Losing Your Voice: The Why and How of a Power Grab

There seems to currently be an all-out war on diverse voices.  The sort of silencing that we are seeing these days makes us think of totalitarian regimes that we read about in history class, the Bolsheviks, Lenin, Stalin, etc.  I’d like to think I’m exaggerating, but friends of mine who grew up in Communist or other totalitarian regimes as well as others with firsthand knowledge of that sort of partisan political silencing now indicate they are seeing that sort of silencing here in America.  Former presidential candidate and Democrat Tulsi Gabbard has referred to what we are witnessing as not unlike a police state.

Why the attack on diverse voices?  The answer is fairly simple: When you want yourself or your party to be in control not just of your designated duties, but of society itself; when you think so less of the common man’s abilities to make the “right” decisions, when you want to create your own utopia.  When those are your goals, in order to achieve them you must silence all voices that do not parrot your own.

The “How” of this power grab in America today is multifaceted.  It includes a number of power structures all of which are complicit in a Leftest campaign for what they call “unity” but which really is designed to silence all opposition to their plans. Following are some of the tactics currently in use.

               Combine Forces with Big Tech

Big Tech’s biases sync with those of the Left.  And, Big Tech has the power to silence the voices of those holding different views. 

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard in discussing the Left’s silencing that undermines our civil liberties, noted that "Big Tech is culpable in that they are using their monopolistic power to pick and choose whose voices are heard and whose voices are squelched, whether it’s based on who they agree with, disagree with, political affiliation, who you voted for."

I am aware of the old saw that Big Tech can do as it pleases because it is a private company, not the government and therefore has no responsibility to First Amendment rights.  That view is mistaken both ethically and legally.

In today’s world, social media is our version of the old public square where everyone could speak their views.  That makes these social media sites and their Big Tech controllers uniquely important.  In Packingham v. NC, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites, where minors were known to be active and have accounts, regardless of whether the sex offender directly interacted with a minor, violated the First Amendment.  The Court stated, “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”

While the facts of that case were different from the facts of today’s censorship and silencing by Twitter, Facebook, Amazon’s server (Parlor and Parler App), and others, that case tells us that because the internet is today’s public square, there must be some protection of First Amendment rights within that square if those rights are to mean anything at all. 

               Combine Forces with News and Entertainment

When the Press silences only voices of one political viewpoint or when it presents stories in a way that assists and promotes one viewpoint, the silencing becomes a form of propaganda. 

The mainstream media has biases that, like those of Big Tech, sync with the views of the Left.  Hence, they use omission, distortion, presentation of opinion as fact, suppression of unfavorable stories (e.g., Hunter Biden and his laptop) and airtime to persuade people to adopt the Left viewpoint on most issues.

By now I think it is common knowledge that the mainstream media’s reports about Trump and his actions were over 90% unfavorable.  It is also clear that their approach toward Biden is to present everything favorably or if that is not possible to simply not report it.  As Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it, “The press does not feel responsibility for its judgments.  It makes judgments and attaches labels with the greatest of ease.  Mediocre journalists simply make headlines of their conclusions, which suddenly become generally accepted.” (See his book “Warning to the West”)

Our democracy requires informed citizenry and we in large part depend on the media for that information.  If they are not presenting it or are presenting it in a way that conforms only to one voice, then they are essentially silencing all our voices, because without having full facts and information, it is impossible to even formulate differing views.

While the news media may have become a dystopian form of entertainment, the Entertainment Industry itself, again with biases similar to the Left, has made it its mission to use its programming to bend the views of the American people to those of the Left.   A recent article in the Hollywood Reporter indicated that Hollywood needs to “double down” on pushing the Left agenda.  We will be presented with “entertainment” that reinforces what is good/acceptable and what is not.

               Combine Forces with Corporations and Academia

Again, these institutions tend to also have biases that sync with the views of the Left.  Their role seems to be to limit opportunity for those who hold diverse and opposing views.  We regularly see these institutions blackball individuals who do not share the “correct” views while at the same time making public statements in support of trending Leftist causes and those who advocate for them.

Just this week Sephora cut ties with one of their beauty “vloggers” because she had stated she supported then-President Trump and also expressed her Christian views.  The company was made aware of this via a form of “report on your neighbor” conducted by some Twitter users who accused the vlogger of being racist.  Sephora in response to these unproven allegations said the vlogger’s beliefs are “not aligned” with the company’s “values around inclusivity.”  Apparently lack of inclusivity of conservative views is OK with Sephora.

This is not a unique incident.  Over and over, we hear of individuals, including teachers, scientists, athletes, and respected community members being fired for holding conservative views or making statements that are not in line with the Left’s narrative.  A United States soccer star received backlash for standing during the United States’ National Anthem.  It seems that every entity aligned with the Left that has the power to do so is encouraging its own hiring officers as well as those of others not to hire anyone aligned with Trump or conservatives. 

When Trump Administration employees leaving government service were told by the Biden Administration that they would not be able to receive the rest of their maternity leave which they were already in the course of, their main concern was that they would not be able to find immediate employment not because of having a new child at home but because former Trump officials face an uphill climb finding a job in a Washington D.C.  Reported in Politico on Feb 2, the article notes that employees declined to go on the record for fear that it would affect [their] prospects of landing a job with a salary sufficient to support a family.

Blackballing those who speak diverse views is a form of silencing because it places a person in the untenable position of having to choose between speaking their views or being able to feed themself.  

Academia is not immune from this sort of behavior.  Just this week I received information about the Kansas Board of Regents passing a suspension of tenure and its protections through 2022.  While the justification is potential financial problems due to CoVid, the reality is that under this plan administrators could layoff faculty without any procedural safeguards, without the right to discovery, and with no procedure for reinstating faculty once the financial exigency has passed.  Thus, this makes it possible for a tenured member of the faculty to be fired for any reason, including unpopular views, as long as she is told that it is due to financial exigency.

               Taking Political Action

The current administration is right on board with the Left and its silencing.  It supports the impeachment of a political rival.  It supports calls to censure or remove Congress persons who spoke up or made objections to the Left’s position about the election’s irregularities.  Via executive order that effectively silences the voices of the people, the President is cancelling all actions of his predecessor without reflection about their benefit or detriment to the country. Some of these orders include enforcement and punishment provisions for not complying.  And the people’s Capitol is filled with military protecting not the people but those within the seats of power (while at the same time no military is sent to cities actually under violent assault from Left and anarchist organizations).

The first bills in a new Congress reflect the priorities of that administration.  In this administration we see bills that would further silence views that do not “unite” with those of the Left.  HR-1 and its counterpart S-1, eliminates any restrictions on vote-by-mail, a form of voting that is noted for its likelihood of misuse and hence dilution of legitimate voters’ voices. 

But more importantly, HR-1 allows federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech.  If desired, all speech that just mentions a candidate could be illegal for up to 4 months prior to an election; all that is required is that the speech “promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes” a candidate.   The regulators would be a Commission whose chairman would be appointed by the President and have a tie-breaking (and hence partisan) vote.  The bill also requires groups to disclose personal information of supporters, sometimes to the public at large.

While presented as a “voter protection” act, If HR-1 were to become law it would certainly intimidate if not silence those who hold viewpoints in opposition to those in power.  It would silence any form of honest debate about candidates or issues and their possible solutions.  Notably, the ACLU opposes this bill.

               Keeping the People in Fear of Speaking Out

In addition to silencing diverse views, the above activities all also serve to intimidate by creating a fear in others not yet silenced so that they too will not speak out.  This is not unlike a hate crime in which a member of a particular group is injured less to harm that particular individual and more to warn the entire group not to cause trouble – to stay silent.

This is the goal of Biden’s unity:  Unite in silence.  Silence all diverse views and from the outside it will look like we are all united.  The above methods (as well as others) all work to this end.  Do not present diverse views on social media or you may be censored or your account deleted; do not expect to get information from news, yet without information you may not be able to form cogent views and thus will not speak out; prepare to be bombarded with proper viewpoints in entertainment so that you will begin to internalize and speak those views; do not speak diverse views for fear of losing and/or not finding employment; you must follow executive orders (fiats of the executive) or fear punishment for not acting in accordance with this executive power grab; forget speaking through your vote which the Left is working to dilute.  But if you unite with the “correct” view, the party view, you will be just fine.

               And What Will You Do?

People like Poland’s Deputy Justice minister have seen this silencing before.  He recently called on the U.S. to protect every citizen from the “cancel culture” which “has more in common with the methods of Soviet Russia than modern democracies.”  Russian dissident Alexei Navalny said something similar before he was arrested and sentenced to more than two years in a Russian penal colony.  Professor Michael Rachkosvsky who grew up in the former USSR, came to this country in 1993, and now teaches at Quinnipiac University, reminds us that socialist ideologues need to eliminate opposition and control media, art, and literature.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn was seemingly prescient not only in the underlying themes of his novels condemning the ideological lie, but especially in his “Warnings to the West” originally published in 1975.

These and others who have a personal experience with silencing are warning us.  If you cannot speak, cannot vote, and must conform, then you have no voice and you are not free. 

You are being watched by the many arms of the power hungry who will silence you if you do not behave and “unite” with the Left.  You are being watched, but who will watch the watchers?  And is watching just enough?  Are you willing to sit back and watch your freedoms dissolve, perhaps because as of yet you have not been affected? 

My hope is that this taking of our freedom is being done so quickly, so openly and obviously, and so broadly that everyone will notice, that no one will be complacent about it, and that no one will simply sit back and watch.  This is a watershed moment.  Complacency gives those who seek unbridled power exactly what they want.  Indeed, complacency, which is the voice of complicity, may remove your last chance to speak up and your voice may be lost forever.

The First Nine Days

It’s been barely over a week since Biden took office and he has already signed over 40 executive orders and actions. It is stunning how quickly America is being dismantled.   

                Gutting America’s Core

President Biden begins by forgetting that we have three branches of government: the Presidency is not a dictatorship.  But, when one rules by executive order, bypassing the other branches and hence the representatives and voice of the people, what can one call it but a dictatorship?

Now, to be fair, House Speaker Pelosi applauds this dictatorial bypassing of the legislature; she supports Biden’s “transformative executive actions.”  Those words should place fear in all of us as we ask “to what are these executive actions intent on transforming?”

The President is also supporting assault on the judicial branch and its independence.  He has appointed a “commission” to study the possibility of reforming the courts beginning with packing the Supreme Court so as to make it nothing more than a political arm of his party.

President Biden’s refusal to address the ongoing and escalating censorship of opposing or unapproved ideas is another assault on one of our most cherished freedoms:  the freedom to speak and believe unpopular views.  Biden’s Department of Justice has even begun prosecuting people for memes used during the 2016 election. 

               Where is the Transparency and Accountability?

Biden, along with his press secretary, seems to be adept at avoiding answering any controversial questions.  Of course, such avoidance is easier when you have a friendly press that will not push for answers to difficult questions or even avoid those that have the potential of putting Biden in a bad light.

Biden has failed to speak about the continuing violent protests (riots) on the West Coast.  He has failed to speak out on the GameStop affair, including saying nothing about his Treasury Secretary being paid by a fund linked to the scandal.   The administration simply says they are “monitoring” the situation.

However, as part of this Administration’s “transparency initiative,” Press Secretary Psaki did inform us that the President’s favorite snack is ice cream, and his favorite flavor is chocolate chip.  Ahh, such important news they deign to share with us common people.

Military State

We have troops quartered in our nation’s capital.  Our symbols of freedom are surrounded with razor wire to keep the people out.  

Bringing the National Guard to DC for Jan. 6 and its immediate aftermath may have made sense, but now the Biden Administration has extended their presence there for months.  The excuse is the possibility of threats to Congress, but they point to no such viable threats.  Instead, this looks like the fortification that one used to see only in countries ruled by dictators paranoid about losing their power.

In a similar vein, again looking like those paranoid leaders of totalitarian regimes, President Biden fully backs not only the impeachment of the former President, but also purging any and all who are not fully on board with the Left agenda.  People like the head of Voice of America or the National Security Agency general counsel who had previously been vetted through a bipartisan process.

Not only is there a purge of former officials.  The “purge” goes forward toward any and all who might raise a dissident voice.  Former Democratic Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard put it this way (in response to a statement by John Brennon):

Brennan says: “Members of the Biden team who have been nominated or appointed are now moving in laser-like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements they’ve seen overseas where they germinate in different parts of the country and gain strength and bring together an unholy alliance, frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascist bigots, racist, nativist, and even libertarians.” This is the extent that they are going to try to undermine the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to every one of us, and it is incredibly dangerous.

A good example of where this sort of purging leads is playing out in Russia right now with the imprisonment of opposition leader Navalny and his supporters.  Indeed, the attitude of this administration smells of the fear of opposition that one usually sees in a totalitarian leadership obsessed only with retaining its own power.

               The Policies Belie Unity and Healing

Unless you are blind, stupid, or ignorant, it has become fairly clear that Biden’s “unity” is nothing more than a move to force all to march in lock step to this administration and party’s approved beliefs.  That is not a democratic unity but a unity of oppression.

The Left’s preferred method of achieving this uniformity seems to be via identity politics.  Biden’s policies and executive actions thus far seem to signal that he will use his polices to maintain if not accelerate the identity wars against social enemies.  Why else, by fiat alone would Biden using executive orders essentially not only reverse policies on immigration and climate, but things like abortion, LGBT and Transgender issues, including creating athletic policies that are unfair and biased against women, reinstating the debunked and biased Critical Race Theory indoctrination while cancelling the 1776 project, and other hot button social issues.  

These are issues that require dialog, objective input, and understanding.  Instead, President Biden is stoking the fires of identity hatred in hopes of furthering a Leftist agenda.

Not a Moderate

Biden told us he was a moderate when he ran for President.  If that is so, that he underwent a major transformation once he took the oath of office.  His environmental actions, while doing nothing to actually help the environment, are costing tens of thousands of jobs and costing states millions in lost revenue.  His sudden embrace of increasing the minimum wage can and likely will be devastating to already struggling small businesses. 

 And, like the rest of the Leftists, Biden seems to loathe America and all she stands for.  Without discussion he accepts and promotes the view that America is built upon and still is plagued by “systemic racism.” He called the 1776 report “offensive” and “counter-factual”; apparently he disagrees with statements therein such as “The bedrock upon which the American political system is built is the rule of law. The vast difference between tyranny and the rule of law is a central theme of political thinkers back to classical antiquity.” 

President Biden stated that America has never lived up to her promise, yet, despite the fact that America has had and probably always will have its flaws, “America’s history has always been a relationship between those principles and a nation trying, aspiring to uphold those principles.”  The abolitionist movement began here.

As stated in the preamble to the Constitution, our mission is “to form a more perfect Union.”  Perfection may not be achievable in this world, but there is nothing wrong with continuing to aspire toward it.  And our Constitution and our core democratic principles are our roadmap for that quest.

We have always been the shining light of freedom and democracy.  Yet, if these first nine days are any indication, that is about to change because what we are seeing are the first steps in a march toward dictatorship.

An Impeachment of Arrogance and Cover

The article of impeachment will be delivered to the Senate Monday.  Sen. Schumer states the impeachment trial will begin the week of Feb. 8 – just in time to distract the country from the hellish effects of Biden’s executive orders and other actions that will start being felt by everyday Americans around then (e.g. pausing the lowered prescription drug pricing put into effect by President Trump;  or the tens of thousands of American jobs lost by canceling Keystone and resulting from many of his other early day actions;  or releasing all illegally present immigrants into our populace, whether or not charged with crimes, and untested during a pandemic while requiring Americans to follow even more restrictive guidelines). 

But, aside from its service as cover (assuming the mainstream media would even report any negative effects of Biden acts), the impeachment itself is a ridiculous and divisive act that can do nothing but damage this country. 

First, the Constitution (Art. II, section 4) provides the following regarding Impeachment:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

Note that the punishment for an impeachment conviction is removal from office.  The fact that President Trump is no longer in office, having been removed by the vote of the people, makes the entire impeachment process moot.

But wait, many Democrats now state that the whole reason for this impeachment is to prevent Donald Trump from ever running for or holding office again.  I understand that many who have spent the last 4 years hating Donald Trump think that is a good idea.  But keep thinking.  In this country we are not told by the state or others in power whom we can vote for.  In America, the people make that decision.  As suggested by Marco Rubio, for those in political power to think they have the right to make that decision for us is the epitome of arrogance.

The other alleged justification for impeachment is “to hold the President accountable.”  This sham excuse has more holes than Swiss cheese.  First, as noted above, the “accountability” of impeachment is removal from office.  That is done.  If it is the alleged “incitement” for which accountability is sought, there are other legal avenues that are far better suited (as opposed to this political revenge of impeachment).  The actual rioters are being arrested, charged, and will face legal accountability for their crimes if proven.  If Donald Trump performed some illegal act, he too can be held legally accountable (and don’t assume that the Democrats won’t try every legal avenue to do so).

Of course, there is the ridiculous nature of the accusation itself.  As explained more thoroughly in an earlier post (HERE), Trump’s actions and words on January 6 come nowhere close to inciteful or violent language as defined by our laws; they instead demonstrate nothing more that a man exercising (however unwisely) a First Amendment right to free speech to which everyone, even the President of the United States, is entitled.

This also sets a horrible example and precedent for our nation.  This becomes a way to essentially overturn the results of future elections by allowing politicians, not the people, to determine who will and who will not be allowed to run for office.  This becomes too close to other forms of government, especially dictatorships, where predecessors are routinely attacked or otherwise punished for holding views contrary to the current power regime.  We should note that such punishments in one party regimes include imprisonment and death, things that many on the Left have actually and often called for against Donald Trump.

Think where this could lead.  Rand Paul asked if we would now impeach Bernie Sanders for using the “inciteful language” that prompted his supporter to shoot and almost kill Republican Congressman Steve Scalise.  There are many other “inciteful” speeches we could turn to given by Democrats prior to the assaults on our police officers, police and other government building during the many Leftist protests over the past year.  Should we impeach all of them?   What about our US Embassy in Russia that yesterday was tweeting and otherwise publicizing where and when to meet in a number of cities for protests and marches in support of  Russian opposition leader Alexi Navalny?  Were these inciteful attempts to incite insurrection against the current Russian leader and government?  And if so, what does that mean for our foreign relationships?

Beyond its objective ridiculosity and its long term potential to deeply wound our Constitution and our Republic, this impeachment will deepen the current divisions in our country that our President has claimed he will heal.  But, then, we are regularly learning that while we may have seen his call for “unity” to mean some sort of unification that included tolerance of diverse views, what it really means is a uniformity of thought that banishes any and all who speak in opposition to the current Administration’s approved views. 

This impeachment is an act of revenge and fear of the sort one expects to see in totalitarian regimes, but not in America.  The Democrats and the Left have hated Trump for 4 years and have attacked him 24/7 during that time.  This is one of their final opportunities for revenge, and they do not intend to let it go to waste.

It reveals the fear that complements the Left and Democrats’ lust for total (and totalitarian) power.  They fear the will of the people.  They fear one man because he was elected by the people and because he spoke out in everyday language about what he saw.  He was not one of their kind – the two-faced, back-stabbing politicians who use the people to gain power, but care nothing for those they use. 

Donald Trump spoke for the people, and half the country voted for him.  And that makes the Left afraid.  Because if the people are not subdued into complacency, they are a threat to a power structure that is not really for the people.  And the Democrats fear Donald Trump because he might keep the people awake.

This impeachment is really about arrogance and cover.  The arrogance of the Left that they can ignore our Republic, its Constitution, and its people, in order to silence what or whomever they see as a possible threat to their power.  And cover, because its timing will serve as a perfect distraction to the havoc that the Biden policies will be almost immediately effecting upon us. 

And So It Continues – (in circles?)

It was exactly 4 years ago tomorrow that I began this blog.  Donald Trump had just been inaugurated and the Democrats and the Left were exceedingly angry.  The ability to have civil conversations was already falling apart and this seemed a good place to present my viewpoint without the childish games of Facebook and other social media.  (see my first post HERE)  

So, today I want to look both back and forward. 

As part of my introductory post 4 years ago, I wrote:

I am not an ideologue.  I do not belong to any political party and am happy to vote for Democrats, Republicans, or others depending on whom I believe will be best for the country as a whole.  My political leanings probably identify most with what were once called the “blue-collar lunch bucket Democrats” – a group that really doesn’t exist anymore.  In the 60s I was a self-styled “hippie” and antiwar protester.  I put myself through college and law school and practiced law before becoming a professor.  I have always been deeply committed to the Constitution and to the equal treatment of all along with the concept of individual responsibility and a “no excuses” approach to life.  I have always believed in America.  I have voted in every election since I became eligible, and as to presidential elections, I have voted for slightly more Democrats than Republicans.  In 2016 I voted for Donald Trump.  I do not think he is a perfect person, nor do I agree with all his policies, but I do believe that he was not only the best candidate but indeed a good candidate who believes in America and its promise.  I also believe that now that he is president, if we will allow him to govern and put our interests in what is best for the country as a whole, that we really will see a better and stronger America.  I hope to explain my reasons behind these statements in upcoming posts.

               Looking Back

What I said 4 years ago holds true today.  Yet in that 4 years the country has been through a lot.  The liberal Democrat party has become extreme progressive Left.  The Democrats never were able to accept Donald Trump as president and instead tried to block his every action whether good for the country or not.  Unable to get over their anger they allowed it to evolve into an intense, vitriolic, and irrational hatred for not only Donald Trump, but anyone connected with him including those who simply voted for him. 

Meanwhile, despite being under attack 24/7 by not only the Left but its handmaiden the media as well, President Trump indeed accomplished a lot for America.  Some of his accomplishments furthered policies that the Democrats opposed, but others did for America what Democrats themselves had been promising for years but unable to deliver. 

Most important to me was that he tried to counter the identity politics that for the previous at least 8 years had been used by the Left to tear this country apart.  Instead of identifying Americans as members of this or that victim or oppressor group, he simply furthered policies that treated all Americans the same – in the spirit of our Constitutional belief and aspiration that we all are equal.  And, despite some programs being identity blind, those whom the Democrats regularly identify as victim groups actually benefited the most – take for example jobs and the economy and the effect it had on the Black community, or Trump’s prison and criminal justice reforms.

The implementation of many of the Trump policies led Americans to once again have hope and a belief in the promise of this country.  For years prior to his election we had been led to believe that America was not a good country and it was our duty to feel guilty and apologize, both to those within our country who had been convinced they were victims with no hope as well as to the rest of the world.  President Trump put his and our country first and allowed Americans to be proud of who and what they are.

               Yet the Hatred – when and how did it begin?

Yet, along with the many positives that were accomplished by the Trump administration (but seldom reported by media), the anger level of the country reached the red zone.  This anger is expressing itself daily as pure hatred.  Many assert that it is traceable to the election of Donald Trump.  I disagree.

I saw hate grow for at least the 8 years prior to Trump’s presidency.  During that time we had a president and a progressive party who played group against group in an attempt to further their own power agenda. 

To grasp at an understanding of “why?” we must go back far more than 4 years, probably to the founding of this country or before.  Books could be (and have been) written.  There are many events and examples that have contributed to various degrees of anger and its cohorts fear and hatred. 

Let’s consider slavery as an example.  When the world came to realize that slavery was wrong, it ended it in a variety of ways.  In America, with no class or caste system, it was actually possible for former slaves and their descendants to rise to positions of wealth and power; some did.

But not all with a history of slavery did well.  There remained discrimination which came to a head in the 50s and early 60s.  While some Blacks had found a way to be successful before Civil Rights, the legislation of the 60s gave hope to all that they would truly have a better life.  And most were motivated to do the work necessary to personally succeed as they chose.

But, enter a series of programs, sparked at least in part by a desire to help but also, I believe, by a more sinister and racist belief that Blacks were/are not capable of succeeding on their own.  This, of course, completely contradicts the American belief/ideal that all humans are equal.   Nonetheless, a series of social programs, mostly created by the Left, created a dependent underclass of dissatisfied Americans.

Never ones to let discontent go to waste, the Left reminded those dissatisfied of their victim class.  We saw identity groups develop into battling warriors of us versus them.  The victims vs. the victimizers.  Blacks vs. Whites; Poor vs. Rich; Women vs. Men; Gay vs. Straight.  Intersectionality developed, giving us a framework for understanding how aspects of a person's social and political identities combine to create different modes of discrimination and privilege.  It became all about that – discriminated victim or privileged oppressor – rather than about the individual and that individual’s substantive character.  Individual substance has no place in a world governed by identity politics.

The anger of the oppressed was cultivated.  Those assigned the oppressor status felt unjustly accused and began to hate back.  And that is where we were when Donald Trump became President Trump.  And, despite his hope to see all of America thrive as one, he was thwarted repeatedly by the Left who ramped up their fomentation of hate among their malicious identity group creations. 

As President Trump’s 4 years progressed, the Left seemed completely unable to see people as people; rather, they were simply representatives of a particular identity group.  Conservatives and whites were deemed evil and essentially inhuman, thus not only justifying, but necessitating hatred and violence toward them.  Meanwhile, every member of designated victim identity groups was to be honored and always believed: almost superhumans capable of no wrong.

               The Election and January 6

The election had irregularities.  Many believe there was widespread fraud.  This came to a head on Jan. 6, the date the votes of the Electors were counted.  As was their right, some Congress people planned to object to those votes.  As was their right many Americans gathered near the Capitol to protest the counting and to support the objections.  As was his right, the President spoke to his supporters.  And as often happens when there are actions and protests that are highly charged, a small percentage of those present turned violent; those few misguided individuals illegally stormed the Capital.

What is now called the “insurrection” by the media and Democrats has given the Left an excuse to continue to promulgate their hatred against not only President Trump but anyone who does not fall into lockstep with the Left’s positions.  We now see calls to “cleanse” the Republican Party, blacklisting of Trump supporters, silencing and cancelling of all opposing views, and a general litany of threats toward anyone who is not on board with Leftist policies, all under the guise of “healing.”

It also gave us a militarized capital that looked more like what one sees when a dictator (always in fear of being unseated) takes over.  These were troops that the Democrats demanded be vetted as not anti-Biden before they could take their posts.  This look of a police state is something that America should never become desensitized to.

               Looking ahead to the Biden presidency (or is it looking back?)

So here we are.  We have just experienced the inauguration of a new president.  What are my thoughts now?

I fear that we are actually circling back to the era immediately preceding President Trump.  We see already President Biden’s litany of signing executive orders to cancel former President Trump’s accomplishments. 

We see a clear return, actually mandate, of identity politics as Biden proudly proclaims not the qualifications of his various appointees but their superficial identity instead: “We'll have a Cabinet of barrier breakers, a Cabinet of firsts” he said.   And so we will have the first woman of color VP, first transgender person as Assistant Secretary of Health, first Native American Secretary of Interior, first openly gay Secretary of Transportation, First Black Defense Secretary, first Latino to head Department of Homeland Security, first woman of color to head Office of Management and Budget, first woman Director of National Intelligence.  The list goes on and on.  (Those appointments that are not “firsts” seem to be mostly retreads from the Obama years.)

I have nothing against people of diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, and beliefs holding these positions; in fact, such diversity is generally a good thing.  But what I object to is the bias inherent in picking individuals specifically for those qualities.  Such bias by necessity excludes a number of qualified individuals from even being considered.  It is racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory.  That is not American where a core principle is equal opportunity for all, not just for members of specific identity groups.

This dividing of Americans into groups also counters President Biden’s words calling for “unity.”  Group identity does nothing but divide us.   It is becoming more and more clear that the “unity” that the President and his party are calling for is simply a silencing of all opposing views.  Without any dissent we may have the illusion of peace and unity, but we will have lost America. 

A unity born of silencing also requires elevating narrative over truth.  We saw during the campaign that candidate Biden had no qualms about repeating by then disproven allegations against President Trump.  We see the same disregard for the truth in the first presentation of President Biden’s press secretary.  Jen Psaki vowed to “combat misinformation” while during the same press conference proclaiming that Biden had issued an executive order ending Trump’s “Muslim ban.”  That misnomer was proven false at the time the ban was issued and again last year when Biden used it on the campaign trail.   (What Democrats call a “Muslim ban” was an executive order issued on January 27, 2017, that barred tourism and immigration from seven countries previously identified by the Obama-Biden administration as being particularly vulnerable to terrorism, partly because their internal record-keeping was substandard. These seven nations happened to be Muslim-majority countries, but there was no blanket ban on Muslims from other Middle Eastern countries or the two largest Muslim countries, India and Indonesia.)

The Press Secretary also made it clear that hypocrisy is alive and well in the Biden administration.  She informed us that it was perfectly OK that President Biden violated his own mask mandate because he has “bigger issues to worry about.”  Apparently, the American people are not one of those issues.

So, without a respect for facts, without a respect for all Americans or a belief in the equality of all, without a true respect for America and its citizens, I am concerned when I look at what the next 4 years may bring.  In many respects it is not forward, but a circling back to the often anti-American policies of the Obama years. 

The Biden Administration will not give us the utopia that many dreamed.  I believe that it will, however, give me much to write about as this blog continues.

 

Impeachment or Vengeance?

Monday Nancy Pelosi intends to introduce articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.  Most Democrats support this move.  Republicans are somewhat split.

But does this move make sense?  Is it in keeping with Biden’s claim of being a unifier?  To answer that question one must go beyond the emotional hysteria and look at law and facts (though that emotional hysteria will come into the answer as well). (As to more on Biden’s unity, see my post from Jan. 9 HERE)

Most well-respected constitutional scholars who are asked will tell you that President Trump’s actions on January 6 do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.  See for example Jonathan Turley HERE  or Alan Dershowitz HERE 

The standard for violent speech is found in Brandenburg v. Ohio; it allows the government to criminalize speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Trump, in his typically bombastic fashion, never actually called for violence or riots. What he did is to urge his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the challenges being made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”  He ended his remarks by saying a protest at the Capitol was meant to provide Republicans “the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” He told the crowd, “Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

We should note that such sorts of marches and demonstrations frequently occur in DC when there is important legislative or legal business or decisions occurring.  There are often marches and demonstrations outside the Supreme Court when the Court is hearing a particularly important or divisive case.  Similar words are always heard during the speeches that precede such marches and demonstrations.

Dershowitz stated that while he personally disapproves of what Trump said in his Wednesday address, "it comes within core political speech, and to impeach a president for exercising his First Amendment rights would be so dangerous to the Constitution." 

Turley states, “There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent, as the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests in the last four years, criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol Police knew of the march but declined an offer from the National Guard since they did not view violence as likely.”

Both Turley and Dershowitz believe that this impeachment would set dangerous precedents for the future.  "It would lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by either party against the other party, and that’s not what impeachment or the 25th Amendment were intended to be."(Dershowitz).

Turley wrote:

“The damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous, however, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very threat that the framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process of deliberative judgment, the reference to a snap impeachment is a contradiction. In this new system, guilt is not doubted and innocence is not deliberated. This would do to the Constitution what the violent rioters did to the Capitol and leave it in tatters.”

So, given this solid logic from these and other legal scholars, why then impeach?

I think it is nothing more than the culmination of the irrational hatred toward Donald Trump that we have seen for the last 4 years.  The Democrats for whatever reason have loathed Trump from the moment he became the 2016 candidate.  They have done everything in their power to remove him from office.  They have tried to block his policies.  They have kept their base riled up with animosity toward not only the President but his supporters as well. 

They do not want justice; they are not doing this for the country.  What the Democrats want is to destroy the President, to see him suffer.  I believe many would guillotine him in the public square if they could. 

Here is a thought from one of the few  Democrats in Congress able to be rational about this issue.  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) says she will introduce a bill to censure Trump.  A censure is a formal reprimand or statement of disapproval.  She states, "A censure resolution is the only way to send a bipartisan, bicameral message without delay to the country and the world that the United States is a nation of laws."

This makes sense.  While the President’s words were not criminal and do not support impeachment, while they were not violent or inciteful, many believe it would have been a wiser move if he had not given that speech.  So give him what is essentially a reprimand for doing so; that should satisfy anyone whose motive is justice and not retribution or revenge. 

The introduction of this bill for censure is a first step toward the unity that everyone claims they want for the country.  Voting for it instead of impeachment would go a far longer way toward that unity.  It would show us that rational minds prevail.

But the problem is it will not satisfy the irrational hatred that spews forth daily from most of the Left.  They want their pound of flesh (for what I am still not clear).  But we shall see.  Tomorrow will tell us what this is really about – justness or vengeance.   It will also show us how serious the Left is in their calls for peace, healing, and unity.

Now we know what UNITY means

Joe Biden wowed at least some Americans with his calls for and promises of unity.  Unity is a nice word; something we can all applaud, right?

The problem here, like with many of the Democrat promises (think “hope and change”), is that it can mean different things to many people, and because it has not been further defined by the promisor, everyone simply assumes they know what it means.  But, as we learned, or should have learned, long ago, “to assume makes an ass out of you and me.”  More importantly, as anyone with even a slight familiarity with logic knows, building an argument on an assumption results in a faulty argument and a failure of the conclusion.

    What is Biden's "Unity"?

So, unity.  It is defined as: “the state of being united or joined as a whole.”  Note how this definition conveniently leaves out just whom it is that will be united.  I don’t know if Biden was consciously aware of that when he used the word without further clarification, but it is becoming clearer every day that his definition may have been different from that of many.

 “Unity” for Biden and the Left does not include opposing or diverse viewpoints; unity will be of, for, and by those on the Left.  The call is to silence all who disagree.  That is how we will be unified.  Silence or assimilation; either will work for the Biden approach.  That is why his speeches of late sound so divisive as he attacks those on the other side of the aisle, including calling well respected Republican senators Nazis, as Biden continues to use both the words and the approach of some of the most divisive regimes in history.

There are many on Biden’s “Unity” team.  It is not just Democrat politicians but also their hand-maidens in power – the mainstream media and big tech, including the powerful controllers of social media.  This “unity” team continues to call for hatred and punishment against any who do not fully agree with their views.  ABC news called for “cleansing” of the Republican party.  The social media wing of the team uses their power to censor and silence voices that do not agree with the views or message of the Left:  Twitter cancels Trump; Google bans Twitter’s competition Parlor; Facebook takes down the #WalkAway page.  This is just for starters.

Of course their job was made easier by the few crazies who last Wednesday turned a protest march to the Capital into an illegal entry therein.   Yes, it was horrid.  And yes, Trump had given a strong speech, but no stronger than many we have heard coming from the Left encouraging violence against voices on the Right, the police, and others they do not like or approve of. 

But, in typical "never let a crisis go to waste" mode, now the “unity” team can justify its “cleansing" because “violent words or words advocating violence” were uttered or found on the now banned accounts.  No mention of the fact that similar words of violence have been uttered or can be found on accounts of Leftist leaders, elected officials, as well as their many followers.  Maxine Waters comes immediately to mind, but there are many others, both official and not, that have for the last year or more continuously posted calls for violence against the President, against his supporters, against the police, against federal buildings, and many more.  Many such acts have been carried out by supporters of those accounts and their rhetoric.

    Selective silencing

Inciteful words are of course wrong regardless of who utters them.  Believing that strong rhetoric is an invitation to violent acts is stupid and wrong.  But the frightening point here is that the new Biden “unity” team condemns such words when they are spoken in opposition to the Left but justify those words when they support their own causes.  That is not unity; that is oppression.  It is a silencing of opposition, a typical tactic of tyrants.

And not only does it silence the current voices, but it puts people in fear of further speech.  Just look at how many Republicans in Congress who were prepared to assert objections as they had a legal right to do, instead gave apologies or conciliatory speeches as they cowered before the powerful silencers. Decent people on the Right, now more avidly seeking actual peace and unity in light of the actions of the few who breached the Capitol, have in effect silenced themselves so as not to appear to favor or approve of the violent acts.

What is happening here, at a frighteningly ground breaking speed, is that the new “Unity” is being put into place by those holding power; not just political power but economic and corporate power as well.  Opposing voices are being silenced or trained to get in line with the approved voice.  This is tyranny plain and simple.  And it is something that should frighten everyone because if we allow the powerful to silence someone else today, they could silence you or me tomorrow.

A quick review of the “approved” social media posts indicates that it is perfectly OK that the Media wing of the “unity” team (both news media and social media) censors not just allegedly violent language but entire sites that may have included some such language but that primarily simply post views contrary to those of the Left.  The justification is that the Media is not the government and therefore they can censor whomever they please. 

To a large extent that is true (though our constitutional rights have been found to apply to non-governmental entities when they are involved with or funded in part by the government).  But even if it were legal for these entities to selectively censor, that does not mean that we should ignore the effect it has not only on individual voices, but on the type of society that such silencing creates.

Social media is the primary form of communication in this century.  It is how minorities and the oppressed communicate.  If we allow it to silence views with which it does not agree, we are allowing it to be the primary agent in silencing the oppressed.  Without a voice it is very difficult for the oppressed to do anything to end their oppression.  Rather, they are forced to assimilate into a world created by the oppressing power structure and to be subject to its every whim.

    The Individual vs. the Collective

What Biden’s form of “unity” is teaching us is that we are in a battle of the Individual vs. the (“you will be assimilated”) Collective. This is an existential battle about how one envisions the human race and the existence of that race.  Should Mankind be composed of individuals, each with unique and sometimes selfish thoughts, or should each human be just one part of a collective whole?

In a system made up of individuals, certain individual freedoms are essential to maintaining individuality.  These freedoms include the right to say, think, believe as one chooses subject of course to clear, narrow, and specific restrictions necessary for the good of their community.  Such freedoms allow each individual to use their own skills to be creative and innovative, often (whether so intended or not) for the good of all humanity.

Such freedoms are a danger to a collective system.  The breaking out of individual thoughts, even if beneficial, endangers the collective which must be made of group think if the group is to survive.  The collective requires that those who make it up be not self-determined but have every aspect of their existence determined by an outside power structure that decides what is best for the collective and how and what the members of that collective must think, act, and believe.

    We've seen this before

Such a collective model is not novel.  It is a key to building the socialist “utopia.”  It was always a key goal of the Russian revolution and Soviet Russia.  Based on some appealing words (not unlike “unity”), Communism sought a collective mind set that would allow a shared human experience which would be the same for everyone.  Suppression of the individual was an early hurdle for those revolutionaries as they worked to suppress the individualist peasants and mold them into good communists. 

The revolutionary goal also necessarily gave rise to severe censorship of not just speech but art and activity as well.  People were arrested, imprisoned, and even executed for speaking what was not approved.  And the shared experience was not the imagined utopia.  Nor was it shared by all:  those who decided what and who the collective would be, think, do, that is, those in power, had a life experience very different than those over whom they exercised their power.

Just as the communists worked to “train” people to act and think as those in power deemed proper, so we too are being trained by the “unity” team (both government and non-governmental but powerful), to speak and think in a way that will bring us Biden’s “unity.”  

If you follow or worse yet post on a social media account that is affiliated generally with “incorrect” views, you will be censored and silenced.  If you hold office and assert legal rights, but on behalf of the “wrong” person, you will be silenced, impeached, called a Nazi, and told to resign.  If you are a scientist or doctor who uses valid information to propose a dissenting view of COVID, its dangers, effectiveness of various safety measures, etc., then you will lose your license or your job.  A similar thing will happen if you are a respected scientist who uses valid means to predict effects of climate change that question the popular and approved view.  If you use a disapproved term (mother or daughter) in the House of Representatives, you will be sanctioned (even though the writer of that rule is allowed to and does use such terms). 

You may of course call for any and all punishment against those who disagree with the Biden “unity” team.  You may post calls for violence against them.  You may use racist or other epithets against them.  And if you are among the favored, you may do whatever you choose, just so long as you claim that you believe in “unity.”

    A faulty justification; how far will we let it go?

The odd thing is that the “unity” team claims to be doing all this in the interest of civil rights.  Yet one of the most necessary things for anyone advocating for civil rights is the ability to speak their mind.  For if one does not have a voice, then they have no rights at all. 

While it is apparent that the “unity” team has sufficient minions with power both in and out of government to begin to silence those they see as “un-unified,” the question is, can they actually assimilate those who retain independent thought so as to alter those thoughts into ones approved by the “unity” team?  I certainly hope not.  Because once people accept a voicelessness for any group, they must then be prepared to accept it for themselves when those in power or their whims change.

I for one am not looking forward to Biden’s “Unity.” It is a unity of hatred against those who are not like them, the “unity” team.  It is a divisive tactic to cement an ugly power while removing the power of the people, of the individual.   It is more and more looking like the beginnings of a very oppressive regime.

The Silence is Deafening

 Actually, the silence has been deafening for the last 4 years, and perhaps the 8 before that.  So to what silence am I referring?  The silence of truth and the failure to acknowledge hypocrisy.  And the silence of those who have been intimidated and are afraid to speak. 

Let’s start with today and work backwards.  Actually, let’s start with Biden’s call for Unity.

When Biden called for Unity, nearly every MSM publication had an identical headline:  Time to Heal.  (That the headlines were so identical suggests that the press is not as independent as it may claim). 

Just days after that headline, a large group of Trump supporters marched peacefully in DC for honest and fair elections. 

There is no question that the march was peaceful.  But, as the march ended and evening descended, Leftist groups including Antifa and BLM (both supporters of Biden and Democrats) began violent attacks on those peaceful supporters, including elderly, families, and children.  Their stated purpose was to silence and cancel those holding views that are pro-Trump, pro-honest elections, pro-fact.

Did the MSM report this?  No.  Or when they did it was just something like: “Left and Right engaged in some conflict” or simply “The march was marred by conflict.”  Certainly no coordinated headlines as in Biden’s call for unity (or perhaps the coordination was simply not to report).  There was silence.

Did Biden condemn the violence propounded by his supporters?  No.  He ignored it completely.  Silence.   [Update: Late today a Biden spokesperson stated that "President-elect Biden continues to denounce all acts of violence" but did not name Antifa or BLM, the perpetrators of the violence against the marchers this past weekend. I do not see this as any sort of real condemnation of the divisive acts by the Left, but rather it continues the silence that is inconsistent with the call for unity.]

Did Biden’s voters who had told us they voted for him because he would bring civility and unite us say that this was not what they voted for?  No.  Silence.

This is not only the height of hypocrisy.  It tells me that in the minds of Biden and the Left that “Unity” means we all must hold our tongues and not speak if we disagree with them.  That is not America or the democracy or free speech that is our American Right.  This is an America without tolerance and where unapproved voices are silenced.

And it is not just the “unity” lie.  The hypocrisy is everywhere.  Before the election there was silence on Biden’s likely use of his office as VP to further his son’s financial benefits with Ukraine.  There was the ignoring of the charges of sexual harassment (quite a contrast to the way the Left treated the false charges against Justice Kavanaugh!).  There is the fact that Biden’s cancer foundation does virtually nothing with the money it raises except pay salaries to its employees.  All met with media silence.  Anyone who brought forth the actual evidence of these things was ostracized as some sort of nut.  Inconvenient facts – silenced.

But let’s look at the days post-election.  Besides the false unity appeal, we have seen several lies pass Joe Biden’s mouth, with no acknowledgement of that from his supporters who have been eager not only to point out every actual misstatement by the President, but even to make up many more.

Joe Biden told us during the debates that he would not declare victory until the election results were certified.  He lied.  He promised a middle of the road, not far left-wing administration, but look at his appointments thus far and projected ones – many far left, proponents of socialism, etc.  He lied.  Those who try to raise these and other lies are silenced; the press does not report them.  Silence.

But Biden is not alone in his lies.  He has the media at his back.  How many times has the media, in reporting that Donald Trump has failed to concede, told us there is no evidence of fraud.  Yet there are hundreds of pages of affidavits from poll workers, along with piles of credible evidence suggesting there are also piles of illegal votes that were counted.  That is not reported.  Silence.

No, the result of this election, declared by the media (who now seems to be running the country), is unlikely to change.  But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to fraud, silence even the suggestion that it occurred, and silence any attempt to investigate so that it does not again occur.

In an essay, the whole of which is well worth reading, Caroline Glick states:

“If we learned nothing else from the election campaign and its aftermath, we learned American democracy is in crisis.

The media is the first force responsible for this crisis. For the past four years, all major U.S. television networks and national newspapers have dedicated themselves not to reporting news, but to defining the boundaries of acceptable public discourse. Big Tech firms—Facebook, Google and Twitter, in particular, having amassed powers the KGB could only have dreamed of—serve as the enforcers of those boundaries.”             

Entire article can be found here LINK 

I come back to my previous blog about the Nice vote.  The media convinced many that Biden would bring us nice – civil discourse in which we would all get along.  They believed the media propaganda that they could trust Joe and he would simply wave his magic wand and we would all get along.  They voted for that in their naïve belief that the job of a president is creating national civility rather than the actual domestic and foreign duties of a president.  No one corrected their misperceptions.  Silence.

But, regardless of what those nice voters thought, what this weekend march and Leftest violence shows us is that in the minds of the left and its handmaiden media, getting along simply means allowing only one voice. That is the worst kind of silence.

The nice voters and the naïve voters failed by blindly trusting the media.  Ms. Glick also writes:

“Nearly all the stories about Trump and his supporters have been negative for the past four years. Consequently, while most Americans never heard that Trump conceived and implemented an entirely new foreign policy doctrine that has met more success than any adopted since the end of the Cold War, all Americans know that the media expect them to believe Trump is a racist. They know that the media expect right-thinking Americans to hate Trump and his supporters, and admire his opponents, from Nancy Pelosi to Black Lives Matter (BLM).”

I would add to this that nearly all the stories about President Obama were positive and we see the same approach being taken toward Biden.  The press does not report the negative, and actually, most of the positive is not hard-hitting journalism, but fluff – for example, what pets Joe will bring to the White House – fluff about fluff.  Silence on real facts of real substance.

Yet too many have been silenced into thinking that if they do not hold the voice that the media instructs there is something wrong with them.  They are afraid to speak out, to even think or question what the media, the voice of the Left, tells them.  They are silenced, and the silence is indeed deafening. 

But more than deafening, is the sad truth that without critical thought and questioning, without voicing or hearing opposing viewpoints, eventually those viewpoints cease to exist.  With the silencing if different voices comes the destruction of the individual mind.  Tolerance of opposing views, what used to be referred to as the Loyal Opposition, is an essential piece of democracy.  Yet the Left is doing its best to silence that, and Biden seems inclined to just stand by and let them.

I turn again to Caroline Glick (and again I encourage everyone to read her entire article):

“The consequences of this media and Big Tech tyranny are disastrous for the health of American democracy. Americans know they are expected to act like the citizens of the totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union. The media will tell them what they can say, and social media will enforce the media's dictates.  And like the denizens of the USSR, Americans haven't stopped thinking as a result of this tyranny. They have just stopped telling people what they think. 

“The media's abandonment of journalism and their hatred of half of American society, as well as the Democrats' embrace of a totalitarian theory of race and American secular sin as an organizing principle, are unmooring America from its democratic, pluralistic anchors. American society is moving into a post-democratic reality. And if action isn't taken to restore those anchors, American society as a whole will suffer.”

I actually fear it may be worse – I fear that too many Americans have indeed just stopped thinking.  They seem to find it easier to just accept.  Do as told, think as told, say as told.  Just shuffle along without any brain and ultimately without any soul. 

Americans, all Americans, need to think if this is where they really want to go.  If not, they need to once again not only start thinking, but start questioning.  And most importantly, they need to start speaking. 

The fear of speaking may be great – you may lose friends, you may be outcast, you may be laughed at, you may even be attacked.  But anyone who wishes to enjoy the many benefits of such traditional American things as freedom of thought and speech and assembly and religion, who believes that tolerance of alternate views, even those with which one strongly disagrees, is a good thing and a healthy thing for democracy, those people need to speak out.

The silence needs to end – that is the action that is necessary to restore the anchors of our American democracy.  From Joe Biden who promised us something different and who refuses to speak out for tolerance and truth, and from the voters who voted for civility but are now being betrayed not only by breaches of campaign promises, but by acceptance of violence against opposition speech.  

But the silence from those who are still thinking and questioning but are not speaking, that is the most dangerous silence of all.  No one should tolerate their voice being silenced.  Rather than silence, we need to hear the cacophony of the many individual and diverse views that exist in America.

 

Unity Requires Tolerance and Other Post Election Thoughts

So it is now 5 days post-election and we still do not have an official winner, although at the moment Joe Biden is the presumptive winner.  The media is treating him as the winner and people are beginning to accept that, though that does not necessarily make it so.  If it turns out that he is indeed the official winner, I hope that everyone will accept that just as I hope everyone will do so if the tide turns in Trump’s favor.  

In the meantime, several different but related thoughts and issues are rolling around in my head and I will discuss some of them here.

First, let’s understand that in this country, accepting a victor does not mean agreeing with all the policies or views of that victor or his party.  In America we accept the vote of the people and support the legitimate office holder, but we retain our right to hold our own views and beliefs, and to speak out both for and against various political policies.  If we do not like the policies of the chosen winner, we can work to see someone with different policies elected in the future.  The win of one side does not make the other side’s views wrong nor require them to alter their individual beliefs.

Last night Mr. Biden gave a speech in which he essentially claimed victory and called for unity in the nation.  A nice thought, but I don’t see how we can take that call seriously when we still have the leaders of his party, people like  former President Obama, his wife Michelle, the presumptive Vice President Harris, Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Cortez, and many others, along with most of the Democrat voters continuing to throw a variety of ad hominem attacks against the more than 70 million who voted for President Trump. 

Mrs. Obama just yesterday called that 70 million plus racist.  Others assert they are uneducated.  Some call for the identification of all Trump voters so that they can be “educated.”  Others yelled F**k USA at groups of Trump supporters singing the National Anthem after the press had declared Biden the winner.  Hypocrisy is everywhere when we see such things as Biden supporters celebrating without masks or social distancing when Trump and his supporters were regularly criticized by Biden and the Democrats for the same behavior.

The speeches, but even more so the actions of Mr. Biden and the Democrats seem to make it clear that there will be no tolerance for views of which they disapprove.  And real unity requires tolerance of viewpoints that are not one’s own.  So I see Biden’s words as nothing more than that – pretty words of a politician. 

Another thought is about the election challenges.  We should remember that Mr. Biden and the Democrats all applauded Stacey Abrams when she challenged election results in 2018.  Yet today they condemn the President and the Republicans for their challenges based on much stronger evidence than what was held by Ms. Abrams.  Not only are there serious and verified accounts of widespread voter fraud, there are also very credible allegations of unconstitutional procedures in Pennsylvania and perhaps other states. 

Now I know the Democrats don’t want to hear this, they want to get on with their celebrations.  And many Republicans are just tired and want to move on.  But every American should be very concerned about this because if we do not have fair elections that we can trust, then how are we going to retain and protect our democracy?  And the most concerned person should be the presumptive winner and probably next president. 

These challenges go well beyond winning or losing.  Obviously, if they go forward there is a chance Trump could win and if they end here Biden will clearly win.  But at what cost to the nation?  We should all want these challenges to go forward so that we can know that the final outcome was fair and honest.  And the person for whom this should be cause number 1 is the next president of the U.S., whichever candidate that might be.  And if he is not willing to support that assurance to the American people, then how can Biden claim that he intends to be president of all of America?

I hear many proclaiming that now we will not have a bigot/racist in the White House.  First, while many have called President Trump those things when they did not like his policy or action or his sometimes vulgar language, I have seen no actual proof of real bigotry or racism.  Indeed, I have seen a presidency that tries to treat all persons equally under the laws that exist. 

But I would argue that even Mr. Biden’s VP is the result of a racist act.  You will recall that he promised and did select his VP based upon skin color and sex, thus excluding the majority of Americans and American politicians from any consideration whatsoever.  To base such considerations on two immutable characteristics is the very definition of racism.  And no, it is not OK to be racist just to try to prove that you or your party are not racist.

While they are continuing to throw their ugly and hurtful words toward Trump and his supporters, many Democrats now call for conversations wherein we will learn to “understand one another.”  It is hard to have a conversation of understanding when one half of that conversation has already determined the other half to be guilty of things such as racism or other sins and in need of change.  Without tolerance for other views there can be no real understanding.

People are claiming that with a Biden administration we will see a return to love, kindness, family, etc.  Nice words, but the actions betray them.  It is not loving or kind to call those who do not parrot your views the ugly epithets that Democrats fling at Republicans.  It is not kind or loving to threaten them when they do not accept the Democrat view. 

As to family, the Democrat policies are in so many ways anti-family.  Without even mentioning many social values, just looking at economic policies it is clear that Biden’s proclaimed agenda is not family favorable. 

It was Trump who helped to bring many minorities out of poverty and with that create stronger families.  It was Trump whose renegotiated and USA-favorable trade policies helped not only farmers but American businesses and with that jobs for American families.  It was Trump who reformed criminal justice, who made sure Black colleges would remain funded, whose economic polices created better investment opportunities meaning more home ownership, better retirement savings, etc.  Biden has said he will reverse all this, which I do not see as family friendly.

While hate has blossomed on both sides of the aisle, I honestly see the Democrats as the party of hate.  It was VP Biden who participated in illegal plans to spy against President Trump even before he took office.  It was the Democrats who for 4 years refused to accept Trump as their president and did everything within their power to try to remove him from office, thus working to overturn the will of the people.  It has been the Democrats who, blinded by their irrational hatred of President Trump, have spent the last four years lying to the American people and disregarding any aspects of our system of  laws that do not immediately provide them with what they want. 

It is the Democrats who have removed the boarded-up windows in cities that were placed there to protect from rioting after the election, because it was really to protect against riots by Democrats.  Now that a Democrat is the presumptive victor, there is no fear which implies that the Republicans are not the ones likely to riot and destroy.  It is the Democrats who refuse to condemn violence against the Right by their own people as well as by groups such as Antifa (and yes, despite the media and Democrat narrative, Trump has many times condemned violence and White Supremacists).  And it is the Democrats who just keep on posting their nasty memes about Republicans and Trump, claiming that they are just celebrating.

And Joe?  Does he condemn any of that behavior?  No, he just says we will have unity.   Yet if he is willing to continue to accept the hateful behavior upon which the hateful Democrat campaign was built, if his only tolerance at this point is of the continued hatred from the Left, if the only behavior that he will accept is a blind acceptance of his view, then there really is no call for unity at all. 

And so we wait for an official decision, for challenges to be heard and recounts to be had.  We wait, and if we really want an honest and fair election, then the wait is both valuable and worthwhile.  It would be nice if the wait included a call against hatred from the presumptive winner.