Pink's Politics

Endorsement

2024-10-25T13:16:00.001-07:00

Just in case anyone was wondering, this is whom I endorse, this is whom I have already voted for.

We are choosing the president of our country, not a pal, not a religious leader, not a cheer leader. Simply look at the qualifications of each candidate for the job.

Harris is clearly unqualified. She can’t articulate her policies or plans if indeed she even knows what they are; moreover, she lies about most of what she has done and said in the past. Her entire campaign seems to come down to fearmongering and trashing Trump. But, sorting through the clutter one can determine that her intent is to totally transform this country and one primary way she will do this is to greatly diminish if not completely eliminate our cherished First Amendment rights.

Trump, based on his record 2016-2020, was indeed able to make the country better – economy, jobs, international relations, etc. There were no wars. America felt strong. His language was (and is) sometimes crass, but his actions were (and are) directed at benefiting America and Americans. The ugliness of that time period was actually in large part brought on by the opposition and its constant (and often unfounded) attacks on Trump and those who supported his policies (see many of my blogs during that period).

The media, for the most part, does its best to paint a favorable (and often false) picture of Harris while painting a highly unfavorable (and almost always false) picture of Trump. Hopefully that media is not fooling most of the people who hopefully are thinking for themselves.

Likeability is not a necessary qualification for the office of president of the United States of America. Nor is being able to claim first woman status in holding that office. (Women, let’s pick someone who is actually qualified to be that first!; someone we can truly be proud of). Looks, favorable or unfavorable, do not qualify or disqualify. Nor does one’s personal morality (both of these candidates have some failings in that regard, as do most all politicians and indeed most humans). We are not electing the winner of some reality show, the best entertainer or rock star.

This is a serious job and we need someone who is qualified and proven to be able to deliver for the country. Trump did that during his 4-year presidency. During her 3 ½ years as VP, “working closely with” and supporting Biden’s policies, Harris has shown us that she will not deliver for the people of America.

Please vote for Donald Trump/J.D. Vance and in so doing, for America.

November’s Real Choice

2024-08-06T14:19:00.000-07:00

The line is now clearly drawn. Progressive socialism or Conservative capitalism. The contrast is stark and those with clear opinions do not understand how anyone could take the other side. But they do and they will. This is not an election to sit out; it is not an election to vote for a third party. This election will indeed determine the future of America. And, sadly, this election places your choice as one of two extremes. But you must choose one.

I, like most Americans, would prefer to have a choice somewhere in the middle. But we do not. And the choice that the people of America make this November will truly decide the irreversible direction that this country will take.

While the most extreme desires and promises of both sides will likely not take effect in the near future, they do give one a sense of what aspects of America each side values. And there are, indeed, some rational arguments for both sides. But everyone must stop and think what about America they hold dear and how they envision the America, with whatever natural improvements and evolution, that they would like to perpetuate for future generations of Americans.

This is not an election about specific candidates and their personalities, though both parties would like to make it so. Put the individual candidates aside and look at the differences and the goals and ideals of Progressive socialism vs Conservative capitalism. Look at the realities of each (we have some of both in our current America as well as clear examples elsewhere in the world). In which sort of country and society do you want to live? In which will your day-to-day life and that of those you love be most comfortable? Do you prefer groupthink and conformity or are you more comfortable with individual acknowledgement and responsibilities? Those are the sorts of questions you should be asking yourself. Not whether the individual personalities of Harris/Walz or Trump/ Vance impress you more.

Those individual candidates are merely place holders for the choice that we voters are really making this coming November. We are truly deciding the future of this country, for America is definitely going to change in the coming years. The real question we are deciding is do we want to keep our core principles (Constitution, form of government, rule of law) and improve upon what we already have, or do we want to give up on those traditional institutions and essentially rewrite America in the socialist mode?

That question is not something to be answered lightly, without thought, or based on traditional party affinities. This is the time to stand up as an American, think about what that means, and vote for the country that you love. And, in order to do that, you must base your decision on the truth, not the political propaganda and the distorted “news” presentations that bombard every one of us 24/7.

Each and every one of us has a brain, and while it seems we are inclined more often than not to let others think for us, in this election we must use those brains and think for ourselves. Then, armed with true knowledge and understanding of what we are really voting for along with what we may be giving up and the stark contrast between the two possible choices, we must all show up at the polls and vote. America needs we the people, and we must show her that we understand and care.

Thoughts in reading today’s opinion in Trump v. Anderson

2024-03-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.”

-Concurring opinion of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

The general principle is that a court can only decide the case before it and once it has done so it should not go further and give what amount to advisory opinions on future possible controversies. Yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court per curium opinion does in Trump v. Anderson. While the Justices unanimously agreed that the federal government rather than a state must decide the question of disqualification for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, four Justices disagreed with the remainder of the majority opinion.

Opening of 20 page Opinion

The unanimous Court decided that Colorado, a state, did not have the authority to remove Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 presidential primary ballot in Colorado pursuant to section 3. At that point the case was decided and the Court should have stopped. But the majority went on and the remainder of their opinion, which I believe in the end is nothing more than dicta, is incredibly damaging to the Constitution and to the federal-state relationship.

First, let me briefly comment on the unanimous part of the decision. The Court concludes that “States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.” I do not happen to think that the Court’s legal reasoning is strong here. The Court seems to pull simply this piece and that piece of the Constitution almost out of context to attempt to present what appears to be a strong logical argument to support the conclusion but which is really, it seems, based on the simple fact that the Supreme Court doesn’t want the Colorado court to decide this because of the chaos it might create. But, strong or not, this is the Court’s decision and the result is that Trump will appear on the ballot.

And we could all stop there. Happy or not with that decision, it is the decision of the Court and we could and should move on.

But the Court does not move on. Instead, it addresses issues and questions that are not before it and which it has no business deciding as a part of this case.

As Justice Barrett stated in her concurring opinion: “I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that.” She further points out that this was a state case brought by Colorado voters under Colorado law and did not require the Court to address questions of federal legislation related to Section 3. Yet the Court’s opinion did just that.

The Court decided that a Section 3 disqualification can only occur when a particular type of legislation is enacted by Congress. As Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson point out in their concurrence, the Court has not only shut the door to any potential other means of federal enforcement of section 3, it also insulates petitioner Trump from future controversy – controversy not currently before the court – over this question.

Perhaps ironically, this decision which diminishes state authority while broadening federal legislative authority will likely be most favorably received by Trump supporters who typically demand broad state rights and limited federal authority. Similarly, this opinion reflects a very activist court, something that Trump supporters generally abhor.

The Court’s opinion that federal disqualification requires legislation, as the concurring opinion of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson makes clear, is not supported by the text of Section 3 or the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment. As that opinion suggests, the Court simply created a special rule for insurrection disability out of thin air. And, it had absolutely no need to do so, no need to even address this issue, when the entire Court had already agreed and decided that Colorado could not remove Trump’s name from the ballot. That unanimous opinion effectively decided and ended this case.

Not only must a Court decide the case before it, it also can only decide the case before it. It should not opine or speculate on future cases. While the Court may have thought that by doing so it would lead to some sort of healing to the political discord in this country, what it did was nothing less than weaken our justice system and its rule of law. It lessened the command of the respect that the Supreme Court should be given for its ability to deeply understand and reason about constitutional questions placed before it. And, as the concurring Justices noted, “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”

By going beyond this case and addressing constitutional issues not before it, the Court created far reaching and likely unforeseen possibilities and consequences that go well beyond the simple question of whether Colorado could or could not remove Trump’s name from the ballot. This is not a good thing for this country, and I am disappointed with the majority for its lack of wisdom here.

New Party not Third Party

2024-02-01T20:30:00.000-08:00

The two major political parties are not really in sync with and do not represent the majority of Americans today. But a third party is not the answer; rather, we need a recalibration of the two parties that currently exist.

Through Trump and MAGA, the Republican Party has come to represent a far Right that I and many other Americans do not want to be a part of. Meanwhile, while it may not be clear what Biden stands for, his Democrat Party seems to represent a Leftist progressive socialism of identity politics, again something which I and many Americans do not want to be a part of.

Faced with the likelihood that these two parties will choose Trump and Biden as their candidates for 2024, we hear much talk of a third-party candidate. But, even with two such poor major candidates, we all know that a third party will likely do nothing more than prove to be a spoiler for one of those candidates.

So where does that leave the Americans who do not find themselves on either the Right or Left extremes, who are basically moderates leaning towards one party on some issues and the other party on others? The growing number of people labeling themselves as Independents is not a bad thing – these are the people who will vote not simply because someone wears a Red or Blue label but because of the ability and qualifications of the candidates along with the policy agenda that they put forth.

These Independents and others who feel in one way or another abandoned by both Democrats and Republicans, need a party. Not a third party, not a one issue party, not a spoiler party, but a real party that has the size and resources to truly contend for the high offices of this land, including President.

If such a party could rise and replace one of the current two major parties, I believe that the remaining party, be it Democrat or Republican, would, in order to survive and be competitive, move more toward its moderate aspects, which, in both parties once was characterized by bipartisanship and negotiation rather than the current divisiveness and hate.

I believe that two such parties would provide us with two far better candidates from which to choose. With two such parties we could perhaps find our way as Americans to come together again as one country and to work not against each other as enemies but together as allies who hold different views but want to solve the same problems.

Our system is not set up for three parties, but it demands that the two parties we have be representative of more than just the extremes of our society and campaign on more substance than simply that they are not their allegedly evil opponent. This could, perhaps, be the election where we could begin to build that strong replacement party. We already have some strong possible candidates who might represent it: Bobby Kennedy, currently running as an Independent; Joe Manchin, not yet a candidate but a strong contender for the No Labels party; Nikki Haley, currently running for the Republican nomination but whose supporters, in reality, are the moderates of both parties as well as Independents. I am sure there are others out there who, if it did not seem futile, might be interested.

But no third party or third candidate has a chance if the people do not give them one. We should not assume that we have no choice but Trump or Biden: neither is yet the official nominee of his party. With concerted effort to deny one or both the necessary delegates to become that nominee, by voting for a different candidate in the primaries, then we the people can perhaps supplant one or both candidates with someone more representative of the moderate rather than the extremes of their respective party, and in so doing take a major step in replacing at least one of the two parties with one that is more representative of more Americans.

I think this could be managed against either Trump or Biden, either the Republican or the Democrat party, though I think it is more likely at this time to work in the Republican Party. There is anti-Trump and/or anti-MAGA sentiment from both moderate Democrats and Republicans as well as Independents, and there is a viable candidate currently running along with Trump for the party’s nomination. Imagine if many primary voters, rather than assuming the nomination has already been wrapped up, were to vote against Trump in the primaries: they actually might effectuate a different nominee.

If this replacement effort were in regard to Trump, realistically Haley would likely rise as the nominee. I believe she could and would move the Party more towards the center. But it could just as easily be some other more moderate write-in candidate who would dethrone Trump or Biden.

Assuming it were the Republicans who replaced the presumptive nominee with a more center-focused candidate, the Party would begin moving away from the quite frightening far Right of MAGA towards a more moderate center. I believe this would push a similar move of the Democrat Party away from its Socialist Left toward its more traditional liberal base. We actually might end up with a two-party system that would give us the kinds of candidates we were once used to in this country: strong and wise statesmen not out to destroy their opposition but to work with them to find ways to lead America forward.

Unlikely as this may seem, it is possible. But the people have to stand up and do this. If they continue to cower behind the demands of the party leaders on both sides, we get exactly what we do not want but what we will deserve: a country full of hate that continues to destroy itself from within.

Politics is smothering good Politicians

2024-01-29T11:56:00.000-08:00

The bodies weren’t even cold when the MAGA crowd started politicizing yesterday’s drone attacks by Iran-backed groups that killed three U. S. military in Jordan and wounded many others. As expected, Trump immediately blamed Biden’s “weakness and surrender.” Senator Tom Cotton (and Trump supporter) released the following statement almost immediately following the news of the attack:

“Joe Biden emboldened Iran for years by tolerating attacks on our troops, bribing the ayatollahs with billions of dollars, and appeasing them to no end. He left our troops as sitting ducks and now three are dead and dozens wounded, sadly as I’ve predicted would happen for months. The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East. Anything less will confirm Joe Biden as a coward unworthy of being commander-in-chief.

“On behalf of Arkansans, I extend my deepest condolence to the families of our brave fallen warriors. May God comfort them as He welcomes their loved ones into His embrace. And may God quickly and completely heal their wounded comrades.”

Nothing wrong with the second paragraph of Cotton's statement, but notice how it comes as almost an afterthought to the political rhetoric of the first paragraph, rhetoric characteristic of many MAGA supporters yesterday. One would think that someone with Sen. Cotton’s distinguished military service would have more sense. But no, in the ever-growing insanity of the MAGA cult, politics (i.e. electing Trump) is everything.

As to retaliation against Iran, there must be a U.S. response, but this is really a very complex issue. Iran denies it ordered the attack. We need proof that it did before we respond directly against Iran for that attack. And whatever action we take must be carefully considered in light of the already potentially explosive nature of the Middle East following the terrorist attack on Israel, Israel’s legitimate response, the prisoners held by Hamas, and the many questions about Gaza. Just a blind return of fire could cause far worse problems than a delay in order to respond with well thought out action.

But, this inability to think beyond political posturing, rampant on all sides, actually defines the MAGA Republicans today. Consider the bipartisan immigration bill that was on a likely path to passage until Trump urged Republicans to vote against the bill because he needs to be able to attack his rival Biden over the border crisis. The bipartisan bill would have provided money to Israel and Ukraine in return for Democrats agreeing to several Republican demands that address the border crisis and immigration laws. As one senator put it, “[Trump] doesn’t want us to solve the border problem because he wants to blame Biden for it.”

Oklahoma Republican Senator Lankford, who continues to negotiate with Democrats to try to save the bill stated on a Sunday TV news interview:

“It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. So we actually locked arms together and said: ‘We’re not going to give money for this. We want a change in[immigration] law. And now, it’s interesting: A few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because of presidential election year,'”

And what does Sen. Lankford get for his efforts at bipartisanship to solve our country’s problems? The Oklahoma Republican Party approved a resolution censuring the Senator and attacking him for negotiating with Democrats on a potential border deal. Just more proof that the Republican party cares little for people affected by the issues it campaigns on but rather simply uses those issues as political talking points to achieve its own power.

This is the new MAGA Republican party, and it has frightening authoritarian tendencies. This party is led by the presumptive (but hopefully not actual) nominee Donald Trump. While it is true that Trump’s 2016 presidency did much to improve the day to day lives of many Americans, it also had a dark side. There is no question that Trump’s words were often acerbic and designed to get a response. The response, beginning immediately upon his 2016 election was a series of never-ending attacks and allegations, many false and pursued out of seemingly pure hate for the man, but some with at least nuggets of truth to them. While racial and perhaps other divisiveness became apparent during the Obama years, it increased during Trump’s presidency and continues to this day.

Both parties have fanned the flames of this atmosphere of anger and overwhelming divisiveness since 2020. The parties and their supporters have become true enemies of one another rather than simply political opponents and all seem ready if not eager to sue, impeach, censure, or otherwise fully attack anyone whose views or policy decisions they do not like. This does little for the American people but seems to satisfy some political need within our current leaders.

Since 2020, Trump and his MAGA supporters seem to be the most eager to stir up hatred and discord against any who are not 100% with them. Since he lost the 2020 election, Trump has a track record of attacking our Constitution and our very form of government. His claims of a fraudulent election, his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 (which I believe disqualify him from holding office) and his unsubstantiated and continuing assertions that Joe Biden was not elected and is not our real president are now joined by his actions setting up the same claims for 2024 as he currently asserts that the only way he will lose is if the Democrats cheat. These assertions are all attacks on our elections, our institutions, and our rule of law, core elements of our democracy and the America and Americans which these folks claim to love.

But beyond these election related tirades, Trump regularly debases, ignores, and encourages others to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. In his many ongoing court cases he consistently ignores the court processes, procedures, and rule of law. He then verbally attacks the courts, attorneys, and jurors for simply doing their jobs when he does not obtain the outcome he seeks. Moreover, he uses these serious judicial matters as opportunities for campaigning. The disrespect (which is encouraged by MAGA supporters who, for example, urge the Governor of Texas to disobey an order of Stay from the United States Supreme Court), if not violation, of both Constitution and Rule of Law are direct assaults on the core of our democracy. These disregarders of the Constitution are the same folks who assert they believe in its every word – apparently that’s only when they like what it says.

The MAGA cult wants what it wants, and its political ambitions trump (excuse the pun) any concern for the American people. Sometimes their needs or desires may benefit, but that is nothing more than coincidence.

While Trump’s rhetoric has always been acerbic, it has taken an extremely dark and un-American turn. When he says that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” (spoken at a New Hampshire rally December 2023) and then doubles down on that statement when given an opportunity to offer some less repulsive explanation, one can’t help but hear the echo of Hitler asserting Jewish blood was poisoning Aryan German blood. And when his Christmas message is a hope that his opponents rot in hell, one can see that he is not interested in working across the aisle or finding space for all Americans in this country. (Trump’s Christmas rant included the following: “World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and ‘sick’ as the THUGS we have inside our Country.” The message ended with, “MAY THEY (referring to Biden and Special Prosecutor Smith) ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!”) Such rhetoric, in my opinion, does not belong in America, and certainly not in the mouth of a presidential hopeful.

Trump’s exclusive and authoritarian tendencies are apparent as he tries to push out of the Republican Party any and all who do no swear allegiance to his MAGA regime. He asserted that all Nikki Haley supporters are now permanently barred from the Republican party which he now refers to as the “MAGA community.” (So much for the big tent where all are welcome!). MAGA, in true fascist fashion, does not really care about the people, but only its power and its own ideology.

And, lest we forget the Democrats, they too are often more likely to attack their opponents as totally evil individuals out to destroy America rather than attack the positions and policies of those with whom they disagree. President Biden himself has given some pretty dark and angry speeches and his view of opponents as enemy is often apparent. Expect these type of attacks to become more common as we approach the November election.

We have a changing world fraught with many crises. These are not the fault of one person or one party. The problems and complex and often interconnected. We need politicians who want to solve these problems, not just use them to blame others for their existence.

The primary political responses to the drone attack simply underscore the overwhelming and devastating role that politics itself has taken in our country. There are good and bad and mediocre politicians, and we vote in or out those whose policies we do or do not agree with, giving those we choose the opportunity to represent us, the people. But when it is politics itself that begins governing our country – when decisions are made based not on what is good for the American people but on what effect they will have on the enemy/other party, then we are in real trouble. This politicization of almost everything smothers the opportunity for real dialog, debate, and solution to this country’s and the world’s problems.

We the people need to begin thinking like Americans who believe in our country and all of its people and who can work together to find solutions to our problems, and we need to demand that our politicians do the same. We must no longer tolerate a politics that is synonymous with a blood-thirst against those holding opposing views. And we need to elect politicians who will help us to stand united as one country rather than trying to divide us until we fall.

Why SCOTUS Should Affirm the Colorado Trump Ballot Decision

2024-01-08T17:42:00.000-08:00

I spent a fair amount of time working out my thoughts on this case and decided I might as well share them. There is certainly more than one reasonable position and possible conclusion about this case. This is mine.

This post explains why I believe the Colorado Decision should be upheld. My conclusions are based on my reading of the facts and the law relevant to this case and not on my personal feelings about political personalities or stances or any political motives that may underlie this case. Clearly, I am not a Supreme Court Justice, a sociologist, or a politician, but in my opinion the Colorado opinion should be affirmed and hopefully the Supreme Court of the United States will do so unanimously.

To keep this post to a reasonable length, I explain many of the underlying legal concepts somewhat simplistically. I think that this case is deeply important to our country and our Representative Democracy form of government. I am saddened that events of the past few years have brought us to this point, and I hope that the Justices will be able to be appropriately blind to public opinion as they analyze the Constitution and this case. I also hope that the public will take time to fully understand this case, our form of government, and the Court’s role in it so that they are able to accept the Court’s decision even if not agreeing with it.

A Brief Summary of the Colorado Case

In 2023, Colorado electors filed a petition against the Colorado Secretary of State seeking to have Trump’s name removed from the primary ballot in Colorado. The Colorado Court promptly set the matter for a five-day trial. Following that trial which included presentation of evidence along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by all the parties including former president Trump, the District Court concluded that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to a president. Both the Electors and Trump appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Appeals usually address not the facts themselves which have been determined by the lower court, but the law and its interpretation and application to those decided facts. That is, was the law correctly interpreted and did or did not the facts fit the requirements of that law so as to support the decision reached by the lower court?

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the lower Court’s factual conclusions that Trump had engaged in insurrection, but reversed its conclusion that Section Three does not apply to presidents. It also revisited and addressed several other relevant issues. Ultimately the Court held that because Donald Trump is disqualified under Section Three of the !4^th Amendment, it would be a wrongful act under Colorado State’s Election Code for the Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now hear an appeal of the Colorado decision on February 8 of this year.

A note on Courts’ Roles

Before examining the issues in this case, a note on the role of evidence in trial and on appeal is appropriate. At the trial level the evidence is presented and the finder of fact determines what facts that evidence supports. The finder of fact is either a jury or, in a case where there is no jury then it is decided by the judge or other authority who presides over the case. There are many reasons why there may or may not be a jury in a particular case; sometimes the nature of the case does not provide for a jury, sometimes a party chooses not to request a jury.

Once the findings of fact are rendered, the trial court will apply relevant law to those facts and render a decision. Unless there is absolutely no evidence to support those facts, those facts will not be reversed by an appellate court. Rather it is the appellate court’s responsibility to ensure that the correct law was correctly interpreted and correctly applied to those facts. That is, there is not a factual hearing at the appellate level. If the appellate court finds that there is a problem with the findings of fact, it will remand the case to the lower court for a further hearing. If the law was incorrectly interpreted or incorrectly applied, the result might be a reversal, or it might be a remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the facts in light of the corrected understanding of the law.

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment

Section 3 states in full:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

There are 3 key concepts in this section that must be clarified: First does it apply to presidents, second, what constitutes “insurrection or rebellion”, and third, what does it mean to “engage in”?

Generally, when interpreting Constitutional provisions, the Court’s goal is to effectuate the intent of the drafters. It will begin by looking at the plain language, giving terms their ordinary and popular meanings. If, however, there is more than one reasonable interpretation, then, due to the ambiguity, the Court may consider textural, structural, and historical evidence.

Application of Section Three to Presidents

This section applies to anyone who is an officer of the United States who has taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. It prohibits such person from holding office if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.

The presidency is an office within the United States government and the person who holds that office is an officer of that government. Plain dictionary meaning as well as prior case law makes this clear. Moreover, the Presidential Oath is an oath to support the Constitution as mandated by the Constitution itself. This section then applies to presidents.

What is an “Insurrection”?

After an examination of various definitions of this word both past and present (beginning with 1860) as well as examining relevant precedent, the Colorado Supreme Court stated:

Although we acknowledge that these definitions vary and some are arguably broader than others, for purposes of deciding this case, we need not adopt a single, all-encompassing definition of the word “insurrection.” Rather, it suffices for us to conclude that any definition of “insurrection” for purposes of Section Three would encompass a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country. (Opinion p. 99).

This definition comports with current dictionary definitions of insurrection: “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government” (Merriam-Webster); “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established govern” (dictionary.com); “a violent uprising against an authority or government” (Google dictionary); “an uprising against a larger force that's in power” (Vocabulary.com); “an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.” (Britannica).

While the definition has not been addressed specifically in the context of Section Three, in other legal contexts courts and legal scholars generally interpret the term "insurrection" as a violent uprising or organized resistance against the government or its regulations.

The actions of January 6 were an attempt to interfere with a government action in progress, specifically the counting of electoral votes and the transfer of presidential power. There is really no question that was the intent of the January 6 protesters. Their intent was to stop Vice President Pence from certifying Biden as the next President of the United States.

It is this attempt to interfere with this government action that distinguishes the January 6 events from riots or general protests that become violent but are not directed at hindering a specific governmental act, especially one in progress. Even vocal and perhaps violent protesting outside a courthouse or governing body, while it may be an attempt to persuade officials, is not an attempt to actually halt governmental action in progress.

“Engaged in”

Again, the Colorado Supreme Court conducts a thorough examination of relevant law and general definitions from 1860 forward. It ultimately concludes that “engaged in” requires “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose.” (Opinion p. 105). The Court further clarifies, “we do not read “engaged in” so broadly as to subsume mere silence in the face of insurrection or mere acquiescence therein, at least absent an affirmative duty to act. Rather, . . . . [t]he force of the term to engage carries the idea of active rather than passive conduct, and of voluntary rather than compulsory action.” (Opinion p. 105).

Note that per this definition, “engage in” does not necessarily require marching with the protesters. Rather, it could consist of other acts that support or encourage those physically conducting the insurrection.

Donald Trump Engaged in Insurrection

Given the above definitions, we must look at the evidence to see if it supports the conclusion that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. I agree with the Colorado Supreme Court that it does. We should note, however, that if the U.S. Supreme Court redefines the above terms, then their appropriate action would be to remand the case to Colorado for reconsideration of the facts using the revised terms.

I think it is fairly clear that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection. The key question then is: Did Donald Trump engage in that insurrection?

In this case, the Colorado Court thoroughly went through the evidentiary record from the Trial Court. It noted that much of the evidence against Trump went unopposed by him. Basically, the evidence supportive of finding that Trump engaged in insurrection falls into three piles. First is the behavior of Trump leading up to the 2020 election in which he laid the groundwork for a claim that the election would be “rigged.”

Second is the evidence pertaining to the time between the election and January 6 when Trump “ramped up” his claims that the election was stolen from him. He continued to allege election fraud and propelled the “Stop the Steal” movement of cross-country rallies leading up to January 6. A rally in November turned violent; Trump acknowledged the violence but justified it as “self-defense.” He referred to stealing the election as an “act of war” which his supporters must fight against. The rhetoric became more and more aggressive as January 6 approached. The Court found that the evidence “established that President Trump’s messages were a call to his supporters to fight and that his supporters responded to that call.” (Opinion p. 109). I would further note that this rhetoric goes beyond legal means which Trump could and did pursue in courts of law regarding challenges to election counts.

The third bundle of evidence comes from January 6 itself. It includes Trump’s speech to his supporters at the Capital. Trump issued a number of calls to “fight”, to “take back our country”, to not be “weak”, to “show strength” and “be strong”, to “fight like hell.” He told his supporters that without “fighting like hell” they were “not going to have a country anymore.” When he was informed that the Capitol was under attack Trump took no action for about an hour, and then sent out a tweet, read by bullhorn to his supporters, attacking V.P. Pence. This escalated the violence. Sometime after that, he finally tweeted and encouraged the mob to “remain peaceful” (which at the time they were not), but he did not condemn the violence, nor did he ask the mob to disperse. Finally, about another hour later, Trump sent a video asking the mob to “go home now” and told them he loved them and that they were “very special”. He then repeated his claim that the election had been stolen, thus endorsing the mob’s effort to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

The court concluded that the evidence (which the opinion presents in far more detail than I have summarized here) established that Trump engaged in insurrection. It also noted that the bulk of the evidence was undisputed by Trump at trial.

I agree that this evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Trump engaged in insurrection. It meets the requirement of “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose” of interfering in a governmental process. He repeatedly riled up his supporters and should have known not only that the January 6 rally could, but that it probably would, get out of hand. His purpose was to stop the government from accomplishing a peaceful transfer of power; indeed, it was to stop any transfer of power, seemingly by any means necessary.

However, deciding that Trump engaged in insurrection is not the end of the discussion. There are several issues that are or may be the subject of dispute in this case before it can be ultimately concluded that Trump’s name should be withheld from the ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Can a State Court decide this issue?

State legislatures create election codes and statutes governing elections in their states. In Colorado, the state courts have the authority to assess precedential qualifications. Hence this case was properly filed in a Colorado state court. The State Supreme Court further noted that the trial court properly followed the procedures and requirements of the Colorado statute.

More generally as to a state’s authority to address Constitutional issues, the Constitution itself delegates to the states the authority to prescribe the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections. U.S. Supreme Court precedent tells us that “States exercise these powers through comprehensive and sometimes complex election codes, regulating the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, and the voting process itself. . . . These powers are uncontroversial and well-explored in U.S. Supreme Court case law.” (Colorado opinion p. 30).

Under Article II of the Constitution, states are authorized to appoint presidential electors in such manner as their legislatures may direct. The Supreme Court has stated in precedent that “So long as a state’s exercise of its appointment power does not run afoul of another constitutional constraint, that power is plenary.” States clearly have the power to assess the qualifications of a presidential candidate. Then Court of Appeals Judge Gorsuch recognized that it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” (495 F. App’x at 948).

An example of states’ authority over elections and electors in a different but current context is seen in New Mexico where the Attorney General there has explained that unlike in other states, New Mexico’s “five Republican electors cannot be prosecuted under the current law for filing election certificates that falsely declared Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 presidential race.” Indeed, he is now seeking modification of the state’s law to allow this in the future. The fact that various state statutes allow this while others do not is an example of the fact that states can have and do have significant control over elections and electors in their own state.

Colorado law allows the State Court to decide the issue of whether Trump can appear on the primary ballot and that Court properly followed its state’s laws in arriving at that conclusion.

It should be noted that the dissenting opinions in the Colorado Supreme Court case seem most troubled by whether the Colorado law indeed allows the State Court to make this decision or whether the law is more limited in scope. I am not familiar with the intricacies or detailed precedent of Colorado law, but it seems that this might be the most likely way that the Colorado decision could be attacked. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to decide that the Colorado courts acted beyond their powers and were thus without jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, then the U.S. Supreme Court could dismiss the case entirely and avoid addressing the Constitutional issues.

Adequate Due Process

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause states that no State “shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Due process simply requires that before a person can be deprived of certain rights, they must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.

In this instance Trump was given notice of the case and indeed participated in it by filing various documents and other information. He had the opportunity to present evidence during the hearing but, as the Colorado Court noted, most of the evidence about the insurrection and Trump’s participation in it went unopposed by Trump. Rather he focused more on legal arguments attempting to prevent the Colorado court from hearing or deciding the case.

There has been no due process violation, unless, as noted above, there is some defect in the Colorado laws. It is clear that Trump was given notice and opportunity to be heard. However, if the Colorado court hearing the case had no jurisdiction, then there was no due process.

Section Three does not require Implementing Legislation.

There is an argument that Section Three cannot be enforced without legislation from Congress that implements that Section; that is, the argument is that Section Three cannot be “self-executing.” This is simply ridiculous.

First, we do not need legislation to tell us we can enforce the Constitution of the United States.

Secondly, the authors of Constitutional provisions and amendments know how to suggest such additional legislation when necessary. The 13^thAmendment in Section One abolishes slavery. It then, in Section Two, provides that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Note that this does not require such legislation but allows enforcement by Congress through appropriate legislation. Even with this authorizing section, the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases recognized that “legislation may be necessary and proper to meet all the various cases and circumstances to be affected by it,” but that “[b]y its own unaided force it abolished slavery” and was “undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation.” The Court has also explicitly confirmed that the 15^th Amendment (again a part of the Reconstruction amendments) is self-executing. There is no reason to think that this does not hold true for the 14^th Amendment as well.

Moreover, Section Three itself reveals that its authors were cognizant of what role they wanted Congress to play. Its final sentence reads, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” It gave Congress this specific power, and had the authors wanted Congress to be required to create enabling legislation as well, they would have so stated. The fact that Congress is given this power while no mention is made of enabling legislation certainly signifies that there could be decisions of disqualification without Congressional action and that such decisions were valid unless and until overturned by Congress.

Disqualification under Section Three does not require Criminal Charge or Conviction.

Federal statute 18 USC §2383 makes it a crime to assist or engage in rebellion or insurrection. While of course conviction under this statute would also disqualify a person under Section Three, there is no requirement in either the statute or Section Three that such conviction or even a charge under the statute is a requirement for disqualification under Section Three. In any potential criminal case there are many reasons for not pursuing criminal charges. Because a prosecuting attorney decides not to pursue a criminal charge should not be seen as a way in which to negate the clear language of the Constitution.

The People cannot ignore Constitutional law.

The argument that instead of a court deciding ballot qualification the people should decide, that any name should be allowed and people should simply decide the issue by voting, goes blatantly against our form of government, which is a Representative Democracy. Ours is not a Pure Democracy, which would effectively be rule by mob.

Yes, the vote is sacred, and it is one way in which the people’s voice is heard. It is the process by which we select those who will represent us. And those representatives effectuate our rule of law that does not allow us to do whatever we want. Here, the Constitution allows our representatives in our state governments to carry out decisions regarding ballot qualification. Ignoring that, simply saying we can vote for whomever, constitutionally qualified or not, is an effective way to ignore if not cancel our very Constitution, something which many of those urging reversal of Colorado’s decision claim to hold if not sacred at least in high esteem.

Moreover, simply following the Constitution will not create, as some people fear, a new political tool to use with abandon against opponents. Our Rule of Law will always require evidence, due process, etc., which protect against such fears. This is a fact specific case and will not open the floodgates for Constitutional abuse.

The Constitution provides qualifications and, in Section Three, has provided for disqualification. The people cannot simply ignore or rewrite the provisions of the Constitution by their vote for someone who, under due process of law, had been found not to be qualified.

Was President Trump’s January 6 speech protected by the First Amendment?

Trump argues that his January 6 speech was protected and therefore cannot be used to justify his disqualification. I think this argument must fail.

First, the right of free speech is always not absolute under all circumstances. Speech that incites lawless action is not protected. In looking at context, the Colorado Court held that it was appropriate for the district court to consider President Trump’s “history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence as legitimate and proper, as well as his efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the 2020 election results and hinder the certification of the Electoral College results in Congress.” (Opinion. p. 123). As to incitement, that was addressed above in discussing the evidence relevant to “engage in.” The trial court identified specific incendiary language in the January 6 speech.

Further, the speech meets the requirements that must be met for the speech to not be protected: it demonstrates intent to produce lawless or violent action and of being likely to do so. The District Court concluded that President Trump exhibited the requisite intent here. It found that, before the January 6 rally, “[President] Trump knew that his supporters were angry and prepared to use violence to ‘stop the steal’ including physically preventing Vice President Pence from certifying the election,” and that President Trump’s response to the events following his speech “support . . . that [President] Trump endorsed and intended the actions of the mob on January 6,” (Opinion p. 129).

The Trial Court also found that President Trump’s calls for imminent lawlessness and violence during his speech were likely to incite such imminent lawlessness and violence. When President Trump told his supporters that they were “allowed to go by very different rules” and that if they did not “fight like hell,” they would not “have a country anymore,” it was "likely that his supporters would heed his encouragement and act violently.” (Opinion p. 132).

Looking at the tests for whether speech is protected (context, intent to incite and likelihood of doing so) and applying this test to the Trial Court’s findings of fact, it can reasonably be concluded that Trump’s January 6 speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Remember, the trial judge or hearing officer is the finder of fact, not those of us who were not there to see the evidence presented and second guess what was and was not presented along with its credibility. Also recall that Trump did not counter most of the evidence that was submitted.

A note on the Maine Case

The Secretary of State of Maine has similarly decided that Trump’s name should be removed from the primary ballot there because he is not qualified under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. The reasoning for this decision is similar to that of the Colorado Supreme Court.

Though Maine’s election laws are different from those of Colorado, and in Maine the decision was made by the Secretary of State following an administrative hearing, this process was proper under Maine’s election laws. Moreover, although this was an administrative hearing rather than a judicial trial, due process was satisfied: the parties had notice and an opportunity to be heard. Evidence was presented, though again Trump chose to offer little if any evidence countering the facts.

There is no reason that the Maine decision should not be affirmed just as the Colorado decision should be affirmed.

Conclusion

There are several possible outcomes for this case at the U.S. Supreme Court. They include:

The decision is entirely affirmed.
The Supreme Court decides that the Colorado Court exceeded its powers, it had no jurisdiction to hear or decide the case and the case is therefore dismissed.
The Supreme Court redefines some or all of the terms of Section Three and remands the case for further consideration under those terms.
The Court decides that for some reason due process was violated and remands or dismisses the case.
The Court decides the January 6 speech was protected and it therefore negates or cannot be used as evidence for application of Section Three disqualification.
Or any combination or modification of, or addition to, the above.

I believe that that the Colorado Supreme Court decision should be affirmed in its entirety. Under reasonable and legally supportable definitions of the terms, there was an insurrection and according to the evidence presented, Trump engaged in that insurrection. He had notice and opportunity to be heard, so due process was not violated. The Colorado law provided jurisdiction to the Colorado court to hear and decide the case, and the Colorado Supreme Court has determined that Colorado law and procedure were properly followed. The people’s right to vote for qualified candidates is not being infringed; the people do not have a right to ignore or overwrite the Constitution.

This is a difficult decision not because the legal issues are not clear, but because of the mood of the country and the disinclination of so many to respect any decision, no matter how well reasoned, if they do not like the result to which that reasoning leads. Moreover, too many do not really understand our government, our Constitution, the interplay of federal and state law, and the fact that we are not a pure (i.e. mob rule) democracy but are a Representative Democracy guided by the Constitution and the Rule of Law. I certainly do not envy the Supreme Court Justices’ current task, and I pray they will find strength to shut out the (very loud) noise of the mob and follow the Constitution wherever it leads.

Horseshoes Anyone? It Depends.

2024-01-03T19:11:00.000-08:00

I find that in political discussions my positions are often opposed by both Right and Left. A current example: I adamantly support Israel, its position on the war, on Gaza, and on its right to exist. I also adamantly support the right to protest in favor of Palestine, Gaza, and against Jews, even though I find such views abhorrent. I supported the Harvard president in her testimony about the Harvard student protests and oppose Rep. Stefanic and others who are keen on silencing her and other university presidents who testified. I find Stefanic to be doing exactly what she condemns the Left for doing – trying to silence those views with which she disagrees.

This sort of hypocrisy from both Right and Left which is more and more the norm these days along with the denial from both sides that they do what they condemn the other side for doing, is more than annoying, but even worse is the fact that so few are willing to see or acknowledge it. The extremes of both sides are dug in against one another and yet cannot see that they and their enemy are more alike than they are different.

Trying to explain this in the context of political discussions with individuals who clearly identify with Right or Left is difficult. But recently I was reminded of the horseshoe theory of politics, and that indeed is a perfect explanation. Moreover, it leads me to realize that if this dynamic of our politics continues we absolutely must see the development of a strong third party (perhaps as the two extremes merge into one?) if our country as we know it is to survive.

The Horseshoe Theory

The horseshoe theory holds that the political spectrum, rather than being shaped as a straight line, is in the shape of a horseshoe. The center of the horseshoe represents the political center and as you move upward toward the end of either side you will move more and more to the Right or the Left until you reach the end of each side where reside the Far Right and Far Left.

You will note that these ends of the horseshoe bend toward one another indicating, according to this theory, that the Far Right and Far Left, rather than being at opposite ends of a linear continuum, approach and are really quite similar to one another.

While this theory is often criticized for being too simplistic, I think that it is worth thinking about, if for no other reason than to try to objectively view one’s own viewpoint in contrast and comparison with that of one’s own political foes.

What makes the extremes similar while still appearing different?

The commonly used example of sameness is Communism (Left, strong central state, work for common good) and Fascism (Right, strong central state, work for the common good). There are of course differences: Communist ideals include a classless society with economic equality while Fascism includes a top-down class system and rule by dictator.

But we can certainly come up with more topical concrete examples. Consider identity politics. The Left likes to identify people based on certain characteristics and then label these groups as victim or victimizer (e.g. white vs. black, male vs. female, rich vs. poor, etc.). The Right complains about such identity politics and yet it also uses this approach as it condemns members of groups that advocate (usually progressive) ideas that the Right opposes (thus, enemy groups include LGBTQ, anti-traditional religion, abortion advocates, etc.).

Again, there are differences, not only with the specifics, but Left identity groups tend to be based upon external and often immutable characteristics while the Right’s placement of someone in an identity group more often begins with a belief that they hold that is contrary to that held by the Right. But regardless, the end result is that both Left and Right create identity groups and then either embrace or condemn all those whom they have placed into that group.

For both Far Right and Far Left, a person’s color affects the group’s perception of them. The Left sees white people as oppressors and racists while people of color are seen as victims of that oppression. The Right condemns people of color for what they see as taking advantages including jobs, education, etc. from white people due to affirmative action type programs. Both Far Right and Far Left reduce individuals to a perceived group identity.

Cancel culture and free speech are other areas in which the Far Right and Far Left are more similar than different. The Left will gladly justify the silencing of those holding views contrary to their progressive values; for example, they will gladly shout down a pro-life or anti-transgender speaker but will assert the rights of protesters to call for the annihilation of Jews. Meanwhile, the Right will attempt to silence those who protest or support the right to protest for Palestine and Hamas but will demand the freedom of speech for advocates against progressive ideals. The Right condemns the Left for censorship and silencing in various areas such as vaccine debates. Yet the Right would silence progressive views by condemning and banning books relating to gender identity.

Both sides will assert the Constitution and the First Amendment free speech right as their support for their approved speech, but they seem to forget those things when they wish to silence speech with which they don’t agree.

In deciding whether Trump should be allowed to appear on primary ballots, the Far Right suddenly ignores their previous demands that the courts and especially SCOTUS be literalists in their reading of the Constitution and not cave to or interpret the Constitution’s plain and clear language to satisfy popular demand. Meanwhile, the Left is now looking for a simple reading of the 14^th Amendment within the 4 corners of its language.

Both sides also regularly use ad hominem attacks (directing their opposition and anger against the person rather than the position maintained by that person). Again, while the precise form or will differ language (e.g. racist, communist, fascist, deplorable, plain stupid etc., all of which and more I have personally been called by both the Left and the Right), the bottom line is that both sides find it easier to engage in name-calling rather than to engage in a rational discussion about their differing views, a discussion in which they begin by acknowledging the other’s right to hold a view different from their own.

A horseshoe? It depends.

Whether this horseshoe theory works depends on what you are comparing. If you look at the specifics you can conclude that the theory fails – the sides are nothing alike. Certainly shouting down a pro-life speaker is nothing like trying to silence someone who yells “from the River to the Sea.” The words are different, the issue being addressed is different, the people involved are different. And you may agree with one speech but disagree with the other.

And yet, if we go beyond the surface, they are far more alike than different. In both cases there is an attempt to deny someone their First Amendment right to speak their opinion. It denies others of hearing that opinion which in itself goes against one of the cornerstones of our democracy: our form of government demands a free marketplace of ideas where all will be heard and individuals will be left to make up their own minds rather than be told by government or some other majority what they can, cannot, and must believe and what they can and cannot say.

Beyond ignoring this core principle, it also violates the tolerance that is a necessary characteristic if our free society is to succeed.

Claudine Gay was attacked for saying “it depends on context” in regard to whether the pro-Palestinian protests violated her school’s code of conduct. But that is exactly what a good American should say. As a mentor of mine recently stated:

[S]everal decades of "critical thinking" being taught in junior and senior high schools didn't seem to deal appropriately with the meaning of "critical" in the context. The guy who taught my [children] in the so-called "gifted" program would just review whatever he had heard on NPR on the drive to school.

Remember my admonition to [pre-law] students - every question you are going to face should be answered, in the first instance with two words - "It Depends". Instead each side gets its thinking orders from Fox or MSNBC and then proceeds to see everything through that lens. All surface.

In the case of the protests and conduct codes, one would have to look at the actual activity and the language of the codes to understand whether this was within the context of speech which, though abhorrent, was within the First Amendment rights of the students to utter, or was this more, perhaps combined with actual violence or immediate threats thereof? If we allow the silencing of speech alone, no matter how abhorrent, in essence we are advocating the end to the protections of the First Amendment for all Americans.

It all depends. Not just determining free speech rights, but in determining most of the underlying issues of our day and of our country. It does often depend on context. But core rights such as free speech should not depend upon one’s view or on the speech being uttered. Yet for too many on both the Far Right and Far Left, freedom of speech depends upon what is being spoken.

That hypocritical ability to view the same core concepts differently depending upon what one is seeking to accomplish is the similarity that drives the two political extremes to become almost as one. While their stated goals may be different, their means are the same and both conflict with our core democratic principles.

Think

Good Americans think. They ask why. The extremes of both the right and the left are too wrapped up in themselves and their mandatory causes to understand the phrase “it depends.” They don’t think, or if they do, they don’t understand that issues can be more complex than a simple yes or no, black or white, up or down, day or night. Yet if they apply this thought process to their own views as well as those of others, they may realize that they are often doing exactly that for which they condemn their opponents.

So, if we go beyond the surface, if we look beyond the overt details to the deeper concepts directing various actions, we will likely see far more similarity than difference between the two extremes of the political spectrum.

I think it is that deeper conversation that desperately needs to be had in America today. People need to think and ask why rather than simply accept what they are told and the soundbites they repeat from their chosen news source. That conversation can only be had if the conversants understand the why underlying the positions they assert. Otherwise, when their position is countered they likely feel threatened because they don’t really understand the position that they are parroting and so a simple contradiction of their position and memorized phrases becomes almost a contradiction of themselves. It is impossible to reason and explain a position that is merely memorized but not understood.

When the focus becomes upon only the surface dissimilarities rather than the suggestion of complexity, any hope of real understanding is likely to dissolve and become something akin to a playground dispute. If forced to look at the deeper concepts the response is likely either to attack not the ideas of the counterargument, but rather to attack the bearer of the unmemorized, considered idea, or to simply run away.

The Parties – not for most Americans

The horseshoe theory is a somewhat simplistic way of viewing politics and political parties, but it is a good place to begin to review one’s own views as well as those of one’s opponents.

Both the Republican and the Democrat parties currently seem in large part controlled by their extremes. It would be more likely that they merge into one than that they actually distinguish themselves on underlying principles. In the end, both sides seek power to control the rest of society – individual thoughts, beliefs, and actions would all fall under their control. While what might be allowed or condemned would differ, both would take away individual right and responsibility to choose. That is not American, not traditional and not progressive.

Indeed, both extremes are more than willing to dismiss the Constitution, the rule of law, and any number of core American principles to ensure that all individuals conform to what they think is proper and good. That is not America, traditional or progressive.

I think that, divorced from their chosen Right or Left newsfeeds, most Americans would fall somewhere near the middle of the horseshoe, rising a bit to the Right on some things, to the Left on others. But we have given those Americans (including myself) nowhere to go. If both the current major parties are but two sides of the same extreme then Americans are almost forced to take sides against one another rather than work together for solutions to serious problems.

We need a middle party. A strong middle party, not just a third party stealer but a real party that represents the vast number of Americans who find themselves standing on one or the other end of the horseshoe – a place where they really don’t want to be.

2024

It is almost, but not yet, too late for the appearance of a candidate who fits more to the middle of the horseshoe. It could come from a third party or it could come from one or both of the major parties. Donald Trump or Joe Biden (or hopefully both) could be replaced by candidates more representative of the middle, candidates who have slid down from those horseshoe extremes to a point of moderation that allows them to represent the policy positions of their party in reasonable ways, avoiding the extremism and lack of cooperation and compromise that are the destructive stance of both parties today.

We can only hope.

Israel Aid Bill – an Anti-Semitic Hobson’s Choice

2023-11-01T09:49:00.001-07:00

Mike Johnson’s Israel aid bill is anti-Semitic. There, I said it. And here’s why.

Israel, our close ally, needs our aid in its fight against the terrorist Hamas. It is traditional for the US to supply such aid without strings attached and without playing political games.

While it made sense to disengage the Israel aid bill from a bill to provide more aid to Ukraine, that should have been done without the attachment of a poison pill.

But Johnson has made aid to Israel contingent upon cuts to IRS funding that will pay for the bill. That is, he has made aid to Israel contingent upon a vote for a Republican partisan cause. This is purely political; this bill, if passed, is dead on arrival at the Senate and thus whether passed or not in the House, it will not provide any aid to Israel.

Never before has this country made emergency aid to a close ally directly contingent upon a cut in other government spending. While I personally oppose, for many reasons, the IRS and other funding in the Inflation Reduction Act, this is not the time or place to cut that funding in order to provide aid to Israel that is fighting a war for its very existence. This is not the time for political gamesmanship.

Johnson’s first act as Speaker was to pass a resolution in support of Israel. But when it comes to actually providing aid that Israel desperately needs, he turns the problem into a political game where he can grandstand for the Right wing of his party while putting Israel last.

The bill sets up a Hobson’s choice in which Congressional representatives are put in the position of accepting one of two choices, both of which are equally objectionable. There is really no choice or alternative to having to select a completely objectionable result.

No American should vote for a bill which puts emergency aid to an ally contingent on passage of a partisan and political funding cut elsewhere. This is a horrid and frightening precedent to set.

Congressional Representatives are asked to vote for a bill that is bad for America in order to vote for necessary aid to our ally. If they choose to vote for this important aid to Israel they in effect must vote against America and if they vote for America they end up existentially hurting Israel.

This is not right. And in my mind it is just another form of anti-Semitism. Shame on the Speaker and shame on anyone who stands with him on this bill.

This bill should and must be immediately amended to simply provide to Israel the aid that it needs as it fights for its very life against terrorism.

Israel

2023-10-12T16:16:00.000-07:00

Saturday morning when the terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas began, the world changed. There is the world before Simchat Torah 5784 and the world after. And there is the transition zone which, sadly, is where we are now.

We are not only on the brink of World War 3, but we have people cheering for annihilation of not only Israel but of all the Jews. Pro-Palestinian protestors around the globe, including right here in the USA, shout “Kill the Jews”, “Gas the Jews”, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (meaning that the entire State of Israel, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will be destroyed).

The history and facts of Israel from times before Christ to the present, do not support or justify the claims by Palestine against Israel. An objective recitation of this history is hard, but not impossible, to find these days and I wish that more people would study it. But, even assuming that the claims against Israel were true, even if one chooses to see Palestinians as some sort of victims of Israel, and even if they choose to mount pro-Palestinian protests, it does not justify supporting the heinous, violent, and inhuman acts committed by the Hamas terrorists.

We have totally lost our moral compass. The bleeding hearts, who want to excuse every offense and create offenses where none exist, still cannot bring themselves to distinguish a terrorist from someone with an alleged grievance. To do so would disrupt their utopian false truth; they cannot see that their utopic vision is not and never will be a reality. And yet their hearts are cold as stone towards the atrocities committed against Jews. That, in my book, is clear antisemitism.

The Current Dysfunction

How did we come to this point? The answer to that has many layers. We can start with the present which includes the current administration’s completely dysfunctional international policies and actions. America has gone from a strong international voice for, and beacon of, democracy to a weak and dysfunctional shadow of its former self.

The dysfunction of this administration includes:

The Afghanistan withdrawal fiasco that allowed terrorists to supply themselves with American weapons.
A failure to even attempt to understand the Russian view on Ukraine, while pushing Putin into a position where he was left with little choice but to attack Ukraine.
Supporting not only the military actions in Ukraine but also the corrupt use of American funds to sustain the entire Ukraine economy.
Failing to support the Abraham Accords and not only allowing but tacitly encouraging the rise in anti-Semitic behavior here and around the world.
Providing $6 billion to Iran, knowing that Iran is a supporter of the terrorist acts against Israel.

The press has not been silent, but it carefully edits its words to downplay the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah (also attacking Israel from Lebanon) are terrorist organizations:

Rather than use the word terrorist they call them simply militant groups.
The defensive acts of Israel are equated with the unprovoked terrorism of Hamas.
Israel is blamed for collateral damage of their defensive strikes, but there is little notice that the terrorists intentionally targeted innocents, children, and babies and further that the death they imposed upon those innocents was prolonged with pain and horrendous suffering.
The media mostly fails to report that while Israel attempts to avoid civilian and other collateral damage, Hamas actually uses civilians and especially children as shields as they place their military sites directly under or above places such as hospitals and schools.

You cannot equate the aggressive and horrendous actions of Hamas with the self-defensive acts of Israel! Yet too many, whether with or without knowledge of the actual facts, do.

Beyond the Surface – Humanity, Purpose, and Amalek

The misguided and dysfunctional political and media actions only touch the surface. We live in a country where the people have a voice. Yet, that voice remains either silent or simply a thoughtless mouthpiece for the buzz words, phrases, and memes of the Left. How did the American people lose not only their voices but their minds?

An Israeli soldier currently fighting in Gaza referred to his enemy as Amalek. In the Hebrew Bible, Amalek is both a nation and a nomadic tribe seen to be the arch-rival of ancient Israel. While the Amalekite nation no longer exists, Jewish wisdom holds that the memory of the devious enemy Amalek lives on in in all forms of antisemitism carried out against Jewish people.

According to Midrash (Hebrew Biblical interpretation) Amalek represents the belief in chance, of the haphazard dictates of “fate” and “destiny,” which oppose the Jewish belief in Divine providence. Amalek’s philosophy negates the concept that there is a purpose to humanity or to creation itself, again the antithesis of Jewish philosophy. Amalek’s chief weapon is to foment doubt among the faithful.

Regardless of whether one believes in or has even read Judeo-Christian scripture and teachings, I think this description of Amalek provides a wonderful way to characterize and personify much of what we see around us and the causes of this void and valueless place in which the world finds itself today.

Let’s just take the phrase, “Amalek’s philosophy negates the concept that there is a purpose to humanity.” All around us we see that human life has become or is becoming meaningless, with no value. It has become disposable. Why is it so easy to kill another human being over such simple things as who gets a parking spot? It is easy if one believes that humanity is meaningless. And if one’s life is meaningless, why would several lives suddenly have meaning? Mass shootings, if life is meaningless, then are themselves meaningless; they are easy to carry out if one need feel no guilt about killing what one sees as a purposeless nothing nor compassion for meaningless corpses. It becomes easy to be only concerned with satisfying one’s own urges at any one moment if anyone who might be hurt by that satisfaction is nothing but meaningless and valueless.

That sentence continues “or [no purpose] to creation itself.” If there is no purpose to creation, no need to find meaning in something greater than oneself, then, again, there is no need to even have a moral compass let alone consider whether performance of some heinous act might violate it. Indeed, “Amalek’s chief weapon is to foment doubt among the faithful.”

The influence of Amalek is seen well beyond Israel and the Jewish faith. All around us we see people leaving their faith, people who have a huge void within themselves because they have nothing greater than themselves to believe in. This loss in faith, this loss in human purpose is killing us all.

Will the world awake; will we save ourselves?

What has happened to us as a nation and a world? We have listened to the voice of Amalek who has led us to doubt who and what we are. But it is not just our belief in something greater than ourselves that is doubted and lost. With a loss in faith we have lost all the values that come with that faith. Our whole culture now leads us to doubt and deny everything that has made us the great nation that we are. We are led to believe that we can and do take the place of God; that we need nothing but ourselves. And with that seems to come the belief that we are entitled to whatever we desire regardless of whom that may hurt.

Those who see this as the Utopia they dream of do not want it questioned. They take command over what we learn. Schools no longer teach children to use their minds to think and critically assess an issue. We erase history, ignoring not only the sage wisdom that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” but also the fact that “Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.”

We evolve as a society and civilization in part because we learn and grow from the past and in part because we value our purpose as one individual within humanity at large. And when one has a purpose, one generally sees that purpose as a part of a greater good. As such, one values human life beyond one’s own selfish being.

Today’s leaders leave much to be desired. But we the people also leave much to be desired. We have stopped thinking. We have stopped caring. We have stopped believing. We are being led by false but devious dreams created by Amalek and many leaders along with their followers whom he represents. We have lost our purpose and our soul.

There is time. The terrorist attacks on Israel have shaken the world as have the reactions to those attacks. The question is: Are they enough to shake us all awake from the nihilistic nightmare future that the devious tactics of Amalek have put before us?

Joshua fighting Amalek, A print from the Phillip Medhurst Collection of Bible illustrations in the possession of Revd. Philip De Vere at St. George’s Court, Kidderminster, England. CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Two Truths

2023-10-09T15:20:00.000-07:00

“Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.

-George Orwell, 1984

I look about me and think to myself that maybe, in today’s world, there is not one, but two truths that are trying to but cannot coexist. At least, while likely not true for universal truths, it seems that people are willing to adjust their definition of daily truths to one that coincides with their wishes and desires.

We often like to say: look at the facts, the evidence, because it cannot lie. And while that is true, it may not necessarily be the truth of our daily life. For some, truth is absolute realism. Picture a painting of a table on which stands a wilted bouquet of flowers. That may be what indeed a photograph would capture at that moment.

Now picture the same painting but with a glorious and bountiful bouquet of freshly blooming flowers. The painter may be thinking that if he tends to his garden, that will be the bouquet that he can paint next week. It does not exist today, but for him it absolutely exists in the future and hence is part of his truth today.

Early in the Soviet era writer Maxim Gorky counseled a young writer that it is not enough to say “I wrote the truth.” Rather, the author must ask himself two questions: Which truth? and Why? At that time Gorky was referring to the truth of pre-revolutionary Russia versus the truth of what Russia was becoming.

Much the same may be going on in today’s America. Those who would have America remain true to her core values and the Constitution see truth as the descriptions, facts, and evidence that are true to that America and the traditional beliefs/values of its population. Those who are looking for great social change see truth in the picture they paint of what we can be and are becoming. To them it is true that a person can choose their gender or shift it as they please, resulting in statements such as “men can become pregnant”, a statement which is factually and scientifically inaccurate and thus not a truth to the realists, but something which those trying to recreate a future see as a realistic future truth and hence a truth to them today.

Obviously, these opposing truths and many others cannot coexist. Laws are affixed to one reality. Opposing truths result in opposing laws or just anarchy. Education – its needs, goals, and how to achieve them – is similarly at odds. How one manages everything, from the food one puts on one’s plate to international relations, suffers. The concept of opposing truths is currently on full display in the reactions to the terrorist attacks on Israel: those whose truth is the factual history of the region are in opposition to those whose truth is the factually inaccurate but desired narrative that Israel is a guilty oppressor.

If the revolutionaries (and that is perhaps a good term for the progressive Left and its truth) prevail, then their narrative which is their truth, while not the reality of today, will become the reality of tomorrow.

That might not be so if we retain a pathway to current and past truths of this country and its values, accomplishments, and failures. But if they are not retained, even if only as part of history, then they will be lost, and the revolutionary truths will be the only truths.

Interestingly, some would argue that part of the reason for the fall of Soviet Russia is that it retained and revered its prerevolutionary classics. The works of the great Russian authors – Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Chekhov, etc. – retained a picture of the prerevolutionary reality and the values it conveyed, values that were in direct opposition to Communism. At least some have traced the intellectual force behind Gorbachev’s glasnost to be the youthful reading of Russia’s great literature. “The Bolsheviks did not realize that by having their children read Tolstoy…they were digging the grave of their revolution.” (Slezkine, The House of Government, quoted in Morson, Wonder Confronts Certainty).

Perhaps today’s Progressive Left learned from that Bolshevik mistake. Perhaps it is for that reason that they feel the need to cancel and destroy anything that represents the past and current truth of America and how they justify their openly asserted belief that free speech must be canceled. If there is no other truth, then their revolutionary truth that is yet to be can become the only truth.

The analogy is not completely misplaced because for the Progressive Left, the destruction and reimagining of America is as obsessive a cause as was the Russian revolution to the Bolsheviks. As the Russian people discovered, when the revolutionary lie becomes the truth then the reality is not that of the glorious utopian vision, but a very ugly existence.

But the Russian people had access to their past truth, a truth that was actually more real than that within which they lived. If today’s Progressive Left Cancel Culture has its way, we and future generations will not have that access. We will not know what else was and could have been, and our truth will be as hollow as the unachievable dream narratives of the Progressives.

Like Gorky we must ask: Which truth and Why? The truth that has been America for 247 years, or the truth that the Progressive Left believes will become the new truth. A vision is not a truth but a narrative dream. America’s truth is fading into the mist. We must not allow America’s truth to be erased and the Left’s revolutionary dream to become a nightmare of false truth.

(Image AI Generated in response to prompt “Two Truths in Opposition")

Three Approaches that Make America

2023-09-20T21:51:00.000-07:00

Since we seem unable in today’s world to carry on non-partisan political discussions about important policies and societal concerns, perhaps it is time for a new way of looking at things and at our fellow human beings. Perhaps the following is a way to do this, or to at least assist us all in understanding our society and those who view it somewhat differently than do we.

While the animosity and disruption in our society today is most frequently identified as Red vs. Blue politics, I think that conflict is simply the way something else is manifesting itself. I think that we are actually seeing a struggle between three different approaches to existence that are all struggling to find their way in the rapidly changing world of today.

These three approaches are:

The Progressives who are for social change.
The Conventionals who are for the established institutions.
The Populists who are for the people.

The three approaches are actually all interrelated, and we all use all three approaches from time to time, but we generally lean more heavily toward one approach. These leanings are resulting in support for or opposition to particular political policies and approaches as each approach struggles to become dominant.

Approach	Progressive	Conventional	Populist
Primary Concern	For Social Change	For Established Institutions	For the People
Role	Starters of Action	Holders of Status Quo	Concluders and Transitioners
Political approaches	· Socialist · Big government · Little individual freedom	· Conservative · Democratic republic · Restricted freedom	· Pure democracy · Minimal government · Individual freedom with minimal restriction
Role	Starter/Instigator/ Visionary/Disrupter	Stabilizer/Inflexible/ Defender/ Institutionalist	Enforcer/Fluid/ Finalizer /Majority
Today primarily	Progressive Left	Traditional moderate Republicans and Democrats	MAGA Republicans
Interactions	Need Populist support to enact social change; if change is effected, need Conventional support to defend and stabilize it.	Will fully embody Progressive vision once convinced to support it and/or once it becomes established. Slows impulsiveness of Progressives and Populists	Mutability creates vulnerability to new Inspirations. Effectuate/complete a vision and lead transition to new change.

The Progressives

These are the starters, the visionaries. They have an idea, and they want to see it implemented. They believe their vision is a good one, though others may disagree with that assessment. Their goal is to generally upend what currently exists and replace it with what they view as something better, whether that is for society/the world at large or simply in regard to a particular problem.

These are the socialists who seek a bigger government to support and control the societal changes which they advocate. Socialism, according to Marx, is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

But these can also be the Progressive Republicans who would similarly dismantle some of our longstanding institutions in favor of Populist dreams; their method is not socialism but pure democracy which in essence is simply mob rule. Mob rule, whether in conjunction with or in opposition to a Progressive vision, can upend existing conventions in the hopes of replacing them with something better.

The vision of the Progressives is fragile. That is, the goal is to demolish what exists and then build anew. This is not something that people easily jump on board with. The vision of the Progressives needs the Populists to lend support. Only with that support will they be able to alter the fixed society of the Conventionals. Once the Populists take control and convince the Conventionals to support their cause, society will shift as necessary to make the institutional position conform so that the vision of the Progressives can be realized.

The Conventionals

These are the conservatives, not necessarily in the common political connotation, but in the sense that they are reluctant to change. Rather than jump to support current popular trends or policies, they will instead support longstanding institutions that are a part of the current societal status quo.

This gives stability to a society, but it also encourages a slower evolution as the Conventionals will need both time and strong evidence supporting any need to change that upon which their society is based. Once a particular society is established with its culture and its underlying institutions, this group will fully embody and defend it.

The problem that the Conventionals face is that once the Populists become the majority, they will either prevail by simple mob rule or, if their populist view conforms with the vison of the Progressives the two will become an almost invincible force.

Today these are the establishment Republicans as well as the traditional moderate or “lunch bucket” Democrats. While these groups find much to be lacking in our current government, they are more likely to blame the individuals rather than the underlying institutions. These are often today’s Independents or those who feel that their party, be it Republican or Democrat, has abandoned them.

The Populists

These are the people who believe fully in the individual and oppose large government and/or extensive regulation of behavior. Populism by its own definition involves a large group of the populace who, by their mere size, are able to sway society.

The Populists are not the visionaries, but they will adopt a vision and bring it to the fore, in essence concluding the work of the Progressives. As such they are vulnerable to manipulation by the Progressives who need the support of the masses. If their vision is adopted by society at large, it will be the Conventionals who will end up supporting the altered institutions. The mutable Populists will be ever ready to adopt a new vision and, as such, while they may aid in bringing about changes, they will also be the group that will end one vision and help bring about the transition to yet another new society.

Currently, the Populists most frequently identify as MAGA Republicans, yet in many ways the rank-and-file Democrats are working as Populists as their majority supports the various identity groups and causes that the Progressive Left uses to further its Progressive goals for societal change. Yet, in another way neither group is truly Populist because each supports only a popular majority of one political group.

Interactions

These three approaches and their interaction manifest on all levels from individual to global issues. While having leanings towards all three, we will primarily exhibit one approach on any given issue. Believing that our approach is the only one is what causes much friction in today’s world.

Moreover, we may exhibit one approach on one issue while having a different approach on another. For example, on the environment one might be a Progressive, but on taxation and governmental spending one might be a Conventional or a Populist.

Identifying as any one of these three types of actors is not permanent. Once a Progressive’s vision becomes the established reality, that individual may then become a Conventional who supports that reality or perhaps will join a new Populist cause that will lead to a transition away from that vision’s reality to begin the establishment of a new vision.

This is where I think we get into trouble. If one holds a Progressive or Conventional or Populist position on one issue, the tendency is to assume that they hold the same type of approach on all issues and that such an approach is a permanent personality characteristic. That assumption makes it hard to find common ground on anything.

The strength of the Conventionals

I think that America needs all three types, but it is the Conventionals upon whom we must count to preserve the Democratic Republic form of government that makes America what it is.

America is an ever-evolving country. Generally its evolution has been slow but positive. We need the visions of Progressives to push us forward. But, in the face of those exciting visions, we need the Conventionals to slow us down, make us think and carefully put one foot in front of the other with deliberation as we move forward. It is the Conventionals who will ensure that we make positive changes without totally upending those institutions that allow us to have visions and to make changes in the first place.

Populism is also exciting. But as a form of pure democracy, the bottom line is that it is really mob rule. Again, it is the institutions of our Democratic Republic that have protected the minority from the negatives of a mob rule where the majority gets its way regardless of what that may mean to our institutions or the individuals whom those institutions protect.

We need all three, but sadly today the Conventionals are being lost, crushed by the visions and popular support coming from both sides of the aisle. The Progressive Left and its Populist supporters would deny and destroy our Constitution along with many of our laws in order to create their Socialist utopia. The Populist Right, in the name of individual rights and popular rule would disband many of our governmental institutions and agencies that, while perhaps currently bloated or mismanaged, are key parts of the Democratic Republic and the America that these Populists claim to hold dear.

If we could only talk with one another, we might find that there are pieces of the Progressive Left agenda that are worth considering while at the same time the voice of the Populist Right needs to be listened to. And we need the Conventionals to sustain the scaffolding that will hold all this together as America continues to evolve while remaining the America that is the shining star of democracy for the world.

MAKING VICTIMS, DESTROYING SOULS

2023-08-26T15:10:00.001-07:00

My New Found Victimhood

Recently I received an email from the university from which I retired and where I still mentor and teach students. The email was seeking to “gather a list of First Gen faculty” who could be called upon to mentor “First Gen” students.

Being unfamiliar with the term “First Gen”, I did some research and learned that the U.S. Dept. of Education defines a First Gen or First Generation student as:

An individual, neither of whose parents completed a baccalaureate degree;

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, regularly resided with and received support from only one parent and whose supporting parent did not complete a baccalaureate degree.

An individual who, prior to the age of 18, did not regularly reside with or receive support from a natural or adoptive parent.

If your parent(s) and/or guardian(s) attended college but do not have a bachelor’s degree (i.e., did not graduate), you are considered to be first-generation.

This is the basic definition used by most colleges and universities, although some further explain that it does not matter about your siblings or any other family members. That is, one only looks to the parent to determine if someone is First Gen. Additionally, some schools expand their definition to include individuals whose parents, while having a degree, received that degree from an institution outside the United States. The Dept. of Education tends to group its discussions of First Generation students with low income or otherwise disadvantaged students.

Think about this. You could have highly successful parents who, for whatever reason, do not have a college degree, you might be a graduate of an outstanding prep school, have older siblings who are students or graduates of the finest colleges in the country and yet still qualify as a First Gen student and thus be qualified to receive whatever special benefits your college chooses to provide.

When I went to college, I did not consider myself disadvantaged. I had parents who, though lacking college degrees, were well educated and encouraged education. I went to good public schools with a high rate of graduates attending college. My older siblings went to college before me. Yet, lo and behold, I now discover that I had the disadvantage of being able to label myself as a First Generation student. Wow. I too can be a victim. Actually, I found this thought quite offensive.

Realizing how ridiculous this is, I replied to the email and related my discovery that I am a First Gen. I further explained that nonetheless, I would not be volunteering for the First Gen mentorship program. Specifically, I stated, “In my humble opinion, such labels hurt rather than help individual initiative and success. Obviously, I will not be volunteering as a First Gen mentor though, as you are well aware, I am always ready to help our students as individuals, regardless of whatever label our Woke world might want to place on them.”

I expected to get no response or simply a “thank you for your input” email. But what I got was an email the total substance of which read “Was that really necessary?” to which I responded with one word: Yes. This interchange is not really relevant to the point of this essay, but it does serve to point out that those who are onboard with the Woke practice of labeling and creating political victimhoods are not inclined to want to have a discussion with someone of differing views; indeed, they don’t even want those views to be voiced.

Creating One’s Victimhood “narrative”

On the same day that the above took place I read an article revealing that Republican presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy has fabricated his story of growing up poor, then becoming a successful entrepreneur. He tells the story that he “didn’t grow up in money” and yet was able to create multimillion dollar companies out of nothing. It turns out, however, that his parents both held graduate degrees and were highly successful professionals. Vivek went to an elite prep school and had his own stock portfolio created for him by his parents that was “bringing in hundreds of dollars in dividends before he graduated high school and thousands by the time he attended Harvard, according to his 2002-2004 tax returns.” Moreover, he accepted a scholarship “he previously said he needed in order to pay for law school.” The year he accepted a $90,000 award for law school, “Ramaswamy reported $2,252,209 in total income, according to his tax returns. He reported a total of $1,173,690 in income in the three years prior.” You can read the full article here: Vivek’s Background

Why would someone as successful and seemingly intelligent as Vivek Ramaswamy create this false rags-to-riches narrative? Why would he or anyone think that in order to be truly successful, to be “approved” by our culture that they need to first be a victim? Why would anyone choosing to go into the public arena think that his deceptions would not be found out? And, on a moral level, why would someone choose to deny who his parents really were and the positive help that they provided as they supported their son in his educational and career journey? Is that not a slap in the face to his family?

The Consequences of Victim Labeling

Our Woke culture, our world of identity groups/politics, demands that we all be either victim or victimizer. (I have fun wondering how my new-found victim status due to being a defined First Gen fits with my defined – due to my being White - status as victimizer. Perhaps I should fall into some schizophrenic fugue.)

But seriously, we are all more than one label. Each of us is an individual, not a two-dimensional cardboard cutout that can be labeled and then either applauded, condemned, or ignored. We are all multi-dimensional and those dimensions include both positives and negatives, but all are uniquely ours. They are what make us the INDIVIDUALS that we are.

If we are nothing more than the labels that some group has decided to place upon us then we lose our individual identity. Not only who we are, but whom we may become is predetermined for us by someone else who may or more likely may not have our individual best interests in mind.

If all we can be is what the label says we are, then why have any initiative? And personal responsibility becomes meaningless because our actions are simply the result of our label. If we are a victim, then we have our victimhood to blame for anything that goes wrong in our life. After a fall we need not go through any self-examination or attempt to learn lessons for the future; we need not pull ourselves back up and try to do better or improve things for next time. Rather, we can simply blame our victimhood and those labeled as our victimizers.

Labeling is nothing more than a way to control us. People have always to some extent labeled others, and probably always will. But today we have a political power movement that uses Wokeness to label and divide us and as a result take power over us. You fit this label so you belong in this box. No need to try to get out – to improve yourself or to go after your individual vision. We have decided that this is you and therefore this is whom and what you will be. And too many simply accept such labeling (or mislabeling) without question or, worse yet, seek it out.

Candidate Ramaswamy fell for the Woke labeling and believed that in order to be “successful candidate” he needed to have an appropriate backstory. He chose the “rags to riches” narrative. He became something he is not but that which fits within a particular label. I chose to question my new label and was chastised for such questioning.

Sadly, labels, and their subsequent import of victim or victimizer, are a part of our culture today. We seek out and apply labels to both ourselves and others, and in so doing we diminish our humanity. Accepting societal labeling grants power over us to those who create the labels and apply them.

The question is, are we playing victim, or is the need for victimhood playing us? Because in the end, we are nothing but our own victimizers if the need to label, to be a victim, destroys us. As Sophocles wrote in Antigone, "Who is the Slayer? Who is the Victim? Speak."

We need to answer this question for us, for today, for our civilization and our lives. But we cannot truly answer it without shedding our need for labels, taking back the power over our being that we have granted to others, and becoming each our own unique individual.

Human Dialogue, Freedom, and Censorship

2023-08-04T19:22:00.001-07:00

As facts start to come out and scandals start to close in, I am reminded of the following phase that stems from Soviet era Russia: “There is no news in the Truth, and there is no truth in the News (В Правде нет известия, и в Известие нет правды).”

Actually, this stems from the two Russian newspapers – Pravda and Izvestiye. Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party, was considered to be filled with lies even though its name translates as “truth”, while the name Izvestiye, the other Soviet newspaper, translates as “news” and was the official newspaper of the Supreme Soviet. The saying, at the time, was a joke because all good Russians knew that they could not get the truth or the news from state-controlled media.

Today Americans also have difficulty obtaining news or truth. The government is too often involved in dissemination and editing of what should be accurate news and truth. The state of the American media and Americans’ access to news, facts, and truth can be summarized as:

Let me define truth, for the purposes of this discussion, as that which is in accordance with fact, evidence, and reality. News I will define as new or noteworthy information in which an audience will likely be interested.

Editorial Discretion has become Political Censorship

The mainstream media today is less interested in providing facts to its readers, viewers, and listeners than it is in pleasing government and elite powers by providing their narratives to audiences rather than facts of a situation. And audiences are often more interested in the entertainment rather than factual aspects of a story. Hence, the truth (factual recitation) is not the news, and the news, because it is not factually accurate, is not the truth.

I am not talking about editorial discretion which has always been part of news dissemination. What to print, where to place a story, how much time/space to give a story – these have always been decisions for editors and have always been colored somewhat by their biases, both conscious and unconscious.

But today these decisions go far beyond and are far removed from simple editorial discretion. We now have concrete evidence of state involvement and control of what is/is not “truth” and what information will be disseminated or hidden. Such involvement has permeated both the actual “news” media as well as social media platforms.

For example, House investigations now provide documentation that Facebook confirmed to the White House that it was working to accomplish “the administration’s directives” on suppressing content that clashed with its COVID vaccine agenda. There are processes by which the government can flag certain content on social media and request it be suppressed. There is also evidence that the White House wanted social media to change its on-line algorithms so that users would see more information from sources supportive of the White House agenda.

The News or Mainstream Media is now also beholden to powers outside of the news itself. While news editors, as noted above, have always made editorial choices, those editors ensured that the stories presented in their news sections were factual; they left opinion for the opinion pages. Not so anymore.

Today’s news sources clearly support one or the other political party and every aspect of their “news” reflects that. Not just the selection of which stories to present, but the manner in which any story is presented.

The conservative and right-leaning media will slant everything to support right wing positions and politicians while the left-leaning media will slant in the opposite direction. Stories that cover the front pages of media with one political leaning will be close to non-existent in the media of the opposite political leaning. Indeed, we now have proof of news sources such as the NY Times and Washington Post deliberately omitting or revising facts of key stories such as the now debunked Russian collusion or the now confirmed story of the Hunter Biden laptop. Stories that are presented will often be filled with adjectives and other modifiers that, while perhaps appropriate in opinion pieces, are blatant attempts to turn what should be a factual news story into an opinion advocating a particular political position.

Consider the two big stories over the past few days: the Trump indictments and the concrete evidence of President Biden’s involvement in his family’s influence peddling scheme that resulted in huge monetary payments to the Biden family. To compare the coverage of these two stories between right and left leaning news media is to read accounts of two seemingly completely different worlds.

It is next to impossible to find a full and objective account of the Trump charges along with the legal assertions that they are politically motivated and/or a form of election interference. Similarly, one can barely find the Biden story in left-leaning media, and when one does it is downplayed as simply some sort of Republican witch hunt, while the right-leaning media perhaps over sensationalizes the clearly damning evidence of Biden’s quite likely illegal interactions with foreign countries and the possibility of its compromising of the President.

The “news” from the left leaning media essentially has already found Trump guilty and Biden completely innocent while the right leaning media takes the opposite view. This is not news. This is not truth. This is bias and propaganda. And in many instances it is guided by the very people that we elect to protect us and our First Amendment rights.

Information, Not Censorship, Heals and Sustains America

The First Amendment, a cornerstone of our American democracy, demands a free and objective news media in order that the people can voice and hear a variety of views and make their own decisions. That others would decide what the people should and should not hear and, worse yet, make judgements about what information is made available in an attempt to do the people’s thinking for them is in complete antipathy to the First Amendment and all it stands for.

When those who should be leading our country become more concerned with their own power than their duty to the country and the people they serve, they find ways to justify their censorship and denial of free speech and the importance of narrative – their narrative – over truth or news.

Suppression of information is often done under the guise of protecting us from “misinformation” though as Robert Kennedy Jr. well-articulated in his July appearance before the House Committee regarding Censorship and Free Speech, the term is often rephrased as “mal-information” – not incorrect but just bad as in information that the government or its lackeys in the media have decided would be bad for the populace to hear, usually because it contradicts the narrative of those in power.

Our country is split into two camps, and each wants to provide a narrative that benefits them. To establish that narrative, censorship of truth and news becomes a temptation that is hard to resist. That, however, is the worst possible reaction.

Words from Kennedy’s opening statement to the House Committee on Censorship are instructive. He responded to Democrats’ concern about “the need to beat this toxic polarization that is destroying our country today and how do we deal with that?” Kennedy stated: “This kind of division is more dangerous for our country than any time since the American Civil War. How do we [deal with] that? Every Democrat on this committee, do you think you can do that by censoring people? I am telling you, you cannot. That only aggravates and amplifies the problem.”

Recently Sen. Joe Manchin spoke and wrote about the division in America, stating that the United States is “not designed for” the level of division currently seen within the country, leaving many “common-sense” Americans without a political home. He wrote:

The extremes on the left and right now control the Democratic and Republican Parties, defining our politics and policy debates. These partisan extremes are in the business of feeding political division and dysfunction everyday – and their business is booming.

They want America divided – because they benefit greatly from it. They want us to see each other as enemies because they feed off of it. They attack our institutions, whether it is our Capitol, our elected leaders or our justice system, without caring about the lasting damage it does.

In America, leadership is not a birthright but instead it’s the choice of voters after respectful debates of ideas. And partisan leaders on both sides of the aisle are increasingly threatened by the growing desire for debate.

To be clear, while both parties are to some extent responsible for resorting to narrative and aggravating division, it is the current Administration and the hard Left that are aggressively pushing censorship and even elimination of First Amendment freedoms.

Dialogue Is Our Humanity

But why does debate and this current censorship matter? Why not just pick a left or right bubble and live within it? Or simply allow the government and its media to tell us what to think? The answer is not only that this contradicts the very core of the 1st Amendment, a necessary cornerstone of our government and our way of life. It is not only that it furthers a nefarious goal of making the American people enemies of one another. These, of course, are serious problems, especially to those who believe in American democracy. But perhaps an even larger problem is that it works to destroy the very core of our existence.

Life in the end is a dialogue. We participate by speaking, asking questions, listening, writing, reading, responding, agreeing, disagreeing, learning. A dialogue cannot be open and honest if information is restricted or denied. With censorship we lose part of the dialogue, and we allow someone else to create a dialogue for us. We stop learning. We stop thinking. We stop speaking. And we lose part of our humanity. We become nothing more than a tool for those creating the dialogue for us.

Currently the government and others in power through pressure on private platforms are trying to shape our dialogue. The media gives us the stories they want discussed in a way that will create preordained narratives. But our information is limited and therefore our dialogue is limited and we are ultimately limiting our individual humanity as we delegate our power to dialogue to the state.

To retain our humanity and our freedom we must remember that goals of personal comfort and protection from negative narratives are not in the end in our best interest. Free thought and free dialogue are. We must remember that good dialogue requires others and their possibly differing and uncomfortable viewpoints. Those others are not enemies. Silencing and censorship are the enemy as is a state-controlled media.

As the mounting proof of censorship and silencing becomes both truth and news we must demand that our news media actually provide us with news that is truth and truth that is news. All of it. Only then can we dialogue as fully engaged free people.

A Brief Note on Biden’s State of the Union Speech and Sanders’ Response

2023-02-08T12:12:00.001-08:00

I always watch the State of the Union speeches. Since I first began to understand America in my Junior High Civics class I have believed it is my duty as a citizen to listen to these often boring, angering, or sometimes joyful events. I want to hear and see the entire ordeal rather than take various reporters’ interpretations of the event. I also watch the opposition’s response.

Last night’s affair was in many ways not unusual (even if it sort of looked like the start of a real affair when the first lady and the second gentleman had a good smooch on the lips, but then I guess that’s Washington today). Below are my brief reactions to the President’s State of the Union speech and to Governor Sanders’ response.

Biden’s speech

At some point during Biden’s long and mostly boring speech I decided that the President engages in some sort of magical thinking. So many lies, misleading statements, and half-truths came out of his mouth that I quickly lost count. I think that Biden gave us a litany of things he wishes to be true. The problem is that he states these things as fact - he believes what he says and he expects us to believe it too

I am not a psychologist, but is this the pattern of a pathological liar? Joe’s lies go back at least as far as his law school plagiarism days. On the campaign trail he has related tales of things he has done which prove to be entirely false.

So the lies did not surprise me. I actually expect them from this President. I realize that all our presidents have lied to us about some things, but Joe’s lies are different. He lies about things that he doesn’t have to. A president might lie about something because he must, as for example when Kennedy had to keep secret the discussions he and Khrushchev were having about the Cuban Missile Crisis. A president might lie or obfuscate if he has committed some offense (think Nixon and Watergate or Clinton and Monica Lewinsky). And of course, on the campaign trail, candidates puff up their accomplishments and records. But Biden lies about things that don’t matter as well as those that do and about easily proven falsehoods (why has he told us he was a truck driver when he was not; why has he lied about trips to the border?).

I really think Biden can’t help himself, and he certainly gave us a parade of untruths in his speech last night. The fact checkers are busy and if you google the fact checks of last night’s speech you will find few statements labeled as true, some will be labeled as false, and the majority will indicate that significant context has been left out, thus making the statement misleading at best.

Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

I do not really think that what Biden gave us was an honest description of the state of the union. It was more of a speech that took credit that was not due for past activities and a wish list of what he would do if re-elected. That wish list included sideways attacks on Republicans who we can be sure he will blame if the many government and socialistic programs he outlined do not come to pass.

Perhaps because I expect the lies, however, what bothers me more is that people don’t question Biden’s statements. Indeed, Americans seem to have forgotten that they can and should question what they are told. They should at least ask for some proof of the claims being made. But they do not. And that indeed troubles me more than the lies themselves.

People are grading Biden’s speech; I would give him a C. The content of the speech was probably below that, but the fact that it was delivered in such a way that most Americans will just accept what he said without question raises it to the C level.

Sanders’ Response

Overall, I thought Sanders’ response was not effective. I was disappointed and had expected more from her.

The speech sounded like a generic Republican campaign speech. I was looking for a response – a rebuttal to Biden’s lies and false promises.

Clearly Sanders had prepared her speech in advance and she delivered it with compassion, but I wondered if she had even listened to Biden’s speech. She certainly had time to insert some specific and pointed rebuttals during the time between the end of Biden’s speech and the beginning of hers – the time while the mainstream media commentators were lavishing Biden with praise, buying all his lies without question.

But no, she gave us a campaign speech that really said nothing new. Her story of her secret trip to Iraq with President Trump was very moving, but in the end it did not really relate to Biden’s speech. She repeatedly told us that Republicans are the good guys and Democrats bad (or crazy). But we hear that and its reverse every day depending on which news outlets we visit.

Biden’s speech was open to so many attacks based on both factual inaccuracies along with political philosophy. This response missed a huge opportunity. My grade for this one is a D.

In conclusion

I would have liked to have seen the honesty of Pres. Ford (see below) in Biden’s speech and a true rebuttal from Sanders.

War, What is it good for?

2023-02-03T10:31:00.000-08:00

In the 1970 song “War”, the answer to the above question is “absolutely nothing” but in the real world, in the political world, sadly it too often serves the needs of the powerful who have only their own interests in mind.

I am tired of watching the people of Ukraine suffer as they serve as the proxy victims in our proxy war against Russia. I realize that they do not think of themselves that way, but my reading of this war and the complicated history leading to it directs me to that conclusion.

President Putin of Russia fired the first shot, but before that shot was fired many besides Putin marched in the parade toward war. Few took the time to understand the Russian mindset and the complicated history between Russia and Ukraine, or to acknowledge the West’s aggressive enticement of Ukraine to become a fully Western State. There were few if any real attempts to negotiate a settlement of sorts that would have prevented war, gained a stronger democracy for Ukraine, and appeased Russia’s fears of the West.

A brief and highly abridged history

As part of the Pontic Steppe in Eastern Europe, the area now known as Ukraine has been an important and sought after part of that geographical area since prehistoric times. Many Russians see Kyiv (Rus) as the birthplace of Russia. Ukraine has come under the rule of several rulers and other countries. During the 1600s, in order to escape Polish-Lithuanian rule, Ukraine sought protection from Russia which led to its rule by Tsarist Russia. In the late 1700s, the far west of Ukraine fell under Austrian control while the rest became part of Russia.

At the time of the Russian revolution, Ukraine tried to break free of Russia. In 1919 several armies fought one another in Ukraine - Kyiv changed hands 6 times. In 1921, Ukraine was incorporated into Soviet Russia. During WWII, much of Ukraine supported and fought with the Nazis whom Ukrainians saw as liberators from Russia. Russians were united against the Nazis and their supporters, and the Ukrainian Nazi support continues to be a sore spot with Russians to this day.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state. In 2004 the “Orange Revolution” revealed a Ukraine clearly divided between those Ukrainians, many of whom are ethnic Russians, who wanted to maintain strong ties with Russia, and those who were more interested in creating ties with the West and its organizations such as NATO.

Russia, for its part, includes both those who would like to see Soviet Russia restored including full incorporation of Ukraine into Russia as well as those who back an independent and westernized Ukraine. Russia, however, generally silences opposition to its official pro-war stance.

War moves from likelihood to certainty

It would be naïve to think that both Russia and the West were not both doing all that they could to influence Ukraine and its people to become their allies. The steppe upon which Ukraine sits is politically and strategically important. Not only is the land incredibly fertile, it provides a buffer zone between Russia and the West/NATO countries. The eastern portion of Ukraine is militarily significant in its location as a possible staging area for attacks on Russia.

The Russian Federation annexed Crimea in 2014 and has fought with Ukraine over other eastern portions of Ukraine since then. In 2016 Ukraine joined an agreement with the European Union that allowed trade and visa-free travel between Ukraine and the EU. In 2019 Ukraine amended its Constitution to put it on a stated path towards membership in the EU and NATO. The original plan was to formally apply for EU membership in 2024, but that was moved forward, and the application was made in early February 2022.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin began more assertively voicing his opposition to Ukraine joining NATO, in part because of the military threat to Russia of NATO having the ability to place missiles or other military equipment at the border with Russia. Here one must remember that NATO was established to counter the threat posed by the then Soviet Union and its mission continues to be to secure its member countries against Russia. Since the fall of Soviet Russia NATO has aggressively sought to expand its membership. Whether this is a threat to Russia in reality or not is less important than the fact that Russia sees this as a threat.

Throughout 2021 Russia moved its troops to the Ukrainian border, obviously building towards a potential invasion. During that time the United States, while condemning the buildup, took no real action against it. President Biden threatened sanctions etc., but it was always too little too late and in the opinion of many only presented a face of weakness to Russia that encouraged Putin to be more aggressive.

To others, many of the statements made by President Biden seemed to be goading President Putin into taking military action. Why he might do that is open to speculation, but a war would distract from the rising inflation and other problems he was and is facing in this country, it would create someone (Russia/Putin) to blame for continuing economic problems, it might make Biden some sort of hero (he did keep putting forth the idea that this was going to be his Cuban Missile Crisis so perhaps he thought it would gain him a Kennedy-like respect), and then there is the fact that since he was a Senator, Biden has made no secret of the fact that he hates Putin.

Shortly after Ukraine made its application to NATO, and after Biden effectively gave Putin no possible way to withdraw without losing face, on Feb. 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Whose war is it?

The United States and other Western and NATO countries proclaimed their support for Ukraine. Ukraine asked for money – we sent it. Ukraine asked for military equipment – we sent it. Finding the precise figure of aid, both military and humanitarian, to Ukraine is difficult, but it is somewhere around $50 billion in 2022 in direct aid and over $100 billion if one counts indirect aid. The majority of that is for defense, and the funding does not show any sign of ceasing. We are sending our store of weapons - tanks, missiles, guns, and other military equipment - and that too shows no sign of ceasing, even though we are so depleted that this country is in a position where it does not have the ability to defend itself.

Ukrainian President Zelensky has done a marvelous job of building strength and unity amongst his people. He also does a wonderful job of begging the West and U.S. for money to support them. Many people of that country are firm in their belief that with the U.S. behind them and supplying them, that they can defeat Russia without making any concessions whatsoever. Indeed, many believe that they can even see Crimea returned.

With this confidence inspired by the U.S. and other backers, they are not interested in negotiating an end to the fighting. This Ukrainian digging in and belief in total victory might be far less strong if not for US and other Western support. So, are the Ukrainians fighting their war, or are we, the West, fighting that war? And if it is we who are fighting it then why is it Ukrainian and not our blood that is being spilled?

Why isn’t the thought of peace even on the table?

If we really cared about the Ukrainian people as we say we do, then why aren’t we seeking peaceful solutions to end this; solutions that indeed might result in some territory loss but that would end the loss of life?

Yet instead we escalate. In 2022 President Biden told us that sending tanks to Ukraine would result in World War 3. In January of 2023 he announced he would send tanks to Ukraine. We are going to train the Ukrainians on how to use the tanks, bringing them to the U.S. for that training. When one of those tanks kills a Russian is that an aggression by Ukraine or by the United States? And Putin has threatened use of nuclear weapons if the United States or NATO countries are the ones actually fighting this war.

If this does become World War 3, then we are going to have a hard time since our weapons stockpiles will be empty and parts to rebuild often come from China who will likely be aligned with Russia and not inclined to assist us. Does our President even consider let alone understand such things? Does he understand that it is young Ukrainians dying for his cause? Does he care?

Where are the diplomats, the peacemakers who will use reason and negotiation rather than human life to solve their differences? Let America lead on that front instead of as warmongers.

We are using the Ukrainians. Perhaps they are using us as well. But when their usefulness is over, will we care at all what happens to them? I doubt it. Because this is not really a war about freedom or democracy. It is a war about a few men wanting to puff up and show off their power.

I close with a few lines from Edwin Starr’s 1970 song “War” written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong:

War, I despise

'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives

Life is much too short and precious

To spend fighting wars each day

War can't give life

It can only take it away, oh

Peace, love and understanding, tell me

Is there no place for them today?

They say we must fight to keep our freedom

But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh

War, huh (God y'all)

What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)

Say it, say it, say it, say it

War (good God), huh (now, huh)

What is it good for?

Stand up and shout it (nothing)

Successful Government Does Not Tolerate Stubbornness

2023-01-03T19:10:00.000-08:00

The party that gets things done….is turning out not to be today’s Republicans. At least not those elected to the House of Representatives.

They have had since mid-November when all election results were in to decide how they would move forward with their small House majority come January 1. The people elected them to DO things. Amend and pass legislation that would curb Biden’s unlimited and destructive spending, deal with the illegal immigrant crisis and the crisis at our borders, stand up for the American values of the people who elected them. Others hoped also that they would objectively and fairly investigate some things that need investigating – not for political gain or retribution, but because Americans need those activities that are contrary to the interests of America and its people to be dealt with.

The Republicans could have started working on these tasks on day one. But instead, what did they do? They created a veritable circus over their inability to elect a House Speaker.

Contrast this with typical behavior of the Democrat party. While I adamantly disagree with and oppose many of the positions and policies of the progressive Left, I have to admit that not only do they have a clear agenda, they also effectively implement it. They work like a well-oiled machine that understands that they agree on an end goal and that they will work in unison toward that goal even when one at times has to agree to something to which they may personally be opposed. They are willing to make personal concessions, overlook personal preferences, to achieve the greater goal of implementing their agenda – the agenda that Democrat voters put them in place to effectuate.

Not so the Republicans. With no viable alternative to Kevin McCarthy as candidate for Speaker, a small handful of Republicans who have personal gripes against McCarthy decided to hold hostage the Speakership, making it impossible for McCarthy to be elected while presenting no candidate who could garner more than a score or so of votes.

In the first vote, a variety of other Republicans siphoned 19 votes off of the other Republican votes for McCarthy. In the second round of voting Rep. Gaetz nominated Jim Jordon while Jordon re-nominated McCarthy. In that round Jordan received all of the 19 Republican non-McCarthy votes. In round 3, Jordan’s vote count increased to 20.

218 votes are required to elect a Speaker. There are 222 Republicans in the House and 212 Democrats. All 212 Democrats have voted for their candidate for Speaker, Rep. Jeffries. At one point during today’s voting it was reported that some of the Republicans who opposed McCarthy stated they would rather have Democrat Jeffries than McCarthy as Speaker notwithstanding that Jeffries would likely further a Democrat rather than Republican agenda.

After 3 votes the House adjourned. Voting will continue until a Speaker is elected and until such time no work can go forward – no committees, no bills brought to the floor, no other votes. None of the business that we the people elected our representatives to conduct.

Yes, a Speaker is important. He or she leads the House, determines what bills will come to the floor for vote, oversees House procedures and rules, etc. And there will obviously be a different focus depending on whether the Speaker is a Republican or Democrat. But this display by the Republicans is ridiculous.

The handful who seem to have a personal dislike for McCarthy had plenty of time to develop support for an alternate candidate. But all they did during that time was to badmouth McCarthy and assert he should not be Speaker. They may have gotten their anger off their chest and they may have thought they were acting bold by being so negatively assertive, but what they did was not constructive and has resulted in a debacle that not only reflects poorly on the entire Republican party but also means that the bold agenda and action that the Republican party promised the voters will be stalled and delayed.

I believe that the people of this country want their elected representatives to work for them; I know that is what I want. I don’t know if McCarthy is or is not the best candidate for Speaker (and actually I quite like Jim Jordan) but I do know that McCarthy is the only Republican candidate that currently has any possibility to be elected. And we need a Speaker before the House can do anything.

Working for the people means that sometimes you have to compromise. One has to wonder if these folks who will not vote for the one currently viable Republican Speaker are going to stall every piece of legislation put forward if there is one word or phrase they do not like. One wonders if they are going to essentially sink their own party’s agenda simply to prove some selfish point or believe that never ever giving an inch is really a constructive way to conduct the people’s business. (Republicans could learn something here from the Democrats.) One has to pick one’s battles; fighting everyone just to prove you are a fighter does not impress me and I doubt that it impresses most Americans.

Perhaps the adjournment today was a good thing. Perhaps a good night’s sleep will cause this handful of selfish rebels to realize that they are doing nothing but hurting those who elected them and believed in them. Tomorrow is another day and we can always hope.

TWO STORIES

2022-11-09T19:59:00.001-08:00

I was probably around 11 years old the first time I went to a birthday party where I received a prize without winning any of the games. This was a new experience for someone in the late 1950s/early 1960s. It was the first time everyone got a prize whether they did anything or not. On the way home with my mother I tried to explain that the prize I had received was not because I had won, but just something for taking part in the game. She didn’t understand. I remember my overwhelming emotion was one of shame for getting something for nothing.

Recently I heard a successful minority artist being interviewed on the radio. The interviewer kept stressing the fact that he had worked several jobs during his time at college in order to pay his tuition. My thinking was “so what – a lot of people I know as well as my own self did the same, some were minorities, some were not. All were both thankful for and proud of their work and what it had allowed them to accomplish.” But the interviewer, and to some extent the artist himself, seemed to stress the victim factor of having to work to attend college. This was such a contrast to the view that such work to improve oneself and/or achieve a goal is something to be proud of. It does not make someone a victim, but rather a success.

What do these two stories have in common and what do they tell us about society both in years past and today?

To what is one entitled?

Both stories consider a relationship between some personal effort and a reward. The first story reflects a principle that one does not get something for nothing – one must “win” it by their own hard work.

The second story reflects the idea that if you have to work for something then you are experiencing some sort of victimhood/disentitlement and that the focus of your eventual success should be on the victim experience rather than the personal initiative that led to your success or even the ultimate success itself.

If we consider that these two core principles reflect a more general societal view far beyond the specifics of each story, then one has to wonder: 1) how has such a core value changed so greatly in little over 50 years; and (2) is the change a good one?

A change in message

It was in the 1960s that our society began to seriously question competition, especially for children. We began to be concerned that hurt feelings of losing were unhealthy and must be eliminated. Hence the emergence of the “participation trophy” for everyone.

The hidden message of such “trophies” is that really all one has to do is show up. No effort required beyond mere presence. A second message is that one has a right to always feel good – no hurt feelings due to losing a competition or otherwise.

The “entitlement” to always feeling good broadened beyond childhood games. Parents hesitated to say “no” to children for fear of hurt feelings. Grade inflation was in part motivated by a similar goal. “Safe spaces” began to appear on college campuses and in the workplace as the children who learned that they had a right to demand happiness grew up and became adults.

This change in attitude continued to explode. Not only were you entitled to never have a hurt feeling – everyone was entitled to have it all. Personal choices that may have led to a negative personal consequence became no longer relevant as well as personal characteristics and talents that make each of us the individual we are. Scientific advances helped in this regard, doing such things as outfitting physically limited bodies with artificial replacements. Yes, people began to believe that they can and that they are entitled to any and everything they want, including the current idea that they can change their sex at will and that men can be pregnant and give birth to a child. Questioning any personal desire or gratification is met with an accusation of insensitivity if not bigotry.

Is the new message a good one?

A message of entitlement growing out of a desire to protect from pain at first may sound harmless or perhaps even laudable, but once one reflects on it one can see the broad and changeful effect that it can have.

It creates a major change in societal values. Where personal responsibility and pride in one’s work were once lauded, now the responsibility falls upon society as a whole to create a happy environment for all. (We will save for another time how and who defines “happiness” for all the people.) A recent television ad advertising a free housing program announced that people should have time to play and do what they want rather than have to work hard to pay for housing; the visuals showed happy individuals riding bikes, playing in parks, etc.

For many today, the concept of “equity” for all as opposed to “equality of opportunity” has become paramount. If one will have the same result regardless of how much or little effort one puts in, the work ethic becomes meaningless and with it pride in one’s work becomes an archaic concept.

A path to Socialism

With the loss of those concepts a path is cleared toward socialism. This country has been testing that path for some time, and now it seems that a good half of the country would choose Socialism over Capitalism.

Both systems can be enticing, and neither is perfect. I will be the first to admit that in America today it is much harder to achieve one’s dreams simply through one’s own hard work and that the promise of utopia that Socialism presents (though ultimately never delivers) sounds lovely. But at the same time I believe that to give up that individual fulfillment that comes from the sometimes difficult burdens of personal responsibility and hard work would be a hugely wrong step for our society.

If you only had fun, do you really win?

It is only through the struggles that one faces when allowed to experience hardships and sadness that one can feel the true joys of success. And it is often those hard times that provide one with the motivation to strive to become truly the best they can be and not just one of the many swimming in the mediocre sea of equity.

Nowadays of course, everyone expects to get the prize/trophy/reward whether they worked for it or not. If not provided, they become victims with a claim for an even bigger and better prize. I think our society was in a better place in the first story - when one felt a bit ashamed of getting something for nothing.

The Power of WHY

2022-11-03T12:26:00.000-07:00

We all know that Biden repeatedly tells the country that we must vote Democratic as he repeatedly vilifies all Republicans. Down the ballot most Democrats do the same.

But it is not only Democrats who demand unwavering and indeed unthinking party loyalty. In my state the voters can vote to retain or not retain state judges who are already sitting on the bench. The state judges are identified by party affiliation. The Republican party recently posted an ad telling voters to vote no on every single judge who is up for retention simply because they are Democrats.

It is not just political parties that demand unthinking decision making. My state’s major newspaper apparently based its endorsements on the answer to one question – whether the candidate agreed with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen. A clear No got you the endorsement but a Yes or even an answer that tried to explain the complexities of that question meant you would not be endorsed. The paper itself noted that despite the Republican governor candidate coming out on top on nearly all the issues, he would not have received the endorsement had he not answered a clear No to that one question, while it failed to endorse a Republican candidate for House because that candidate failed to give an unexplained yes or no (that was the only negative noted in the paper’s discussion of that candidate and her opponent who answered no and whom they endorsed).

These demands that one decide a vote simply on one question or merely a party label are wrong on so many levels. Let me suggest three.

First, candidates are individuals. Voters need to look at each candidate as a full person, not as simply a cardboard cutout representing one label or one yes or no answer. For example, in the judicial retention elections in my state voters have access to in-depth studies done by our Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission. These include surveys of litigants, attorneys, and others appearing in that judge’s courtroom as well as surveys of the judge’s staff, and the Commission’s evaluation of each judge. That is a starting point for voters to understand whether or not they believe a particular judge should be retained. There are judges belonging to both parties that deserve to be retained, and some of each party that do not. The total picture of each individual judge includes far more than just their party affiliation.

Second: it’s identity politics. Using a party label to paint a broad and unvarying picture of everyone belonging to that party is simply the game of identity politics, something that we know the Democrats are very good at. It is the Democrats who paint all opponents as “deplorables” or “terrorists” or “destroyers of democracy.” The Democrats have given us excellent examples of how to pit one identity group against another as they do such things as paint all whites as racist or all Christians as intolerant or all Trump supporters as violent.

When the Republicans paint all Democrats as bad judges or when the newspaper paints all people with one answer to a question as not endorsable, they too are playing the identity politics game which is simply taking one characteristic of an individual’s many facets and painting all who have that characteristic with the same broad brush.

Group-think or don’t think. The third and most troubling aspect of these party or single-question-based directives is that they are essentially orders to the voting public not to think. Because if one thinks, they will go beyond the narrowness that creates cardboard cutouts rather than individuals: they will think for themselves.

The danger of labeling based on one characteristic or identity factor out of the many that we all carry goes far beyond voting. It destroys us by dehumanizing each and every one of us.

Humanity requires thinking and debate

Interestingly, in the SCOTUS arguments about affirmative action earlier this week, the justices sincerely grappled with the need for a diverse classroom environment while prohibiting race-based (essentially group identity based) decision making.

Diverse environments are essential to open all our eyes as we learn about, debate, and understand the diverse views of our pluralist democracy. Labeling any one view as definitive of all who may hold that view is disingenuous and destructive of every positive aspect of pluralism.

Questioning and debating is essential to human growth, but that debate needs to be based upon reality, not cardboard cutouts based on identity factors. The debate needs to be individualized if the debaters are to learn and grow. But the necessary partner with debate is the ability to think as an individual about other individuals. Demanding thought and action based on group identity defeats the entire purpose.

Yeshiva schools understand how important true debate (debate and questioning in order to grow and learn) is to education. In such schools the students, along with their rabbis, question the Torah, debating, often quite passionately, about its meaning and its application to their lives. They are taught not to accept, but to question. And with questioning comes not only thinking, but an evolution in one’s thinking as they grow deeper and deeper understanding of that which they are studying.

WHY – An act of love

The idea of questioning, even questioning God Himself, goes back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis. We are told that Eve’s mission is to be a helper against Adam. The rabbinic commentators on this passage explain that this “teaches us a model of friendly antagonism, one in which, in order to support you, I challenge you.” (Prof. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Witness by Ariel Burger). Such challenging refines the thinking of those involved, allowing them to refine and develop their ideas about the subject being debated.

Learning about the beliefs of others allows one to challenge one’s own deeply held beliefs, something which is vitally important for one to grow in both spirit and intellect. Disagreement and debate for the sake of learning, understanding, and growing and not simply to defeat or silence the other’s view is an act of love – for oneself and for the other. It allows us to see one another for the complex individuals we each are.

Excluding debate, even when done with the misguided motive of protecting delicate feelings, is not an act of kindness but rather an act that serves to stifle individuality. Demanding that someone vote or base any other activity solely on a group identity classification stifles the individual capacity to think.

Not only in voting, but in the world at large, we need to see people for the complex individuals that they are. We need to question our candidates and the information that we have about them, not simply base an important decision on one alleged identity characteristic that may or may not be true for that individual candidate, whether based on party affiliation or single question answer.

If we open our hearts and our minds to question and debate we can reach deeper levels of understanding about ourselves, those we interact with and society at large. But those questions must not be in the nature of HOW CAN YOU disagree with me/say that?

Rather, we must learn to ask WHY? In the context of elections: WHY are you a member of that party? WHY do you support that? In the broader context: WHY do you say/believe that – help me to understand WHY you hold that view.

That simple word WHY used with curiosity and openness rather than with a closed-minded intent to shut unfamiliar or opposing views down, can go far. Not only will it likely do more to elect the best candidates, it will also do much to heal our world.

Education requires a questioning interaction – with oneself and with others

2022-10-22T21:06:00.001-07:00

It is easy to give up on America these days. In considering what we need to move forward I always seem to return to education and the fact that our current education systems do not teach the basic thinking skills that allow individuals to make informed decisions about the direction they would like their country to take. Indeed, today our education system seems to be more aligned with the narrowness of propaganda than with the open-mindedness that true education requires.

Recently I heard someone on the radio arguing that college is a waste of money because you can learn as much by simply looking up the subjects you would study on Google and reading the information there.

Certainly, one can read up on a subject and in so doing gain information about that subject – that is, learn something about the subject. But that is not all that education entails and it is not all that occurs in a healthy college environment. Learning in the sense of acquiring information is but one part of education. Education also includes reflection both on oneself and on the information being learned, it requires an open mind in coming to information and in listening to views of others about that information. Most importantly, it requires constant questioning – of the information being presented, of the presenter, and of oneself

Simply acquiring knowledge is not true learning. Learning and true education have at their core the question “why?” The student must be taught to ask that question repeatedly, to move step by step into a deeper understanding of the subject being studied and of the understanding of others about that subject.

In a true educational setting students will be pushed to use “why?” to push themselves to levels of understanding and achievement of which they did not even know they were capable. They will be asked to address topics with open and curious minds, not minds that are preset or predisposed to merely accept views of others as their own without question.

Reading or otherwise acquiring information in and of itself does not require thinking and is more likely to simply result in acceptance of the ideas of others. In contrast, a true teacher will ask a student to question what is read, perhaps to hear other views of the readings presented during a class discussion with other students. Reading alone does not require the students to articulate their own views about what was read or push the students to stretch their mind to the deeper thinking that discussion with others often does. Rather, it allows the students to remain in their own world without examining and questioning the values and assumptions of that world.

Those who try to avoid questioning or who try to block the questioning and its resulting mental growth in others are actually quite insecure. They need a certain and unchanging world in which everyone agrees with their assumptions and beliefs. (I suspect such is the case of the radio voice I heard – afraid that college might force questioning of his own firmly established views.)

Such people exist on both sides of the political aisle and are always dangerous. They are the false prophets, the purveyors of propaganda. They are in many ways the evil opposite of true educators.

These false prophets tell people what they want to hear; they feed existing fears and provide false solutions. They demand their students accept what they are told without question, presenting their own view on topics as the one and only acceptable viewpoint. Their “teaching” provides comfort; it is easy to accept in its certainty.

True education is anything but comfortable. It demands that students embrace the discovery and investigation of new ideas, even when that information is painful. Its lessons can be disturbing as the students explore the depths and uncertainties of their own minds and their world. It demands that students read beyond superficialities and plunge to depths of understanding that in the end allow a deeper sense of a common humanity that joins us all.

Reading, acquiring information, is only a beginning. Questioning that reading and being questioned about one’s own ideas about the reading force one to learn and understand rather than simply acquire information. And interaction with others and their thoughts and understandings about the same information pushes one even further to understand and articulate their own understanding and knowledge about the topic. Ultimately, this interaction of ideas and ultimately of humanity itself is what a true education will entail.

With that education comes a confidence in who one truly is and about the world in which we all live. That confidence overcomes the fear of real learning that the propogandists purvey and the cowards accept.

Today in America we have a lot of cowards. On both sides. They have dug into their positions and both sides can make arguments supportive of their views. But what they cannot do is listen to, let alone understand the views of others. (I note here that understanding does not necessarily require acceptance or a change in one’s own position, but it does result in tolerance.) Too many are afraid to question their own beliefs and who they are and where they are really going – they are imprisoned by their own fears and insecurity, afraid to evolve, denying the humanity that is common to us all.

True education requires that one not fear human interaction, even with uncomfortable ideas of others. True education is far more than merely acquiring information. In true education the student takes the acquired information and is both externally pushed and internally motivated to transform that information into a deeper knowledge of the world, humanity, and one’s place in it; the true student, like all of humanity, is ever evolving and that evolution is reflected in the student’s interactions in the world and with others.

Yet, today, we have teachers who do not educate. They do not teach their students to think critically – to ask “why?”. Teachers should delight when a student questions, even and especially when a student questions their own teacher. But too many of today’s “educators” simply provide information that reflects their own world view and expect students to accept and adopt what they are told without question. Students are too often punished rather than praised for questioning what they are told. Too many “educators” are teaching students to become receivers of propaganda, primed to accept the words of false prophets.

The discord and dystopia that we see around us is not going to go away unless and until we once again become real students of our world and our humanity, until we encourage, indeed demand, that education be led by questioning, not simply acquiring. We must think, ask “why?”, interact with open minds until once again we are able to know ourselves and see our true and common humanity. This we must teach our children, and this we must model for them as adults.

The Truth

2022-09-02T15:20:00.000-07:00

President Biden clearly preached (or ranted) as a socialist in his Sept. 1 speech.

Some may have seen some other resemblances as well.

Would you rather that you own the government or that the government own you? That difference between American democracy and authoritarian/socialist forms of government was pointed out by someone who lived in the USSR and now lives in America.

While it may be a simplistic sounding distinction, it actually captures the essence of our American government as it has existed and the America that is being created by the Left and which was in large part captured in Biden’s dystopian prime time political rant on September first.

In our form of democracy, which to be clear is not a pure majority mob rule but rather a people’s representative democracy, we acknowledge that the people own certain freedoms and rights, including the freedom to believe as they wish and to speak those beliefs out loud. Our democracy also requires that we each have a tolerance for the beliefs of others. We keep order via the rule of law which is intended to be applied equally to all. We the people choose our government by voting for candidates of our choice whom we believe will best represent us and our will. While political parties have differing focuses, policies, and goals, each party has its right to put forward what it believes is best for America. We do not condemn those who hold different beliefs or who support political opponents.

In authoritarian governments little if any of the above is true. The government will tell you what to think and what to believe as well as for whom you can vote. It will prohibit the expression of alternate views. It will silence those who disagree with those in power. Any rule of law is not a system that is applied equally to all but rather becomes a way for those in power to retain their power by keeping opponents in check. Core rights do not belong to the people; rather, all rights belong to the government to dole or not dole out as it chooses, not equally but to, or not to, those whom it chooses.

American democracy does not have the certainty of socialism and it is not easy. There are no guarantees: each individual is free to make his or her own decisions and must live with the consequences of those decisions. Those decisions result not in equity (in everyone having and being the same), but in the ability for each to rise to his or her greatest potential or to ignore that potential as they choose. Each will have equal rights and opportunities, but how each uses those, along with the individual results, will differ and may or may not seem fair.

In contrast, when the government owns you there is a certainty that exists which cannot exist when you are free to make both large and small choices about your own life. If the government makes all your decisions for you then you simply have to live with the life laid out for you and be the person that the government, not you, design. In the early stages of socialism that life seems easier and not all that bad. Everyone will have the same thing – equity.

In the abstract, socialism seems nicer – until it isn’t. Until one realizes that it does not take into account basic human nature, that it suppresses individuality, that it creates an elite power class that feeds off the suffering of the people. “Equity” is not defined and people forget that it could mean they everyone has nothing equally. But we are not there yet, though, as last night’s speech unintendedly demonstrated, we are well on our way.

Which brings me to Biden’s frightening show last night.

A Speech of Lies

While allegedly defending democracy, Biden revealed his authoritarian and socialist desires. Basically, his message was that those who do not agree with his political views – mainly Trump Republicans but others as well – are a danger to our democracy. Quite the opposite is true. It is only in authoritarian governments where there is only one political view and those with differing views are considered dangerous. Biden would silence about half of the country for not agreeing with him. It would seem that he, and not those in disagreement, are the threat.

But wait, there is more. Let’s talk about Biden and his Party. They used the media in conjunction with the FBI to kill the Hunter Biden story prior to the 2020 election as well as delaying investigation into Hunter’s criminal acts and their ties to then candidate Biden. They used the media to silence opposing voices on not only political issues, but health and Covid truths as well. They used the DOJ and FBI to attack opponent Trump, President Trump, and possible future opponent Trump and his supporters. This includes the Russia hoax, the biased Jan. 6 committee, and now of course the Mar-a-Lago raid.

Biden and his Party are determined to silence Trump just as assuredly as Stalin sent his opponents to the Gulag. They are not concerned with their acts or their plans or their policies, but only in retaining their power and removing anyone or any voice that might stand in their way. They refuse to enforce valid laws against people who violently assert Left approved views (such as those that appeared at homes of Supreme Court Justices in attempts to intimidate them or BLM continuing summer riots) but place terrorist labels on parents who speak out at school board open meetings or those who advocate to end or limit abortion and killing of the unborn simply for convenience. And there is the general silencing of language and views that are not popular.

Biden, “the uniter” apparently thinks uniting is accomplished by silencing all who disagree. That is not democracy. That is authoritarianism.

I note that today Biden has backtracked somewhat on his claims that all Trump supporters are a danger – apparently his attempt to destroy his feared political opponent by name-calling his opponent’s supporters didn’t poll well. He has not however retracted his belief that those who stand up for American democracy are semi-fascists at best. Just another lie based on seeing in others what is true within himself.

Socialism’s Lies

Biden, like any socialism advocate, lies. (He actually has a history of lying, going back to plagiarism during law school and his many lies about himself and his accomplishments during his many campaigns for Senate and the White House.) His lies now tell us that what we see is the opposite of what is: while he and his party work to dismantle our democracy and our freedoms, he tells us that it is the Republicans who are the threat. While he fails to enforce the law equally and uses it to attack and silence his political opponents, he tells us that is what his opponent Trump does. He ignores his many disasters (Afghanistan and other international messes; our economy and inflation; the recession which he claims doesn’t exits; science and covid; education; the border crisis; etc.) or blames them on others, especially Trump and Trump supporters. He names a bill that economists overwhelmingly tell us will make inflation worse “The Inflation Reduction Act.”

Socialists must lie because socialism is a lie. The lies of socialism are all around us if we look. We already see that things are not equal. While the workers are asked to sacrifice, the power elite and their chosen reap benefits. Laws are not applied equally. And eventually the mediocre life that the socialists sign on to will become far less than mediocre as money and resources to provide the promised life dry up. Picture bread lines (actually we have already seen a preview of such shortages in our grocery stores, baby formula, manufacturing and building parts). For a realistic view of where socialism leads, think not only of Soviet Russia, but of Venezuela today: “Venezuela is in the midst of an unprecedented social and humanitarian collapse” which includes “food insecurity, the second largest migration crisis in the world, and regional instability.” (United States Institute of Peace, Feb. 2022)

George Orwell, who understood socialism well, gave us an example of Bidenesque lies and government in his books Animal Farm and 1984. Saul Alinsky gave us the rules for radicals intent on creating a socialist state and the author Tom Collins has given us a take on these. Biden and the Left are doing a pretty good job. It is they who are the threat to our democracy.

Biden’s speech on Sept. 1 was dystopian, divisive, and dangerous. Biden’s lies about others are the truth about himself, his party and their dreams. And unless and until Americans realize that they are being lied to by those in power and brainwashed by the complicit media, we need to understand and accept that we will lose our freedoms, that the government will own us, and we will give up any democratic ideals we may have had.

Welcome to Authoritarian Socialism

2022-08-08T20:49:00.000-07:00

They tried to make a Constitutional crisis out of the fake Russian collusion story that they themselves made up. They continue to distort and carefully select facts in an attempt to turn the January 6^th demonstration in which some entered beyond open spaces in the Capital into a Constitutional crisis. They claim that governors who assert their rights to protect their people from unprecedented & overwhelming illegal migration across our borders are creating a Constitutional crisis. Indeed, they claim that if Donald Trump were to run again for President (something that they see as a real threat to their power) it would be a Constitutional crisis.

Yet they are the ones creating the real Constitutional crisis.

“They” are the Left, the power-hungry Democrats, the Biden Administration. It is they who have forgotten that their elected power is not unlimited and that it ultimately belongs to the people, not them. And the more they get away with, the more boldly authoritarian they become.

Today the Left, the Biden Administration’s DOJ, did something unprecedented in our democracy’s politics and in the law in general. They, without announcement or reasonable cause, entered and searched the home of a former president. But this is not the first time the DOJ has used its power to threaten and terrorize political opponents of the Left without taking similar, indeed without taking any, action against verified wrongdoing of their supporters.

These are the actions of an authoritarian regime.

As premier Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz stated, the acts of the Democrats are “very scary. They’re very frightening to any civil libertarian. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican; whether you come from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing.” (See his comments on the Trump raid HERE)

But it’s not just the weaponization of the DOJ and other law enforcement by Biden and the Left that creates a Constitutional crisis. It is also this Administration and the Left’s power grab as they build government ever bigger while making the general populace not only ever poorer but also more dependent on that government and hence upon the continuing power of the Left. They are becoming an authoritarian regime as they work to destroy our democracy and build a socialist country that, in line with socialism historically, ultimately creates not hope but despair for its people (except of course the power elite).

We can all see it happening in front of us with our own eyes. Too many of us choose not to look. The rest of us see what is happening and seem helpless to stop it. So, welcome to our new America – built back better as an authoritarian socialist state in which the people have no voice, no freedom, and no resources other than what the government chooses to allow them.

Thinking about Rules

2022-07-17T13:59:00.001-07:00

ONE: Really, they just don’t understand how our democracy works.

Intensified since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrats assert their mantra that “Republicans may say they want small government, but the evidence shows they want the government to control every aspect of our lives, including our personal health decisions.”

No, they just don’t get it. Roe was an example of a government body usurping the rights of the people to make such decisions. It is the Democrats who seem to worship such usurpation.

What these Democrats don’t seem to understand is that when we now see state legislative bodies made up of legislators elected by the people drafting and passing statutes regarding abortion (or anything else for that matter), it is not the government imposing control on the people. It is the people, through their own elected representatives, exercising their voices and controlling their own lives.

It seems that too many have forgotten that when government acts, when it passes a statute that regulates some aspect of our lives by permitting, mandating, or forbidding some action, it is the voice of the people speaking through their elected representatives. It seems that the Democrats simply don’t understand that our government is a representative democracy in which the people are indeed their own governors by way of their elected representatives.

The Democrats are confusing a people’s government such as ours with an authoritative form of government in which the governing body indeed imposes its own will upon the people. And, when the Democrats demand that courts or the Executive branch create rules, mandates, requirements, and prohibitions what they are really demanding is an authoritarian regime that truly ignores the will of the people.

TWO: Civilized society requires rules from a respected authority.

We see today’s ruling class elite creating rules without regard to the voice of the people. We see a lot of behavior in the realm of “rules for thee but not for me” as those in power (along with those whom they favor) assert their right to seemingly do as they please.

This got me thinking about rules, authority, and, why do we all seem to find rules that we feel are acceptable to ignore. Personally, I am strict in my belief that one must follow the rule of law – no exceptions, no emotional or “narrative” excuses. The law must apply equally to everyone.

I feel much the same about academic rules, both from the perspective of a student and a teacher – no exceptions. The requirements for an A should be the same for all as should the requirements to achieve various educational milestones. No excuse. No late papers. Simply do the work and let the work be judged by objective criteria.

But when it comes to rules that are such things as directions for building something, whether it be a piece of furniture, or a sewing pattern, or a recipe, I feel no such need to follow those rules precisely. Indeed, I take pleasure in deviating somewhat to make it easier or to personalize the project.

I have a friend that is a Biblical scholar who can quote probably every rule in the Bible and believes all should be followed precisely. A Rabbi friend can similarly recite the 613 mitzvot referred to in the Torah (248 Positive Commandments (do's) and 365 Negative Commandments (do not's)). These address both religious and worldly behaviors.

Less religious people, even though familiar with the Bible, probably are less inclined to be as strict with themselves about following such Biblical mandates than are the deeply and fully committed.

Which rules one follows in large part likely depends on whom one sees as a legitimate authority figure to whom one grants respect and deference and a certain amount of control. And the reverence one grants to God or to a recipe in one’s personal private life probably makes little difference to other people.

But the laws that govern the society as a whole must be followed or there will simply be chaos, which is what we are seeing today.

For the members of society to follow a set of rules, the individuals making up that society must respect the rule maker. In American democracy, the rule-maker is ultimately the people. It is they, through their representatives, who develop the statutes and regulations that guide us and keep our civilization civil.

There is a large body within our population that no longer respects the people as the rule maker. There are those in power who think they know better. There are those both in power and in the population as a whole who do not understand the basic civics of our country and as part of that lack of understanding do not understand who it is that is making the rules. They blame government for rules they don’t like, not understanding that in the end government is not some abstract body but, in America, it is the people. But not understanding that, they hold no respect for that abstract rule making body.

Psychology will tell you that we all have a self-critical conscience, often referred to as the super-ego, that reflects social standards learned from parents and teachers. It is that self-regulating conscience, instilled in us as children, that helps us to follow rules rather than break them. But if that conscience, that respect for the rules as well as their creator, is not instilled in us as children, then one will not feel the need to follow the rules that govern our societal behavior.

We are not teaching respect for our rules because too many do not understand what they are or by whom they are created. Without an accurate understanding of our American democracy, respect for that democracy and the rules it creates is not possible.

Today, much of the lack of respect stems from ignorance, but there are also those in power whose disrespect of, along with disinformation about, our government and its rules is fully intentional. Either way, we cannot expect respect for our country, our society, and indeed our civilization until this is corrected. To paraphrase Aretha Franklin: R-E-S-P-E-C-T Find out what it means to we, or you might walk in and find America gone.

Think about what the rule of law means to you.

And Therein Lies the Problem

2022-07-09T12:27:00.002-07:00

Today I read a news piece in which women were interviewed for their feelings about the National Education Association’s proposal to replace the word “mother” with “birthing parent” so as to be “more inclusive” of trans-males. One woman responded: "I’m fine with that. Anything to make people feel comfortable."(emphasis added.)

And therein lies the underlying problem of many of our current societal woes. Don’t worry if we destroy our entire society, following the whims of a few and ignoring truth and science, just so long as everyone feels comfortable.

The problem is that one person’s comfort can easily become another person’s pain. When the selfish need to feel good is more important than concern for truth or one’s fellow human, then life becomes meaningless and civilization dies.

How far is the woman above, or anyone who worships the god of feel-good, willing to take the pursuit of pleasure? We already know that many are willing to put their own pursuit of what they believe is happiness above the right to life of the unborn.

We see those who are fulfilled by loudly venting their hatred in public places, chasing those with whom they disagree from places such as restaurants. Many such incidents occurred against individuals who were in the Trump administration, and now there is a concerted effort to create such incidents against Supreme Court Justices, including a Leftist organization paying for tips when a Justice is spotted in public, all with the tacit support of the Biden White House.

Such behavior may make the screamers “feel comfortable” but what about the diners? When Justice Kavanaugh was forced to leave a restaurant this week, the restaurant owner noted, “Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant. Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.”

Yet those doing the harassing were doing something that simply felt good to them – made them “feel comfortable.” What about the individual who is charged with attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh – is that Ok if the attempt makes the individual feel good?

“Void of decency” is a good way to describe where this worship of self-comfort has and continues to lead us. Various groups now openly engage in behaviors that only recently were considered depraved. Children, who scientifically do not become sexual beings until puberty, are being taught about things like sexual pleasure in kindergarten while things like pedophilia and child pornography are becoming more acceptable as “an unchangeable sexual orientation.” This may make those who engage in such practices “feel comfortable” but what about the children who are the victims of their depraved pursuit of comfort?

And then there is the current practice of encouraging expressions of “gender dysphoria” in children too young to suffer it as a basis for permanently interfering with a child’s development by the use of hormone and other “therapies”. This may make some adults “feel comfortable” but there are too many statements by adults who were treated this way as children that show us this did not and does not make those children comfortable.

Where does one who worships the concept that everyone must “feel comfortable” draw the line when that comfort causes pain to others? It is a slippery slope. For if one’s own comfort is prime, and if that comfort causes discomfort to another, then to fulfill the primary goal one must disregard the life that is in the way of that goal. If you can murder a preborn child because you think doing so makes you more comfortable, why not murder the two-year-old for the same reason or the senile parent who no longer recognizes you? Why not dispose of anyone who stands in the way of your being “more comfortable”?

Wild animals will kill for their own comfort. When “feeling comfortable” becomes the primary goal, we devolve fully into our instinctive animal nature. We lose respect for life.

Humans are far more than the innate animal instincts that are a part of us all. We are capable of far deeper fulfillment and have far more potential than the superficial happiness that our culture surrounds us with and encourages us to seek. It is a mistake to make the Self a god and its gratification one’s guiding principle. Common decency demands more, our souls demand more, and civilization itself requires more.

Religion has always taught us this. Perhaps we should look to those gods, rather than the god of self-comfort.

Our Core is in the Constitution

2022-07-07T18:40:00.000-07:00

When people, on either side of the political aisle, begin demanding that everyone agree to a particular value or virtue system, or claim that rules of law are really establishing religion, I throw up my hands in despair that so few really understand what our democracy is or how it works.

Contrary to what many would have you believe, America is a secular country. Although built on Judeo-Christian values, a cornerstone of our democracy is that this country would not establish or mandate religious beliefs and would allow its citizens to follow whatever faith they chose, including no faith at all.

Our Constitution envisions our government of/for/by the people as being based on common values that may or may not belong to a religion; the key is that the rules that the people through their representatives enact are secular and apply to all regardless of individual beliefs. It is the people who create the rights and the rules.

Thus, when SCOTUS (a panel of 9 unelected individuals) usurped the people’s power and declared a right that previously had not existed, they were wrong. It was the people’s right to grant or not grant an abortion right and to determine any limitations on such right. Regardless of the Justices’ personal beliefs (many are indeed Catholic), in Dobbs they correctly put the people in their rightful Constitutional position to determine what, if any, right to abortion should exist.

Our Constitution also requires the people’s understanding that a pluralism of beliefs means that no one will get all that they would like and that everyone must be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Religious virtues often underly a secular government

A free society’s laws and government reflect the beliefs, values, and mores of that particular society. As a society evolves, as its values modify or change, so will its governing rules. Those rules will, however, continue to reflect the voice of all of the people.

It is in authoritarian governments that there is less likely a distinction between a mandated belief structure and mandates for societal behaviors. That is because in such societies the people are not free to think and believe as they wish; rather, the governing body will mandate thought, belief, and behavior. (As an aside, it is really impossible to force someone to hold a particular belief; a government can mandate behavior that would reflect that belief, but there is no guarantee that a person who follows those mandates actually holds the desired belief.)

Most religions, regardless of their specific beliefs, emphasize something greater than oneself. Religions, through their core documents (Bible, Koran, etc.), establish rules and sets of values. The reasons for an individual to subscribe to the virtues of their religion include promised rewards for such virtuous behavior that are not immediate and perhaps not even during this life.

Concepts such as “do onto others as you would have them do onto you” and “treat your neighbor as yourself” appear in some form in most religions. These concepts encourage one to think beyond oneself. Such thinking is essential for a society to survive.

It is these sorts of religious values that become reflected in the government and the society that any group of people create, whether it be a family, a recreational club, or a country. Unless a society is established as a theocracy that will use the religious rules for the governing rules of the community and require all to be of the same faith, there will essentially be two sets of rules: the religious rules that will guide the faithful, and the secular rules, generally reflecting those religious virtues, that will guide the secular society.

America’s secular government has Judeo-Christian underpinnings

This country was founded based on Judeo-Christian rules because that was the foundation of the culture of its people. Those values are key underpinnings in the Constitution and the other secular rules of our society. But this country is not a theocracy. It is secular.

Judeo-Christian beliefs, like most religions, place emphasis on something greater than oneself. As long as most of the American people held similar values the rules of our society worked. Some held those values because of their religious faith, some simply held those values as their guidelines for living. But if one does not believe, for whatever reason, in those common values, then rules based on the values will become meaningless.

We really have two guiding sets of rules that are in many ways intertwined, but in the end are separate because of the brilliance of our Founders. The problem is that the secular rules are based upon the culture and society of those who create them. One needs to understand these values and generally subscribe to them to understand our secular system and to subscribe to it. And therein lies the problem.

Houston, we have a problem

Today we are facing a situation in which the underlying beliefs and values of the American people are not in accord, are not even similar, and while the core beliefs of some remain reflected in our governmental structure and laws, for others that structure and those laws are completely foreign to or at odds with their belief and value systems.

Today, fewer and fewer people hold faith in the Judeo-Christian God, or in any Greater Being for that matter. Therefore, they are also far less likely to subscribe to the rules and mores of a secular society that is based on those beliefs.

Today much of our culture is focused not on something greater but instead revolves around the Self and its need for immediate gratification. How we got to that point requires volumes to understand with lots of blame to go around, but we are indeed there. As such, our secular rules and institutions that are based on a bigger picture and concern for the greater good are in large part meaningless to many.

Many of the Left and the Woke, in satisfying their own immediate desires, ignore rules that interfere with those desires. They see the values underlying those rules as antiquated and not relevant to themselves. And, because they think everyone should accept what they do and the values and beliefs underlying their actions, they impose their needs on everyone else, demanding that anyone with conflicting beliefs give them up or be silenced. Many of the conservative and religious Right also demand that everyone accept and believe as they do.

The lack of tolerance in our nation today is astounding and potentially fatal. People on all sides misunderstand their place in society as well as the core rules of our democracy and perhaps most importantly the tolerance that it demands.

This is not really a political problem, though it plays out in our politics. This is really a problem of the soul. But politicians and those interested in their own power use this value vacuum to their own advantage. And in so doing they display their ignorance of and disdain for our democracy.

Do we have a core shared value?

Before we can fix our problems we must understand that any culture, any society, must be based upon shared beliefs. Right now we have two competing belief systems that are not compatible. Unless we (re)discover a core principle that we all share, we are probably done as the great nation we once were.

Can we exist with very different underlying life concepts and values? The Constitution would direct us to say yes. It allows for diverse views, for the beliefs of all to be heard and prohibits the federal government from suppressing those diverse beliefs and views. But to do this requires a tolerance, a willingness to accept that others may not be like us, may not think like us, and never will. While each of us may want to live our life one way, we must accept that some may disapprove of that and choose to live their lives in other ways.

We must be able to tolerate and accept the true principle of diversity in a pluralistic society. We must accept, indeed applaud, that not everyone will agree, that we will not always win our arguments, and that we cannot force our values upon others.

But what about when those values are in direct conflict? Again, our Constitution guides us. It gives to the people, through their representatives, the decisions of what laws we need to govern all of us in our interactions and behaviors; we decide what rules we need to keep the peace while being tolerant of those who would behave and believe differently than us. We decide how we can maintain order without mandating beliefs. We have done that for nearly 250 years and we should not give up without trying to continue.

But people need to understand that even if their personal belief is that Self is God, they must co-exist with others and that in an orderly and peaceful society they will not always be able to have instant (and sometimes never will have) gratification of all their needs and desires.

Back to the Constitution

If we consider the values of our Constitution, we will find that it can indeed sustain us and save America in the process. But we need to understand what it is and what it is not.

The Constitution grants us our freedom to be ourselves, the individuals whom we are meant to be, but only if we agree to have tolerance (not necessarily acceptance) for the different, contradictory, and opposing views of others. Just as the federal government cannot create our rights and freedoms nor take them away, we must agree that we will not impose our views on others – explain them, yes; advocate for them, yes, but impose them as mandatory, no.

We must agree not to relinquish our power to politicians, or others, who would use it to control us. We must remember that our power lies in the voice of all the people, not in a political party, the press, or other powerful entities and not in only one viewpoint. We must accept our power and the responsibilities that come with it.

Once we agree that we are different people with different beliefs, values, and backgrounds we can begin to work on common goals that benefit all of us. But this requires an amount of selflessness that is not natural for many of us today. We must agree that we will have concern for the greater good.

If our shared belief is in our Constitution and our people, then we will be fine. But if we choose the selfish path that we are on, even our Constitution cannot save us, for selfishness cares nothing for anyone but one’s self.

The Founders gave us a great gift, let us not destroy it but instead continue to use it to make our “more perfect union” more perfect every day.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

2022-06-30T14:33:00.002-07:00

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE. Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs. The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power. It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air. It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive. Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone. The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion. (Carson v. Makin)
The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation. As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard. (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires: it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case? No. But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people. The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us. We the people hold the power. We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process. But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove.

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work. While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government. That begins when we cast our vote. It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice. It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things. I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works.

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it. How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school. The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget. These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities. It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system. Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it. And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold.