And So It Continues – (in circles?)

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

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

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

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

               Looking Back

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

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

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

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

               Yet the Hatred – when and how did it begin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               The Election and January 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Like Rabid Dogs (or Communists)

 

Like rabid dogs the Democrats circle, each trying to outdo one another in their punishment of Conservatives and Trump supporters.  They are about as rational as rabid dogs.  (see for example my recent post on why there actually are no grounds for impeachment, but rational minds could and should agree on censure and be done with it.  LINK ) 

The scene in the capital and wherever the Left gathers (including on social media) reminds me of some old black and white movie where the mob, with pitchforks and torches, goes after the innocent that they perceive as evil.

But we don’t have to go to movies or other fiction to see what is going on.  History gives us a perfect picture. 

The Library of Congress in its Russian Archives has a number of documents that reveal the inner workings of the Soviet Union, including during and immediately after the revolution.  Here are some quotations from the Library's exhibition of those documents:

In the years immediately following their accession to power in 1917, the Bolsheviks took measures to prevent challenges to their new regime, beginning with eliminating political opposition. When the freely-elected Constituent Assembly did not acknowledge the primacy of the Bolshevik government, Vladimir Lenin dissolved it in January 1918. The Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, which protested the action, withdrew from the Bolshevik coalition in March, and its members were automatically branded enemies of the people. Numerous opposition groups posed military threats from various parts of the country, placing the survival of the revolution in jeopardy. Between 1918 and 1921, a state of civil war existed.

 

Bolshevik policy toward its detractors, and particularly toward articulate, intellectual criticism, hardened considerably. Suppression of newspapers, initially described as a temporary measure, became a permanent policy. Lenin considered the Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) the center of a conspiracy against Bolshevik rule. In 1919, he began mass arrests of professors and scientists who had been Kadets, and deported Kadets, Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and Nationalists. The Bolshevik leadership sought rapidly to purge Russia of past leaders in order to build the future on a clean slate.

Having come to power in October 1917 . . . Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks spent the next few years struggling to maintain their rule against widespread popular opposition. They had overthrown the provisional democratic government and were inherently hostile to any form of popular participation in politics. In the name of the revolutionary cause, they employed ruthless methods to suppress real or perceived political enemies. The small, elite group of Bolshevik revolutionaries which formed the core of the newly established Communist Party dictatorship ruled by decree, enforced with terror.

 

This tradition of tight centralization, with decision-making concentrated at the highest party levels, reached new dimensions under Joseph Stalin. As many of these archival documents show, there was little input from below. The party elite determined the goals of the state and the means of achieving them in almost complete isolation from the people. They believed that the interests of the individual were to be sacrificed to those of the state, which was advancing a sacred social task. Stalin's “revolution from above” sought to build socialism by means of forced collectivization and industrialization, programs that entailed tremendous human suffering and loss of life.

 

Although this tragic episode in Soviet history at least had some economic purpose, the police terror inflicted upon the party and the population in the 1930s, in which millions of innocent people perished, had no rationale beyond assuring Stalin's absolute dominance. By the time the Great Terror ended, Stalin had subjected all aspects of Soviet society to strict party-state control, not tolerating even the slightest expression of local initiative, let alone political unorthodoxy.

 

These harsh measures alienated a large number of the intellectuals who had supported the overthrow of the tsarist order. The suppression of democratic institutions evoked strong protests from academics and artists, who felt betrayed in their idealistic belief that revolution would bring a free society. Writers who had emigrated shortly after the revolution published stinging attacks on the new government from abroad. As a result, further exit permits for artists were generally denied.

 

The disenchantment of the majority of intellectuals did not surprise Lenin, who saw the old Russian intelligentsia as a kind of rival to his “party of a new type,” which alone could bring revolutionary consciousness to the working class.

I think the above speaks for itself, or at least it does to anyone with a clear mind.  What we are seeing in the current days is an extreme, concerted, devoted, and fanatical effort by the Left to silence the voices of any opposition to them or their causes.  This has to remind anyone with even the smallest familiarity with history of not only the Russian revolution, but similar Leftist takeovers elsewhere. 

The above gives one an idea of the sort of progression that such silencing can take – towards complete suppression of the people by a power-hungry ruling class.  Do not think that it cannot happen in America.  The question is, will we let it?

"Have you volunteered?"

Impeachment or Vengeance?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turley wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we know what UNITY means

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

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

    What is Biden's "Unity"?

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

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

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

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

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

    Selective silencing

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Individual vs. the Collective

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

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

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

    We've seen this before

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Protests tell us about Our Society

 

The protests at the capital on Wednesday tell us a lot about who and what we are, perhaps even more so when reactions are compared with previous protests in support of other causes.  I have several comments about that, but first, let’s review the basic facts.

               The Facts

• The 2020 presidential election was fraught with irregularities.  Many believe that there was widespread fraud and that the fraud resulted in a theft of the election.  Court cases have been filed, most dismissed or otherwise closed.  The Constitution allows Congresspeople to object to Elector votes when they are opened and counted.  That is a part of our democratic process and it was begun on this morning of Jan. 6.

• Also on the morning of Jan. 6, President Trump held a typically bombastic rally in the capital in support of the Congressional objections.  He promoted the exercise of legal protest and free speech rights, but at no time did he advocate violence.

• The Capitol police were on duty and the National Guard was called in.

• In the early afternoon some protestors violently stormed Congress resulting in a stoppage of Congressional processes, gunfire, and the alleged law enforcement shooting and subsequent death of a 14-year military veteran and Trump supporter.

• Calls for peace came from Trump and other Republican leaders and from Biden and Democrat leaders.

• By early evening the violence and protests had subsided, and Congress reconvened shortly after 8 pm.

Democracy, Protests, and Violence

• Peaceful protests are a part of free speech and are necessary to maintain a democracy such as ours.  As such, protests with reasonable and necessary restrictions are a Constitutional right.  Democracy, because it not only allows but encourages diverse views, can often be messy, and uncomfortable protests are a part of that messiness.

• There is no right to violent protests and indeed they violate our rule of law.  Yet, violence seems of late to have become a regular part of protests regardless of which party or cause they support. 

• This violence should tell us that something is drastically wrong in our society.  The assault on our legislative body should shock and appall all Americans.  It should also indicate to us that there are some people in this country who feel so frustrated and unheard that, like a child acting out for attention, they resort to violence.

• We should also note that the calls for holding President Trump or any other leader responsible for this violence are ridiculous.  The people who commit these heinous acts were not forced into battle; they made the choice to violate our laws and storm the capital.  They are the ones who should be held accountable for their actions today, just as anyone who commits such violent acts should be held accountable regardless of the cause for which they are protesting.

          The Reactions and the Hypocrisy

• The reactions to today’s events should concern us perhaps more than the acts themselves.  Hypocrisy was on full display and with it evidence of the deep divide in our country.

• Some complained that the violence was due to the objections to the election.  To be clear, the objections today were legal and the Democrats objected on this same date in 2005 and 2017; the difference is that the Press applauded the Democrat objections while condemning those of the Republicans.

• Trump had every right to hold a rally and people had every right to attend and to protest events at Congress.  Peacefully.  But those people who turned to violence chose that act, just as does any protestor.  Blame does not lie with Trump here just as in the case of BLM protests it does not lie with alleged systemic racism.  It is the protestor who commits the violence and should be held accountable.  But, in this protest full Trump Derangement Syndrome was on display as people not only blamed him (isn’t everything bad Trump’s fault in the eyes of the Left?), we also heard cries for invoking the 25^th Amendment, instant impeachment, and other similar calls up to and including death.

• Although Trump made several calls for peace via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., many refused to believe that he meant these calls (not unlike when Leslie Stahl finally acknowledged that Trump had indeed condemned White Supremacy, but then said that he had not said it in a way she liked so essentially it didn’t count).  Twitter censored some of Trump’s tweets because they did not approve of his verbiage.  Facebook put warnings on them.  And most on the Left denied he ever called for peace.

• Similarly, many asserted that Trump, in his rally, called for the violence.   Read the transcript – he did not.  But in typical Trump Derangement, those who hate Trump hear what they want to hear, not what was actually said.

• While the Democrats complained about Trump’s lack of call to peace or accused him of incitement to the protests, they ignored the fact that for the past 4 years any number of Democrats have called for violence against Trump and his supporters.  When violent protests occurred in support of Democrat causes there was no denouncement or even acknowledgement of the violence.  One cannot miss the hypocrisy in President-Elect Biden’s speech today calling for peace, when he was never willing to denounce Antifa or BLM violence.

• Some people were wounded today.  One protestor was shot and killed.  At least one person I know expressed delight that a Trump protestor was shot.   While protestors who enter into a violent situation should understand the risk to themselves, that risk should be the same regardless of what it is that they are fighting for.  I can only imagine what would be going on right now if this had been a BLM or similar protest and the woman shot had been a Black protestor and member of BLM.  Not only would the death be Trump’s fault, we would have riots against the death, against the police, calls for defunding, and probably more riots.

        Commentary

Let’s be clear, violent protests are always un-American regardless of whom or what they support.  Similarly, our legal and Constitutional processes are always proper and American regardless of whether or not one agrees with what is being advocated within those processes.  The problem is that far too large a number of our populace believe that violence is perfectly fine if it brings about what they want, and also believe those who would advocate for things with which they don’t agree should be silenced and denied access to legal and democratic processes.

Another problem is that violent protest is often rewarded.  During this past year we saw many Leftist protests lauded by the Press and Democrat leaders; Democrats bailed out protesters who had been arrested for violent acts; Commissions or similar were put together to give the protesters what might appease them.  This is like giving a child what she wants when she throws a temper tantrum: it only encourages more tantrums.  In this country we have legal processes and people need to understand that it is through those processes that we work to get what we want.

The hypocrisy we see exhibited in the reactions today compared with reactions to violence when it supports Leftist views does not belong in, nor does it support, a democracy.  Rather, it supports an authoritative form of government in which those in power decide what you must do, think, and believe.  If you act if favor of those views you are applauded, regardless of your acts, while supporting something else will always be condemned.  Unless and until the American people recall that in this democracy we tolerate differing and opposing views, our American democracy is in dire peril. 

What the above tells us is that we are in deep trouble in this country.  We must learn to solve our differences without violence.  But before we get to that point we need to learn about our Constitution.  We need to understand its history.  We need to understand how and why it is instrumental in making America the great country it is and in protecting our freedoms that are so dear to us.  

The Constitution gives us a common language and understanding.  It provides the basis for our rule of law.  Without it and an understanding of it we are bound for chaos and our democracy will become nothing more than a fading memory.

 

 

Democracy May Involve Disorder and Disruption but It Requires Dependable Integrity

Do I think the objections to the Electoral Vote certification will succeed? No.
Do I think that the objections should nonetheless be made? Yes, absolutely.

Some may question my answers above, but if one takes a step back from their feelings for or against President Trump and looks at this past election more objectively, anyone who cares about our American democracy must agree.

There is no question that there was a much higher number of ballot irregularities in this election than the few that occur in every election.  In some cases, the numbers were huge enough that they could have changed (though there is no proof, nor may there ever be any, that they did or did not change) the outcome of not only the presidential result but results of other contests on the ballot as well.

If there is any possibility that fraud or other lack of integrity allowed illegal votes to be cast and counted, then those votes diluted the votes of those who cast legal ballots, thus disenfranchising those legal voters just as if their valid votes had not been counted.  This should concern everyone of us who enjoys the benefits of our democracy.

A number of senators, led by Ted Cruz, will object on Wednesday to results from specific states.  Their joint statement indicates that they will vote against accepting the election results until there is a 10-day audit:

Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.

Will this divide the country?  Perhaps, but probably no more than it is already divided.  Will it cause some anger and uncertainty during the 10 days if the objection prevails and the proposed Commission is established?  Yes.  But then, uncertainty is a part of democracy.  Only in those nations where a governing body, not the people, makes all decisions is there any kind of certainty.  That certainty may not be pleasant (“This week you will get one loaf of bread and two potatoes”), but the people will know exactly what will happen. 

Democracy does not have certainty, pleasant or unpleasant.  That is because the people have a voice and as that voice changes and evolves, the people will make different choices.  And, because those choices often address if not resolve many opposing viewpoints, then the disruption and disorder they cause become an essential part of the preservation of our democratic freedoms.

Putting aside the turbulence this objection may cause, isn’t it more important that we establish the integrity of our elections when it is those very elections that are a key cornerstone of our democracy?  The trustworthiness of our elections is needed for the people of the nation to accept and support their results as the true voice of the people.  Without that certainty, we no longer have a government of, for, and by the people, and our democracy is in peril.

Today, 39% of Americans believe the 2016 Presidential election was “rigged”; that includes 17 percent of Democrats and 31 percent of independents.  This needs to be addressed.  It affects not only the legitimacy of this election and presidency, but the legitimacy of all future elections as well. 

Ted Cruz said, that dismissing these claims “does real violence to our democratic system. We ought to have a serious, fair process and tribunal to consider these claims, consider them quickly, consider them expeditiously. We can do it in 10 days before the inauguration.”

What is wrong with that?  We have within our democracy a system for objecting to the Electoral vote.  These senators are following that established procedure.  It is not treasonous as Democrats and others who oppose the objections assert.  Indeed, Democrats objected in 2004 and 2016 and were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did. Those objections, like the objections to be made by Republicans this Wednesday, were legal and a valid and necessary aspect of our democracy.

The people need to know that they can trust the democratic process, they need to know that only legal votes will be counted and that all such votes will be counted.  Our vote is a great privilege and to weaken or cancel it by allowing even the perception of a lack of voter integrity is one of the most destructive things that can be done to the American people and their democracy. 

I am aware that the fact that this election was about retaining or not retaining President Trump causes many people to lose any objectivity in the matter and forget what the bigger picture of election integrity is all about.  I understand that President Trump’s sometimes abrasive language, which is not missing in his current fight to find the actual and true vote totals, is a trigger for some sort of anger and/or hate in many. 

The cloud that covers so many eyes and minds when President Trump speaks (the cloud sometimes known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”) was triggered again by the leak of a phone conversation with Georgia’s Secretary of State wherein, amongst his rant about the hundreds of thousands of questionable ballots, President Trump commented that all he needed was 11,780 of those hundreds of thousands to win.  How this could be any kind of criminal act is ludicrous, yet Democrats and Trump-haters are calling for criminal investigations if not the death penalty.

But while for Trump, who may very well have had an election stolen from him, this is primarily about his vote totals, for the rest of us this should be more fundamentally about American democracy.  While we can clearly see the very different consequences for our country that a Trump or Biden presidency would have, hatred of or love for our current president should not remove our focus on the bigger picture. 

While it is unlikely that, even if the objection prevails and a commission investigates, the final election result will change, that does not mean that this objection should not be made.  The Commission it seeks should be granted. 

We the people have a right to know what happened in this election:  how, for example, in some instances there were more votes than voters, or how a precise needed number of votes miraculously appeared in bulk in the middle of the night.  Even if we live with questions about our president for the next four years, we need to know what happened so that we can have faith in the integrity of our future elections.  That trustworthiness is essential to our democracy.

NOTE, the full statement of those senators planning to object to the Electoral vote on Jan. 6 can be found here: LINK     

 

TWO THOUGHTS AS THE YEAR TURNS

 

            1.  Let Us Pray

The phrase “Let us pray” is uttered by priests at various points throughout religious services.  It may be an invitation (generally in Western style services) or an imperative (generally Eastern or Orthodox).  Some believe that prayer can become a way of life. 

The phrase is often uttered either at the end of or as a beginning to meaningful words or acts.  Therefore, it seems appropriate to utter them as we are on the cusp of the end of one year and the beginning of a new one; a time of both ending and beginning.

Of course, a natural question might be:  Pray to whom?  And for what? 

As far as “to whom”:  I would suggest that it matters less how one envisions the entity to whom one prays than it does the fact that someone accepts that there is someone or something greater than oneself in which one believes enough to send forth prayers.   I know there can be pushback here from every advocate of every religion (and every associated denomination within) who believes theirs is the one and only true faith.  But let’s remember that there is a difference between man-made religions and true faith in something that is greater than, and all-encompassing of, Mankind.  Beyond this short statement, I will leave it to the philosophers and saints to argue about who the whom in “to whom” is.

That leaves us the second question:  For what shall we pray?  That is an individual problem.  Many will sit down on New Year’s Day and compose a list of resolutions.  Those are generally positive wishes for oneself in the coming year; I’m not sure they are really prayers, but they could be if in the end they are directed to that greater being to whom one prays.

I think that my prayer is for a reinvigoration in this world of the faith that makes prayer meaningful.  This seems to be something that many humans have lost, or are in the process of losing, as individuals seem to become more and more self-absorbed and our world becomes more and more secular.

When one has no belief in something greater than oneself, when the self and its own satisfaction become of primary importance, that is when we lose tolerance for others, when we lose the urge and even the ability to do something for the true good rather than simply for what feels good.  That focus on worldly selves is when we lose respect for humanity and the individuals that surround us.  And it results in an emptiness, a hopelessness, and the anger that we see so much around us in the world these days.

So, my prayer is that we return to our souls and within those souls become reacquainted (or perhaps newly acquainted) with a faith in that which is greater than we, whatever we may choose to call that greater power.  Not only will it lead to truer individual happiness, but it will also go a long way toward healing the world.

2.  The Year You Complain of May Not Really be Over

For all of you who have sent out (sometimes quite offensive) “holiday” cards proclaiming how horrible 2020 was and your eagerness for 2021:  I have some bad news.

We are currently in the Chinese Year of the Metal Rat.  It began last January 25^th, just about the exact same time as COVID arrived on our shores (from China).  The year will not end until February 11, 2021.

The Year of Metal Rat comes once every 60 years.  Based in Chinese astrology, the 12 animal astrological symbols are combined with the 5 elemental signs, giving us 60 possibilities, each of which then contains a Yin or a Yang energy.

The Metal Rat is a Yang year.  Yang is an active energy, when the world is shaped through actions and big events, rather than by passive attitudes. It is therefore a year of changes some of which can be drastic. 

The Rat is symbolically a highly active animal; one that is known for being intelligent, curious, and restless. The Rat gets what it wants through tenacity and inventiveness; it is an animal that can also bite, explore the lower realm of our world, and carry illnesses. All those characteristics show up in the Metal Rat year. And the combination of Yang Metal and the Rat makes for a very active year that shakes things up.

This becomes clear when one considers previous Metal Rat Years.  The most recent was 1960-61. Not only did that year begin several years of social upheaval in this country, but it was also the year of a recession, the year that substantial American advisory forces arrived in Viet Nam.  It was a year that saw a strong socialist/communist movement in Europe, it began the transformation of colonialism to independence in Africa, and France detonated its first atomic bomb while other nations including China did so only a few years later.

Going back through history one will find that there were at least a few significant events in each Metal Rat year that caused or helped lead to significant changes in the future.  1900-01 saw widespread application of the internal combustion engine along with several other technological inventions, all of which served to push us full force into the industrial age and change human life forever.

Looking back further, in 1840-41, the World Anti-Slavery commission met for the first time, wagon trains began leaving for California, the Library of Congress was founded, and slavery was ended in the Northwest Territory.  1780-81 brought us to the end of armed conflict in the American Revolution and saw the approval of the Articles of Confederation.  In 1720-21, Tsar Peter the Great ended the Russian-Orthodox patriarchy, peace treaties were signed among several European countries, and Europe’s last major plague outbreak killed around 100,000 people.  1660-61 saw King Charles II sign the Declaration of Breda establishing freedom of religion.  In 1600-01, Astronomers Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler met for the first time near Prague, and the first British East India Company voyage departed from London. 1540-41 saw exploration of the New World by the likes of De Soto, Coronado, and Cartier while Michelangelo finished painting “The Last Judgment” in the Sistine Chapel.  The years 1480-81 and 1420-21 saw a number of religious wars play out including Ottoman troops beheading 800 Christians for refusing to convert to Islam,  Pope Martinus I calling for a crusade against the Hussite Protestants, and Jews in Syria and Austria were expelled. 

We could go on, but you get the picture.  Years of the Metal Rat include events that tend to shake up the status quo and are likely to change the course of history.  That does not necessarily make them evil, even though experiencing a Metal Rat year as it is happening may be unpleasant at best. 

But, if we look at the long view, perhaps 2020 or this Metal Rat year is not as malevolent as many now believe it to be.  We should stop and consider what has 2020 taught us, how it has prepared us better for the future and how we can work to make that future better.

But whether it is the Year of the Metal Rat or simply 2020 that is so fashionable to trash, I find it hard to believe that there is not at least one thing that each person can find during the year to be thankful for.  Even in the most difficult times, there is always light to be found.

In conclusion, then, as we sit on this cusp between years, let us search within our souls for the faith that is there that can make prayer real and meaningful.  Let us look to what we have learned from this year that is passing and let us find our many lights within it.  And, for the future, let us pray.