Israel

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

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

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

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

The Current Dysfunction

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

The dysfunction of this administration includes:

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

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

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

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

Beyond the Surface – Humanity, Purpose, and Amalek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the world awake; will we save ourselves?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

War, What is it good for?

 In the 1970 song “War”, the answer to the above question is “absolutely nothing” but in the real world, in the political world, sadly it too often serves the needs of the powerful who have only their own interests in mind. 

I am tired of watching the people of Ukraine suffer as they serve as the proxy victims in our proxy war against Russia.  I realize that they do not think of themselves that way, but my reading of this war and the complicated history leading to it directs me to that conclusion. 

President Putin of Russia fired the first shot, but before that shot was fired many besides Putin marched in the parade toward war.  Few took the time to understand the Russian mindset and the complicated history between Russia and Ukraine, or to acknowledge the West’s aggressive enticement of Ukraine to become a fully Western State.  There were few if any real attempts to negotiate a settlement of sorts that would have prevented war, gained a stronger democracy for Ukraine, and appeased Russia’s fears of the West.

A brief and highly abridged history

As part of the Pontic Steppe in Eastern Europe, the area now known as Ukraine has been an important and sought after part of that geographical area since prehistoric times.  Many Russians see Kyiv (Rus) as the birthplace of Russia.  Ukraine has come under the rule of several rulers and other countries. During the 1600s, in order to escape Polish-Lithuanian rule, Ukraine sought protection from Russia which led to its rule by Tsarist Russia.  In the late 1700s, the far west of Ukraine fell under Austrian control while the rest became part of Russia.

At the time of the Russian revolution, Ukraine tried to break free of Russia.  In 1919 several armies fought one another in Ukraine - Kyiv changed hands 6 times.  In 1921, Ukraine was incorporated into Soviet Russia.  During WWII, much of Ukraine supported and fought with the Nazis whom Ukrainians saw as liberators from Russia.  Russians were united against the Nazis and their supporters, and the Ukrainian Nazi support continues to be a sore spot with Russians to this day.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state.  In 2004 the “Orange Revolution” revealed a Ukraine clearly divided between those Ukrainians, many of whom are ethnic Russians, who wanted to maintain strong ties with Russia, and those who were more interested in creating ties with the West and its organizations such as NATO.

Russia, for its part, includes both those who would like to see Soviet Russia restored including full incorporation of Ukraine into Russia as well as those who back an independent and westernized Ukraine.  Russia, however, generally silences opposition to its official pro-war stance.

War moves from likelihood to certainty

It would be naïve to think that both Russia and the West were not both doing all that they could to influence Ukraine and its people to become their allies.  The steppe upon which Ukraine sits is politically and strategically important.   Not only is the land incredibly fertile, it provides a buffer zone between Russia and the West/NATO countries.  The eastern portion of Ukraine is militarily significant in its location as a possible staging area for attacks on Russia.

The Russian Federation annexed Crimea in 2014 and has fought with Ukraine over other eastern portions of Ukraine since then.  In 2016 Ukraine joined an agreement with the European Union that allowed trade and visa-free travel between Ukraine and the EU.  In 2019 Ukraine amended its Constitution to put it on a stated path towards membership in the EU and NATO.  The original plan was to formally apply for EU membership in 2024, but that was moved forward, and the application was made in early February 2022.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin began more assertively voicing his opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, in part because of the military threat to Russia of NATO having the ability to place missiles or other military equipment at the border with Russia.   Here one must remember that NATO was established to counter the threat posed by the then Soviet Union and its mission continues to be to secure its member countries against Russia.   Since the fall of Soviet Russia NATO has aggressively sought to expand its membership.  Whether this is a threat to Russia in reality or not is less important than the fact that Russia sees this as a threat.

Throughout 2021 Russia moved its troops to the Ukrainian border, obviously building towards a potential invasion.  During that time the United States, while condemning the buildup, took no real action against it.  President Biden threatened sanctions etc., but it was always too little too late and in the opinion of many only presented a face of weakness to Russia that encouraged Putin to be more aggressive. 

To others, many of the statements made by President Biden seemed to be goading President Putin into taking military action.  Why he might do that is open to speculation, but a war would distract from the rising inflation and other problems he was and is facing in this country, it would create someone (Russia/Putin) to blame for continuing economic problems,  it might make Biden some sort of hero (he did keep putting forth the idea that this was going to be his Cuban Missile Crisis so perhaps he thought it would gain him a Kennedy-like respect), and then there is the fact that since he was a Senator, Biden has made no secret of the fact that he hates Putin.

Shortly after Ukraine made its application to NATO, and after Biden effectively gave Putin no possible way to withdraw without losing face, on Feb. 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Whose war is it?

The United States and other Western and NATO countries proclaimed their support for Ukraine.  Ukraine asked for money – we sent it.  Ukraine asked for military equipment – we sent it.  Finding the precise figure of aid, both military and humanitarian, to Ukraine is difficult, but it is somewhere around $50 billion in 2022 in direct aid and over $100 billion if one counts indirect aid.  The majority of that is for defense, and the funding does not show any sign of ceasing.  We are sending our store of weapons  - tanks, missiles, guns, and other military equipment - and that too shows no sign of ceasing, even though we are so depleted that this country is in a position where it does not have the ability to defend itself. 

Ukrainian President Zelensky has done a marvelous job of building strength and unity amongst his people.  He also does a wonderful job of begging the West and U.S.  for money to support them.  Many people of that country are firm in their belief that with the U.S. behind them and supplying them, that they can defeat Russia without making any concessions whatsoever.  Indeed, many believe that they can even see Crimea returned. 

With this confidence inspired by the U.S. and other backers, they are not interested in negotiating an end to the fighting.  This Ukrainian digging in and belief in total victory might be far less strong if not for US and other Western support.  So, are the Ukrainians fighting their war, or are we, the West, fighting that war?  And if it is we who are fighting it then why is it Ukrainian and not our blood that is being spilled?

Why isn’t the thought of peace even on the table?

If we really cared about the Ukrainian people as we say we do, then why aren’t we seeking peaceful solutions to end this; solutions that indeed might result in some territory loss but that would end the loss of life?

Yet instead we escalate.  In 2022 President Biden told us that sending tanks to Ukraine would result in World War 3.  In January of 2023 he announced he would send tanks to Ukraine.  We are going to train the Ukrainians on how to use the tanks, bringing them to the U.S. for that training.  When one of those tanks kills a Russian is that an aggression by Ukraine or by the United States?  And Putin has threatened use of nuclear weapons if the United States or NATO countries are the ones actually fighting this war.

If this does become World War 3, then we are going to have a hard time since our weapons stockpiles will be empty and parts to rebuild often come from China who will likely be aligned with Russia and not inclined to assist us.  Does our President even consider let alone understand such things? Does he understand that it is young Ukrainians dying for his cause?  Does he care?

Where are the diplomats, the peacemakers who will use reason and negotiation rather than human life to solve their differences?  Let America lead on that front instead of as warmongers.

We are using the Ukrainians.  Perhaps they are using us as well.  But when their usefulness is over, will we care at all what happens to them?  I doubt it.  Because this is not really a war about freedom or democracy.  It is a war about a few men wanting to puff up and show off their power.

I close with a few lines from Edwin Starr’s 1970 song “War” written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong:

War, I despise

'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives

 

Life is much too short and precious

To spend fighting wars each day

War can't give life

It can only take it away, oh

 

Peace, love and understanding, tell me

Is there no place for them today?

They say we must fight to keep our freedom

But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh

 

War, huh (God y'all)

What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)

Say it, say it, say it, say it

 

War (good God), huh (now, huh)

What is it good for?

Stand up and shout it (nothing)

BIDEN’s WAR

I said this in the days leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and I still believe it today:  President Biden wants a war with Russia.

Why do I say this?  Several reasons. 

First, before the invasion and up to the current moment, Biden seems to be doing everything he can both to not deescalate the situation and to anger Putin so that he becomes ever more aggressive. 

Before the invasion, Biden had sanctions he could have imposed to possibly deter the invasion.  He did not use them until after Putin began dropping bombs on Ukraine.  He then dolled out minor sanctions little by little, sanctions that could no longer be used for deterrence since the assault they might have deterred had already begun.

Long before the invasion, long before Russia began building up troops at the Ukrainian border, Biden had promised Ukraine we had its back.  We didn’t and we don’t.  Once the war began Biden agreed,  then refused to provide necessary air power to Ukraine by way of Poland or otherwise.  He accepted Putin’s threat not to close the air space over Ukraine or risk the possibility of all out war, maybe nuclear.

Yet at the same time we have CIA in Ukraine.  Biden yesterday stated we are helping to train Ukrainian troops.  Biden called for regime change in Russia to remove Putin.  He told a group of our troops they would be going to Ukraine.  Of course, with the help of talking points, written out on cards by his White House handlers, Biden has now denied making all these statements, calling assertions that he did so to be “outright lies.”

Yet, according to world leaders who were there, these “lies” that Biden made while in Europe have undermined peace negotiations and made Putin even more focused in his unrelenting aggression against Ukraine. 

Biden wants to fight Russia.  Or at least he wants to have a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.  (The only alternative explanation is that he has not a clue what he is doing.)  

The big question is: why does he seem to want this war?

Actually, Biden’s performance regarding Russia-Ukraine is not unlike the rest of his performance as President and indeed throughout his political career.

Biden likes to lead from behind.  In this instance everything he has done that might have prevented or lessened the harm to Ukraine has been too little too late.  But that is not unlike his performance regarding Afghanistan.  It is not unlike his performance in most every crisis where he tends to ignore or deny there is a problem and/or assert that he has it all under control, then, when he cannot deny or ignore any longer pushes a blame story against his political opponents and then uses the damage caused to excuse damage caused by his own policies as well as missteps.

This is nowhere clearer than in regard to inflation, rising gas prices, supply chain issues and food shortages.  All of these problems existed well before Putin began amassing troops at Ukraine’s border.  These issues have come about since Biden’s inauguration as a result of his and his Leftist Congress’s policies.  Yet, Biden is now more than delighted to use Russia as cover for his disastrous presidency.  

We are told it is Putin who causes our gasoline inflation while Biden continues to limit gas production in our own country that would significantly impact and lessen the prices.  We are told that we must be prepared to suffer food and other shortages along with rising prices for most consumer goods due to the Russia war.  Yet, again, these problems were created by Biden and his disastrous domestic policies long before Putin began his move toward the Ukraine.

So, a Russian war provides cover for our President.  But that cannot be the only reason that Biden seems so eager to be at war with Russia.

I am not a psychologist, but my guess is that a psychologist would have a heyday with Biden.  My observations over the years of his political life do lead me to make some observations that may provide some insight. 

I think that Biden thinks he is a lot smarter than he is.  Maybe that is why he is something akin to a pathological liar; why he needs to boast about accomplishments that are not his and make up stories that are not true.

I recall his first act of plagiarism that made the national news:  in the 1980s then Senator Biden admitted he had plagiarized a law review article back in the 60s when he was in law school.  The fact came out because Biden authorized release of his law school file which he said would demonstrate his “honesty and openness.”  The report of his plagiarism was in the file and Biden then covered by saying as a student he just didn’t understand the rules.  Hard to believe since plagiarism is considered a serious sin in every law school in America and from day one students are taught what it is and that is not ethical to do it.  (One would like to assume that most students are already well aware of plagiarism long before they enter law school).

Biden also plagiarized scores of campaign speeches throughout his career.  When caught he always had one of his “C’mon man” excuses.  In 2019 and 2020 his presidential campaign “lifted language without credit” and when caught, Biden placed full blame on his campaign staff. 

He also lies about his political history, claiming to have supported that which he opposed when it is convenient for him to do so.  The most current example is his claims that he has always believed a Black woman should be on the Supreme court, conveniently forgetting his more than 2 year attempts to deny a judgeship to a Black woman, albeit a conservative, whose appointment would have put her on a fast track to SCOTUS.  (He used the filibuster in part to block that nomination; he now asserts that the filibuster should be abolished.)

Biden regularly makes false claims about his personal history from his childhood and lives of his parents, to jobs he claims to have but actually never had, to being arrested during civil rights protests, to visiting our southern border.  He also lies about his family, denying the actual time when his relationship with his current wife began and of course lying about his son Hunter and his foreign interactions that at a minimum implicate Joe himself.

So, Biden is a liar.  Perhaps those lies are all based on insecurity or to fool himself into believing he is the man he would like to think he is.  And perhaps he is angry with those who do not recognize the greatness of that fictional persona. 

That anger would certainly explain his apparent hatred of his political opponents (not a simple difference of political policy, but very real, tangible hatred).  That anger seems to extend to America itself, or at least the core ideals that have made America the great nation that it is and that many of his opponents hold dear.  Meanwhile, he rewards supporters with any number of taxpayer funded programs.   Biden’s domestic actions since becoming President seem to have all been at least in part directed toward destroying and then remaking America into a very different place.

But back to his war with Russia.  These lies that seem to be a core essence of Biden’s character may also be behind his foreign polices.  Again, he wants the world to recognize him as the great leader that he believes that he is but that too few seem to recognize.  A war with Russia would not only give him cover for his disastrous domestic policies, but it would also prove to the world that he is a great leader because of course he believes he will win that war. 

The alternative, of course, is that his war could destroy the world as we know it.  But then, perhaps he would see that as just punishment for all those who failed to believe in his false greatness that he himself sees as real.

Or he could just be so senile that he has no comprehension of what he is saying or doing (although to explain his consistent history of inconsistencies and lies, that senility would have had to have been with him for 50 years at least).  I suspect that whatever senility he has simply exacerbates the problem of his delusional greatness of ability and with it his consistent missteps that are destroying America and now the world.

I think Biden is a selfish, self-centered person who cares nothing for those around him other than how they might be useful to him.  He has clearly acted in racist and sexist ways in the past, though now he asserts his support for minority populations.  He has been outspoken against illegal immigration and supported a “very high wall” though now he is for open borders.  He has supported the American dream but now considers it a lie. 

Joe Biden uses those about whom he really has no concern and then tosses them aside when their usefulness to him is over.   He will do whatever is necessary to keep himself in a position of power because that is where he believes he should be.

And now, that power combined with his incompetent belief that he is smarter and more clever than he really is are allowing the destruction of Ukraine and its people.  This because a war with Russia is something that Joe Biden wants, something that he believes is useful to him because it will explain away the crises he has already created and somehow prove to the world his true greatness.

These are dangerous times that we live in.  Senile or not, Joe Biden is a dangerous man.  We all need to see and understand what he is doing.   This is Biden’s war – just the latest fiasco in his history of lies and denials.  But this fiasco is one that is affecting the entire world.

Ukraine, NATO, Putin, Biden – No heroes, no diplomacy

I, like most, condemn the military aggression of Putin in Ukraine.   My heart aches for the Ukrainian people.  However, I do not blame Putin alone for the Ukraine crisis. 

In my opinion, a large part of the fault for the long-term existence of this problem falls on NATO; I put much of the blame for inciting that problem to its current level of violence on President Biden.  The following explains why.

The long term problem – NATO

Much of the information in this section of this post is derived from Foreign Affairs magazine (digitally available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/) which has contained several articles on Ukraine, Russia, and NATO over the past few years. 

Current Russian concerns with NATO originate with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.  The post-Cold War setup in Europe’s east left Russia without much say in European security, which was centered on NATO. 

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has aggressively moved eastward, encouraging central and eastern European countries to join NATO.   The U.S. argued this was necessary to pursue a policy of containment after the Cold War.  NATO determined that there should be no hard line beyond which NATO should not move east and no restrictions on new members.

Article 5 of NATO guarantees that members will treat an attack on one as an attack against all.  The closer that NATO moved to Russia the more that cooperation between Russia and the US deteriorated since the NATO expansion essentially placed the availability of U.S. military at Russia’s border.

A 1990 agreement suggests some limitations on expansion.  That agreement specifically deals with the reunification of Germany since at that time “few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.”  Russia however interpreted the agreement as a broader promise that NATO will not threaten Russia’s border.  In January of this year Secretary of State Blinken asserted that “NATO never promised not to admit new members” arguing that it has an “open door policy.”

As more eastern states joined NATO, Ukraine gained more and more importance to both the West and to Russia.  The NATO expansion could have been done in such a way as to avoid drawing a new line across Europe, but that was opposed by Washington.  “Washington’s error was not to enlarge the [NATO] alliance but to do so in a way that maximized Moscow’s aggravation and gave fuel to Russian reactionaries.” 

In 1994 Ukraine, along with other states that held nuclear weapons, signed an agreement with Russia and the U.S. that resulted in those prior Soviet states giving up their nuclear weapons so that all the USSR’s nuclear arsenal would now be held by one country - Russia.  As part of the agreement Russia and the U.S. essentially agreed to respect the boundaries of these new independent countries and to not influence them politically or economically. 

In 2004 the U.S. backed the pro-Western Orange Revolution in the Ukraine.  Putin, watching it unfold, stated his anger and disbelief to those with him at the time: “They [the U.S.] lied to me.  I will never trust them again.”

The West extended the prospect of NATO membership including article 5 protections to Ukraine in 2008.  In 2014 Russia took over Crimea from Ukraine and began supporting pro-Russian militants in the Donbas region.  Putin justified this takeover as a necessary response to NATO’s “deployment of military infrastructure at our borders.”

The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 proposed to bring peace to the region, but Ukraine would strike no deals; it would not even accept a compromise that would have allowed for elections in the Donbas region.  Diplomatic correspondence between France, Germany, and Russia shows that Western powers fully sided with Ukraine.

While the focus of the West has been on the Russian troop buildup near the Ukrainian border, at the same time NATO countries have expanded their military activities in the Black Sea region and in Ukraine.  Tensions have clearly been rising. 

In 2021 Ukrainian President Zelensky made a decision to use armed drones in Donbas. Western military advisers, instructors, arms, and ammunition have poured into Ukraine.  Russians also suspect that a training center the United Kingdom is constructing in Ukraine is in fact a foreign military base. Putin is particularly adamant that deploying U.S. missiles in Ukraine that can reach Moscow in five to seven minutes cannot and will not be tolerated.   

At the end of 2021, Russia presented the U.S. with a list of demands.  These included a formal halt to NATO’s eastern enlargement, a freeze on further expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure, and end to Western military assistance to Ukraine and a ban on intermediate-range missiles in Europe.  Its message was clear that it sought to address the Ukraine conflict diplomatically, but if that was not possible that Russia would resort to military action.

A clear Russian redline is Ukraine’s accession to NATO or the placement of Western military bases and long-range weapons in its territory.  Putin has made it clear that he will not yield on this point.    His threat and now use of force comes from his frustration with a stalled diplomatic process and a legitimate concern about hostile forces at his country’s border.   

In a December 2021 article Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, wrote:

Putin’s actions suggest that his true goal is not to conquer Ukraine and absorb it into Russia but to change the post-Cold War setup in Europe’s east.  If he manages to keep NATO out of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and U.S. intermediate-range missiles out of Europe, he thinks he could repair part of the damage Russia’s security sustained after the Cold War ended.

We cannot simply look at NATO-Russia or US-Russian relations as good vs bad; to do so has put us in the position we are in now.  Historical evidence reveals that US leaders were so focused on enlarging NATO that they did not consider the perils of the way in which they were doing it.

The immediate problem – Biden

In his speech on 2/24, Biden began with the statement that “The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine, without provocation, without justification, without necessity.” 

Herein lies one key problem:  Biden refuses to hear or understand Russia’s concerns which actually provide Russia with reasonable justification for its current actions (even if in addition they provide an excuse for goals of expansion).  Biden’s position is simply that we are right, they are wrong.  He has attacked Russia’s expressions of their NATO concerns as unfounded lies.  The unwillingness to listen essentially leaves Russia with only one other course of action which they have now taken. 

But beyond his failure to listen, thus making invasion essentially a necessity as the only way for Russia to air its grievances, Biden has also almost goaded Putin into taking action.  For weeks Biden asserted an imminent invasion but refused to impose new sanctions against Russia or even re-impose those which he had suspended such as those against the Nordstream 2 pipeline.  At the same time, his actions limiting energy production in this country increased our dependence on Russian oil, hence giving Russia a strategic advantage. 

Biden assured us that sanctions would be imposed at the appropriate time in order to deter Russia from taking action against Ukraine.  Thursday, as he actually imposed some (though not the strongest available) sanctions, Biden essentially acknowledged the uselessness of such sanctions. 

In answering questions, Biden stated it would take a month or more to see if the sanctions were even working and ultimately stated that “No one expected sanctions to prevent anything.”  CBS News' Margaret Brennan pointed out the contradiction; Biden, his VP and members of his foreign policy team, and his press secretary have all been insisting for the past weeks that sanctions would work.  That Biden appeared to laugh when stating the sanctions were no deterrent was especially chilling.

Biden continues to tell us he knows what Putin is planning, but he is apparently helpless to stop anything.  As noted in my last post, a large part of this is the result of incompetent diplomacy from Biden’s team.  They would rather simply see Putin as the evil pinup for an evil Russia whom they have no interest in working with to find peaceful and reasonable solutions to concerns that each country might have.

But beyond that, I see Biden as totally clueless and incompetent.  I am not sure he has any understanding of what he has gotten us into; he certainly has no understanding of how to get us out of it.  He continues to send troops to the area while promising they will not engage.  It is clear he hates Putin and wants to destroy him, and I am not sure that he would hesitate even if he had to destroy everyone and everything in this country in the process.  I believe that for Biden it is all about himself and right now he is trying to show the world how great he is.  In my view he is not great at all, simply selfish and, with the nuclear codes in his pocket, extremely dangerous.

 

Biden and Ukraine

Today President Biden gave a speech on Ukraine.  He called Russia’s recognition of two separatist republics a part of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, despite the fact that both these republics had requested recognition from Russia. He declared sanctions and additional defensive moves and support for Ukraine, authorizing U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen Baltic allies.  He declared he wanted to send an “unmistakable” message, one which included the promise to defend NATO territory.  (We should note that Ukraine is not part of NATO, nor is it NATO territory).  He also declared this would result in yet higher gas prices.  The conference began over an hour late, lasted only about 10 minutes and the President took no questions.

The passage below is translated from Russian news source Известия.

Earlier in the day, Biden signed a decree imposing sanctions on Donbas after Russia recognized the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR). In addition to restrictions on investments in the regions, the American leader also banned the import of any technologies, services and goods from the Donbass republics into the United States. Also, persons who are involved in various activities in the DPR and LPR may be subject to sanctions, follows from the document.

In turn, in Donetsk , they reacted with sarcasm to the US statement on sanctions against the DPR. Vladislav Berdichevsky, a deputy of the People's Council of the Republic, joked that in this way the American president recognized the existence of the republic.

The second paragraph makes a logical point:  by sanctioning the new republics recognized by Russia but which we assert are still part of Ukraine, we are recognizing those areas as holding some form of independence.  This amusing irony reflects something far less amusing: that the President’s foreign policy is going blindly forward with what he wants but with no understanding of what he is doing or of the underlying history and people of the region.

While one view is certainly that Russia is setting up justifications for taking over Ukraine, the way to stop this is not just to accuse Russia but to understand not only what its goal may be, but why.  That requires some grasp of the Russian mind and Russian history.

Key Ukraine/Russia historical facts

Ukraine and Russia have a shared history for over 1,000 years.   Kiev, now the capitol of Ukraine, was the center of Kyivan Rus, the first Slavic state and the birthplace of both Ukraine and Russia.  Over the centuries, Ukraine was often fought over by competing powers.  After the communist revolution of 1917, Ukraine was, after a brutal battle, absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1922.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Ukraine became an independent nation; however, the country has not been united.  Eastern Ukraine came under Russian rule much earlier than western Ukraine.  Thus, people in the east have stronger ties to Russia and have been more likely to support Russia and Russian-leaning leaders.  “The sense of Ukrainian nationalism is not as deep in the east as it is in west,” says former ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer.

The transition to democracy and capitalism was painful and chaotic, and many Ukrainians, especially in the east, longed for the relative stability of earlier eras and a return to Russian rule.  According to Ukraine expert Adrian Karatnycky, the biggest divide in Ukraine is between “those who view the Russian imperial and Soviet rule more sympathetically versus those who see them as a tragedy."

During the 2004 Orange Revolution thousands of Ukrainians marched to support greater integration with Europe.  In 2005 Russian President Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet empire “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  It is no secret that he would like to regain control of Ukraine and that many Russians believe that Ukraine is rightfully a part of Russia.

Crimea fought for autonomy from Ukraine and ultimately declared its independence.  It was then invaded, occupied and annexed by Russia in 2014, followed shortly after by a separatist uprising in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas that resulted in the declaration of the Russian-backed People’s Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk.  These are the two republics recognized Monday by the Russian Federation and on which Biden has now imposed sanctions.

Donetsk, Lugansk Celebrate Russian Recognition

The inhabitants of the separatist regions and now republics celebrated in the streets following their recognition by Russia.  Their leaders have agreed to host Russian troops within their borders, thus enabling Russian forces to move closer to Ukraine.

Today, Ukrainian, the official language of Ukraine, is the native language of about two thirds of Ukraine's population. Russian is the native language of about one third of Ukraine's population.  The two languages are closely related.

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded shortly after WW2 to deter expansion of the then Soviet Union.  Since that time it has expanded eastward, bringing central and eastern European states into its ranks after the USSR collapsed.  Most recently there has been a push for Ukraine to be allowed to join NATO, a push to which Russia is firmly opposed at least in part because that would place NATO at Russia’s border.  NATO countries agree to support and protect one another and to support emerging democracies.

Because Ukraine is not currently a NATO member, NATO nations, including the U.S., have no obligation to protect or defend Ukraine. 

Facts & Narratives

Russia views the facts above one way, the US views them differently.   But what we must realize is that if we are going to successfully be involved in this situation, while we do not need to agree with the Russian interpretation, we must understand it. 

Russia interprets NATO and its push of eastward expansion as aggression and a threat to Russian sovereignty.  NATO, the West, and Biden assert they are simply supporting Ukraine as an emerging democracy.  Both interpretations are reasonable.

Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov asserts that they have a legitimate right to have their troops where they want on Russian territory or where they have been invited to be.  He analogizes to the US bases in numerous European and other countries and to NATO troops stationed in various regions.  Russia calls these a threat while the US and NATO see them as protective.   That the troops are stationed is fact, but the interpretation of the fact differs and results in different narratives being fed to each nation's people.  Ukraine, meanwhile, appears to accept Russian intimidation as a tolerable fact of life.

Diplomacy

Culture, geography, and history affect the way people think and approach life.  Russians think differently than Americans.

True diplomats have the ability to understand the views and thinking of those with whom they conduct diplomacy.  They must be able to assess the facts and distinguish those from different interpretations of those facts and also understand how those with different goals will use the same facts to support different ends.

While neither side will, nor should they, accept the other’s narrative, they need to be aware of it.  Diplomacy and peace, not unlike a chess game, require each side to understand the other’s thinking and how it differs from their own, so as to predict not only what they are likely to do but why – why it is important to them.  For the more important, the more aggressive they will be about achieving their goals.  The areas of less importance are where negotiation must begin.

Watching events in Ukraine unfold along with our government’s reactions it seems that this administration is either unwilling or unable to understand the Russian perspective.   I am not arguing that they should or must agree with that perspective, but it is imperative that they understand it.

According to Pavel Palazhchenko, the former interpreter to Gorbachev, the West has too long ignored Russia's security concerns, and hence failed to understand the mindset or the psychology of Russia.  "That does have an effect," he said. "We are all human beings. Russian leaders are human beings, and so when they, time and again, raise the NATO enlargement and the process relentlessly continues, it does cause resentment." 

He further stated “But the United States, for its part, having been caught flat-footed when Russia snatched Crimea in 2014, has made a strategic decision to try to call Russia out on transgressions before they happen. Time will tell if that has its intended effect or causes Russia to dig further in.”

Biden’s dangerous, erratic, and emotional policy

Biden told us today that he has known what Russia was planning to do every step of the way.  Yet, he has failed to do anything that has in any way stopped what he claims should have been stopped.  So now he imposes sanctions against the newly recognized republics.  Would anyone be surprised if Putin, evaluating Biden’s ongoing performance, would determine that he has nothing to fear from the U.S.?

It appears that Biden is going to dig us deeper into Ukraine.  Perhaps Biden’s hysteria about the Ukraine situation is, as I have previously suggested, part of a “wag the dog” strategy to divert attention from, and provide excuses for, the many disastrous crises, most of his own making, in this country.  Indeed, in his speech today he made it clear that gas prices would continue to rise due to the Ukraine situation (not mentioning that he has destroyed the U.S. energy independence that existed prior to his taking office and  that his own policies are responsible for our current record high inflation).

Perhaps Biden intends to get us into some sort of proxy war with Russia set in Ukraine (think Korean and Vietnam wars) believing that this will somehow prove his strength.  Biden does seem to think he has something to prove here.  MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell yesterday said that President Biden believes that he is going to emerge victorious from the facedown with Russian President Vladimir Putin and that he has "confidence" and "ego" in his foreign policy abilities, while adding that Biden feels "defensive" about criticism of his foreign policy performance.

That is not the context in which one wants to see foreign policy decisions being made, especially when they can potentially lead to serious loss to our own country.  It is not the sort of context that encourages listening and understanding.  It is a frightening place for our country to be. 

Biden’s hysteria for the past several weeks, daily telling us the Russian invasion is imminent, became quickly tiresome.  When the President of Ukraine repeatedly told Biden to stop the hysteria, that he is only making matters worse, one has to wonder why Biden kept it up.  He began looking like the kid on the playground goading the other to make a first move just so he could hit him.  Again, I point to “wag the dog” strategy.

Personally, I think that while we can lend advice, speak out against aggression, impose sanctions, even sell weaponry, we have no business as actual participants in the sense of boots on the ground in this conflict.  This is not a NATO obligation.  NATO may want Ukraine and Putin may be opposed to such NATO expansion, but Ukraine currently is not a part of NATO.   And ultimately this is Ukraine’s decision.

We have a crisis on our southern border.  Our Canadian neighbor to the north is, in dictator fashion, stomping out Canadian freedoms.  Rather than address the southern border or speak out against our northern neighbor’s threat to democracy (Canada is a NATO member and thus loss of their democracy and freedom is a legitimate NATO concern), Biden is choosing to involve us in a border dispute that is really better left to Ukraine, Russia, and their European neighbors. 

We have our own problems here, and it would be nice if our President would have the same level of hysterical concern about such things as our economy, crime, education, etc., as he does for Ukraine’s border.  But then, maybe he just wants a war.  Let’s just hope he doesn’t get us into WW3.

 

The Drum Beat of a Manufactured Crisis

Today’s news reports many screaming about the crisis of Trump and of our government and of our country.   Actually, this screaming, this drum beat, has been going on since 2016 when Mr. Trump was declared the winner of the presidential election.  It has simply now reached a fever pitch.

But, let’s consider what exactly that crisis is and why.  We are really, perhaps, reaching the culmination of the non-bloody coup that began when Mr. Trump became President Trump.    While we now know that at least in part that coup was well orchestrated by some – most notably a variety of FBI officials – I think that others just got carried along by the rhetoric that, combined with their disappointment in their candidate’s loss, took up the banner that proclaimed anything and everything associated with President Trump is a crisis for our country.    

As the drum beat increases it begins to sound like a real crisis.  But, is it?  Or are those disgruntled Trump-haters simply finding crisis everywhere they look, even when similar events in any other context would be overlooked if not accepted.  (See the treatment of Hillary’s campaign violations vs. Trump’s alleged violations; see Obama’s separation of immigrant families and deportation of illegals vs. the same actions by Trump; see Obama’s scrubbing of security clearances vs. the same actions by Trump; see Obama’s meetings with Russia and promises of “more flexibility” if reelected vs. the “horror” of Trump meeting with Putin;  see the overlooking or minor penalties for past tax evasions vs. the treatment of Paul Manafort for similar evasions long before he was associated with Trump;  see the overlooking of gaffes by Obama (there are 57 states, 10,000 died in Kansas tornado when actually only 12 died, proclaiming he was in St. Louis when actually in Kansas, referring to WW2 Nazi concentration camps as Polish, just to name a few) while pointing out every similar gaffe or typo of Donald Trump and treating it as proof of his incapacity;  see the tolerance if not encouragement of violent words and sometimes actions against Trump and his supporters while abhorring even the slightest negative appellation against anyone not affiliated with Trump.)

Of course, a big part of this manufactured crisis is the “investigation” into Russian collusion.  At the behest of those who were still reeling and recovering from the fact that their candidate lost, in May of 2017 Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate.  That’s the same Mueller who it has since been revealed had ties to the very same FBI agents whom have been shown to have biases against and perhaps have been actively working to remove President Trump. 

Mueller appointed a team made up almost entirely of individuals opposed to Donald Trump.  That is not surprising considering Mueller’s role.  He is an attorney – in this case acting as a prosecutor.  One must understand that attorneys are, in the end, simply hired guns.  That is, they represent a client regarding a particular case and their purpose is to end that case positively for their client.  Now, of course, attorneys can have good and noble aspirations.  They may believe in the cause.   They do a lot of good in the world.  But in the end, they are working for a client with the purpose of winning that client’s case.  And so, as a good attorney, Mr. Mueller will want to prove collusion or at least that Trump is somehow in the wrong – that is the case he is being paid to handle.  And, there is past, reported history of his behavior in other cases indicating that he will do almost anything – certainly push the ethical envelope – in order to win. 

So, we have an investigation that has cost us, the taxpayers, millions of dollars, but which has found no evidence of collusion.  But, in its underlying real interest of delegitimizing President Trump and removing him from office by any means necessary, the investigation goes on.  It uses gestapo techniques to harass people in any way associated with Trump, find some sort of possible crime committed long before Trump was even a candidate and in most instances unrelated to Trump, and then use that as threatening leverage to get the target to plead to a crime and then let the media run with how this somehow implicates Trump and is another reason to impeach him.  The drum beat gets louder and louder as the team tries to get more and more people to turn or appear to turn on Trump.

People may wonder why Mueller ignores some possible crimes that his investigation reveals while only going after anything that might result in delegitimizing President Trump.  The answer is:  that is his job.  And sadly, it results in unequal justice (see for example, Kimberly Strassel, When Justice is Partial, https://outline.com/cSBkN8).  Mr. Mueller is a cog, albeit an important one, in the attempted coup that has been taking place against President Trump since his inauguration.  He is important because, like any prosecutor, he can not only “turn” witnesses, but he can get them to “compose” – that is, when a witness is threatened and “squeezed” he may reveal factual information that may help the prosecution, but he may also create or “compose” information that will both help the prosecutor and help the witness to avoid threatened punishment.

Let’s face it. The worst that Mueller has yet come up with is that Trump may have been involved in a payment to a stripper that he allegedly had an affair with long before he was ever a candidate.  There was an agreement that in exchange for money the stripper would not go to the press with her story.  She breached that legal contract.  And, apparently such “hush money” payments are quite common (and not illegal) among the rich and famous as well as in the world of tabloid news.  Certainly, this is not pretty, but it is not Russian collusion, it is not evidence of a “crisis” of government.  If true, it is evidence that Mr. Trump has some possibly disgusting incidents in his past.  But, then, don’t we all?  And, if the payment were even in part made to not hurt Trump’s chances in the election, it is doubtful if it was a campaign finance violation and certainly does not rise to the level of the payments by the Hillary campaign to Fusion GPS to directly affect the election with unproven allegations against Trump (You will recall that is the same Fusion GPS whose dossier was used by the anti-Trump actors within the FBI to get FISA warrents that allowed them to surveil Trump and his campaign officials.)

Yet, the drum beat just gets louder and louder.  It silences any objective and thoughtful questioning.  Crisis, what crisis?  Oh, if they keep screaming it so loudly it simply must be true.  The sky is falling, the sky is falling.  The crisis is here, the crisis is here. 

No, the crisis is not here.  Or if it is, it is that there is a silent coup going on right before our eyes.  And its method is to use any and everything to make us believe that we are in a crisis that will only be remedied by the removal of President Trump.  And yet, if we let that coup succeed, then consider what sort of precedent that sets.  Whenever enough people do not like a president they can simply manufacture a crisis to remove him. 

Our democratic form of government is by election, not coup, and not by the constant drum beat of manufactured crisis.  Don’t be caught up in the drug of the drum; instead, see the crisis for what it is – a scream of pain from those who have lost their power and influence in a legitimate and democratic election.   Close your ears to the drum and listen instead to the objective reason of your mind.

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?