but always growing.   Think hard about whether that is really something that you want to destroy (unbuild), rebuild, and then transform.

We are not just pretty lute players.  We are also drummers and dancers and shouters and singers and inventors.  We don’t all have one idea, but we create new ideas and inspire new and diverse thoughts with our ability to speak and think and behave as the individuals that we are.

The current demonstrations are of course a product of this freedom.  And if they were simply about creating an even better place in which the American spirit can thrive, I would likely support them.  But, they are not; they are about destroying and then rebuilding America into something else, something that it is not.

And I am offended that a presidential candidate would use the already fomented discontent to essentially further urge a destruction of America to be replaced with some sort of unattainable Utopian dream.  A dream that by necessity must destroy the American spirit because individual thought does not work when your goal is to make everyone move in unison to the sound of your lute.  Perfection does not allow for dissent because any dissent is seen as an imperfection.

I am delighted to accept an imperfect world if it means I can be who I am, think what I think, experience all my emotions, and walk in unity with people who are not all like me but are each and everyone their own unique and diverse being.  I do not want that world “transformed.” 

The imperfect democratic republic in which we live is the best place for our full humanity to thrive.  The American spirit and the America in which it lives can and will always find ways to improve itself.  And anyone who believes that it should be destroyed and “transformed” either does not understand who and what this country and its people are or is willing to sacrifice them to achieve their own (not America’s) dream.  Like the crew of Star Trek, we need to banish the effect of the false dream and walk away, “on our own” from Biden and the Left’s “transformation.”

Different Strokes for Different Folks

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of DHS to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.  Basically, the majority opinion finds that the DHS reason given for recission was not sufficient.  That reason was that, based upon opinions of the 5^th Circuit and the Attorney General, DACA implemented by the prior administration’s DHS was unlawful.  Those opinions explain that Obama’s DHS overstepped its authority by conferring benefits that were in excess and violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  

There are essentially 2 parts to DACA – the authorization of benefits to illegals covered under DACA and the Obama DHS decision to at least temporarily not enforce immigration laws as to this group of illegal aliens.  Apparently because the Trump DHS does not address these two parts separately, but instead conflates them together in the reasoning for rescission, the majority finds the decision to rescind the original illegal DACA to be arbitrary and capricious and hence insufficient.  It is, then, insufficient to justify the rescinding of a law on the fact that the law is an illegal exercise by the Obama DHS.

So, as Justice Thomas notes in his dissent, under this decision future administrations can bind their successors “by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda.” The agency, in this case DHS, must continue to administer an unlawful program from a previous administration.  One administration gets to exceed the law, the second is not allowed to correct that excess.

Two DHS memos.  One creates DACA, essentially amending and altering current law and in contravention of INA and beyond any powers granted to DHS, and thereby provides benefits and stops deportations of a group of illegal aliens.  The second DHS memo rescinds the first based on the fact that the first unlawfully creates benefits and contradicts existing law.  Two memos, both by DHS, one from the Obama administration, the other from the Trump administration.  The first which has been found to be illegal stands, the second is found unlawful. 

It feels like we have entered Alice’s rabbit hole, or perhaps more accurately are living out Orwell’s 1984 – up is down, right is wrong, and 2 + 2 = 5. 

Chief Justice Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, also expresses his concern for the “reliance rights” of DACA individuals.  It seems that in his view the Trump DHS should have considered these reliance interests and held off or delayed the recission or at least instructed immigration agents to “give salient weight to any reliance interest engendered by DACA when exercising individualized enforcement discretion.”  Well, that is simply another way of saying keep the illegal law in place. 

The majority opinion states that “The dissent is correct that DACA was rescinded because of the Attorney General’s illegality determination.”  But, while that determination did not address the option of retaining forbearance or accommodating other reliance interests, the DHS “should have considered those matters but did not.  That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the ADA.”

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, states “Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision.”  Exactly!  Chief Justice Roberts and the majority are allowing their own emotions and the emotions of the vocal pro-DACA demonstrators to color their thinking. 

It is easy to have sympathy if not empathy for children taken at a young age to another country who then discover they are there illegally and essentially have no country to call their home, face the possibility of deportation to a land they don’t even know.  That is a problem.  And that problem is addressed (or not) by our legislative branch. 

The Obama DHS did not have the authority to essentially create new rules to address that problem.  Obama himself admitted that the action was done through DHS because he knew that Congress would not enact it as law.  DACA is illegal.  Its recission will cause heartache.  But its rescission is legally the right thing to do.

In this opinion the Court is essentially making law or perhaps even endorsing illegal law when it is emotionally compelling.   That is not the Court’s role.  That role also does not belong to DHS.  It belongs to the Legislature. 

We expect the Court to be dispassionate and logically look at the law.  But here we have a decision that seems in large part to be based on emotion, on what the court thinks is the right thing to do or what it would do if it had the authority to make law.   When the court so clearly and openly loses its way, America as we know it is in big trouble.

There are many court decisions as well as many laws with which I do not agree.  I used to say “be patient, the system will work” meaning that if the Court went beyond its authority the legislature would hold it in check by amending or writing legislation.  And if the legislature or administrative agencies exceeded their power, the court would hold them in check. 

But, if the Supreme Court cannot follow the rules, if it puts emotion, popular sentiment (mob rule), and politics in the place of dispassionate deliberation, then we no longer have a system to follow or to trust. 

I want to note here that this opinion, with majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, is 79 pages long.  I obviously cannot do it full justice in this short blog, and I would encourage everyone to read it in its entirety and form their own opinions about it.  But that reading should be done objectively and dispassionately. 

Even if you agree with the outcome, if your heart is with the DACA group, that outcome can and should be achieved through the appropriate processes and not by playing legal mumbo-jumbo games to enforce what should be an illegal action by a government agency.  Allow that once, and you are justifying it again when you may not be so happy with the result.

Principle or Partisanship?

One has to wonder whether the ever-present outrage of the Left against Trump and his supporters is a result of some underlying principles that they hold dear or simply pure outrage that he and not they are in power.  Let me suggest that the outrage is far more likely partisan – a reflection of their real anger at having lost an election and with that loss their power as well.  By cloaking their outrage in the guise of standing for universal principles and humane values, they perhaps hope to hide the ugly partisanship that they are practicing.

Here are just a few of many examples of actions or policies that the Left claims to find abhorrent today, but which they previously accepted and often advocated.

Refugees and Immigrants

I suspect that everyone is aware that President Obama separated families and sent illegal immigrants home.  Somehow that only became cause for alarm or impeachment when Trump became president.

But, there are other examples in this area.  In 1975 many Democrats including then Senator Biden and then Governor Brown of California argued for a ban on Vietnamese refugees.  Governor Brown sounded the alarm about the huge toll that the refugees would take on his state as he worked to keep them from entering the country.  Yes, this is the same Gov. Brown who now welcomes immigrants, both legal and illegal, to his state and many of the same people who now assert that enforcement of immigration laws by President Trump is inhumane.

So, apparently when President Trump enforces our immigration laws with an even hand, he is guilty of treason, of being like Hitler, of destroying America; but, when the Left enforces those laws or works to keep legitimate refugees out of the country it is perfectly fine.

Security Clearances

President Trump revoked the security clearance of Brennan who no longer works for the government in any capacity, has no need for a security clearance, and was using (and perhaps misusing) his clearance for personal gain.  Those who are again finding this somehow treasonous or an impeachable offense have apparently forgotten that President Obama also revoked security clearances.         
       In 2013 James Clapper (who is now outraged by the revocation of Brennan’s clearance) was concerned about “threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information.”  The Obama administration then began a review in order to scrub and remove a number of security clearances.

So, apparently national security and possible misuse of security clearances is something that a president can be concerned about unless that president is President Trump.

Sex, Hush Money, and Underage Victims

It is alleged that Trump, before becoming president, paid former consenting sex partners to keep silent about their affairs.  Again, we hear this is treasonous or calls for impeachment.  Where was the outrage when, until recently, the Congress had a fund out of which they paid to silence individuals claiming sexual abuse or harassment by their members?

When there were unproven allegations that Republican candidate Roy Moore had improper behavior with minors decades ago, this was cause for the Left to raise the alarm not only against Moore but against anyone who argued he should have a fair day in court and considered innocent until proven guilty.   But wait – these are the same people who for decades have defended Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old child.  And where is the outrage this week against the MeToo spokeswoman who it has now been revealed had sex with a minor.  These allegations which can be backed up with actual evidence or guilty pleas are apparently not as heinous as the allegations against Moore which lack such solid evidence.  Could it be that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats?  Could it be that the outrage against Moore was simply an effective way to campaign against him?

We have a similar situation in the way that the accusations against Bill Clinton were treated and the sudden “woke-ness” when the allegations are against a Republican.  Sure sounds like partisanship to me.

Russia

This is a big one, but I will only cite enough to make my point here.  First, there is just the simple outrage when Trump meets with any foreign leader, but especially when he met and suggests future meetings with the head of Russia.   Yet, where was the outrage when Obama met with Putin and other leaders.  It was not labeled as un-American or treasonous as Trump’s meetings are.  And, while the Left daily asserts some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia in their  hunt to find evidence for those assertions, they seem to have forgotten that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election.

Not even an eyelash was batted when Obama made that statement.  Directly to the Russian President.  When he was President.  But, when candidate Trump at a campaign rally joked about hoping Russia would find more of his opponent’s emails, the Left sees this as some sort of verifiable proof of collusion.  I call it grasping at straws.

Campaign Finance Violations

Cohen, in his plea deal Tuesday, stated he made payments to keep quiet women who allegedly had consensual sex with Trump long before he was a candidate.  In is questionable at best whether such a payment violates campaign finance laws, but, assuming it does, and, assuming that through some sort of twisted logic that automatically pins the violation on Trump, he would not be the first candidate to violate such laws.

There are indeed allegations against Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton that sadly seem to be worthy only of being ignored by the Left.  There are allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund was a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws and allow huge donations to the Hillary campaign that were violative of those laws.  The committee committing the alleged violations was authorized by Hillary.  These alleged violations involve millions of dollars directly to her campaign, not payments of a few hundred thousand to alleged former lovers.

Once again, one sees the Left turning a blind eye to alleged violations of law by those of whom they approve while twisting and turning every law possible to attempt to convict their “enemy.”

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In 1992 Democrat Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy, then President Bush should not name a nominee or, if he did, no confirmation hearings should be scheduled until after the November presidential election.  This became known as the “Biden rule” and was apparently just fine with Democrats until Republicans enforced it in 2016 when then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  They did not want to wait until November then.  And now, as the Brett Kavanaugh nomination moves forward, the Democrats suddenly once again embrace the Biden rule, though now in the context not of an upcoming presidential election, but a midterm election.  

So, again, do the Democrats really have a position on this, or is it just that if their person is in power we should forget the Biden rule, but if their opposition is in power then we should enforce it, in the hope that the opposition will be defeated and the Left will regain power after the election?

The above are just a few examples of partisan maneuvering couched in the guise of standing up for principles.  It is hypocritical and dishonest.  But, what is really scary is that if principles can blow with the partisan wind, who next will be on the down side?  This is the problem when people become less concerned with law and freedom and true inalienable rights, and more concerned with creating a series of fleeting values that are geared to deny power to some while simply bolstering power for others.

So, next time you hear the Left assert that it is standing up for important principles of humanity or America or freedom, take a hard look at what the real motivation is.  Is it really a stand for principle, or just for partisan power?