The Story Does Not Have to End Badly

ONCE UPON A TIME

Once upon a time people took responsibility for their own lives. If they felt unhappy, suffered a setback, were hurt physically or emotionally, they might ask for temporary help or consolement, but would work towards, and then would, pick themselves up and move forward. Not diminishing the hurt and pain, but learning from it, working to see that it did not repeat itself.

Once upon a time, people were honest, or at least tried to be. When they made a mistake they would admit it, take responsibility, face the consequences, and, again, learn from it.

Once upon a time, people did not blame all their problems on others, without taking any responsibility for themselves, without acknowledging that sometimes life just isn’t fair, that things happen.

Once upon a time, people actually believed that things happen for a reason; reasons that mere mortals may not understand at the moment.

Once upon a time, people did not live only in the moment, needing immediate gratification and resolution. Instead, they had and respected the concept of patience, understanding that things take time to evolve and to come to fruition.  Understanding this, they were also willing to work for their and society’s goals without receiving immediate gratification or compensation or awards for their efforts.

Once upon a time, people did not need scapegoats for their or their nation’s problems.  They did not villainize based on first impressions or political agendas.

Once upon a time, people did not rush to judgment but instead waited for facts and evidence which they then weighed to arrive at their own well-thought-out decision.  They did not simply repeat conclusions delivered to them by others.

Once upon a time, people paid attention to rules, laws, authorities.  They did not do as they pleased but rather were guided by laws created by the society in which they live.  They used non-violent civil disobedience to voice displeasure with laws or their outcomes rather than violent and destructive riots (which they call “peaceful protests).  They also believed that laws should be enforced equally, rather than based upon where the violator falls on the political spectrum.

Once upon a time, people cared about things bigger than just themselves – family, country, God.  These concepts helped them to live and join together for a common purpose and good of all, even when they might differ about their own personal beliefs.

Once upon a time, people believed that people were more than the color of their skin or their political party and they could treat one another as individuals rather than cardboard cutouts of this or that identity group.  They saw humanity as One, rather than a bunch of separate warring groups and their “Intersectionalities” constantly urged by those seeking power to hate one another.

Once upon a time, people were tolerant of their differences one from another.  They were able to live together despite those differences, form families, communities, and a country, and work together and with patience to ever better their society.

THAT WAS THEN.  THIS IS NOW.

Today, too many people expect that every moment of their waking (and sleeping too) life should be happy and enjoyable.  If it is not, there is no looking within, but rather an unending need to blame others for every problem.

At the same time, these people demand others take care of them, believe that everything that they want is simply a “human right” to which they are entitled to be provided – by the government (which really means by their neighbors who pay the taxes that will pay for their gifts), by those who have worked hard (and perhaps just been lucky in the face of life) and acquired more than the people making demands, by those who their political leaders have labeled as oppressors or other villains.

Today, too many people demand immediate gratification; they are without patience.  They are willing to jump to judgment on any issue without examination of facts or consequences of varying forms of actions.  When their initial judgment is proven to be in error, rather than admit as much they will double down with hate against those whose truth has proven them wrong.

Today, too many people think that laws are nothing but a suggestion at best.  If useful to attack someone or something they find displeasing they will go all in  with legal approaches, but if they find those laws displeasing, standing in the way of their pleasure or their desired actions and policies, then they will just ignore the rule of law (which, by the way, is a core foundation of this country, the disrespect and disobedience of which will surely destroy America as we know it).

Today, too many people do not care about God or country or family; rather, their focus is exclusively on themselves and their own pleasure.  That prohibits them from working with others for the better of all humanity; but that does not matter to these people whose primary, if not only concern is simply their own satisfaction.

Today, too many people think that everyone should think as they do, that all should march in lock step to their singular belief structures.  They easily label those who are different, whether in thought, appearance, class, or other distinction, to be something evil, something less than they are, something that one should have no remorse about destroying.

Today, too many people are caught up in a superficial self-absorption that is moving at rapid pace to destroy individuality, individual freedom, family, country, society, and ultimately the world.

WE ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK - CAN WE CHANGE TRAINS?

"Train" seems an appropriate metaphor since Joe Biden loves to use the train as his symbol.  He wanted us to switch to his train in 2020, it promised a good ride for everyone, a ride full of love, peace, and happiness. 

That was a lie.  Indeed, one of the first things we learned about Joe the conductor is that he is a pathological liar. He has told lies about every major policy action of his administration:  Afghanistan; Inflation; the “infrastructure” acts, their cost, their content, their intent; taxes and the middle class; illegals in this country; the border; his opposition; his interactions with school unions and CRT; he and his family’s relations with foreign oligarchs; his travel; his health; his Vice President; his appointees; the economy; US independence from foreign oil and other needs; Coronavirus; and many many others.

Even when he makes a statement that is false and the proof of that falsity is placed squarely before him, Biden nonetheless doubles down on the lie rather than admitting his mistake.  Then he begins finger pointing to set the blame and responsibility anywhere but on himself.

Our conductor is not only a liar, he has no respect for the rule of law.  He repeatedly proclaims guilt and innocence (e.g. the border agents & allegations of whipping that were proven false; calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist and murderer before any trial).  He ignores law and court rulings that contradict his position (e.g. going ahead with the OSHA vaccine mandates even after a Federal appellate court declared this overbroad and unconstitutional).  

Indeed, making judgements in several politically sensitive cases before or during trial removes the jury’s duty, obligation, and right to make such decisions, as well as very possibly affecting the outcome.  Doing what he wants despite the law and legal processes is authoritarian behavior that is a clear attack on democracy and its rule of law.

Our conductor Biden also has problems following laws of his professed religion that he doesn’t like or which are not politically convenient for him.  That is a problem between he and his God; nonetheless, it does give us further refection of his true character.

There is a selfish, “let them eat cake”, attitude within this administration and its supporters as they suggest that in light of the huge inflation that it would be good for our health to simply eat less.  Tell that one to the mother of a couple of teenage boys whose food bill has nearly doubled along with the gas she needs to buy to get to the grocery store and to her job (if she still has one) where her paycheck buys less due to higher prices across the board along with higher taxes.  And with what little spending power she may have left, she has to deal with empty shelves due to supply chain issues - issues that our conductor Biden tells us are actually good for us and the economy.

Our conductor also, rather than giving us a ride of unity and peace, is dividing us into different cars based not only on external identity characteristics and political beliefs, but also on our core beliefs and values.  Not the gentle, kind “Uncle Joe” as was promised, our conductor is full of hate for all who do not agree with him and his policies. 

It is possible that there are those today who are fine with all of the above, those who, because they are not personally affected by any of the above (YET!) ignore what is going on or simply accept it.  These are the people who are helping our conductor, shoveling the coal (or the clean new energy) into the engine, allowing our conductor to keep us on his track.

This train is chugging along at a faster and faster pace.  It is headed for a crash. 

If this were a country and not a train, we would call that conductor authoritarian and anti-democratic.  Oh, wait, it is a country and that conductor is our president.  And he is moving with enormous speed to destroy America and society as we know it.

WE NEED TO GET OFF AND FIND ANOTHER TRAIN.

First step:  the majority need to admit that they were bamboozled by the brochure and picked the wrong train. ( If they still think they are on the right track they may want to get their heads out of the sand or listen to something other than CNN, or they are simply completely self-absorbed without concern for the society around them).  

It’s hard to admit mistakes, but if they are to be corrected, that is the first step.

Nest step:  the majority need to stop blindly accepting what they are told - by the President, by the politicians, by the media.  Everyone needs to instead start asking for all the facts, questioning those facts, considering conclusions and their consequences, and making up their own minds.

Next step:  the people need to speak up and do so civilly as a democracy allows and requires.  Speak to friends, but also to leaders and politicians.  Make everyone's' voices heard.  Ask the questions that need asking of the people who will be making the decisions that will ultimately affect the lives of all of us.

Next step:  become educated about our government and our political system.  Read the constitution.  Read about the three branches of government – who each is and what each’s role is and what are the limitations on each.  Understand how the three branches serve as a necessary system of checks and balances on one another.  Learn this from an objective standpoint, not from someone with a biased political agenda.

Next step:  Vote.  Not based on party.  Not based on what one is told.  Based upon investigation of the individual candidates, their role within their party, the role of the seat they are seeking within our system of government.  Understand what things that role can affect, how the individual candidates will carry out their role, and the effect that person’s decisions will have.

Begin your education today.  Consider what sort of train you want to be on.  Every election is an opportunity to change trains, but in order to choose wisely you must be prepared with knowledge and the ability to think critically about what you are told.  That preparation cannot wait until the trains are in, or about to leave, the station.  It is up to all of us how our the story of our journey ends.

Ideology & Acceptance or Inquiry & Freedom

In 2004, NCSU Emeritus History Professor R. Slatta created a chart that captures the contrasts between Ideology and Inquiry:

As one can see from the above, the characteristics of ideology and inquiry are mutually exclusive opposites.  Nonetheless, most of humanity entertain characteristics of each, as does society and its politicians.  Yet, while in different situations we may emphasize more of one or the other,  when one becomes exclusively dominant problems arise.

When ideology completely takes over and blots out critical thinking as well as the values and principles that allow us to navigate the opposing forms of behavior and thought, then we are in trouble – we lose the ability to navigate, to keep both in check as needed, and to understand when ideology rather than those core values are guiding us.

When a country’s politicians become ideologues rather than representatives and issue solvers, then our country is in severe peril.

Politicians have always stood for certain issue or policy positions.  Their attempts to resolve issues according to their preferred policy perspective has always required navigation between the ideological and the rational.  Yet underlying the persuasive acts in favor of their particular issue resolution, there was a touchstone built on the history, core values and beliefs of the country.  That touchstone allowed the partisan politicians to find ways of coming together to further the best interests of the country as well as to prevent them from becoming blinded by pure ideology.

Not so much today.  Today we have not partisan politicians but ideologues.  You can recognize them by their hypocrisy as well as the polarization they (usually intentionally) create.  When a partisan politician cares about his or her country, he or she will be willing to compromise positions for the good of the country.  But an ideologue is “someone who theorizes; an often blindly partisan advocate of a particular ideology.”  The typical ideologue is uncompromising and dogmatic.

The ideologue’s goal is to implant a particular ideology in everyone.  Yes, everyone.  That goal outweighs all else, including facts and rational thought and Truth.  The narrative becomes all important as the narrative is used to assimilate everyone into the ideologue’s ideology and to demean and create enemies of those who will not be swayed – those who choose to think for themselves. 

This is how today we so often see politicians and their followers to be inconsistent and hypocritical in their statements and actions, why the positions of the Left actually contradict many traditional liberal positions and values.  Ideologues do not have a solid issue position but rather a position that those who are not with them are always wrong (even if they hold a position that the ideologue has advocated for, the ideologue will now take the opposite stand). 

The ideologue politicians of today have lost sight of who and what a politician is.  They have lost sight of their role as simply a go-between for the people and their government.  Having lost sight of that touchstone built upon an understanding of our country, its values, and its democracy,  absolute and complete installation of their ideology has become their primary if not their only goal.  And their own power becomes imperative to them because they believe only they can keep the ideological order that they choose to implement.

What the successful ideologue ultimately does is destroy freedom.  If one is going to create and control a successful ideology then one must keep those whom one controls from thinking for themselves.  In the ideal ideological world, everyone must be the same in every way (the Left’s equity which is in no way equality).   Except of course those in power who make the decisions for everyone else.

That is not the structure upon which America was created and which has allowed her to become the great country that she has become.  That is the structure that will destroy America (and already is doing so as the ideologues gain more and more control). 

An ideologue is both more and less than a partisan.  More, because they are often more passionate and more persuasive, and even often receive more misplaced applause for their inability to bend and compromise.  Yet they are less than a partisan because their advocacy has no valid or constructive goal other than to advance their own ideology and power.

Ideologues exist on both sides of the political aisle.  Today, the rightist ideologues mostly push the traditional American ideology.  This is certainly far less dangerous to America than the progressive and socialist ideology of the Left, but it is not totally benign.

Anyone or group that pushes ideology rather than issue and problem solving is furthering an effort that avoids the individuality of thought.  It polarizes people until they become completely incapable of acting even in their own best interests let alone in the best interests of their community and country.  Worst of all, ideology destroys individual freedom.

Freedom requires thought, intellectual inquiry, critical thinking, creativity.  And these activities require freedom.  The ideologues would destroy both – the freedom and the activities upon which it thrives and which require freedom to thrive.  Ideology requires a uniformity void of individual thought and freedom.

America has created a place where Freedom and Intellectual Inquiry thrive.  This environment has allowed America to evolve and grow, to become a world power and a shining example to the rest of the world.  Right now, the ideologues on the Left are working to destroy all that. 

The Leftist ideology can be quite persuasive but, before giving in, the people of this country need to be sure they have exercised those skills of intellectual inquiry that we all possess.  Partisanship is a part of this country, but blind ideology is not.  The one helps us to grow, the other will kill us all.

Just a Few Questions

The Biden Vaccine Mandate seems to be a complete power grab with no truly sound basis in its alleged purpose of protecting health.  Questions such as those I list below reveal the illogic of Biden’s likely unconstitutional mandate.

• If the vaccine is really so great, why do the vaccinated need protection from the unvaccinated?

• If the alleged health concern requires a mandate for all Americans, why is there no requirement that immigrants crossing the border into our country be vaccinated?

• Why does Biden’s mandate not allow an alternative to vaccination in the form of regular negative Covid tests which certainly provide as much protection to others as does being vaccinated?

• Without the alternative of providing a negative Covid test, what is someone with a valid exemption to the vaccine requirement supposed to do?

• Without the alternative of providing a negative test, isn’t there a curtailment of First Amendment religious rights for those who have valid religious objections to the vaccine?

• Those who have chosen to get the vaccine and to advocate for it must trust its efficacy, so what difference does it make to them if someone else is vaccinated or not? That is, when did they become their Brother’s Keeper to the extent that they take away their Brother’s right to choose for himself?

• Why is the government so focused on the vaccine and its mandate as opposed to exploring and expanding access to treatments for Covid that have proven effective in the limited extent to which their use has been allowed? Is it that the vaccine is more profitable?

• If Covid is so dangerous, why is the death percentage rarely reported (as opposed to the number of deaths which, if all cases were reported, may be, and often is, below 1%; the death percentage varies depending on age and other risk factors, but is generally well below 10%)?

• What is the real purpose in creating two opposing identity groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated, making one out to be the root of all evil, and pitting the two groups against one another?

• Both the vaccine and the virus provide risks; those risks vary from individual to individual.  Why not let each individual, in consultation with his or her health provider, assess and balance those risks for themselves in the context of their individual health status and lifestyle, and make a realistic decision based on those factors as to whether or not to take the vaccine?

These are all valid questions.  But the biggest question of all is:  What is the real reason that the Left is so obsessed with making everyone subjugate themselves to their demand of vaccination?  What is their real reason for wanting to remove the right of one to choose for him or herself?

Let’s remember that when it comes to abortion these are the same folks who assert “your body, your choice.”  They will leave that choice to the individual even when it comes to the question of ending the life of a separate individual who is as yet unborn.  But they would give you no choice over your body when it involves taking a vaccine with known risks especially for some individuals and which provides only questionable protection from a virus which for most is a mild disease and whose death rate is only about 1% (a lot less than the 100% death rate of abortion).

Moreover, the unvaccinated, if one believes the Left’s other assertions, are not endangering the vaccinated.  Because, if we need this vaccine to protect us, then the vaccinated are protected.  Under this thinking, the unvaccinated are only putting themselves at risk, and isn’t that their choice?

But, you may say, what about the hospital space taken up by Covid patients?  Well, what about the hospital space taken up by any number of patients that have made other and more clearly risky life choices?  Does the Left plan to condemn everyone who has not lived the perfect life or perhaps made a choice that they do not approve of?  This while they from the other side of their mouths tell us we must care for and treat humanely those who, by their own life choices, have placed themselves in less than desirable situations.

So, once again the hypocrisy of the Left becomes exposed.   This is not really about Covid.  This is about their narrative and their power hungry need to impose their narrative on all others.  Those who do not comply become enemies of the State.  And our President who calls for Unity is the first to condemn all those who do not comply. 

These are frightening times, especially when, with the help of the biased media that also loves both a crisis and the Left, the masses have been fomented into a frenzy of fear of this disease and, in their attempt to allay their own anxiety will simply do as they are told. 

A better remedy would be to start thinking!

When one submits out of fear to a mandate that requires relinquishment of personal freedom and choice, one has essentially conceded that one is willing to give up that personal freedom entirely in order to simply feel less anxious.  Such people are willing to be controlled in order to feel safe.  A tiger in a cage is also safe from any predators he might face in the wild, safe from hunger and uncertainty.  But what kind of life does he live in a cage?  Certainly not a life of freedom.

As for me, I will continue to consult with my health professional, read actual studies, and make my own decisions.  I will choose whether and when to be vaccinated and boosted, whether and when to wear a mask, as I assess my own individual risk factors.  If this places me in a group of leper-like second class citizens, so be it.  I retain my integrity, my freedom, and my soul.

Is a corn dog really worth it?

This is about the freedom and privacy that one must give up to enter the State Fair this year in New Mexico.  The information comes from the NM Department of Health, in an Order signed by Acting Secretary David Scrase in compliance with and as directed by the Governor.  The full order can be found HERE    The relevant sections are Directives (8), (9), (10).

Following is a summary of the order’s requirements along with my comments

1.  If eligible to be vaccinated, proof that one is vaccinated or proof of a negative CoVid test within 48 hours of entrance.   

Comment:    OK, that is reasonable assuming that the State Fair wants to take precautions to protect its patrons from catching or spreading Covid. 

2.  If not vaccinated, one must also show proof of a valid exemption (medical condition, disability, or religious); a State Fair official will determine that the individual has met these exemption requirements.

Comment:  WHAT? How does the reason for one’s not being vaccinated have anything to do with the simple fact that one is not and thus must prove a negative covid test?  And if one is not vaccinated and provides that negative test, then the Fair’s health concerns are met. 

3.  “New Mexico State Fair officials shall maintain records of the vaccination or exemption status of all persons entering the grounds. . . .  The records regarding an individual’s vaccination or exemption status shall be provided to the Department of Health promptly upon request.”

Comments:  So, one must not only disclose personal health information to the Fair personnel and the State in order to be admitted when the safety concerns for the Fair would be fully served by simply stating one is not vaccinated and showing proof of a negative test, but beyond that, this requirement is taking away one’s freedom of choice to be vaccinated or not for whatever reason they may choose. 

That is, one has the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated, but they must then understand that in order to enter a place that requires a vaccine they may instead need to show a negative test.  As stated above, that is reasonable. 

But now they must meet specific requirements in order to “choose” not to be vaccinated.  That is not free choice, that is a State mandate of vaccination.   Only the State can "choose" for you from three specific State approved reasons allowing one to decline.

The individual has no free choice to be or not be vaccinated, to attend or stay home, or to have the necessary test in order to attend.  And there is no reason that the Fair or anyone else needs to know the reason for not being vaccinated as long as one provides the negative test required for entry. 

This is a huge overreach by the State, one that I believe wrongly interferes with our personal freedoms.

So, here is your choice:  Corndog or Freedom.  Choose wisely my friends, for the consequences will last a lifetime.

 OR   

Presiding over the Annihilation of Democracy

Apparently, Joe Biden doesn’t just want to annihilate America as we know it, but the Middle East as well.  Perhaps it’s all part of his new world order. 

  Destroying America

By now it must be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that President Biden’s domestic agenda is incredibly destructive to every core American principle and value.  He is not merely enlarging but is totally bloating the powers of the federal government, far beyond what even the broadest reading of our Constitution would allow.  The effect of that agenda is the loss of personal freedoms and of what were until now Constitutionally protected rights.  And, if HR-1, which Biden fully supports, is passed, the voice of the people via free, fair, and integrous elections will be seriously impaired if not lost.

Beyond the seemingly dictatorial government power grab, Biden’s agenda is destroying the American spirit.  He pays people to not work.  His policies destroy any reward or incentive for hard work, whether it is removal of AP classes to satisfy “equity” (while at the same time destroying any motivation for a student to excel), or the fact that one can now earn more on unemployment than being employed (encouraging dependence on the State for one’s survival while removing any suggestion of personal responsibility), or that companies that spent time and effort during the previous administration’s Warp Speed to develop Covid vaccines can now not patent those vaccines and thus earn the financial reward to which they, until now, would be entitled for their efforts (and let’s hope we don’t have another pandemic because the drive to innovate has essentially been quashed when the innovators must share the rewards of their efforts with those who sat back and did nothing). 

A core premise of our nation, at least prior to this administration, is equality.   We don’t always manage to get it right, but we have always strived for equal treatment of all.   As has been explained by myself and many others, equality is not equity.  Equality does not guarantee equal results, but it does give (or at least strives to give) all individuals the ability to go after that which they themselves want their life to be.  And, in an America that values tolerance, we respect goals that differ from our own.

There is a fairness to equality that is not present in equity.  Equity simply strives to have the same result for everyone.  There is no guarantee that result is arrived at fairly or that it is what the individual is seeking.  Equity actually requires significant inequality and discrimination as it provides extra benefits and rewards to some while denying benefits and rewards to others so that all will have the same result; a result determined not by the individual but by those in power.

What equity does is give us mediocrity and no incentive for an individual to strive to be the best that he or she can be.

Biden’s policies are also creating a suffocating weight around the neck of our country far greater than the weight of the Albatross on the Ancient Mariner.  The country’s debt was not good, but Biden makes it far worse with his stimulus and other giveaways, all of which he and the Left seek to make permanent and all of which must be paid for by taxpayers.  His policies are causing inflation.  His energy policies not only cause gas prices to rise, but also create rising costs for any product that is transported, whether by truck, train, or plane.  While Biden says he won’t raise taxes on the middle class, the burden of all his programs will be a far more serious strain on the middle class. 

President Biden also seems to have no respect for the rule of law.  Not only did he speak out in favor of one result prior to the jurors’ decision in the Chauvin case, he regularly inserts his opinion into legal issues without actual knowledge of the facts (for instance his erroneous statements about the Georgia voting law which continued even after Washington Post fact checkers had given him “4 Pinocchios”.)   

The Biden Administration is also breaking immigration law in any number of ways.  These include not enforcing border controls, keeping children locked up for days or even weeks in horrific and crowded conditions, releasing migrants into the interior of our country without a return court date, encouraging sanctuary cities (whose very purpose is to violate and disregard federal immigration law).

The upshot of the above, and actually of just about every action that the President takes, is to tear America apart and down.  If he is allowed to keep this up for 4 years (or even 2) he will have, in effect, annihilated the America that we know, the America that was a shining star to the world.

   Destroying Middle East Peace and/or Israel

Biden’s acts of destruction go beyond our borders.  Look at the Middle East, the place where the previous administration was able to do the impossible and negotiate 4 peace accords that were a major step in achieving a new understanding between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

Since his inauguration, President Biden has essentially ignored Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu while pandering to Israel’s enemies.  He provided money as well as tacit support to Iran which emboldened Iran to provide missiles and other weapons of war to Hamas. 

Hamas is an admitted terrorist organization whose goal, stated in its own charter, is to “obliterate” Israel.  Styling themselves as some sort of victim class, Hamas has begun firing rockets against Israel.

We all know that our current administration loves any victim class and will bend over backwards to support the alleged victims against their perceived oppressors.  So, rather than condemn the terrorist aggression, Biden calls upon Israel to stop defending itself and cease fire.  There is absolutely no condemnation of Hamas, no acknowledgement of its mission to destroy Israel along with all Jews, not even a nod to Israel’s right to protect its own people.  

Israel’s army is superior to Hamas, and that seems to be a reason to condemn Israel.  Perhaps Biden would like to see equity between the armies of Israel and Hamas, but such equity would probably destroy Israel.  Israel is the most humane of any armed force:  it always provides a warning of upcoming strikes when planning to strike an area where civilians may be present.  Hamas on the other hand uses civilians and especially children to shield their rocket launchers and other weapons. 

But the Left is anti-Israel, and as with everything else, Biden is either strongly Leftist or caves to the Left.  So, today, he demanded a "significant de-escalation" by Israel.  No call for Hamas to disarm.  No acknowledgement that Hamas is the aggressor.  No recognition of Israel’s need to protect its own people.  No grief over the suffering or death of the Jews.

Thankfully, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a leader who cares about his country and its citizens whom he is bound to protect rather than one or another cause du jour.  He stated that “Israel will push ahead to return the calm and security to the citizens of Israel."  That is his job, and President Biden should acknowledge the right of our longtime ally and only democracy in that region to protect itself from terrorist attack.

But Biden does not.  In the interest of pleasing the Left he seems willing to see Israel destroyed along with America.  He seems to care nothing for the people of America or our longtime ally Israel.  He seems to care nothing for democracy or freedom. 

What’s next, the world? If Biden and his far-Left policies continue, democracy will be destroyed not only in America, but in the entire world.  And then, where will those seeking freedom and the right to exercise their inherent, inalienable, and God-given rights go?

Drop by Drop Freedom is Lost

Today, President Biden, by executive order, has expanded the restrictions on the Constitutional rights of the people.   This was not a law passed by Legislative procedures.   There was no legislative consideration by the people’s representatives in Congress.  This was executive fiat. 

For the record, I am not a fan of guns, but I am a fan of the Constitution. 

Regardless of my personal feelings about guns, the Second Amendment protects the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms.  That Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, and importantly is part of the Bill of Rights – the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power, its intent being to provide for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties.  The First Amendment includes protections for the rights of freedom of religion (both exercise and establishment), freedom speech, of the press; of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  The Second provides the right to keep and bear arms.  The Fourth protects the people from unreasonable search and seizure and the Fifth provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.  The Amendments provide for a variety of rights to criminal defendants.  And Amendment Ten provides that powers not specifically delegated to the government are reserved to the people.

These are important Amendments.  Yes, reasonable and necessary restrictions can be placed upon these rights, but the standard for such restrictions is both narrow and requires significant showing of extraordinary necessity. 

The 2^nd Amendment is part of these protected rights.  Regardless of what you think of the right to keep and bear arms, it holds equal place with such rights as freedom to worship, to speak, to be protected from unreasonable searches, and the many other individual rights protected for the people by the Constitution.  No one right is more important than another; people cannot pick and choose which is or is not to be defended.   

If the President thinks he can, and does, restrict these rights simply by signing an executive order, then all of the people’s rights are in peril.  What is to stop an executive order from restricting your right to worship?  To write a controversial op-ed?  To demand a search warrant before your home is searched?  

The President takes an oath to support and protect the Constitution.   How does a unilateral decision to diminish certain rights simply because he does not like them square with that oath?  Answer:  it doesn’t. 

Today’s executive order may seem harmless enough – tighten restrictions on “ghost guns” (untraceable individually constructed firearms) – but to stop with that thought misses the more important point.  This is the Constitution, the document that protects to the people the rights that are fundamental in making America the country that it is.  The document that protects the many freedoms that Americans take for granted. 

Yet, what the President has shown us today is that he believes that he, with the mere stroke of a pen, has a right to cancel and restrict whichever of those rights he chooses.  That is not America.  And while this one order will not end America as we know it, it does put us on the road toward that end.  What hastens our pace on that road is the acceptance of the right of those in power to unilaterally remove the rights belonging to the people.

Those who have lived through the rise of a dictatorship will tell you that it happens in a way that you don’t notice until it is too late.  Little by little your freedoms are taken away.  Drop by drop until the bucket of freedoms is empty and you have no freedom at all.  This executive order is just one of those drops.  But it is important to notice what it means.

 

Of Communists, Artisans, Conformity, and Freedom

 A few years ago when I was taking a Russian class we were studying vocabulary associated with apartments and their furnishings.  My teacher, who had grown up in Soviet Russia, was able to draw on the board a perfect diagram of a Soviet apartment in which most Russians lived.  Unofficially called Khrushchyovka, they were all alike:  same entry, same location of kitchen and main room, same hall to bedroom, same basic furnishings, even the same location of the mat on which to put your snow boots.  The only difference was whether or not a particular apartment had more than one bedroom (something that the State decided for the individual residents).

This of course was part of the Soviet Communist plan to change human nature from individualistic to communal.  Essentially, communism destroys individual initiative in its effort to make the individual a cog in the greater governmental machine.  The individual mind and soul ultimately become fully subject to the Communist State.  And conformity is a necessary part of losing oneself to that “greater good.”

The other day a friend was looking to replace some floor tile from about 20-plus years ago.  The tile had been hand-crafted.  After visiting not only the original source but similar vendors, one tile shopkeeper explained to her not only how such tile was made but that the reason it is no longer made, the reason such artisanship is dying if not dead, is that now the demand is for mass-produced items that will all be identical. 

Somehow this seems to put us in a similar place as the Soviet apartment dwellers.  No unique, individualistic style available.  This is underscored when one flips through a decorating magazine.  Everything is rather impersonal and certainly mass produced.  Not unlike the Soviet apartments where one could feel equally at home in a neighbor’s apartment as their own, when one looks at contemporary and popular decorating design, there seems to be little room for individual style.  One might easily adapt to a neighbor’s house as their own.

The major difference seems to be that while the Soviets were forced to accept this dehumanization, this removal of individuality, contemporary Americans are seeking it out.  But why?  What is the appeal of giving up one’s individuality to simply become one of the mass-produced humans?  Why would one voluntarily give up individuality for conformity?

This question is not limited to how one decorates one’s surroundings.  We see everywhere a disinclination to stand out as oneself.  And if one does, one is often bullied in one way or another into conformity. 

Of course, it is always easier to conform.  It is easier to simply follow what someone else has decided for you. But it also means giving up your individual humanity – that which makes you unique and whom you are.

Growing up in the 50s and 60s I and my peers did anything we could to break from conformity, from a predetermined pronouncement by some other of what we should think and how we should act.  It allowed us to become more fully whom we each were meant to be.  Artisans not only flourished but were appreciated, as was individual creativity and individual thought.  Making one’s own decisions is a very special form of freedom that is perhaps not well appreciated in America today.

Today, individual thought, and especially thought which counters the views of someone else, is considered unacceptable.  Groups, especially those in power, feel that it is perfectly OK to silence those with opposing views until they are willing to conform.  And too many seem more than willing to do so without giving any thought whatsoever to what they are doing.

I realize the pendulum swings, but why would we allow it to swing back to the limiting place of conformity?  Do those who conform and demand that others similarly conform to their politically and socially correct agenda realize what they are doing?  Not just to themselves, but to our society as a whole?  I think that President Kennedy said it well:

If we want to maintain our freedom, if we want to not stagnate, if we want to be all that we can be, then we must retain our individuality and with it our humanity and our very freedom to be the unique self that we each are meant to be.

Here is an example of the Soviet Khrushchyovka apartment blocks and interior plan, home to most Russians during the Soviet era:

Don’t Trust the Snippets

History is important because it can guide and instruct us, not because it has all the answers.  Just like with the Bible, people can take snippets out of context and use them to support almost any premise.  Yet, when read in full context and with full understanding, that snippet may mean and support something quite different. 

I am not a Biblical scholar but I have read and studied a fair amount of history and I think that these days there is much misunderstanding and misuse of snippets from history.  There especially seems to be short-sighted and biased uses of the terms Nationalism, and Socialism/Communism. 

 Let’s consider the core themes underlying these terms.  First, Nationalism.  Its basic ideology is that one puts one’s country first.  How that plays out can exist on a spectrum.  On one end is Nazism or things like what we currently see in China as, for example, Muslims being placed in “reeducation camps.”

If you step off the other end of the spectrum there is no nation at all to be nationalist about.  Close to that end is the point that is reached when a country’s borders are so open and porous that there is actually no border at all.   Most forms of Nationalism are far closer to the middle of the spectrum than either of these extremes.

The underlying ideology of Socialism is to make better humans and in so doing make a better society.  (Note that it does not define "better" but leaves that to whomever is in power.)  Whatever form Socialism takes, it advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  Classic Marxism sees Socialism as a transitional state on the way to the realization of Communism which envisions the creation of totally communal humans and with that a totally communal (Communist) society. 

Socialism falls less as a spectrum and more as a movement.  It starts with an existing society and through various methods of control works to re-make the humans therein so that they become, or at least behave like, the ideal that the leaders are seeking.  (As an aside, let’s not forget that part of Hitler’s nationalism was a desire to create a master race; nationalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive).   At the end of the socialist movement the individual and any individual freedom is completely lost to the preconceived socialist society.

Let’s take a particular snippet: “America First.”  There is no question that this phrase was associated with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and has a negative connotation as used there.  But we are not living in 1930 and when that phrase was used by Donald Trump it had a very different meaning as well as connotation.  While Hitler sought his master race via elimination of Jews and others, Trump sought to protect the borders of America by empowering its people while strengthening its immigration laws (not eliminating legal immigration nor diversity).  To say that simply because the same phrase was used in connection with two men that those two men were and their agenda was the same is a disingenuous use of a snippet to support an anti-Trump agenda.

There have been many promises throughout history of the beauty and glory of a socialist society.  These snippets are often shared without the context of what happened to the people who believed those dreams.   On the other hand, some aspects of socialism can have a beneficial effect if carefully implemented and controlled. 

Those who advocate socialism often ignore human nature in their socialist propaganda.  Even with his power from things like the Great Terror and the absolute fear of dissent instilled in the people, Stalin had to pull back and re-grant some aspects of individual freedom and even capitalism to his people:  he realized he could not simply remake mankind into a totally communal animal.

From the dawn of mankind, people have been territorial and selfish.  They also can be humanitarian and idealistic.  They can be all of these things and many more to a greater or lesser degree, and all with individual differences.  It is unrealistic to think that any political philosophy can remake all of mankind.

Nations, which are just the family or tribal unit on a grander scale are made of these same humans.  All nations are nationalist to some degree just as they are all socialist/communist to some degree.  To perceive either of these terms as entirely good or entirely evil is inaccurate.  And to take one snippet or phrase and use it to characterize a person or action in an entirely different context is not helpful to anyone.

A nation requires boundaries.  It usually has certain values and customs that define it.  It also usually welcomes diversity to some extent.   To be a nation, the people within it must want to protect and sustain it and that is nationalism and usually involves some aspect of “Nation First.”  That nationalism can become totalitarianist or evil does not make it in and of itself evil.  It can and more often does just as easily become a positive environment for the nation’s inhabitants.

All groups of people to a certain extent have an aspect of communalism (i.e. socialism).  Programs such as Social Security in which the community as a whole (in our case our elected representatives) has decided not only that a benefit will be available but what the amount and parameters of that benefit will be.  In other, non-representative forms of government other power structures will make the decisions, but in any socialist program the individual loses some individual freedom.

In a democracy the individuals make the choice of when and how much freedom they are willing to relinquish and for what purpose.  But socialism can, and usually does, easily become totalitarian in which the people no longer have the choice but are forced to give up their individualism to the collective.

Absolutes are rare in the daily world.  Realizing that would allow people to discuss just how strong we want our nationalism to be and just how much of our individual freedoms are we willing to give up for communal certainties designed by someone else.  But that requires education about these concepts and their histories; that is something which pulling snippets out of context does not provide.  Snippets are used to support hate and division.  Understanding requires more.

The problem here is that already we have those who advocate for Socialism taking full control of our educational tools.  As such, education becomes little more than state-sponsored propaganda.  So, if we are actually going to have a real conversation about these things, if we are going to choose for ourselves where we are headed, we need to do it now or it will be too late.  

The Names We Call Things - Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

Often the Left asserts that the Right, and especially White Conservatives, has been “indoctrinated” with such things as White Supremacy, racial bias and hatred, etc.

In similar fashion the Right often asserts that the Left has been "brainwashed" – to hate Trump and his supporters, to hate America, to embrace Socialism, etc.

In most cases such name calling is the result of someone being faced with a viewpoint that is contrary to their own.  Why does a simple difference of view, stark as it might be, almost immediately devolve into name calling and the hatred that follows?

I submit that this almost knee-jerk reaction is a defensive one resulting from lack of critical thought.  Let me explain.

When one has thought through and chosen to accept a position, rather than simply adopting without thought that of another, the thinker will be certain in their position.  The thinker will know it can be defended.  The thinker will likely also be curious to hear the views of others about the viewpoint that he has formulated. He will always be ready to further assess both his view as well as that of others.

Those who are secure in their positions are not defensive about them.  But, if one, without thought, has merely put on the cloak of another and called it his own, then if attacked he is unable to defend that position and so becomes both fearful and defensive.  He cannot rationally discuss the underlying aspects of the position, so instead of engaging in such a discussion he simply throws negative names and labels at the one holding a differing view in an attempt to drive them away.  

Taken advantage of by those who sincerely promote their viewpoint (whether for the general good or for their own), many simply adopt a view that superficially sounds good to them.  But when challenged, they are left without ability to reasonably respond, discuss, and understand something different or challenging to their adopted view.  They can only react to what they see as and attack and, without understanding of their position they resort to name-calling as their only defense.  And, it is they, the name-callers, who are the ones who in some way have indeed been indoctrinated or brainwashed.

Now, the interesting question is which came first, the indoctrination/brainwashing, or the inability to think critically? 

From the moment anyone is born they face some sort of indoctrination.  Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.”  Of course, there are some things that children must be taught as a basic means of survival – don’t touch a hot stove, don’t eat household cleaners, etc.  Others as a basic matter of civilization.  Relieve yourself in the bathroom, not the living room.  Parents will also teach their children the value system that they believe is good and best for their children.  Some of this early teaching will likely fall into what might be termed a mild form of brainwashing – “the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”

But, good parenting, and good schooling will teach the growing child the additional and crucial piece of humanity called critical thinking – “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.”  It is this piece that allows the individual to assess the information provided to him and to reach his own judgments - judgments that will determine whom he will be as an individual. 

Note, I do not suggest that children should be left to their own devices without any rules.  Of course some "indoctrination" into the family culture and requirements is necessary just as larger groups and the greater society must be taught certain rules and cultural norms that maintain the civility and civilization of that society.  But indoctrination must be balanced with critical thinking.

Sadly, too many parents and too many educators do not want those they are raising to question; rather they look for blind acceptance of what they offer.  They want the individuals in their care to be and become the individuals whom they would have them be rather than the individuals whom they are or are capable of becoming.  This is not only unfair to each individual; it is also unfair and harmful to humanity as a whole.

Too many individuals hold beliefs and values that are not truly their own; they do not have the strength of a person that has been taught to critically evaluate information and has indeed done so in regard to their own beliefs.  It is only then that they have both the strength and courage to fully engage peacefully and productively with others, some with the same and some with differing or even opposing beliefs and values.

And, without the strength of their own convictions, the uncritical thinkers become open fodder for those who would make one or another particular viewpoint the dominant if not only viewpoint in society.  Such a goal is not for the benefit of the un-thinkers; they are simply used by those who promote a goal for their own end – usually their own power to demand that all think as they do.

It is difficult to raise or teach critical thinkers.  It means teaching them to question everything and that includes the one raising or teaching them.  Most people don’t like being challenged and yet that is an essential part of teaching another to be a critical thinker.  Not easy, but essential.  If someone is not taught the importance of asking “why?” then one is being left to the control of others, a control that usually does not end well for the controlled. 

When critical thinking is not a working skill, others will easily take advantage of that fact.  It is only then that indoctrination and brainwashing on a grander scale becomes possible.  And, when that brainwashing or indoctrination is political, we no longer are able to have reasonable policy discussions, we are no longer able to reach across the aisle and compromise for a greater good.  And we devolve to name-calling and hatred.

Critical thinking – both teaching it and doing it – takes courage.  But it also imbues each and everyone of us the strength to be the individual that we are meant to be, not the useful tool of someone else who would think for us.  And if we would use our critical thinking, rather than simply calling names at those with different views we could perhaps have discussions instead.    With a sharing and a critical, curious, and open-minded examination of both our views, perhaps we can understand both.  We can understand if, where, how we may have similar goals as well as accepting where we cannot.

We are all capable of thinking critically, we are just not often encouraged to do so.  Hence, I challenge everyone rather than accepting political policies, to ask “why?” And again, and again, keep asking why to every answer you get until you just can go not further.  Ask what supports a point, who conducted a study, are there different studies, are there additional facts, etc.  Assess the answers.  How well do they support the policy asserted?  What questions do you still have about that policy?  Is it truly a policy that you wish to adopt and defend?

I realize that most people will not do this.  They will simply accept what sounds good and move on.  But we really must address many of the currently proposed policies more critically, assessing not only the policy itself but its ramifications and consequences, for if we do not question now, we may be giving up our opportunity to ever do so.   With critical thinking perhaps we could replace the names “indoctrinated” and “brainwashed” with “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “understanding.”  It is those words that are necessary for a truly strong and free society.

Let’s Be Clear About the Constitution

There is a lot of uncertainty about the coronavirus, and the everchanging statistics and projections that it produces.   Because there is no definitive “right answer” about what we should do, everyone has their own opinion about what we should or should not do. No one can really know what is correct.   That is fine.  What is not fine is that many people seem to have decided that, because there is uncertainty and no definitive answer,  they can simply create their own rules for themselves, disregarding their governors’ restrictions when they do not agree with those restrictions.  (Regarding the rule of law, see my previous post HERE).  

For some reason many seem to think that the Constitution provides them the right to make their own decisions to override legitimately imposed restrictions.  A common assertion at protests against pandemic orders is that the primary reason the Constitution was written was to restrain the government and that to constrain in any way the ability of the citizenry to individually choose how to interact in society is an unconstitutional attack on their “freedom.”  Similarly, there is the assertion that to impose limitations on behavior is some tyrannical form of unconstitutional oppression of individual rights and freedoms.

Nothing could be farther from the truth; such assertions reveal a complete misunderstanding the Constitution, the nature of the governors’ rights and obligations, and what is meant by freedom within our democratic republic. 

I am increasingly troubled by this widespread misunderstanding of our Constitution and our rights that has come to the surface during this pandemic.  Thus, I proceed here to provide a general overview to refresh our memories or to provide an introduction to further study.

First, the preamble to the constitution does not assert or imply that its purpose is to protect you from the government, or that you have the right to ignore laws you do not like, or do whatever you want.  Rather, it states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, the purposes, as stated within the document itself are:

               To form a more perfect Union;

               To establish Justice;

               To insure domestic Tranquility;

               To provide for the common defense;

               To promote the general Welfare;

               To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

To let each of us do whatever we want without restraint is not included.

Now, looking at the document itself, it serves three main functions.  First, it creates a national government consisting of three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) and provides a system of checks and balances between the three.  Second, it divides power between the federal government and the states.  Third, it protects certain individual liberties of American citizens.

Elaborating slightly on these three functions, I would first note that the three branches of government are:  the executive power which is invested in the President; the legislative power which is given to Congress (House and Senate); and the judicial power which is vested in the Supreme Court and other federal courts created by Congress.  The system of checks and balances between these three branches avoids tyranny of any one branch.

Federalism addresses the second function of dividing power between the federal and state governments.  Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.  Those enumerated powers have been interpreted broadly, and, under the supremacy clause of the Constitution federal law is supreme over state law.   The Constitution also limits the powers of the states in relation to one another, such as limiting via the commerce clause the ability to regulate or tax commerce between states and prohibiting states via the privileges and immunities clause from discriminating against citizens of other states. 

The third function, protection of personal liberty of citizens, comes in part from the main body of the Constitution but more familiarly from the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution itself, in response to states’ concerns about the Constitution’s lack of protections for individual rights.  The protections of these amendments were originally interpreted to apply only against the federal government, but the Supreme Court has since ruled that most of them were made applicable to the states by passage of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.  That Amendment also contains the equal protection clause, which protects citizens from discrimination by the states.

The Bill of Rights sets forth specific prohibitions on government power.  They are not a blanket grant to citizens to do what they please.  The bill of rights guarantees certain specific rights to the individual and the ninth amendment specifies that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  While the government may not generally infringe on these rights, they are not absolutely protected from all restriction. 

A law allegedly infringing on specific individual rights may be allowed if, after strict scrutiny, it is determined that the law or regulation is necessary to a compelling governmental interest, is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling purpose, and is the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose.  Essentially, using this test, a constitutional right may be balanced against the government's interest against observance of that right. When such a regulation or its enforcement is challenged we see the operation of the three branches of government and their checks and balances come into play.

So, when a governor of a state enacts a rule which someone believes is unconstitutional, that regulation can be challenged and, using the above criteria may or may not be upheld.  There is nothing in the Constitution or elsewhere that says it is appropriate for an individual who disagrees with a regulation to simply disobey the rule.  That is nothing more than an act of anarchy.  And to assert that the Constitution gives one a right to be an anarchist is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous for people to proclaim that it is their choice whether to go out or not rather than follow a governor’s stay at home or back to work orders. 

People who disagree with a governor’s orders or who agree with a violator of those orders are not “patriots” when they laud the violator.  These are often the same people who demand that sanctuary cities be penalized for not following the law or that or that sheriffs who do not enforce gun regulations be disciplined.  Yet here they are supporting disregard for or themselves disregarding legitimate pandemic orders.   True patriots would understand that you don’t just enforce laws with which you agree.  They would understand that the freedom we hold so dear in this country is not a freedom to do what ever one wants regardless of what the law requires.

These pandemic restrictions are not tyranny.  They are not destroying the Constitution.  They are simply controversial.  That controversy stems in part because there is so much uncertainty surrounding coronavirus and the many statistics and projections that it produces.  People are afraid of the unknown, so much uncertainty.  The fears are molded by such things as political positions, personal values, news sources and information about the virus and the economy, personal health and economic status, etc. 

With fear comes anger. With anger comes the desire to blame someone, because once you can blame someone for a problem then the problem is no longer really uncertain – it is under someone’s control.  Essentially, if we name the fear, we make it concrete and blamable.  Thus, perhaps, while the uncertainty of the virus itself cannot be removed, governors can be blamed for violating constitutional rights, thus creating a certainty that can be fixed. 

But such blame is false and cannot reverse the uncertainty of how to deal with a pandemic.  It cannot assuage fear.  It cannot provide a definitive answer to what is an uncertain future. It is based upon incomplete reading and faulty understanding of our Constitution and as such does not justify the behavior that it is being used to defend.

It’s fine to have an opinion about what one thinks is the best way to proceed in light of what we do and do not know about coronavirus.  We are going to disagree about that; that is perhaps the one certainty. But we cannot begin acting as if our individual opinions replace our rules of law, providing each of us with our own conflicting governing structures.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether we agree or disagree about what are the appropriate restrictions and back to work timelines in response to CoVid-19.  What matters is that the disagreement is shining a light on a far more serious disease that seems to be eroding the very core of our country: a serious lack of understanding of our Constitution and the governing principles that make our country the successful democracy that it is.  When we lose our understanding and respect for this core, we indeed lose our country.