Democrat Dreams, American Nightmare

Recently I have been going through old blog posts in an attempt to organize them by primary topic.  The interesting thing is that when I read posts from 2017 their theme and argument are almost identical to those I write currently:  the destructive nature of identity politics; the rise of socialism; the lack of deep, independent, and objective thought and its companion lack of education; the Constitution and basic American principles; fact vs. narrative; the First Amendment; Freedom vs. entitlements; political hatred and attacks; the press and propaganda; etc.

The immediate context in which these appear may change, but the basic issues are the same.  It’s like when a couple keeps having the same arguments over and over and at some point someone suggests why don’t you just say Argument A, or B, or C and be done with it.  Really, I could just repost and repost by topic.

But what is so troubling about this is that I can’t help but wonder when will everyone wake up?  And when they do will it be too late?  That is, many people either did not see or chose not to see what I was writing about in 2017.  Their blindness continues today.  I have written about being blinded by hatred.  Is that it?  Is it disbelief?  Or is it just really good propaganda?

Once I have gone through the posts from the start of this blog, I will post an index by key topics (this takes time, so don’t expect it immediately).  Once that is posted, I encourage everyone to read an entire topic group.  It is indeed frightening that 3 ½ years ago I began pointing out the very same things that I write about today.

It’s interesting that a key tactic used by Democrats is the fomenting of hysteria.   By now we should understand that the Democrats and other Trump haters will suggest some fictional scenario, then begin to state the hypothetical as if it were a fact, and then foment hysteria about what was once just a fiction in someone’s head. 

The most obvious examples are the Russian Investigation begun with the hypothetical “what if Trump colluded with Russia to win the election?”  and the impeachment which began with the hypothetical “what if instead of the typical conversation between leaders about the possible wrongdoing by a former government official or his son, it was an abuse of power?”  The hysteria of these two suggestions led to years of investigation based upon often false and manufactured evidence and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. 

The Democrats and their symbiotic partner the media become hysterical about “what ifs” as they treat them as fact and then wail about the horrors of Trump having done the parade of horribles that they have created.  The intent, of course, is to turn the country against the President, thus furthering the agenda of the Democrats. 

One of the current fears that the Democrats are mongering is that we are in imminent danger of having storm troopers roaming our streets and the President enforcing law and order through martial law nationwide.  Where does this come from?  It seems to have begun when the President legitimately sent Federal troops to protect Federal buildings being vandalized and attacked by rioters in Portland.  This is not only his right to do, but also his duty to protect the People’s Federal property.  It is not the act of some authoritarian dictator.  Yet that is what the Democrats would have us believe.

In Albuquerque, NM, where crime statistics compete with Chicago (fewer murders but far more overall violent crimes including assault and rape as well as murder), the President is sending additional Federal investigators to help those already there as well as local law enforcement to participate in Operation Legend which investigates major crimes and gang violence.  These federal agents are not “storm troopers.”  While officers on the ground for the most part welcome the help, many Democrat politicians including the city’s mayor, have pronounced their skepticism that these are not really storm troopers along with their belief that the President actually intends to create another Portland (no matter that Portland’s current situation was created by violent agitators and their Democrat supporters). 

This is consistent with the typical rhetoric we regularly get from Democrats around the country.  They suggest that Trump will become a dictator, then turn that suggestion into the assertion that his intention is to do so.  This argument in one form or another has been with us since Trump’s election.  He was going to ruin every one of their identity groups’ lives.  The Blacks would be sent back to slavery or worse.  But, instead, Trump gave them the best economic outlook they have ever had in this country.  Women’s rights, Hispanic rights, LGBTQ rights, and all the others have not suffered the horrible consequences that the Democrats predicted; instead, at best things remain for them the same, but for most their lives and their future possibilities have improved, even if currently stalled by CoVid.

No matter.  Another election is coming, and hysteria must be fomented once again, this time not with the hope of removing Trump from office before the end of his first term, but from keeping him from being re-elected.  So, the fear mongers go into overdrive.  And, they are of course helped by the uncomfortable uncertainty that prevails due to CoVid, exacerbated by the media that spends at least half its time hyping the many statistics of CoVid, especially those  that are potentially frightening – deaths, rising positives, availability of a variety of equipment, the dangers of leaving your house.   People are already in fear of this unknown enemy and the Democrats would love to have people become as hysterical as possible and then blame their discomfort on Trump. 

Here are a few simplified examples of how a speculation or suggestion develops into a rhetorical assertion:

• What if Trump were to declare martial law → Trump intends to declare martial law → Do not vote for Trump, he will impose martial law. 
• What if Trump’s “law and order” is really a cover-up for the fact that he doesn’t care about people and only cares about himself and so wants to put all of the rest of us under martial law → Trump intends to impose martial law across the country → living under Trump’s martial law will be no different than living in Nazi Germany → Trump doesn’t care about the people or the Constitution, but just wants to be a dictator → Don’t vote for Trump or this most horrible of horribles will come to pass. (I can’t help but wonder sometimes if the Democrats are not seeing themselves in these hypotheticals they develop.)
• Trump says he wants to insure against voter fraud, but what if it is all a ploy to steal the election → we must ignore the statistics about mail in voter fraud so that Trump does not steal the election → No matter what happens in the election Trump will not accept the results unless he wins → We either have to steal the election back from him or violently remove him → No one vote for him so that it is clear to him that he has lost and we will not need to forcefully remove him.
• What if Trump is using CoVid for his own evil purposes and gain → He refuses to make a national mandate and plan that will protect us→ Trump is using CoVid against us and he is destroying us → Trump is a murderer → Do not vote for this murderer.  (Notably, it’s interesting that the fear of dictator Trump seems to conflict with the CoVid argument that Trump should have usurped the power of governors to run their own states and made some all-encompassing mandate for the entire country – but the Democrats are not interested in being consistent, just in creating enough hysteria to make you more receptive to their agenda.)

All of the above, and many more that you hear daily, begin with a “what if” dreamt up in the mind of some Democrat or one of their symbiotic partners   They begin with a hypothetical that incorporates some aspect of some facts of a current situation, then morph into assertions of supposed fact that too many people believe.   

The assertions may sound believable because they do incorporate some aspect of a current factual situation, but they are not representative of reality.  And, as noted above at the start of this post, too many people ignore reality for some reason.  That ignorance is the real dream come true for the Democrats, for those who would continue to divide us and mislead us until they have led us over the cliff and into the true and ugly reality of Socialism.  And that will be the real nightmare for America.

 

 

Sometimes a Mask is Not Just a Mask

CoVid.  Here is what we know:  it is an easily transmittable, airborne virus that has no cure and no vaccine and unknown long term effects; it can kill you or you can have it and be completely asymptomatic.   Given that bottom line you can assess its risk to you in any given situation in the same way that you assess other risks that you face every day.   And we do face many other deadly risks every day.  So why the obsession and continuing hysteria about CoVid?  I suggest that it is not really much about CoVid at all, but a lot about using CoVid as a political football. 

Marco Rubio correctly states that having a rational response to the virus “will be hard to achieve as long as we have a heavily politicized narrative that demands you to pick one of two views.”  He defines these as:

A.      The virus is the apocalypse and everything must close

B.     The virus is being exaggerated and will go away on its own.

Certainly these are decent descriptions of the two narratives, neither of which, by the way, is factually accurate.  But let’s consider the reasons behind these two narratives and what each represents.

From the very first notice we got of the virus and that it had reached our shores, the Democrats, never ones to let a crisis go to waste, saw it as something to be used against President Trump and his supporters. 

In January, our economy was at record levels, Black and minority unemployment at its lowest ever, new businesses and industry were thriving, things were looking pretty good.  I suspect that the possibility that this might end caused some anti-Trumpers to salivate. 

The President stopped travelers entering from China, then Europe, then elsewhere.  His opponents first attacked that move as racist, then complained that he had not done it soon enough.  Democrats began their calls for investigations or even another impeachment for the early handling of the virus. 

CoVid was indeed scary.  No one knew much about it except that it could be deadly, especially for older people or people with underlying conditions.   Those seriously affected would need ventilators and hospital beds and we would need a seemingly endless supply of masks for medical personnel.  We wanted to test everyone.  We needed to avoid a surge of the virus so large that it would overtax our resources. 

So, while the administration went to work ramping up the manufacture of needed supplies (many of which had been allowed to deplete during prior administrations) and setting up military field hospitals (many of which have gone unused), people were urged and/or ordered to stay at home in order to  “flatten the curve.”

The President had daily briefings with his CoVid team during which the doctors and other officials could inform the public of the actual facts about the virus – facts that properly evolved daily as more information was constantly being acquired.  The Democrats objected to these briefings, asserting that they should not be covered or carried live by the media (apparently they did not want the people to be informed from the sources, but only to hear their edited and often misleading takes on the briefings).

The stimulus proposals that had been and continue to be put forth by Democrats contained many items that went well beyond what was necessary to deal with the short term effect of a closed economy and were actually part of their Leftist/Socialist wishlist.  That’s not to say that the Republicans didn’t also see these stimulus measures as a way to gain favor with small businesses and other key members of their base.

As things seemingly came under control and active cases began to level off, there were calls to open back up.  Complete closure could not continue.  It was devastating to the economy as well as to the psyche of many.  So we began a slow opening – too slow for some, too fast for others.  Each governor determined the rules for their state (this is their power and right under our system of government).  Here is where I suggest it really became far too political. 

The hit CoVid took on the economy erased the incredible numbers that the Trump administration had achieved.  So, is it really surprising that many Democrat states maintained far more shut down restrictions than those of their Republican counterparts?  Surely at least in the back of their minds was the thought that if we can keep the economy down and unemployment up it will hurt Trump in the upcoming election.  At the same time, Trump and the Republicans wanted to get things moving again and were perhaps more willing to throw some caution to the wind in order to revitalize the economy.  Both were looking somewhat at the science, but also at the politics of the situation.

The governors’ restrictions quickly became both ridiculous and hypocritical.  Science often did not seem to match what was and was not allowed.  The New Mexico governor said breweries (where beer is both brewed and then served in a bar-like atmosphere) could open, but bars could not, nor could the VFW halls which serve beer.  She noted that it was a different kind of clientele at the breweries (could she mean good hipster Democrats vs bad redneck Republicans?). 

The height of hypocrisy came when those governors who had begun mandating or at least encouraging masks cheered on protestors who gathered and said nothing about nor enforced the mask requirements.  In New York the virus contact tracers are not even allowed to ask about protest attendance.   At the same time as the protests were applauded for gathering large groups, Trump’s rally was condemned because it gathered people together.  This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.

When the rules are applied to some but not to others, one can’t help but wonder if the rules are really necessary.  Statements of the dire nature of the threat and hence the need for dire restrictions does not match the fact that many restrictions are not enforced or are simply excused for the favored groups.  This credibility gap is sure to make one wonder about why one should believe any call for any regulations.  And, in our current climate it is not surprising that people should begin to suspect political motivation.

Then we have the reporting about the virus itself.  We now have much more data available, but sadly what that means is that only pieces of that data will be put forward depending on one’s political agenda.  If one wants to keep the country and its economy suffering you can surely find numbers that will support a demand for another complete shut down along with its damage to the economy and hopefully your political opponents.  If you want to see the country fast tracked to normal then you can find data that supports that as well.  Not only can data be found to support varying views, all data is subject to interpretation, and political interpretations are now the flavor du jour.

Not many people have the time or the education to fully read and then assess the data.  They rely on the news media for their information.  The news media seems to enjoy sustaining as much hysteria as possible.  It is probably good for its ratings.  It is also generally good for the Democrats whose political views the media tends to support.

Masks seem to have become the epicenter of all of this.  As we learned more about the virus, data more and more showed that the spread of the virus was in most instances via droplets spread through the air and not from surfaces.  Studies also began to teach how far the droplets could generally travel – somewhere around 6 feet in normal situations (more in other types of situations where a greater force is used in expelling air).  It also became apparent that the more time spent together and the larger the crowd, the more that one’s risk of being infected became.

The science clearly supports the fact that wearing a mask inhibits the possible spread of the disease by the wearer.  Wearing masks is done not for the wearer but for those with whom the wearer comes into contact.  The protection is not absolute, but it is significant.  One would think that just as one does other considerate gestures for his fellow man, one would wear a mask.

But, this is not about health and masks and civil behavior.  Mask wearing has become the representative of how much one will allow government to mandate certain behavior, of whether one is for or against big government, and probably a fairly good predictor of how one will vote in November.  For some reason the health requirement of wearing a mask is seen by some as a complete abolishment of all their rights.  They think that if government can tell them to wear a mask then government can tell them everything, including what to think.  And, when many Democrat leaders waive any suggestion of masks for BLM and other anti-government protestors, it is easy to see that political motivation has overtaken health concerns, even those that have scientific support.

This is a political battle that has become completely disconnected from the CoVid threat.  With that in mind, with their disconnect from science, governors have lost any credibility or authority to impose or enforce regulations.  In New Mexico, one city mayor simply called his prohibited 4^th of July parade a protest since the Governor had banned parades but endorsed and allowed protests.

With their credibility gone, the Governors (and some of the medical professionals) need to stop calling winners and losers in regard to what can and cannot open and what people can and cannot do.  We all know the risk.  Bottom line is we could die.  That’s the science and if we are given the actual science without the hyped and conflicting narratives, each of us individually can decide what in our life is worth taking that risk.

As to masks, I do believe we should wear them when in public just as we should all make the effort to social distance when possible.  I don’t think it is unreasonable for there to be, for the common good, some sort of mask requirement.   It is not fair to open everything, tell me it is my decision to take the risk, but then to make that risk greater than it should be by eliminating even the suggestion of masks.  That is, if a theater is open to full capacity, I can decide whether or not to go.  But, if no one there will be wearing a mask, it becomes unreasonably unsafe for me to be there and so, by removing even the suggestion of mask requirements I am actually denied more rights than those who would go maskless.

If we can assume that our fellow citizens will act responsibly – including wearing a mask not for their protection but for the protection of others – then we can indeed open back up and people will go where they choose depending on their individual risk assessments.  This is no different than when I make a decision to drive:  I understand that others on the road are expected to follow certain driving regulations that they may not like but that exist for the common good.  I of course know that some few will not, but I expect that most will and with that I am free to drive or not based on my assessment of the risk to me.  But, if I know that there are no driving regulations or that they will never be enforced or that a significant number of other drivers will refuse to follow those regulations, then my risk assessment and my freedom to drive is vastly diminished.   It is no different with masks.

But, it’s really not about any of this at all.  It’s about making a political statement.  That is what CoVid has become – nothing more than a political tool, a set of statistics to throw back and forth, a mask with which to stake one’s righteous political claim.   And, while we play these political games, the reality is that the apocalypse is not here, but CoVid is, and some people are in fact dying.

Stacking Opinions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coup or Revolution? Does it Matter? And Do You Really Want a Revolution Anyway?

America, its way of life and its governmental structure, is clearly under attack.  This post addresses three questions about that attack:  1. Is it a coup or a revolution? 2. Does It matter? And 3. Do the warriors even understand what they are doing?

Anyone who doesn’t see that America as we know it is under attack from within has been asleep for at least 4 and probably more than 12 years.  That attack has been called a witch hunt and a coup.  I would add another possible label: a revolution. 

A coup or coup d’etat (literally blow to state) is usually defined to include both suddenness and violence in the overthrow of an existing government.  One of the chief prerequisites for a coup is that those waging the coup have control of a major part of the peacekeeping and military elements of the government.  

A coup generally does not alter the country’s fundamental social or economic policies; rather, its purpose is to either remove a leader by force or to maintain a current leader or his successor by force.  It is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel.

A revolution, in contrast, is a challenge to the established political order, government, and its related associations and structures.   It is generally radical and profound, establishing a new order that is radically different from the preceding one.  For example, both the French and Russian revolutions changed both the system of government as well as the economic and social structures and the cultural values of those societies.

Historian Clarence Crane Brinton in 1938 wrote the Anatomy of Revolution, likening a revolution’s dynamics to the progress of a fever.  He described a pre-revolutionary society as having both social and political tensions caused by a breakdown of the values of the society.  He saw that as leading to a fracture of political authority.  As the existing political order loses its grasp on authority, diverse forces of opposition band together to topple the existing authority. 

Socialist doctrine believes that social revolution is necessary to bring about structural changes to society.  That is, socialism believes that revolution is a necessary precondition for the transition form capitalism to socialism.  Socialism does not believe that revolution is necessarily violent; rather, it is seen as a seizure of political power by mass movements. 

I would argue that while the political battles that we see going on may have started out as a coup attempt by Democrats and Never-Trumpers simply to remove President Trump from office and replace him (and the will of the people) with someone of their own choosing, the battle they are waging is becoming, if it has not already become, more in the nature of a revolution.  That is, there is a war being waged against our fundamental system of government with the hope of replacing our society with a radically different one.

We now see not just the attempts to remove the President from office.  We see attacks on our very system of government.  Our Constitution is no longer valued by those waging this war.  The First Amendment, and especially free speech, is easily dismissed when ideas expressed are not those of the revolutionaries.  The second amendment is being similarly dismissed.  Constitutional protections such as freedom from unreasonable searches, privacy rights, the belief in innocence until proven guilty are all ignored when it serves the revolutionaries’ purposes.  Hence, we have significant violations of such things as protections against wiretapping or other surveillance of U. S. Citizens; we have political assassinations being staged based on testimonies unsupported by any real facts (not unlike the encouragement of the Soviet regime of neighbors to inform on neighbors without any factual investigation or regard for truth). 

We have the continuing attempts to overturn the results of an election, not by vote but by investigation upon investigation, the current one being conducted in secret by Adam Schiff and his cronies with hearings to which he bars Republican members of his committee and, other than telling us what he chooses and claims is true, he keeps all evidence secret from any and all who are not on his team; he denies the people’s right to know. 

We have attacks on our Supreme Court:  threats that if it does not render decisions acceptable to the revolutionaries that they will “pack the court” – that is, add enough justices of their own persuasion that any and all contrary voices will be silenced.

Silencing the opposition, ignoring the facts, making up the narrative as they choose.  These are key tactics of the revolutionaries.  Their intolerance has no exceptions.  While America has always demanded tolerance while allowing individual and diverse views, the revolutionaries would deny the holding of any view, value, or belief contrary to that which they approve.  And, their attacks on many traditional values, the mere right to hold such values, is increasing every day.

Yes, this is a revolution, not just a coup.  It’s intent, whether there at the beginning or not, is now to fully replace our government and our culture with something new.

Brinton, in his study of revolutions, also observed the different stages of a major revolution.  After the government is overthrown, there is usually a period of optimistic idealism; however, this phase does not last long.   A split usually develops between moderates and radicals which ends in the defeat of the moderates, the rise of extremists, and the concentration of all power in their hands. For one faction to prevail and maintain its authority, the use of force is almost inevitable. The goals of the revolution fade, as a totalitarian regime takes command.   Again, one can see this pattern played out historically in both the French and Russian revolutions.

Hence, it is significant that this initial anti-Trump movement has now morphed into an all-out revolution.  It would have been bad enough to witness a coup in which unhappy Democrats wrested the presidency from the people and took it for their own.  But, if that had been all they accomplished or sought to accomplish, the country could have been put right again at the next election.  With a revolution on the other hand, things cannot and will not be rectified so easily or so quickly.  The Russian revolution began in 1917, the resulting Soviet Union did not fall until 1991, and Russia still feels its effects today.

America can survive a coup; it cannot survive a revolution.

The final question posed at the start of this essay is whether these revolutionaries even understand what they are doing.  That is, did the warriors enter this revolution blinded by a hatred of Donald Trump and now are being pulled along by those who do truly seek the demise of America as we know it to fight the revolution?  Do these warriors even realize what they are fighting for? 

I come back to the description of a revolution as the progression of a fever.   When President Trump was inaugurated in January 2017, many people were angry; this anger was ginned up into a hatred.  That hatred is the fever which continues to progress; its flames are fanned by those who do truly hate America as we know it and would happily see it destroyed.  This fever, this illness, was simmering before 2016 as identity politics and challenges to those holding traditional values were being used by astute politicians to begin tearing the country apart into warring factions.  Those factions and their fever are now uniting into a dangerously combustible whole, encouraged to band together to topple the existing form of government and the very fundamentals of our society.

America is under attack.  What was an angry outburst against election results has moved from a childish outburst to a coup and now a revolution - a full out challenge to the established political order, government, culture, and their related associations and structures.   This matters.  This is a challenge to every American.  And every American who is involved in this revolution needs to be very clear on what they are doing while those of us not involved need to do everything we can to educate those warriors and defend our country from their attack.

So, you say you want a revolution?  Perhaps we should end by reconsidering the lyrics of the 1968 Beetles song “Revolution”:

You say you want a revolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

You tell me that it's evolution

Well, you know

We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction

Don't you know that you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be

All right, all right, all right

You say you got a real solution

Well, you know

We'd all love to see the plan

You ask me for a contribution

Well, you know

We're doing what we can

But if you want money for people with minds that hate

All I can tell is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be

All right, all right, all right

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know

We all want to change your head

You tell me it's the institution

Well, you know

You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right, all right

All right, all right

Don’t Fall for It, Part 3

“Russian Collusion” didn’t work.  “He’s a Racist” isn’t working.  So, now the media, spokes-machine for the anti-Trumpers and the Left, is pushing a “coming recession” as a way to keep President Trump from being re-elected.  Don’t fall for it.

The Democrats and their handmaiden the mainstream media love to float theories about President Trump and his administration that have no, or at best very weak, factual support.  They repeat their subversive allegations and accusations over and over, both directly (“Trump is a racist”) and more subtly in a way that presents as a fact that supports their message something that has not yet been proven  (for example, “Trump’s racist statement”  when there is no evidence other than the media’s biased interpretation that the statement being referred to is indeed racist).  The Left seems to subscribe to the theory that if you repeat something enough times, then the people will believe that it is true.

This repetition of an unproven and often false narrative is a key tool of propaganda as well as useful in brainwashing.  The media selectively presents facts in a way that make them sound as if they are proof of the narrative they are promoting.  They love to characterize opinion as fact and then use that “fact” to condemn the President. 

This is really not that different from what conspiracy theorists do.  “A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.”  One seeking a conspiracy, or simply a narrative that condemns the President, will re-interpret objective evidence in a way that omits any fact or rational interpretation that counters the proposed narrative.  When there is no actual evidence to support the conspiracy or the narrative, what does exist will be re-interpreted as evidence of the truth of the narrative so that the conspiracy or the narrative “becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.”

And isn’t that just what we see happening among the Democrats and the media.  They have a narrative that the President is some sort of Russian agent, a racist, etc. and they will continue to ignore actual facts and instead continue to repeat their narrative.   They don't give up their belief in Russian collusion despite a thorough investigation to the contrary.  It has become a matter of faith rather than fact.

Similarly, the Left continues to put forth the now clearly debunked narrative that after Charlottesville the President said the Nazis were good people even though the actual tape of his statement shows that while he did indicate that there were good people on both sides who were there simply to protest about the Robert E. Lee statue, he then continued with the following words that persist in being completely omitted from the Left’s narrative:  “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

But more insidious even than such outright omissions that fully change the reality of a situation is the Left’s use of basic persuasive and propaganda techniques to subtly present as true fact something for which there is no evidence or no proof.  How many times do we hear a statement about Trump begin “Trump’s racist words…” or “Trump’s offensive statement…” or “Trump’s disruptive act…”, etc.  The speaker is stating as facts that words or statements or actions are as negatively labeled.  Yet, that is nothing more than the speaker’s opinion, it is not a proven fact. 

Likewise, we hear over and over that the President’s purpose in enforcing immigration laws and putting an end to illegal immigration is one of promoting white supremacy.  There is no actual proof of that; it is simply the assumption of those whose hateful narrative about the President includes labeling him as a white supremacist. Yet, if the negative labels are repeated often enough it is likely that they become accepted as the fact that is necessary to prove the speaker’s narrative.

Now, I do not know if there will be some sort of economic collapse if the President is re-elected.  Actually, I believe it is much more likely that our booming economy will go bust if a Democrat becomes president.  But, that is my opinion, just as the Left’s new economic anti-Trump rhetoric is nothing more than their latest theory – their new narrative in their war on Trump. 

Like other conspiracy theorists, the Left’s narrative is more a matter of faith than of proof.  You do not have to join their cult.  Demand proof.  Listen carefully to their words.  Ask questions.  Find the full story – the full, complete, and actual narrative, not the fictional presentation of those who have their own agenda.  Do not simply fall for what they tell you, no matter how many times they repeat it.

Yes, Maybe They Really are that Dumb!

This morning I was listening to NPR.  They were discussing Democrat voters’ attitudes about whom would be the best presidential candidate for 2020.  NPR reported that the majority of those likely to vote Democrat look to electability – the ability to beat Trump – as the sole or most important factor in the selection of the candidate.  That is far more important than policy.  For many policy is not important at all; rather, it is simply beat Trump, whatever it takes.

What does this say about their understanding of or care about our country?  That they hate Trump enough that they would be willing to destroy this country just to beat him in an election.  Do they not realize that while some policies might be beneficial, other polices (for example socialism) could destroy everything upon which this country was founded? 

Do they care?  Or have they succumbed to the obsessive preoccupation of the Democrat leadership and the main stream media that their single purpose must be to destroy Donald Trump at all costs?

Frighteningly, elections have become simply about the Win, not about selecting the best person for the particular office regardless of the party or other identity group to which they belong.  Has the democratic elective process along with our country been reduced to the level of some sports event or reality show in which it is simply about scoring a check in the Win column and nothing else?  Pick your horse, bet your money, win, and go home. 

Apparently what that winner will do with the win, what that winner will do for the country is not really relevant as long as he or she beats Trump.  That’s it.  The hatred is so great that is all that matters.  Like the cancer that it is, this hatred is eating away at everything else that once did or someday might matter.

And what is the hatred about?  The answer is truly troubling.  For, while we have had disliked presidents before as well as presidents whose policies were rigorously opposed, we have never seen anything even beginning to approach the destructive hatred that is fomented and driven by today’s Democrats. 

And, based on what?  It is hard to find support for their level of hatred, for their claims of racism or mental illness or anti-American, or any of the other appellations that they recklessly attach to his name on a daily basis.  Certainly, some disagree with his policies; some do not like his personality.  But, such disagreement and dislike has never before driven such a jihad against a duly elected president.

What that tells me is that this hatred is both personal and immature.  It is a personal hatred for someone who bested them – in the 2016 election and, as President, in his ability to accomplish an enormous amount of positive things for this country and its people, as well as to have a positive impact in many international venues as well.   

These haters wanted to win, not for the country but for themselves and their own egos.  They did not and the result is vitriolic and personal hatred.  And, the long drawn out tantrum that they have been throwing for the last 2+ years is nothing but the behavior of a toddler who doesn’t get what he wants.  It is ego-centric and is about their own power and its loss, and nothing else.

We already knew all this about the Democrat and anti-Trump leadership.  What is so frightening is that the rank and file Democrat voters have been bamboozled and drawn into this cult of hate to the point that they don’t care who is president as long as it isn’t Trump.  How stupid (or perhaps simply brainwashed) can they be?

Revenge, Jealousy, and 2019

I did not write in this blog for some time because, quite frankly, it seemed pointless.  Each political “crisis” or issue was beginning to seem like just a rehash, over and over, of the same points, just dressed in different clothes. 

On any issue, the President asserts a position fairly consistent with the platform on which he was elected.  The Democrats go all out to oppose that position, primarily by ad hominem attacks on the President and his supporters.  Generally, the President’s positions tend to look to country first while the opposition tends to be less concerned about America than about a new world globalism ethic (that in the end sounds much like the oft tried and failed socialism and often looks even more like nothing more than a grab for their own power). 

But, the opposition positions often conflict with those held by the same individuals before Trump’s election.  That leads (or should lead) one to conclude that it really isn’t about the issues at all, but about a hatred of Trump and the fact that he bested them in the election and that the entire country is not fawning at the feet of the Democrats and their positions.

I had hoped that 2019 would bring an end to this ridiculous childish behavior; that people would grow up and begin to honestly discuss important issues based on objective and rational thought.  But, sadly, it does not appear that this is the case.

2019 brings us a continuation of the revenge and jealousy that has been the calling card of the anti-Trump crowd for the past 2 years.  New Senator Romney preludes his new office with a tirade against the President in today's Washington Post, rehashing his angry and jealous comments made throughout the campaign.  Romney’s niece and chairwoman of the Republican party appropriately replied “POTUS is attacked and obstructed by the MSM media and Democrats 24/7. For an incoming Republican freshman senator to attack @realdonaldtrump as their first act feeds into what the Democrats and media want and is disappointing and unproductive.”

Unproductive is a key word here.  How long do we have to suffer through the emotional angst of those who disagreed and disagree with the President and feel the need to act out because they didn’t or are not getting their way?  Revenge is the instinctual go-to when people believe they have been wronged.  But we need to rise above that instinct unless we prefer a never-ending conflict (and, never-ending is not an overstatement if one considers the many conflicts that have gone on for thousands of years based primarily on a cycle of revenge).

Until our politicians can rise above the personal and instinctual response of revenge and retaliation for not getting what they thought they should, we can expect to simply rehash the same personal attacks in the guise of whatever issue is the special of the day.  This is not productive; it is hurtful to our country.  The grown-ups (if there are any), need to acknowledge that they lost and move forward.  This does not mean abandoning their positions on issues, but it does mean abandoning the personal malice, hatred, jealousy they feel for the fact that they lost to someone they personally do not admire and that there are those who choose other people and policies over them and the policies they favor.

Once this is acknowledged, then and only then can we perhaps move forward with productive conversations between those with differing views on the political problems of the day.  Politicians need to remember that it is not about them, it is not personal; it is about our country and our world.  Grown-ups can understand this, can see beyond themselves, and can converse (which includes both speaking and listening!) with those of differing viewpoints, to reach compromises that are good for all of the people, even if not providing revenge for a personal hurt or jealousy.

2019 is still young.  Let us hope that we will see an end to revenge politics and a beginning of mature, reasonable, and rational conversations among those of differing views.  That can only be good for all of us.  Happy New Year.

The Hate Continues (and a Plea to End It)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Suggestion of Mind Reform (Are you being brainwashed?)

“Who is the slayer, who is the victim? Speak.”
-Sophocles

Today on one of my social media feeds someone posted memes implying that our current government is the equivalent of Nazi Germany and asserting that now is the time for people to show what they would have done/will do if given the chance to stop the “Third Reich.”  Memes that imply anyone who does not stand against President Trump or his policies is the guilty equivalent of Hitler or other evils.

In addition to revealing a complete lack of education about or understanding of history (both past and present), these sorts of posts reflect a technique used in classic brainwashing.  The question, however, is:  are those posting, reposting, and otherwise repeating such sentiments the brainwasher, the brainwashed, or both?

Brainwashing is an extreme form of the social influence that affects all of us daily.  Psychologist Robert Jay Lifton, an early researcher into the area, called techniques of brainwashing “mind reform.”  He identified specific stages in the process of this mind reform.   Looking at the process it is hard not to see it reflected in the anti-Trump rhetoric and behavior that abounds in today’s society.

Brainwashing or Mind Reform begins with assaulting and breaking down the self of the victims in order to convince them that they are not who they think they are.  Victims are berated with assertions that deny their beliefs about themselves:  You are not a true Christian; not a true patriot; not a good parent; not a good citizen; not truly compassionate; not defending freedom.  They are under attack being told: you are wrong; you are stupid; you are racist to think as you do, etc. They are told their beliefs are responsible for suffering, both theirs and others, both past and present. 

Under such constant attack the victims become exhausted and confused to the point that their beliefs seem less solid and they (with the brainwasher’s help) begin to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame for the beliefs that make them who they are.  With this state of mind it becomes easier to change the values and beliefs of the victims. 

The brainwasher will push the victims to denounce family, friends, peers, and others who share the same “wrong” beliefs as the victim.  As the victims begin to separate from their past the groundwork is laid for building a new personality.  As the constant assault on identity along with the creation of guilt reaches its peak and the victims wonder “who am I? What am I supposed to do?”, the brainwasher will set up the temptation for the victims to convert to another belief system that will save them from their misery.  Thus ends the first stage of “mind reform.”

I would argue that the anti-Trumpers are fairly successful at carrying out this phase.  Those who do not hold their beliefs are constantly berated for those beliefs in a way that attacks their very identity.  They are encouraged to carry guilt for any wrongs in the world that they are led to believe are the result of their “wrong” values and beliefs.   Their values and their very selves are demeaned, they are rejected, and as they begin to question who they are, the value system of the anti-Trumpers is held out to them as right, good, and a way to make themselves both right and good.

The second phase of the brainwashing process involves several steps that create for the victims the possibility of salvation from their prior wrongs and from their guilt.  As the victims begin to lean toward the new set of values and beliefs offered by the brainwasher, the victims will be shown kindness and reprieve from the assaults they have been experiencing towards themselves.  They are thus faced with the contrast between guilt and pain versus the sudden relief they now experience.  They will be offered the opportunity to “confess” as a means of relieving their guilt and pain. 

Victims will likely not be able to identify specifically what they are guilty of, but will simply feel a heavy burden of being wrong.  The brainwasher will encourage the victims to attach the guilt and sense of wrongness to the belief system that the brainwasher is in the process of replacing.  The victims will begin to believe that it is the old belief system itself that is the cause of their shame and hurt, and will understand that the new system is, at the very least, a way to escape that agony.   

The idea that the root cause of guilt and pain is an external ideology allows the victims to place blame for their pain and “wrongness” beyond themselves:  “it’s not me, it’s my beliefs that were externally imposed on me.”  The victims can assert that they themselves are not bad and that they can escape their prior badness or wrongness by simply escaping the bad or wrong belief system.  All they have to do is denounce the people and institutions associated with that belief system.

This second phase of the mind reform process certainly explains the 100% denouncement and hatred of Trump as well as denouncements of our country, its government, its laws, and anyone who shows any sign of support for those things.  Those who have been convinced that their legitimate beliefs are racist or in some way evil or that they are responsible for the suffering of others, now have the opportunity to release their pain by simply denouncing their former beliefs, including those beliefs upon which this country was founded, and joining the anti-Trumpers.

The final phase of brainwashing or mind reform involves the rebuilding of the Self.  The rejection by the victims of the old ideology leaves a vacuum into which the new ideology can be placed.  That new ideology is presented as the path to good.  The victims are encouraged to make a conscious choice in favor of the new system, and, once that is done, the previous attacks on the victims’ identities that caused the victims pain are replaced with welcoming comfort, collegiality, and a sense of belonging.  In this way the brainwasher reinforces the positive choice of the new ideology:  the new identity is safe and “good” unlike the uncomfortable and “bad” former ideology.  The victims will shed all allegiance to the old ideology and fully affirm the new as they are accepted and anchored firmly into the new order.

Lifton and subsequent psychologists who identify the steps of brainwashing and how it leads to a profound state of suggestibility also discuss why some people are more susceptible than others.  A strong sense of identity and self-confidence along with faith in a higher power can assist a targeted victim from detaching from and resisting the process.  I would submit that in this age of social media and its companion need for social acceptance and group belonging, an age in which social influence has such great power, that taking simple social influence to the next level of actual mind reform is perhaps a not too difficult task for those seeking to do so.  That is, for many the need for social approval and acceptance is so strong and so often accompanied by self-doubt, that their very identities will be easy targets for the brainwasher.

I don’t know where those who repost and repeat the ugly anti-Trump rhetoric are in this process of mind reform.  Are they fully accepted into the cult of anti-Trump, or are they trying to get there?  I do believe they are at least past the first phase and either because they are full members or in an effort to continue assuaging the guilt they feel for their old “bad” ideology, they are trying to impose the same efforts that worked on them on those who still hold those “bad” beliefs. 

Regardless of whether they are the brainwasher, the victims, or both, they are filled with either fear or hate of all who do not share the anti-Trump agenda.  Moreover, they are incapable of having any kind of dialog about the varying ideologies that must always exist in a democracy.  Reposting memes, repeating phrases that attempt to assign guilt to those who hold the “wrong” beliefs, makes them complicit in the brainwashing of new victims. 

In nearly any attempt at conversation that I have had with one of these at least semi-brainwashed individuals, rather than carry on a discussion their approach is to repeatedly ask me questions that take this two-part form:  (1) How can you hold that view when (2) it reveals you as racist/a white supremacist/without compassion/stupid/ignorant/without humanity or compassion/etc.?  Such a question presumes that my beliefs are indeed as labeled (e.g. they are racist, etc.).  If the questioner has already determined that, then there is little room for dialog.  I am immediately put on the defensive, expected to feel guilt and shame (sounds like the first phase of brainwashing, doesn’t it?).  If the second half of the question already has an answer (the view is racist) then the first part also already has an answer – I could only hold that view if I am indeed racist. 

And so, the attempt at brainwashing begins.  Sadly, these questions too often find victims that are likely susceptible to the anti-Trump brainwashing.  They will begin to question their identity and their beliefs and are thus well on the way to the guilt and shame that will make them willing victims of mind reform.

A real dialog might instead include questions such as:  “I don’t understand your view, could you explain it to me?”  Or even “I don’t understand why that view is not racist, but I’d like to hear why you believe it is not.”  Anything that would open up a discussion about differing views and differing ideologies.  That is far different than calling something a discussion or dialog when it is actually an attempt to create shame and guilt combined with  a predetermined judgment about a view and anyone who holds that view as being in some way “bad.”

With apology to Sophocles, I ask:   Who is the brainwasher, who is the brainwashed?  Are you a victim?  Are you knowingly or unknowingly assisting in brainwashing others?  Without honestly asking these questions of ourselves and others and honestly answering, there is little hope for dialog or tolerance, two key pieces of a free and democratic society.