18 U.S.C. §1507

 18 U.S.C 1507.  Just another law that the Biden administration doesn’t enforce.  Why would they when they don’t believe in the rule of law?

As this statute, which Biden ignores, makes clear, there is a difference between free speech to express opposition and trying to intimidate a judge to change his or her decision out of fear for his/her or his/her family’s safety. President Biden and his White House fail to condemn the crossing of that important line by the pro-abortion demonstrators at SCOTUS and at the Justices’ homes even though they are in violation of this law and pursuant to it should be facing fines and imprisonment.

18 U.S.C. §1507 states in full:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

Anyone who thinks these (many of them paid) protestors are not trying to influence the Justices is either incredibly stupid or incredibly naïve.  Similarly is anyone who thinks that Biden is not 100% behind them, hoping they do indeed not only influence the Justices (even while violating federal law), but also spur Congress and every state to enact laws allowing the murder of unborn children with no restrictions whatsoever.   

The protestors are hysterically asserting a wealth of lies and misinformation with the help and approval of Leftist politicians and the media.  It seems that facts, truth, and most importantly the rule of law are of no concern to the Left, to the Democrats, and to our President who, as the head of the executive branch and of our country should be demanding adherence to the law.

He does not, they do not, and hence this country is quickly sliding into a dystopian world of anarchy and mob rule.  Without the rule of law and a respect for it and our democratic institutions, this country is doomed.  Anyone who thinks that is a good thing, anyone who simply stands by ignoring what is going on, is beyond naïve.  They are in essence co-conspirators with the hateful, malicious, and indeed demonic Left. 

Protest outside home of Justice Kavanaugh

The Tactic of Turmoil

Please stop saying that President Trump is the cause of the current unrest. 

While the election of Donald Trump/the Democrats’ loss of power may have had something to do with the Democrats’ nearly 4 year long temper fit, this unrest cannot be pinned on President Trump.

From the moment that Donald Trump was announced as the winner of the 2016 presidential race, the Left has been distraught.  They refuse to accept the election results, blaming one manufactured evil after another.

When things like the Russian collusion hoax and the impeachment circus were unsuccessful in removing the duly elected president from office, the Left increased its efforts to foment discontent among the people to the extent that now even their VP candidate praises the ongoing protests along with key promotors such as the BLM organization as “essential for change in the US.” 

The protests began when the Democrats refused to accept the duly elected president.  They have escalated over the past 3 plus years and are now becoming more and more violent.  The divide among us created by the identity politics of the Obama administration are a basis for fomenting discontent and fomenting “protests” about one grievance or another, protests that are more and more likely to turn into riots against our history, our institutions, and our country itself.

Kamala Harris is right – these protests (turned riots) are essential for the type of change that the Left is truly seeking.   In 1848 Marx stated, “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” 

Lenin, Trotsky, and other leading Bolsheviks recognized mass terror as a necessary weapon in the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism.  Stalin wrote, "Terror is the quickest way to new society." 

In 1918 Bolshevik Martin Latsis wrote, “The first thing you have to ask an arrested person is: To what class does he belong, where does he come from, what kind of education did he have, what is his occupation? These questions are to decide the fate of the accused. That is the quintessence of the Red Terror.”

In his book Terrorism and Communism (1920), Trotsky emphasized that " We are forced to tear off [the bourgeoisie] class and chop it away. The Red Terror is a weapon used against a class that, despite being doomed to destruction, does not want to perish."

Today’s Left has created a class struggle of a different kind.  Not a struggle between working and ruling classes, but a struggle between those whom the Left has labeled victims and those whom the Left has labeled victimizers.  I do not know what the Left’s ultimate purpose is in creating this struggle other than its leading to their own power.  Perhaps their intentions are somewhere in the area of the idealism of some other socialist leaders and dreamers, perhaps they are more sinister. 

What is clear is that the Left wants to overthrow our current system entirely.  Not mend it, not use it as we have done in the past to move ever closer to the ideals propounded by America for the past 244 years. 

And, following the playbook of Marx and his followers the Left seem to believe that something akin to violence or mass terror is necessary to make those who support the current system succumb and make way for that new world that the Left will control. 

President Trump is not responsible for today’s unrest.  He is simply the excuse that allows the Left to stir up the discontent that is needed for their revolt against our current systems. 

Blaming others for any negative results of their own well-calculated actions just makes no sense.  The Left cannot blame the other side for their own tactics of revolt, whether those tactics involve the use of lies, unfounded investigations, frivolous litigation, or “protests” that turn to riots. 

These tactics are being used to remove from office someone whom the Left does not want there.  That is not how our system works.

The Left wants new rules that allow them to have whatever they want and to do whatever they want when they don’t get it.  Rather than looking to their own policies and possible inadequacies they just blame the other side.  Since November of 2016 they have been trying to  subvert our system and the will of the voters. 

Blame is just one more tactic that they are using to get their way and remove President Trump from office.   It is one more attempt to make him the bad guy.

To justify a temper fit by blaming someone else for causing it is just another example of the Left’s refusal to take personal responsibility.   Donald Trump may anger some people, but he did not make anyone throw this nearly 4 year long divisive fit.  He does not encourage the turbulent behavior (unless one believes that simply holding office and carrying out one’s duties based on policies promised during his campaign is somehow sufficient encouragement for those holding different policy views to create turmoil and strife).  The President does what he can within the bounds of our Constitution and our governmental system to stop the unrest.   

Those who do not like the President’s actions have many remedies other than displays, encouragement, and praise of unrest and those who carry it out.  Indeed, the very systems that this unrest is directed against provide civil means to oppose actions of the President or others with whom the Left disagrees.

The Left wants to remake America into a different place – they tell us it is time to “re-set”.  Unrest is a proven tactic to move towards that goal.  Regardless of how one feels about that ultimate “re-set” (to what?) goal, honesty requires that one admit that the actors and promoters of the unrest are the only ones responsible for it.

 

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.

Different Agendas

These are photos of two very different sets of protestors confronting police.  The first is from a 1967 anti-war demonstration at the Pentagon, the second is from a BLM demonstration in NY in the past month.

Someone asked me why today’s protestors seem so “mean and angry.”

The woman in the lower photo certainly looks angrier than the young man in the top photo placing flowers in the guns of the police.  But is she?  Or is it a different kind of anger stemming from very different underlying motivations?

I am a “veteran” of anti-war protests of the 60s.  While my experience was mostly one of loud, rowdy, but mostly peaceful protests, that does not mean that there was not also some violence at some protests.   There were organizations that sometimes seemed more interested in creating violent situations than in having their voices heard in protest.  I can recall attending a couple meetings of the radical SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and learning “guerrilla warfare” tactics that could be used for violence within a crowd.  (I did not participate in those protests). 

SDS was a Leftist or perhaps Socialist organization; its militant faction the Weathermen were inspired by other revolutionaries and believed that by creating or inflaming violent confrontations they could “bring the war home” meaning force the U.S. out of Vietnam in order to deal with a violent domestic revolution.  Whether their hopes for their revolution went beyond that or not, I don’t know.

Protesters of the 60s talked about peace and love, but they were also angry.  The anti-war protests channeled the anger that many had toward what they saw as a conflict that the U.S. should never have become involved in and should get out of as soon as possible.  The anger was at what the protesters saw as a misguided policy giving way to incorrect if not immoral actions of our government.  The hope was that the government would change course.  The protesters were passionate about their cause. 

Today’s protesters are also passionate.  Many of the protesters are peaceful and, not unlike SDS of the 60s, there are also more militant and violent groups.   But their focus is broader than one defined misstep and mistaken policy of their government.  The protests look, feel, and indeed are very different.

I suggest that the difference is the underlying agendas.  The vast majority of the anti-war protesters of the 60s wanted to end the war.  They may have had different reasons (pacifist; saw this war as unjust; didn’t think US role included this war; didn’t want to be drafted; pro-communist; just want to be with the cool kids; and many more) but the underlying agenda was to stop the war.  Not the government, but the government’s participation in this unjust war.  That was the underlying clear focus and the belief was that if that participation ended the country and the government would be better.

I would note that there were other protests during the 60s – civil rights, women’s rights are two that I was also acquainted with.  Like the anti-war protests of the time, these protests also had a very focused target with the underlying agenda of causing the government to correct that targeted wrong and hence move forward to be better for its correction.

At times the 60s protests might very well have sounded like and looked like an expression of hatred for the government generally, but in reality it was for most of the protestors a hatred for a particular policy or action of the government.  Stopping that action, not the entire government, was the agenda.  The anger was a constructive and positive movement forward. 

Not so the current protests.  Today’s protests, whether peaceful, or attempts to incite violence, or actually violent are not directed at one act of our government but at the entire government (the “system”).  While today’s protesters may speak of justice and a better America, their agenda in achieving that is not to correct misguided actions but to actually dismantle the entire structure of America and rebuild it as something else. 

This is classic Marxism. Any good Marxist or Socialist understands that a revolution which seeks to restructure a governmental system must involve violence.  And, like any good Marxist leader, the leaders of this revolution have created a coalition of victim groups and pitted them against the “system.”    Lenin, in engineering the Russian revolution, used the workers as the ones to press that revolution and destroy the existing system.  (Once it was destroyed, however, power was once again taken from the workers and returned to a new power group to build a new system from the top down.)

Today we do not have a worker class revolting against czars, but we do have identity groups fomented to “hate the system” and hence to tear it down.  While the protestors of the 60s still, for the most part, respected the “system,” today's protestors do not.  They don’t want to fix it, they want to destroy it.  Why?

When they were children, the 60s protestors were taught that America is a great country.  They were told of America’s strengths and weaknesses, of her achievements and her sins.  But, most importantly, they were taught that the American “system” provided a voice and a means of making corrections and improvements that would move America forward and to even more positive achievements.  They learned that this voice (and its accompanying responsibilities) belongs to them and that while our government through our Constitution protects and preserves that right, it does not own it.

Today’s protestors have not been taught how the “system” works for our and the country’s good.  Rather, they have been told that America is generally bad and its “system” is not good.  Rather than being taught that the Constitution protects rights that belong to each individual, they are taught that rights are something the government creates and then gives these rights to (or takes them away from) the individual.  The government, not the individual, owns the rights.   From there it is an easy step to convince those who do not have all that they want or that others have acquired or achieved that they are victims of the “system.”

So, while the 60s protestors respected the system because it protected their individual rights (including their right to protest), today’s protestors rebel against a system that they see as not providing what it should.  This is a big difference.  And the anger that is generated is also very different. 

If the perceived or desired “system” is one of large government that, rather than protecting individual rights, doles them out as it sees fit and thus, takes from the people their right to guide themselves, then it makes sense that one who feels that he or others are unfairly dealt with might want to overturn that “system.”  And, so, today’s protestors work not to correct a misstep of our current system, but to overturn it entirely.

The 60s protestors, and many similar protests from our history (women’s vote, civil rights, union and labor laws, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. ) have all had an agenda directed at correcting what was viewed by the protestors as a wrong action of government.  Working with the system and the right it gives people to conduct such protests, these groups worked and channeled their anger to better the existing system.

Today’s protestors do not have a similar narrowly focused agenda.  Theirs is not to correct a specific wrong, but to dismantle an entire system.  This is a revolution going on.  The anger it generates is destructive. 

The language and demands and future visions of the movement sound a lot like the pretty promises of Socialism.  The tactics are the same – create a victim group or groups and pit them against other groups that are labeled to signify the victimizers and the current system.  Step one – destroy the system.  Step 2- rebuild to the design of a new ruling class.  That is the agenda and it is very different from simply wanting to fix something within an otherwise functioning and good system.

So, the soldiers in the protests may have the same passion, but the anger is very different and is the product of a very different sort of war.  While the 60s protestors for the most part had a general respect for and wanted to correct and improve the “system”, today’s protestors have little respect for the “system” or any of its institutions.  Their anger is different, and their agenda is destructive. 

Today’s protestors are not interested in improvement of what exists.  They want to tear down America.   Their anger is that of a manipulated socialist revolutionary.  It is not directed at anything other than destruction.  And that is why today’s protests look and feel very different.

Today's Thoughts and Observations on the Border Protests

1.   Crocodile Tears?

Where were all the tears, where was all the outrage when President Obama separated families at the border?  When he did that, anyone who criticized him was called racist.  So when did all these people suddenly find compassion for these children?  Or is it not compassion at all but really hatred – hatred of Donald Trump?

This is what I see.  I see masses of people who can’t think for themselves.  They are being used as they allow emotional manipulation to direct their behavior.  They don’t bother to know what the actual facts are about a situation – they just allow their emotions to be riled up by (often fake) photos and other emotional triggers, and then, as encouraged, scream, cry, and attack the Trump administration.

I really do not understand why people are so willing to allow themselves to be used.  Was their love of the previous president and/or their hatred of the current president so strong that they lost their ability to think and to see what is actually going on?  Do they not understand the emotional propaganda that is being used to keep them riled up and working as pawns for someone else’s very political agenda?

2.  Do You Know What You Want?

What is it the protestors want?  They said it was to keep families together, but they would not work to actually change the law, the enforcement of which requires separation.  Instead, they attacked the President for doing his job and enforcing the law.  (As Democratic Senator Schumer stated, the Democrats will reject any legislation to fix the border crisis. They want to “keep the focus on Trump.”) 

When President Trump saw that these people would not even attempt to work on legislation, he signed an executive order that at least temporarily keeps families together.  One would think that would satisfy the screamers.  But no.  Now they are angry that he signed the order.  Hmmm – is it the children they care about or is it really about hating Trump? What is it these people want?  Now it seems that many have moved on to demanding entirely open borders.  Do they even understand what that means or the consequences, both short and long term,  to our country?  I sincerely doubt that.

3.  Government 101

I also don’t understand how so many people in this country can have so little understanding of our government and how it works.  Anyone, with even a simple Google search, can find the basic role of each branch of government:  The legislative branch (Congress) writes and passes legislation (laws). The executive branch (the executive departments and the President and cabinet at the federal level) makes sure that laws are enforced and allocates necessary funding. The judicial branch (the court system) evaluates the laws passed by the legislative branch and determines whether they comply with the Constitution.  This is all laid out in the Constitution which I hope (but often doubt) that every citizen has read at least once.

In every election in which there is more than one candidate someone will lose, and the supporters of that person will not be happy.  But our job as citizens is to accept that the people have spoken and support the winner of the election in carrying out his or her duties.  If we are not happy with the winner, our course of action is not to assault him or her daily, but it is to support a different candidate in the next election.  While under our current government we do have the right to free speech, simply screaming and launching ad hominem attacks is not productive.  That is not how we unseat our elected officials.  In this country we vote.

4.  How Best to Change the Immigration (Or Any Other) Law

Even with just this basic information about the government, one wonders why those who are unhappy with our current immigration laws, are protesting against the executive branch which is simply doing its job of enforcing those laws (the same laws that were in effect when Obama was president and under which he prosecuted nearly 500,000 illegal immigrants, resulting in the separation of many families).  Either the people seem to think that the president has the powers of a dictator (he doesn’t) or they are simply using a situation as an excuse to attack the president.   

The immigration laws can be amended and rewritten in the legislature and that is why those who are unhappy with the law should be contacting their legislative representatives. Several bills have or will be introduced regarding immigration.  The Republicans in Congress have several times proposed bills that would overrule the 1997 order and allow children to be kept with their parents. The Democrats have opposed these bills.  Some bills call for complete immigration overhaul; others provide smaller fixes.  Some want open borders. 

I realize that the legislative process takes time (sorry, no instant gratification!), but it is the way in which the people govern. We elect our representatives and they speak for us in Congress. There are amendments and changes to bills. As in any negotiation, those representing various positions try to get as much as they can while giving up as little as possible. If the parties are willing to listen to and work with one another, they will come up with a bill that essentially represents the will of the people. That is called compromise! It is how we end up with government of/by/for the people. It is how our government works. And, those who are truly interested in fixing the problems they see with our current immigration laws should be reviewing the proposed changes and contacting their congresspeople to express their views. 

5.  Some Notes on the Law Itself

Many protestors also seem to be unfamiliar with the law itself.  In most instances, what people are complaining about is the treatment of people who enter the country illegally.  We have a legal process of immigration, we have legal ports of entry, and those who follow the immigration laws will not have violated the law and therefore will not be prosecuted.  That is, it seems that he protesters are attacking a problem that goes away if the families attempting to cross illegally would instead choose to follow the law. 

Those who enter our country illegally have broken the law and can be prosecuted under the law just as anyone who breaks any law can be prosecuted. The illegal immigrants are detained under the law. When an adult is detained in an adult facility, children cannot be kept there (just as children are not sent to prison with their parents who may be jailed for other violations of law). A 1997 court order requires the government to place immigrant children with a close family member or friend, and until that is accomplished to keep immigrant children in “the least restrictive means possible.” Hence, the children are kept in juvenile facilities. President Trump’s order now keeps families together, but that order can be challenged as violative of the 1997 court order. 

When one enters legally, there is no prosecutorial detention. (Note:  those seeking asylum at a legal port of entry will still be detained while the asylum claim is investigated and verified.   That is, just because one wants to enter, even when following legal processes, not every request will be granted.  To allow any one in without question would be to create open borders).  Those seeking entry are yet not citizens or legal residents. 

There is a distinction between legal and illegal which many either do not understand or have chosen to forget.  This makes many of their complaints unclear and ineffective.

6.  Inaccurate Words and Analogies

Screaming protests are especially not effective when they are based on either misinformation or lack of information.  For example, in the current immigration debate I keep hearing the words law and policy used interchangeably.  President Trump's policy is to fully enforce the law. He cannot change the law. The law is written by the legislative body. While President Obama’s policy was not one of zero tolerance, nonetheless, children were separated from families at the border under Obama whose administration was following the same law as the Trump administration. 

Particularly troubling is the comparison of this border crisis with the holocaust.  Not only does this show an appalling lack of understanding of both the law and the holocaust, it is simply an inaccurate comparison.  The facts reveal that the border situation is nothing at all like the holocaust in which Jewish and other residents of Germany where sent to concentration camps based on their religion or other identifiable characteristics and were in many instances then killed.  To call our border situation equivalent is to cheapen Nazism and genocide by making them simply synonyms for a bad or allegedly inhumane situation.  Anyone who thinks that is all that the holocaust was is completely ignorant on that piece of history.

7.  Don’t You See You’re Being Conned?

I don’t understand how the protestors do not feel that they are being duped.  By now we know that many of the most emotional photos are not of children currently separated from families.  Even the little crying girl, used to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and appearing on the current cover of Time magazine as part of an attempted shaming of the President, was never separated from her mother according to her father and others.

What I don’t understand is why people allow themselves to be used by politicians who I suspect care little if at all for the children or the immigrants, but are instead simply using the protesters’ very laudable compassion to further their own political agenda, to attack Trump, and to enhance their own power.  How many of these people doing the bidding of the progressive leadership even know the details of the agenda they are supporting?

8.  My Request

I really don’t think that the many protestors are ignorant or stupid.  What I do think is that they are being conned.  I have great respect for those who have compassion for a crying child.  But I think that compassion is being exploited by some who have little concern for those children.  But, for those truly concerned with the immigration problem and fixing it, the focus needs to be on the legislature.  I simply wish that everyone would take a minute to understand why they are screaming.  Is it for the children? Is it for immigration reform?  Is it simply a primal scream of hatred of the president?  Or, are the screams simply being provoked by ones who are using a very noble and genuine compassion for a less noble agenda supporting only their own power? My request is that everyone stop for a moment and consider all of this.

On Screaming, Children, and Politics

Allison Hrabar, a DOJ paralegal and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America was among the group that accosted the Secretary of Homeland Security earlier this week and screamed at her while she attempted to eat dinner in a restaurant.  Hraber stated, “It feels really good to confront people who are actually responsible, which is what we have a unique opportunity to do in D.C.”  Sadly, this statement reveals much about the approach of many towards the responsibilities and problems of adult life.

“It feels good.”  Look at that statement.  It is not about constructively discussing an issue with others holding varying positions and viewpoints.  It is a self-centered statement.  It is not about productively presenting one’s views to another or about working productively to change a policy or law with which one doesn’t agree.  It is about confrontation and how that makes the confronter feel good.

Since Trump was elected many who favored another candidate or just didn’t want to see him as president have engaged in a perpetual temper tantrum.  In part, this is ginned up by opposition and establishment leaders who need soldiers in their fight against Trump and his threat to their power.  But it also reflects the sad state of the mind and maturity of many in this country, not to mention a lack of education about how our country works.

Throwing a temper tantrum makes a child feel better.  Tantrums and screaming are how children, who (appropriately developmentally) are self-centered,  show they are upset or frustrated, often because they cannot get something or do something that they want.  “Tantrums are common during the second year of life, a time when language skills are starting to develop. Because toddlers can't yet say what they want, feel, or need, a frustrating experience may cause a tantrum.” (https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/tantrums.html)

With only developing language and reasoning skills, a tantrum is the only way young children know to deal with a frustrating situation.   “As language skills improve, tantrums tend to decrease.”  The part of the brain that regulates emotion and controls social behavior should begin to mature about age four.  Additionally, the often irrational outbursts result from the fact that toddlers and preschoolers think magically, not logically.  This results in confusion and fear of events that are understandable to adult minds but not to children. The heightened arousal that this anxiety creates results in the child screaming or throwing a tantrum  (https://www.parenting.com/article/toddler-temper-tantrums). 

Tantrums are developmentally appropriate for young children.  They are not, however, appropriate in adults.   By the time they are 8 or 9, most children have learned to otherwise deal with the strong tantrum causing emotions.  When tantrums continue past the appropriate developmental age, it is either because the behavior is being rewarded or because there is a problem with the child’s development of the skills of impulse control as well as negotiation, problem solving and communication skills  (https://www.understood.org/en/learning-attention-issues/child-learning-disabilities/executive-functioning-issues/why-does-my-child-still-have-temper-tantrums).

I think there is a clear correlation between the behavior exhibited by many anti-Trump folks and a child’s temper tantrum.  These protestors are so overwhelmed by emotion that they can’t think. They seem self-centered, making everything about them. They are unable to have a rational adult dialog in which they discuss facts and issues.  So, they scream.  They shout down opposing views rather than respond and hold a dialog with those who disagree with them.  They end conversations by name-calling.  They simply cannot handle those who do not hold their views – like a child throwing a tantrum when mom says “no” they scream at anyone who disagrees.  Just like the toddler who is incapable of having a rational discussion with mom, these political screamers seem incapable of having a rational conversation about any issue with more than one viewpoint.

I don’t know why this is, but I have a few guesses.  First, I think we have a number of people who are used to always getting what they want.  In that sense, they are like spoiled children and when told no, they scream.  But, why not instead respond by opening a dialog to understand the viewpoint that is contrary to theirs?  I think because the education in critical thinking and problem solving is sadly lacking.  A number of people in this country seem incapable of understanding and evaluating facts; and, they seem incapable of separating fact from opinion.  When rational and logical thinking skills are under-developed, one will operate by emotion.   Add to all this the fact that many in this country have very little understanding of our country’s history or its government and how and why that government works. 

All of this can be used to the advantage of one who wants to create turmoil.  With little understanding of our government, with little capacity to critically think about issues, and with hearty emotions without a mature impulse control, it is easy to use emotional propaganda to incite what essentially amounts to a tantrum. 

I understand why those who are focused primarily on their own power find it useful to encourage these tantrums.  But I am so very troubled that this has become a predominant form of expression in this country.  Even those who should be our leaders have fallen to this unproductive and often destructive form of expression. 

In the past week we have seen many examples of childish behavior.  For example, the leader of the House Hispanic Caucus, Michelle Lujan Grisham, led her group to scream until blue in the face outside a meeting in which the president was attempting to resolve the border crisis.   She said this was the most important issue in her history as a legislator.  Yet, instead of attempting to address the problem productively with dialog and through legislation, she chose to simply scream.   Name calling (another childish coping behavior) has become almost the norm as leaders, entertainers, and just common folk hurl obscenities at the president, his family, and members of his administration.  The famous who launch obscenities are cheered by their peers as well as their followers.  Threats made to kidnap the president’s son and leave him with pedophiles, to rape the Secretary of Homeland Security, to kill and rip out the hearts of ICE agents are among just a few of the very troubling assaults that this week alone seem to have gone unnoticed or excused. 

When a 2 year old throws a tantrum I can ignore it knowing she will grow out of it.  I cannot ignore such behavior when it comes from alleged adults.  It will not stop unless we all refuse to encourage and accept it.  We must find a way to teach these screamers that: 1. They are likely being used by those who actually care very little about the screamers’ emotional issue, but are instead using the emotions in their own campaigns to retain or return to their own power; and, 2. That the screamers’ emotional position may indeed be valid and have a place in a discussion on an issue, but that discussion must take place in an adult and rational manner in which people with varying positions listen to one another and rationally problem solve toward a solution.

Please, screamers, stop screaming.  Use the ability that exists within your mind and think.  Listen to others, take time to research and evaluate facts before forming an opinion and then actually have a mature and rational dialog with someone holding a differing viewpoint.  Listen to their opinions and the rationales for them and try to understand that issues can have many possible and reasonable solutions, that those holding views alternate to yours are not the enemy, and that mature adults can discuss these things without name calling and can problem-solve with one another to reach good compromises.  This is what we used to do in this country and I pray that we begin doing it again.

Ten Questions Related to Charlottesville

 1.  Who had a permit to march in Charlottesville? 

(The answer here is interesting.  Jason Kessler, the organizer of the protest against removal of the statue had a permit, the city revoked that permit, but, thanks in part to the ACLU and their recognition and assertion that “the First Amendment applies to everyone regardless of their views,” a judge granted an injunction and reinstated the permit allowing the group to have their demonstration in Emancipation Park. 

In reinstating Mr. Kessler’s permit, the Court determined that he could likely prove that the revocation of his permit was content based (thus in violation of the First Amendment).  Supporting that finding was the fact that the city, while revoking the permit of Mr. Kessler, left in place the permits of the counter-protesters.  The Court further stated, “The disparity in treatment between the two groups with opposing views suggests that the defendants’ decision to revoke Kessler’s permit was based on the content of his speech rather than other neutral factors that would be equally applicable to Kessler and those protesting against him.  This conclusion is bolstered by other evidence, including communications on social media indicating that members of City Council oppose Kessler’s political viewpoint.  At this stage of the proceedings, the evidence cited by Kessler supports the conclusion that the City’s decision constitutes a content-based restriction of speech.”)

2.  How many understand the importance of not restricting speech based on its content?

(Note:  restricting speech the content of which you find objectionable today sets a precedent for restricting your speech tomorrow if that becomes objectionable to someone in power.  That is how a totalitarian regime operates, not our democratic republic)

3.  Why is the media primarily focused on turning this into a story about why we should dislike Trump based on exactly what he said when?  Why not focus on, or at least report, the positions of both sides involved in the conflicts and why they feel the need to march and counter-protest?  

(Hint:  the media is generally focused on Trump-bashing.  What passes for news reporting in the main stream media is little more than propaganda and is woefully biased and incomplete.)

4.  What is wrong with a president saying that violence from all sides is unacceptable?  Why must he single out one group while ignoring others?  

(Suggestion:  A president should not single out one group or another, but should be the president of ALL Americans and certainly, like all government employees, should fiercely defend the First Amendment along with the rest of our Constitution. People should not encourage the president or others to do otherwise.)

5.  How many Americans really believe in free speech for ALL ideas and not just those with which they agree?

(Thought:  this should be 100%, but sadly, I fear the number is relatively small.)

6.  For that matter, how many even know what the first amendment says or how and why it is a part of our constitution?

(“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment is a part, was added to the Constitution to protect the citizens from government interference with their basic rights.  The Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments via the 14^th Amendment and various Supreme Court decisions.)

7.  Does the Left understand that not all white conservatives are Nazis or White Supremacists? Do they understand that one can be a nationalist without being a racist?

(Observation:  many people today simply place people in boxes based on superficial characteristics and assume that all those given a particular label or placed in a particular group think and behave exactly alike.)

8.  Does the Left understand that by labeling people and putting them in boxes they further the discord between their identified groups?

(Thought:  placing people into categories divides them, weakening and ultimately destroying any notion that we are all one.)

9.  Do they understand that such discord is tearing this country apart?  Do they care?

(Hint:  this is seen by many to be an actual goal of identity politics, an approach used by the Progressive Democrats for the past several years)

10.  Is there a double standard regarding appropriate reactions to violence against the Right and violence against the Left?  Is all political violence provoked by the Right or by President Trump?

(Clue:  There was political violence before Trump was elected.  There is violence perpetrated by individuals associated with all sides of the political spectrum.  Violence is not OK just because its purpose is to silence views found hateful or distasteful.  When one only calls for condemnation of violence or speech by those with whom they disagree, they are hypocrites seemingly ignorant of our Constitution, and likely more concerned with themselves and their power than with taking a stand for the good of the country.) 

Speech, Violence, Many Sides

Let me begin by saying that I think there is no excuse for someone intentionally driving their car into a crowd of people and that the death of the young woman yesterday in Virginia is a tragedy. Assuming there is no justifiable reason (such as the unlikely sudden onset of a medical episode), then the driver should be punished to the full extent of the law.

The driver.  Not everyone in Virginia or elsewhere who was exercising their right to free speech.

In this country people have the right to express their ideas, regardless of the idiocy, or hatefulness, or un-American sentiments contained within those ideas.  What people may not do is violence against others whose ideas they do not like or who disagree with their own point of view. 

There is a difference between speech and violence.

Many people in this country hold ideas that are offensive to others.  Not everyone agrees with the anti-white rhetoric expressed at some Black Lives Matter rallies.  Not everyone agrees about whether or not statues of Confederate leaders should stand or be taken down.  Not everyone practices the same religion, and some seriously disagree with the beliefs and views and ideas held by religions that are not their own.  Yet, in this country, all those views and more are allowed and can be spoken. 

One basis of this country and its freedoms is the right for people to have differing ideas and beliefs.  When people are allowed to speak these ideas then we have a free marketplace of ideas.  The theory is that the citizenry, being reasonably intelligent human beings, will become informed and will be able to assess these many ideas, understanding which are better and which are worse.  To silence any one viewpoint not only closes the free marketplace and the open-minded freedom it engenders, it also sets the country on the road to a place where only one view, only the “correct” view is tolerated.  That, my friends, is a form of dictatorship.

Today, many points of view become movements.  And no matter how noble the original idea may have been, there are going to be people who attach themselves to the movement whose views and purposes are less than noble.  Those individuals should not be used to condemn an entire movement, nor should any acts that they take be necessarily attributed to the entire movement.

Sadly, we see people today using yesterday’s death to further their own agenda and attempt to silence all those with views not matching their own.  Thus, I have seen photos of the young woman killed by the car posted on social media with words urging retribution against all conservatives, all whites, etc. and many today are demanding that white nationalists and others not be allowed to speak at all.  And yet, I wonder where these same people were when people who had attached themselves to the Black Lives movement assassinated police officers.  I wonder where these people were when someone attached to the Democrat party decided to take target practice on Republicans on a baseball field.  Should then the entire Democrat party be silenced due to that act of violence by one man?  To follow the logic of today’s reaction to yesterday’s act by one man, the answer is Yes.

There are indeed many sides to this culture of violence which, by the way, began well before President Trump took office.  It’s just that during the past many years of the Democrat’s identity politics the hatred seemed to be directed against those with more conservative views and those who were not minorities. Their attempts to speak up were often dismissed as they were labeled as bigots and racists.   And now, when some of those people decide that they, too, have a right to speak, the call is for all to be silenced.  That is as un-American as the hate that many claim spews from their or every privileged white person’s or conservative’s mouth.  Dislike of an idea does not give anyone the right to silence that idea.

Violent action is a different matter.  When words turn to violent acts, those acts must not be tolerated and the perpetrator must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  This includes violent acts coming from the Right and from the Left.  Yes, the blame for our violent culture rests with “many sides.”  When students at Berkeley asserted they had a right to do violence in order to silence conservative speakers, they should have been prosecuted for each and every such act.  And, if a conservative turns words into violent action, he or she too must be prosecuted.  There must be zero tolerance for acts of violence.  But, there must be full tolerance for speech, no matter how distasteful.  A lack of such tolerance can in itself lead to violent reactions from those silenced.  Hence, many sides, indeed all sides, hold some responsibility and some blame.

It seems as if for some time we have been willing to tolerate at least some violence to silence views that are not popular, especially those views that have been unpopular with the Left over the recent years.  This must stop, just as we must stop placing the blame for the criminal act of one on an entire group which happens to hold an unpopular view or to which the criminal actor has attached him or herself.

All sides are to some extent guilty of using rhetoric that is sometimes intense and vicious.  Personally, over the recent years continuing through today, I hear that far more from the Left than from the Right.  I wish that it would stop.  I also understand that in a twisted mind any words can become twisted to justify most any behavior.  But, that does not outweigh the crucial importance of free speech to our democracy. 

This is America.  All ideas are welcome and must be tolerated.  We are free to accept or reject the viewpoints of others, but all those viewpoints have a right to be heard.   What must not be tolerated is any act of violence in the name of an idea, whether that act is spitting on a speaker, or destroying their property, or shooting or stabbing a speaker, or running down a group of followers of an opponent.  In America, free speech is a right of all citizens.  To maintain our democracy we must let others speak and not agitate when they do.  We must listen.  Then, we can speak our own views, including opposing ones if we wish.  And, we must not tolerate violence in any form, even in the name of silencing speakers whom we find offensive.  We must demand that any such violence be prosecuted.  From this peaceful marketplace of ideas and its tolerance for all sides, comes the strength of our democracy.