Ukraine, NATO, Putin, Biden – No heroes, no diplomacy

I, like most, condemn the military aggression of Putin in Ukraine.   My heart aches for the Ukrainian people.  However, I do not blame Putin alone for the Ukraine crisis. 

In my opinion, a large part of the fault for the long-term existence of this problem falls on NATO; I put much of the blame for inciting that problem to its current level of violence on President Biden.  The following explains why.

The long term problem – NATO

Much of the information in this section of this post is derived from Foreign Affairs magazine (digitally available at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/) which has contained several articles on Ukraine, Russia, and NATO over the past few years. 

Current Russian concerns with NATO originate with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.  The post-Cold War setup in Europe’s east left Russia without much say in European security, which was centered on NATO. 

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has aggressively moved eastward, encouraging central and eastern European countries to join NATO.   The U.S. argued this was necessary to pursue a policy of containment after the Cold War.  NATO determined that there should be no hard line beyond which NATO should not move east and no restrictions on new members.

Article 5 of NATO guarantees that members will treat an attack on one as an attack against all.  The closer that NATO moved to Russia the more that cooperation between Russia and the US deteriorated since the NATO expansion essentially placed the availability of U.S. military at Russia’s border.

A 1990 agreement suggests some limitations on expansion.  That agreement specifically deals with the reunification of Germany since at that time “few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.”  Russia however interpreted the agreement as a broader promise that NATO will not threaten Russia’s border.  In January of this year Secretary of State Blinken asserted that “NATO never promised not to admit new members” arguing that it has an “open door policy.”

As more eastern states joined NATO, Ukraine gained more and more importance to both the West and to Russia.  The NATO expansion could have been done in such a way as to avoid drawing a new line across Europe, but that was opposed by Washington.  “Washington’s error was not to enlarge the [NATO] alliance but to do so in a way that maximized Moscow’s aggravation and gave fuel to Russian reactionaries.” 

In 1994 Ukraine, along with other states that held nuclear weapons, signed an agreement with Russia and the U.S. that resulted in those prior Soviet states giving up their nuclear weapons so that all the USSR’s nuclear arsenal would now be held by one country - Russia.  As part of the agreement Russia and the U.S. essentially agreed to respect the boundaries of these new independent countries and to not influence them politically or economically. 

In 2004 the U.S. backed the pro-Western Orange Revolution in the Ukraine.  Putin, watching it unfold, stated his anger and disbelief to those with him at the time: “They [the U.S.] lied to me.  I will never trust them again.”

The West extended the prospect of NATO membership including article 5 protections to Ukraine in 2008.  In 2014 Russia took over Crimea from Ukraine and began supporting pro-Russian militants in the Donbas region.  Putin justified this takeover as a necessary response to NATO’s “deployment of military infrastructure at our borders.”

The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 proposed to bring peace to the region, but Ukraine would strike no deals; it would not even accept a compromise that would have allowed for elections in the Donbas region.  Diplomatic correspondence between France, Germany, and Russia shows that Western powers fully sided with Ukraine.

While the focus of the West has been on the Russian troop buildup near the Ukrainian border, at the same time NATO countries have expanded their military activities in the Black Sea region and in Ukraine.  Tensions have clearly been rising. 

In 2021 Ukrainian President Zelensky made a decision to use armed drones in Donbas. Western military advisers, instructors, arms, and ammunition have poured into Ukraine.  Russians also suspect that a training center the United Kingdom is constructing in Ukraine is in fact a foreign military base. Putin is particularly adamant that deploying U.S. missiles in Ukraine that can reach Moscow in five to seven minutes cannot and will not be tolerated.   

At the end of 2021, Russia presented the U.S. with a list of demands.  These included a formal halt to NATO’s eastern enlargement, a freeze on further expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure, and end to Western military assistance to Ukraine and a ban on intermediate-range missiles in Europe.  Its message was clear that it sought to address the Ukraine conflict diplomatically, but if that was not possible that Russia would resort to military action.

A clear Russian redline is Ukraine’s accession to NATO or the placement of Western military bases and long-range weapons in its territory.  Putin has made it clear that he will not yield on this point.    His threat and now use of force comes from his frustration with a stalled diplomatic process and a legitimate concern about hostile forces at his country’s border.   

In a December 2021 article Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, wrote:

Putin’s actions suggest that his true goal is not to conquer Ukraine and absorb it into Russia but to change the post-Cold War setup in Europe’s east.  If he manages to keep NATO out of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and U.S. intermediate-range missiles out of Europe, he thinks he could repair part of the damage Russia’s security sustained after the Cold War ended.

We cannot simply look at NATO-Russia or US-Russian relations as good vs bad; to do so has put us in the position we are in now.  Historical evidence reveals that US leaders were so focused on enlarging NATO that they did not consider the perils of the way in which they were doing it.

The immediate problem – Biden

In his speech on 2/24, Biden began with the statement that “The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine, without provocation, without justification, without necessity.” 

Herein lies one key problem:  Biden refuses to hear or understand Russia’s concerns which actually provide Russia with reasonable justification for its current actions (even if in addition they provide an excuse for goals of expansion).  Biden’s position is simply that we are right, they are wrong.  He has attacked Russia’s expressions of their NATO concerns as unfounded lies.  The unwillingness to listen essentially leaves Russia with only one other course of action which they have now taken. 

But beyond his failure to listen, thus making invasion essentially a necessity as the only way for Russia to air its grievances, Biden has also almost goaded Putin into taking action.  For weeks Biden asserted an imminent invasion but refused to impose new sanctions against Russia or even re-impose those which he had suspended such as those against the Nordstream 2 pipeline.  At the same time, his actions limiting energy production in this country increased our dependence on Russian oil, hence giving Russia a strategic advantage. 

Biden assured us that sanctions would be imposed at the appropriate time in order to deter Russia from taking action against Ukraine.  Thursday, as he actually imposed some (though not the strongest available) sanctions, Biden essentially acknowledged the uselessness of such sanctions. 

In answering questions, Biden stated it would take a month or more to see if the sanctions were even working and ultimately stated that “No one expected sanctions to prevent anything.”  CBS News' Margaret Brennan pointed out the contradiction; Biden, his VP and members of his foreign policy team, and his press secretary have all been insisting for the past weeks that sanctions would work.  That Biden appeared to laugh when stating the sanctions were no deterrent was especially chilling.

Biden continues to tell us he knows what Putin is planning, but he is apparently helpless to stop anything.  As noted in my last post, a large part of this is the result of incompetent diplomacy from Biden’s team.  They would rather simply see Putin as the evil pinup for an evil Russia whom they have no interest in working with to find peaceful and reasonable solutions to concerns that each country might have.

But beyond that, I see Biden as totally clueless and incompetent.  I am not sure he has any understanding of what he has gotten us into; he certainly has no understanding of how to get us out of it.  He continues to send troops to the area while promising they will not engage.  It is clear he hates Putin and wants to destroy him, and I am not sure that he would hesitate even if he had to destroy everyone and everything in this country in the process.  I believe that for Biden it is all about himself and right now he is trying to show the world how great he is.  In my view he is not great at all, simply selfish and, with the nuclear codes in his pocket, extremely dangerous.

 

Biden and Ukraine

Today President Biden gave a speech on Ukraine.  He called Russia’s recognition of two separatist republics a part of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, despite the fact that both these republics had requested recognition from Russia. He declared sanctions and additional defensive moves and support for Ukraine, authorizing U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen Baltic allies.  He declared he wanted to send an “unmistakable” message, one which included the promise to defend NATO territory.  (We should note that Ukraine is not part of NATO, nor is it NATO territory).  He also declared this would result in yet higher gas prices.  The conference began over an hour late, lasted only about 10 minutes and the President took no questions.

The passage below is translated from Russian news source Известия.

Earlier in the day, Biden signed a decree imposing sanctions on Donbas after Russia recognized the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR). In addition to restrictions on investments in the regions, the American leader also banned the import of any technologies, services and goods from the Donbass republics into the United States. Also, persons who are involved in various activities in the DPR and LPR may be subject to sanctions, follows from the document.

In turn, in Donetsk , they reacted with sarcasm to the US statement on sanctions against the DPR. Vladislav Berdichevsky, a deputy of the People's Council of the Republic, joked that in this way the American president recognized the existence of the republic.

The second paragraph makes a logical point:  by sanctioning the new republics recognized by Russia but which we assert are still part of Ukraine, we are recognizing those areas as holding some form of independence.  This amusing irony reflects something far less amusing: that the President’s foreign policy is going blindly forward with what he wants but with no understanding of what he is doing or of the underlying history and people of the region.

While one view is certainly that Russia is setting up justifications for taking over Ukraine, the way to stop this is not just to accuse Russia but to understand not only what its goal may be, but why.  That requires some grasp of the Russian mind and Russian history.

Key Ukraine/Russia historical facts

Ukraine and Russia have a shared history for over 1,000 years.   Kiev, now the capitol of Ukraine, was the center of Kyivan Rus, the first Slavic state and the birthplace of both Ukraine and Russia.  Over the centuries, Ukraine was often fought over by competing powers.  After the communist revolution of 1917, Ukraine was, after a brutal battle, absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1922.

When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Ukraine became an independent nation; however, the country has not been united.  Eastern Ukraine came under Russian rule much earlier than western Ukraine.  Thus, people in the east have stronger ties to Russia and have been more likely to support Russia and Russian-leaning leaders.  “The sense of Ukrainian nationalism is not as deep in the east as it is in west,” says former ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer.

The transition to democracy and capitalism was painful and chaotic, and many Ukrainians, especially in the east, longed for the relative stability of earlier eras and a return to Russian rule.  According to Ukraine expert Adrian Karatnycky, the biggest divide in Ukraine is between “those who view the Russian imperial and Soviet rule more sympathetically versus those who see them as a tragedy."

During the 2004 Orange Revolution thousands of Ukrainians marched to support greater integration with Europe.  In 2005 Russian President Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet empire “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”  It is no secret that he would like to regain control of Ukraine and that many Russians believe that Ukraine is rightfully a part of Russia.

Crimea fought for autonomy from Ukraine and ultimately declared its independence.  It was then invaded, occupied and annexed by Russia in 2014, followed shortly after by a separatist uprising in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas that resulted in the declaration of the Russian-backed People’s Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk.  These are the two republics recognized Monday by the Russian Federation and on which Biden has now imposed sanctions.

Donetsk, Lugansk Celebrate Russian Recognition

The inhabitants of the separatist regions and now republics celebrated in the streets following their recognition by Russia.  Their leaders have agreed to host Russian troops within their borders, thus enabling Russian forces to move closer to Ukraine.

Today, Ukrainian, the official language of Ukraine, is the native language of about two thirds of Ukraine's population. Russian is the native language of about one third of Ukraine's population.  The two languages are closely related.

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded shortly after WW2 to deter expansion of the then Soviet Union.  Since that time it has expanded eastward, bringing central and eastern European states into its ranks after the USSR collapsed.  Most recently there has been a push for Ukraine to be allowed to join NATO, a push to which Russia is firmly opposed at least in part because that would place NATO at Russia’s border.  NATO countries agree to support and protect one another and to support emerging democracies.

Because Ukraine is not currently a NATO member, NATO nations, including the U.S., have no obligation to protect or defend Ukraine. 

Facts & Narratives

Russia views the facts above one way, the US views them differently.   But what we must realize is that if we are going to successfully be involved in this situation, while we do not need to agree with the Russian interpretation, we must understand it. 

Russia interprets NATO and its push of eastward expansion as aggression and a threat to Russian sovereignty.  NATO, the West, and Biden assert they are simply supporting Ukraine as an emerging democracy.  Both interpretations are reasonable.

Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov asserts that they have a legitimate right to have their troops where they want on Russian territory or where they have been invited to be.  He analogizes to the US bases in numerous European and other countries and to NATO troops stationed in various regions.  Russia calls these a threat while the US and NATO see them as protective.   That the troops are stationed is fact, but the interpretation of the fact differs and results in different narratives being fed to each nation's people.  Ukraine, meanwhile, appears to accept Russian intimidation as a tolerable fact of life.

Diplomacy

Culture, geography, and history affect the way people think and approach life.  Russians think differently than Americans.

True diplomats have the ability to understand the views and thinking of those with whom they conduct diplomacy.  They must be able to assess the facts and distinguish those from different interpretations of those facts and also understand how those with different goals will use the same facts to support different ends.

While neither side will, nor should they, accept the other’s narrative, they need to be aware of it.  Diplomacy and peace, not unlike a chess game, require each side to understand the other’s thinking and how it differs from their own, so as to predict not only what they are likely to do but why – why it is important to them.  For the more important, the more aggressive they will be about achieving their goals.  The areas of less importance are where negotiation must begin.

Watching events in Ukraine unfold along with our government’s reactions it seems that this administration is either unwilling or unable to understand the Russian perspective.   I am not arguing that they should or must agree with that perspective, but it is imperative that they understand it.

According to Pavel Palazhchenko, the former interpreter to Gorbachev, the West has too long ignored Russia's security concerns, and hence failed to understand the mindset or the psychology of Russia.  "That does have an effect," he said. "We are all human beings. Russian leaders are human beings, and so when they, time and again, raise the NATO enlargement and the process relentlessly continues, it does cause resentment." 

He further stated “But the United States, for its part, having been caught flat-footed when Russia snatched Crimea in 2014, has made a strategic decision to try to call Russia out on transgressions before they happen. Time will tell if that has its intended effect or causes Russia to dig further in.”

Biden’s dangerous, erratic, and emotional policy

Biden told us today that he has known what Russia was planning to do every step of the way.  Yet, he has failed to do anything that has in any way stopped what he claims should have been stopped.  So now he imposes sanctions against the newly recognized republics.  Would anyone be surprised if Putin, evaluating Biden’s ongoing performance, would determine that he has nothing to fear from the U.S.?

It appears that Biden is going to dig us deeper into Ukraine.  Perhaps Biden’s hysteria about the Ukraine situation is, as I have previously suggested, part of a “wag the dog” strategy to divert attention from, and provide excuses for, the many disastrous crises, most of his own making, in this country.  Indeed, in his speech today he made it clear that gas prices would continue to rise due to the Ukraine situation (not mentioning that he has destroyed the U.S. energy independence that existed prior to his taking office and  that his own policies are responsible for our current record high inflation).

Perhaps Biden intends to get us into some sort of proxy war with Russia set in Ukraine (think Korean and Vietnam wars) believing that this will somehow prove his strength.  Biden does seem to think he has something to prove here.  MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell yesterday said that President Biden believes that he is going to emerge victorious from the facedown with Russian President Vladimir Putin and that he has "confidence" and "ego" in his foreign policy abilities, while adding that Biden feels "defensive" about criticism of his foreign policy performance.

That is not the context in which one wants to see foreign policy decisions being made, especially when they can potentially lead to serious loss to our own country.  It is not the sort of context that encourages listening and understanding.  It is a frightening place for our country to be. 

Biden’s hysteria for the past several weeks, daily telling us the Russian invasion is imminent, became quickly tiresome.  When the President of Ukraine repeatedly told Biden to stop the hysteria, that he is only making matters worse, one has to wonder why Biden kept it up.  He began looking like the kid on the playground goading the other to make a first move just so he could hit him.  Again, I point to “wag the dog” strategy.

Personally, I think that while we can lend advice, speak out against aggression, impose sanctions, even sell weaponry, we have no business as actual participants in the sense of boots on the ground in this conflict.  This is not a NATO obligation.  NATO may want Ukraine and Putin may be opposed to such NATO expansion, but Ukraine currently is not a part of NATO.   And ultimately this is Ukraine’s decision.

We have a crisis on our southern border.  Our Canadian neighbor to the north is, in dictator fashion, stomping out Canadian freedoms.  Rather than address the southern border or speak out against our northern neighbor’s threat to democracy (Canada is a NATO member and thus loss of their democracy and freedom is a legitimate NATO concern), Biden is choosing to involve us in a border dispute that is really better left to Ukraine, Russia, and their European neighbors. 

We have our own problems here, and it would be nice if our President would have the same level of hysterical concern about such things as our economy, crime, education, etc., as he does for Ukraine’s border.  But then, maybe he just wants a war.  Let’s just hope he doesn’t get us into WW3.

 

Silently Slipping Away

You don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone.

Did you ever criticize the government?  Maybe the President, maybe a Congressperson, maybe the local dog catcher.  Maybe when you did some folks agreed with you, maybe most folks thought you were nuts.  But you were able to speak your mind.

People in authoritarian regimes do not have that right. There could be no impassioned speeches against wars or for the right to vote, against child abuse and for child labor laws.  In authoritarian regimes one is told what to think and that is the only opinion that is allowed expression.

Prohibitions on Free Speech

In the USSR, Stalin created a law “against terrorist groups and terrorist actions” that was used to prosecute, imprison, execute not just “terrorists” but artists and writers and dissidents – virtually anyone who spoke a word against Stalin and the party power structure.  Section 10 of Article 58 made "propaganda and agitation against the Soviet Union" a triable offence, while section 12 allowed for onlookers to be prosecuted for not reporting instances of section 10. In effect, Article 58 was carte blanche for the secret police to arrest and imprison anyone deemed suspicious, making it useful as a political weapon.

The current Communist Chinese government also has a law that silences speech against the government narrative.  Article 105, paragraph 2 of the 1997 revision of the People's Republic of China's Penal Code states:  "Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years."

In the United States

We, of course, have the First Amendment which states: “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.”  These words give us the right to form our own opinions and to speak them, even if they are not in line with the government’s narrative.

But, as of February 7, 2022, we also have the National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin issued by our Department of Homeland Security.  While spending much of its time discussing the possibility of violent threats it also includes significant language against speech that counters the government narrative.

The “Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland” begins by stating that “The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”

The document continues with “Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include: 1. The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:  For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.”

Losing Free Speech; Easing into Authoritarianism

I don’t know about you, but to me this sounds eerily similar to the USSR and Chinese documents (see my highlighted language in each).  Its focus is on areas in which the narrative of the Right counters and is often a thorn in the side of the Left’s narrative certainly seems a political weapon.  And we have seen this terrorism before in the collaboration between the White House and Teachers’ Unions to weaponize the DOJ against parents speaking out at school board meetings.

Perhaps the controversy over Joe Rogan on Spotify sparked this HHS document. (FYI, Joe Rogan has a pod cast in which he brings on speakers with a variety of views.  When he had two scientists, including one involved in invention of mRNA technology on and they differed in opinion from the narrative of the White House, attempts were made to cancel Rogan from Spotify, including statement by the White House that Spotify should do so, but Spotify declined, instead taking a stand for Free Speech.) Perhaps more generally the many assertions against Leftist narratives brought this on.

Whatever prompted this latest attempt to silence free speech, it is clear that the position of our current administration, spoken here by DHS, is not that different from the authoritarian rules summarized above.  Speak out in contradiction of the government, even simply disagree, and you are a terrorist.  Indeed, under a broad reading of the above, as I write these words I am acting as a terrorist.  Many of my blog posts would be considered terrorism.

But America is not the USSR and is not Communist China (even if we are told not to speak out against China and our government does not stand against its atrocities including genocide against the Uyghur people). 

America holds faith in the free marketplace of ideas (or at least it did until the Leftists took power).  The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.  It is the basis of free speech and of our Constitutional right to that speech.

Free speech can be uncomfortable.  People disagree; people contradict one another; people point out fallacies in one another’s arguments and positions; passion sometimes leads to less than kind language.  But this lively debate also inspires new thought and betterment of existing policies.  It is what allows improvement and forward movement, whether it is in a science lab leading to a new discovery or in the world of politics leading to societal improvement, improved laws, and a better world.

Only narrow-minded autocrats try to silence oppositional speech.  Those who believe they are somehow superior and therefore deserve power over others also think that they should be able to control every aspect of your life, including your thoughts.

The Soviet government made propaganda and agitation against the Soviet Union a triable offense.  The Communist Chinese require imprisonment for “slander or encouragement of subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system.” 

Our government finds our right to free speech to be terroristic and the exercise of that right to be terrorism when it contradicts the administration’s narrative.  And our freedom to speak against that view will slip away if we continue in silence to ignore our rights and this administration’s attempts to silence them. 

But, hey, those of you that are upset by the discord within this country can rest assured that under an authoritarian regime, all such discord will be silenced.  And you won’t realize what you had until it’s gone.

 

Tails a-Wagging

“Wagging the Dog” is an expression, made popular during the Clinton administration. Generally it is “the act of creating a diversion from a damaging issue.”  In politics it means “to distract attention away from a political scandal, often through military action.”

A 1997 movie “Wag the Dog” involved a fictional political spin doctor (Robert De Niro) who distracted the electorate from a fictional presidential sex scandal by hiring a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to create a fake war.  Less than a month after the movie was released, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair became headline news. Clinton, seeming to follow the movie script, then engaged the country in three military actions:  Operation Desert Fox, a three-day bombing campaign in Iraq, which took place at the time when the House of Representatives debated articles of impeachment against Clinton; Operation Infinite Reach, a pair of missile strikes against suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan, just three days after Clinton admitted in a nationally televised address that he had indeed had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky; Operation Allied Force, a months-long NATO bombing campaign against Serbia that began just weeks after Clinton was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial.  These events distracted somewhat from the ongoing and politically damaging Clinton sex scandal.

Fast forward to 2022 and the multi-front incompetency of President Biden. That incompetence itself is a scandal, but from it evolve more problems and scandals in nearly every area.  

So, what do you do when you find the economy in tatters, supply chain disasters, border issues and illegal immigrations at record levels, the Afghanistan debacle still destroying lives, crime at all time highs and murders of police rising, Covid never-ending, record high inflation effectively reducing income and significantly harming low and middle class families, race relations and general animosity getting worse by the day, lack of energy independence, poll numbers plummeting to all-time lows, international presence and respect questionable at best, your party losing important voting groups including Black and Hispanic voters, a general malaise of dissatisfaction throughout the country?  You wag the dog.

When you have ruined everything you can touch and people are beginning to realize that you really are destroying America, what do you do?  Wag the Dog.  Wag and wag and wag and hopefully the people will all be sufficiently distracted to forget about what you are really doing and have done.  Wag, and wag, and wag, and wag.  The good thing is that the mainstream media will follow the lead and divert attention from the damaging stories to the new diversions.

So, wag number 1:  Leak the story that Justice Breyer is retiring, forcing him to announce now rather than at the end of the current term.  Announce that you will have a nomination by the end of February and that all males and all women who are not Black need not apply, for the President will appoint a Black Female.  This should (you think) please the Black voters (perhaps brings them back into the fold),  and the news should focus on the nomination and confirmation process instead of America’s problems.

That backfires.  Most of the country notices that this limitation of consideration to Black Females is racist and sexist and goes against everything this country stands for.  Too many questions.  You need another distraction.

Wag number 2:  Russia and the Ukraine.  Russia is rattling its swords on the Ukrainian border.  Let’s just get all hysterical about that (even though the president of Ukraine suggests that war is not imminent, and that the U.S. hysteria is most likely to cause a war rather than prevent one).  Nonetheless, continue the hysterics, leak negotiations and letters sent to Vladimir Putin in an attempt to show how tough you are, and send troops to the area.

It becomes more and more credible and evident that you want a war – that would certainly fill the news, distracting from failure after failure  Meanwhile you make it clear that Americans cannot count on their country to assist them should conflict develop (shades of Afghanistan!). 

This isn’t working.  Putin is perhaps more patient than you thought and has not invaded.  Send more troops.  Beat your chest a little more and try to raise hysteria about this conflict.  Not working.

Wag number 3:  Kill a Syrian terrorist.  This in itself is not bad, but what hurts is that along with the terrorist you kill at least 13 civilians, many of whom are children.  The description of the event does not show our execution of such assassinations at their skillful best and the death of innocents recalls the botched drone strike during the last days of Afghanistan that resulted in the deaths of America-friendly civilians and children. 

News of this morning’s strike  in Syria is still coming out, and as usual Biden makes a statement but refuses to answer questions.  But some early reports from the area include the following:

• “Omar Saleh, a resident of a nearby house, told the Associated Press he was asleep when his doors and windows started to rattle to the sound of low-flying aircraft at 1:10 a.m. local time. He ran to open the windows with the lights off and saw three helicopters. He then heard a man, speaking Arabic with an Iraqi or Saudi accent through a loudspeaker, urging women to surrender or leave the area. This went on for 45 minutes. There was no response. Then the machine gun fire erupted.”
•  “Residents and activists told the AP that there were multiple deaths near the home that was raided, which included civilians. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said nine people were killed, including two children. The White Helmets, a civil defense group in the country, tweeted that 13 people, including six children and four women, were killed. Our teams rushed an injured child to the hospital. The child's entire family was killed in the operation. The teams also rushed another person to the hospital who was injured in the clashes when he approached the scene to witness what was happening."
• “The suicide vest detonation caused some civilian casualties, but the number of civilian deaths reported on the ground do "not correspond with what U.S. officials say occurred on the ground last night," two U.S. officials stated.

This should be a distraction for awhile at least, but probably not long enough.  So, just in case, we have potential Wag number 4:  the cancer cure.  Wednesday Biden announced his renewed launch of the “Cancer Moonshot” which he promises will end cancer (unlike his promises to end Covid and perhaps a distraction from that failed promise).  His plans include “mobilizing the entire government” against cancer and forming a “Cancer Cabinet.”

Just more show to distract us from the real news, the news that, if heard, will make it undeniable that this President is a total failure who is driving this country full speed ahead toward its destruction. 

This can get dangerous.  Let’s not forget that about a year ago Biden broke his foot while playing with his dog. 

If this were the movie sequel to Wag the Dog, we would be rolling in the aisles with laughter wondering how the author came up with such an incompetent president with so many damaging issues needing so many distractions.  We’d think it a great story.  But this is real, and it is not very funny.

Lady Justice

Lady Justice is depicted as blind – exemplifying impartiality.  But apparently the search for our new Lady Justice, one of nine who will often be the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and fair, is not only not blind or impartial, it is racist and unconstitutional as well.

There is nothing wrong with having a Supreme Court Justice who is a Black female.  What is wrong is if the selection criteria focus exclusively on those identity characteristics.

President Biden, by announcing that he will select a Black female to replace Justice Breyer is acting in a racist and discriminatory manner.  He has omitted from consideration, based solely on race, color, gender, all otherwise qualified individuals who simply happen to be male or women who are not Black.  (The trans advocates might also be concerned that he is also apparently excluding trans people from consideration.)

Does the President think that a Black female is only capable of achieving this position if other qualified applicants are excluded from consideration?  And is he asking the potential candidates if they can fairly consider the affirmative action case that will be before the Court next term if they were effectively chosen to their position by affirmative action criteria?  Should the Black female who was picked in not an open consideration process but by excluding all potential competitors who were not Black and female be involved in assessing the constitutionality of a process that does just that?

When President Reagan selected the first female Justice to sit on the Court, he did not hide his desire to select a female for the position.  But he did not exclude non-females from consideration.  Thus, when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated, she had beat out ALL the competition, not just those with identity characteristics similar to hers.  Biden’s pick, even if she well might have beaten an open field, will not be able to make that same claim. 

Our Constitution and laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, and sex.  Yet Biden’s pledge to look only for and ultimately select only a Black female is a perfect example of such prohibited discrimination.   Of course, when did Biden (or any Leftist) let the Constitution stand in the way of what they wanted?

I assume that Biden’s selection will ultimately be confirmed.  I also assume that the new Justice will be a qualified jurist who will vote with the other liberal justices, as did Breyer.  But even if she is a brilliant jurist, somehow the Court is weakened by the manner of her selection.

Beyond this particular case, the problem with such discriminatory practices is that they reflect the Left’s demeaning attitude (that they will vehemently deny) that women and people of color are not capable of doing as well as white males without some assistance from the Left.  This attitude is indeed racist and sexist – it views certain classes of people as less than:  less capable, less qualified, less intelligent.  For if Black women are as capable as their non-black non-female peers, they would not need to have a selection pool limited to them only. 

I believe that there are indeed Black female jurists who can hold their own against other potential candidates for the Supreme Court.  There are Black women who could be selected without the qualifying criteria of being Black and female.

Unfortunately, Biden and the Left will not allow these Black women to show us their true qualifications in an unbiased selection process because this administration apparently believes the only way to put a Black female on the court is to change the playing field and raise identity factors to be the prime qualification, thus lowering things such as legal skills and experience to something less.  They seem to hold the demeaning belief that Black women cannot hold their own.

This is not good for the Court, but it is even worse for America.  Our Constitution pronounces us to all be equal.  Setting different rules for different groups of people reflects a belief that the Constitution is not correct and that some people are less equal than others. 

Democrats may see this as some sort of act furthering equity.  But equity is not equality and instead creates categories that become degrading of certain identifiable groups.  Groups that become “less than” because they are seen as needing special treatment in order to succeed.  It is racist in every sense of the word, and it is sad that our President furthers such nonsense.

Think Now or Forever Lose Your Mind

 It is not the opposing views but the lack of real thought about them that is destroying our country.

We seem to be living in a time of superficiality and unthinking acceptance, as if cowed into abject obedience by powers beyond our control.   But the only reason such powers become beyond our control is that we relinquish our control over them to those who would control us.

Sergei Dovlatov was a writer unpublished in and expelled by the Soviet Union.  He was a colleague of Joseph Brodsky who later, after his expulsion from the USSR, became the poet laureate of this country.  They, along with writers, artists, and other brave souls, had the courage to think and to stand for what they believe is right, despite every effort by their government to suppress them and their individuality.  We have people with that courage today – Senators Sinema and Manchin come to mind, and we see the hell that their own party is putting them through for having the courage to think rather than just blindly follow.

In authoritarian countries, one is officially punished for not speaking or behaving as told.  Thoughts and beliefs contrary to the official ones are kept secret to oneself.  But in this country we do still have the ability and the right to think, to question popular and party beliefs.  Yet we are allowing more and more control over our thoughts, relinquishing more and more of our individuality to others.

Perhaps we’re so conditioned by being able to google or ask Alexa, get an immediate answer and move on, that we have forgotten how to question anything. 

We used to use our minds:  if we were concerned about the upcoming weather we might have gone outside and looked at the sky, seen a storm coming, deduced that it was likely to rain this afternoon.  Now we just ask Alexa: “Will it rain this afternoon?”, accept her answer, and move on.

But the bigger issues in our society are not subject to such simple, one-word answers.  Whether we should improve America’s existing structure and cultural core or completely dismantle and then re-envision it is a question that is not subject to a simple yes or no response.  Yet that is what we are doing when we simply align with Left or Right without truly understanding the concept or consequences of their ideologies.

What are the opposing Ideologies?

During his long, meandering news conference last week Pres. Biden, while trashing Republicans once again, asked “what are Republicans for?”  The Republican Party of New Mexico answered that question.   Here is their response:

What we generally learn from the above is that the Republicans essentially are for improving the existing constitutional democratic republic structure of America.

What the Democrats are for is nowhere stated as succinctly as the Republican statement above.  Their national website (democrats.org) relies on the 2020 lengthy anti-Trump platform to describe who they are and what issues are important to them.

Reading the Democrat platform, one will be met with many lofty and lovely words, but little detail and no real specifics.  However, one can read the lengthy platform in the context of the actions of the President and his party over the last year to arrive at some concrete ideas of what the Democrats are for.

Based on their platform and actions, the Democrats are for:  

Essentially, the Democrats are for completely dismantling and then re-envisioning America as we know it.   They would alter, reinterpret, or ignore the Constitution.  Their weakening of individual and state rights while expanding federal government control over all aspects of existence is a process which is essentially creating an authoritarian power structure.

The existence of opposing views is not the problem 

These two views (improve vs. remake America) are in opposition.  That is OK; indeed, in America the idea of competing positions on issues is fundamental to our democratic system.   Strongly held opposing views need to be openly and civilly debated in depth.

What is not OK is:

1. When someone supports one or the other platform without fully understanding what it means or entails; and,
2. When those in charge of one or the other platform achieve their goals by intimidation and silencing of those with opposing views.

When either of these two problems exist, democracy is in peril.  Today, in America, we see both. 

We as individuals are fully in charge of averting the first.  We do not have to follow blindly after nice sounding words.  We have both the ability and the right to enquire further into the meaning of those words, to use our minds and think about what they mean, not only immediately but in the future.

Too many people are not doing this, but are rather following and accepting without question what they are told as true, right, and what they must do.  That is what people do in a totalitarian society.  That is not what we should be doing in America.

Of course, and this is also a key to American democracy, we must have access to relevant information to do the necessary thinking.  This is where the second part comes in, and this part is not fully in the individual’s control.

Let’s look at some of the tactics of the Democrats.  First, they have learned that a safe way to survive controversy is to blame someone else.  We hear the Democrats as well as those who support their agenda blame not only former President Trump, but Republican policies and law makers, and even the American people themselves for any and everything that is wrong with our country. 

Moreover, the Left loves to accuse its opponents of everything that they themselves are actually doing.  (Best example of this is racism and its use to divide the country.)  They repeat unfounded attacks over and over until they become commonly accepted.

Of their own people the Left demands unquestioning loyalty to their views and severely punish those who do not fall in line.  They ban opposing voices and remove all influences that do not support their narrative including literature, history, arts, and, most importantly, facts.  They are decidedly unprincipled as they see no problem with their continual hypocrisy and repeated lies.  The list of Biden lies alone reaches several pages and he may have a record for receiving the most “4 Pinocchio” ratings in fact checks.

Without actual facts, with only lies and narrative, it becomes more and more difficult to find, let alone understand, the truth underlying our issues.  We become conditioned to simply accept what we are told, either because it is easier, or because there is no other option.

This is a dangerous place for our country to be:  acceptance without question.  That is the making of an authoritarian society.  One where opposing views are suppressed, where facts are  omitted or manufactured, where the narrative is more important than the truth. 

 The silencing is all around us and is growing

Why do so many not see this happening around us?  Censorship of minority or unpopular views exists not just on social media.  The mainstream media is no longer objective or interested in mere reporting.  When was the last time a reporter asked a difficult follow-up question?  It was when they were using their admittance to press conferences to attack President Trump.  But for the last year the Democrats, from President Biden down, have not been held to account.  Meanwhile, the President weaponizes the DOJ and its hunt for “domestic terrorists” to silence those common citizens who disagree.

When a person in power makes a statement and it is accepted with no questions asked, that leaves the person in power the opportunity to create or omit facts as he or she sees fit simply to further a particular narrative – usually one designed to retain power.  And beyond simply restating the narrative without question, the Left-leaning media often actively attempts to construct it. 

Consider NPR’s respected Supreme Court reporter who created an argument between Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch about masks, and then, even when presented with the actual facts by those two justices as well as the Chief Justice, refused to retract or correct her false allegations.  Because, for the Left, it has become OK to create narratives and the facts be damned.

Consider the continual overplayed horror and prosecution of Trump and others’ questioning of the 2020 election as some sort of coordinated anti-democratic attack upon our country.   Meanwhile, downplayed if not ignored by the media are the very same assertions by Democrats (Stacey Abram’s claim and belief that she won the Georgia governor election; Hillary Clinton’s claim that the 2016 election was illegitimate; and President Biden’s assertion and prediction that if the Democrats “voting rights” bill was not passed the 2022 elections will be illegitimate, at least in red states, thus giving Democrats a green light to challenge as illegitimate all 2022 results they do not like). 

At least in the case of the 2020 election there is evidence, if not of fraud, of the strong and possibly swaying effect that social and mainstream media had on the voters and thus the outcome of the election, not to mention Zuckerberg’s actual funding of liberal groups to infiltrate election offices in key swing states, effectively taking over governmental roles. Indeed, this was celebrated by that media following the election, including in Time Magazine which bragged and rejoiced about “the conspiracy behind the scenes” that gave us President Biden.  

If it works for the narrative, then the Left will continue to assert it as true, whereas if it is not part of the narrative, they will ignore and deny.  Consider the filibuster, a core democratic safeguard within our government that helps protect us from mob rule.  The Democrats at one time, until they wanted to pass their far-Left agenda, supported and defended the filibuster.  They even used the Senate filibuster earlier this month to block a bill by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) that would have sanctioned companies associated with Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The bill had 55 votes.  Democrats for some unknown reason did not want the bill to pass so used the filibuster to stop it.  Yet when they cannot pass their “voting” bill they call those who support the filibuster and its important protections the equivalent of segregationists. 

The Left, concerned with its own power more than the well-being of the country or its people, will use any means necessary to achieve its goals.

Think before relinquishing your power to do so

We have rival ideologies in this country.  That is nothing new.  What is new is the extent to which the Left would use any means whatsoever to silence opposition and award to themselves full power over life in these United States.  

Those who are old enough may remember the words from the opening of the Patty Duke show: “[Y]ou'll find they laugh alike, they walk alike, at times they even talk alike - You can lose your mind.”  

That is actually what the Left would like to see:  all of us walking, talking, and thinking alike in accordance with the mandates of the Left.  No individual thought.  No individual mind – at least not that one is willing to speak.  This is a totalitarian authoritarian existence, and it is where we are headed. 

We must use our minds now, or we will indeed lose them.

The words of Davlatov are as relevant today as they were in 1970s Soviet Russia.  

May we all be heroes!

Equal Rights are not Special Rights

I listened to the entire Supreme Court argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health last Wednesday.  You can listen to the recording here – DOBBS RECORDING  or read the transcript here -TRANSCRIPT. 

I have no intention here of going through/evaluating all the arguments or predicting outcomes.  Many commentators have already done that and you also can listen/read the above and make your own judgments and predictions.

After making a few brief comments I simply want to focus on the idea of the woman’s right itself, as it struck me from the arguments of the Respondent and the Solicitor General.

As to the few short observations – I thought the attorney for the Petitioner State of Mississippi was outstanding.  Regardless of one’s biases or feelings about the case, he was a fine example of what should be expected of anyone arguing before the Supreme Court.  He was incredibly well prepared, thoroughly knew and understood the relevant law and facts as well as the policy arguments involved.  He listened to the Justices’ questions and concerns, answered their questions, and presented a persuasive case for his client.

I found the other attorneys, while polished orators, to be less prepared and less able to actually answer the Justice’s concerns.

I was impressed with all but one of the Justices.  Eight seemed to ask fair and important questions that were designed to help them to understand aspects of the case or the arguments so as to better render an appropriate decision.  I was disappointed in Justice Sotomayor who seemed to be unnecessarily biased and argumentative in her questions during this argument.

But one thing that struck me about the arguments of the Respondent Jackson Women’s Health and the U.S. Solicitor General were the seeming reliance on some sort of special equality held by women.   These attorneys were arguing to uphold Roe v. Wade and to strike down the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. 

These attorneys argued that women have a fundamental right to abortion.  When asked what this specific right is – where it is or arises from in the Constitution, they repeatedly referred to “liberty.” If one cuts through all the chaff, their argument seems to be that while we all have a right to liberty, women have a special right within that which allows them to terminate the life of another, at least until that life becomes viable outside the womb.

Now last time I read our Constitution, it provides and demands equal rights for all citizens, not different or special rights for one group or another.  Yet what their argument does is to take the liberty right from the unborn child, giving it no rights at all, and then adding that child’s rights to the woman’s liberty right, giving her some sort of super right.

A woman’s right to control her own body is not a special right, but one that exists for all of us (mandates not withstanding).  But when that right includes the right to take another life as abortion does, it becomes a special right.  Giving women the right to take away the right of another in essence gives them a super-equality; an “equality” that is more than the equality of others.  That flies in the face of the demands of our Constitution and our core principles of equality and liberty for all. 

The weakness of this pro-abortion argument exemplifies the underlying weakness of the Roe v. Wade decision and of the assertion that a woman holds the right to choose not only what happens to her life, but to the life of a separate individual in her womb.  If the woman’s right is based on liberty, it is also a denial of liberty to another.

Other arguments were similarly weak:  for some reason it is, in the mind of the respondent and the DOJ, acceptable that a woman’s right to abortion may be curtailed after the point of viability (somewhere around 24 weeks) but 15 weeks is too early.  Their reliance on the difficulties faced in raising a child were cut short when Justice Barrett reminded them that a woman could give up a child for adoption almost immediately after birth, thus avoiding the alleged harm of parenting.

They also had no real answer to why this question of right to abortion,  not set forth in the Constitution, should be decided by 9 Justices rather than by the people or their legislative representatives.  They asserted it was because those 9 had, in Roe v. Wade, said it was a right.  This circular reasoning does not answer or prove why those 9, not the people, should decide whether that right exists and if so to what extent.

The arguments of Respondent and DOJ simply were not convincing.  They asserted a right exists which puts the women’s rights, her equality, above others, but couldn’t explain precisely what this right is or where this right came from other than a Court decision.  They couldn’t explain why it is necessary that women be granted a special right, giving them some sort of greater liberty or super-equality.

And, when it came to the question of whether the Court should re-examine and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, they argued no, primarily based on nothing more than that the case and its created right to abortion has been around so long. 

Indeed, there was much questioning about whether the court should touch the Roe ruling, especially with the strong political split about a woman’s right to abortion.  Is it some super case that the court cannot touch?

The State’s attorney analogized to the overturning, after 58 years, of Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that created separate but equal, by Brown vs. Board of Education, the case that ruled racial segregation unconstitutional.  In his rebuttal he stated:

In closing, I would say that in his dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson, Justice Harlan emphasized that there is no caste system here. The humblest in our country is the pure, the most powerful. Our Constitution neither knows nor tolerates distinctions on the basis of race.  It took 58 years for this Court to recognize the truth of those realities in a decision, and that was the greatest decision that this Court ever reached. We're -- we're running on 50 years of Roe. It is an egregiously wrong decision that has inflicted tremendous damage on our country and will continue to do so and take innumerable human lives unless and until this Court overrules it.

Just as Brown v. Board, while focused on race, demanded recognition of true equality, so it is crucial that our current Supreme Court also focus on the equality demanded by the Constitution.   Neither women nor any other group should be granted super-rights or super-equality.  And especially not at the expense of the liberty and life of another human being.

Roe v. Wade is not protected from overrule.  If it is Constitutionally proper to overrule it then that is what should be done.  As Chief Justice Roberts noted, no matter how the Court decides, it will likely be charged with political bias in its decision.  So let us hope that they, like the Justices who decided Brown, have the courage to do what the Constitution demands, no matter what the political fallout may be.