Tuesday, April 7, 2020

National Borders:why?

Do you have your own "space?"  Maybe, if you're homeless, it is a tent, a bench, a grate or a grocery cart...but do you consider it "yours."  Do you have a home?  Do you rent a house or an apartment?  Maybe you rent a "room."  These all have one thing in common: most consider the area involved as THEIRS.

If someone comes into that area, that room, that apartment, or that house without your permission or an invitation, you feel disrespected, annoyed and perhaps even at risk.  In the case of the homeless, they react to an trespass of what they consider to be the borders of their space as if they have been invaded.  Those of us who rent a room, an apartment or a house consider the space inside those walls as OURS.  We have locks on the doors to secure OUR space.

Those who own houses consider even the property around their homes as theirs and often put up fencing around the yard or property that they own and on which their house sits, so they have the fencing AND locks on the doors to their homes; these all establish the borders of what is THEIRS and the law provides that they can protect that property, that house, apartment or room from the unauthorized, uninvited presence of others.

Groups of people create Towns, Cities  Counties and states that also have borders to publicly declare and define the public areas for which the group is responsible, and for which the group will pay maintenance and protection.  And for centuries, groups of people have formed countries, establishing borders and also establishing the requirements necessary for people living elsewhere to meet to a) visit, b) work, and./or c) become a member ( a citizen) of that country.  Borders around a country are clearly an extension of the same universal human practice of defining, controlling, maintaining, enforcing laws and protecting property against all not members of the defining group.

In recent years we have heard so many comments, and read opinion pieces in the media, regarding the existence of borders.  State borders, County borders, the borders of countries are all commented on, and the conversation or discussion always starts with those who think that they are an anachronism and even where they exist, they should not be "guarded" or "controlled."  The United Nations "Agenda 21" program targets changing the world-wide perception of borders of countries as "dividing" to one of simple "address" concerns with the emphasis being on World Wide Unified governing.

Is this natural?  Is it logical?  Does it sound..."right"?  The  policy of enforcing borders of a country creates strong emotions...both for and against.

Those having these disparate viewpoints rarely communicate (they both talk, but rarely does either "listen"). It seems appropriate to look at and evaluate both viewpoints, their goals, and the effect on every man, women, and/or child that lives with what is now and what may be to come.

The most compelling observations on this subject involve observing and evaluating human behavior at all ages; consider the following:

  • As soon as children begin to socialize, they experiment with sharing and establishing the idea of and promotion of "mine!"  That is an ongoing concept every child honors naturally.  They need parents or other adults to teach and then enforce the concept of sharing.
  • As children reach the age of schooling, they do learn to share and cooperate for a purpose.  The sharing or giving is arguably never self-less; it is to gain something (this can be money, return gifts at a later time or even an emotional reward of feeling good about giving someone something.  But always there is a purpose that is seen as desirable by the one "giving" something with the parallel judgement that nothing bad can result from the giving.
  • As we grow, the natural establishment of borders and boundaries continues.  Notice how quickly children(s)' rooms become theirs; there is a cry of "can't you knock" from kids as their parents open the door to their bedrooms,  and the whining only increases if a parent goes into that room without permission or searches through the possessions in that room.  Again...borders.
  • Leaving the family home and establishing other quarters exhibit the desire to establish and defend borders even more intensely.  NOW there are locks, and violation of the borders results in societal enforcement (the Police and Courts get involved and they enforce the borders by fining or imprisoning the offender(s).
  • Purchasing property further extends creating borders.  And those borders are enforced by society by laws against trespassing, burglary and robbery, even as many home and property owners erect fences to delineate and prevent trespassing and other prohibited forms of invasion.
  • Even in business the human race establishes borders: desk space, cubical space and formal offices with doors and locks.  Violating the established boundaries can result in losing one's job.
Group behavior mimics the desire for boundaries.  Villages, Towns, Cities, Counties, states and countries all have boundaries and borders.  People living within the various boundaries share the common costs of the given area: police for protection, road creation and maintenance that benefits all, utility maintenance and rate control oversight, building codes, school costs and other needs and agreed upon desires; by renting or owning property you agree to the rules of these "boundaries."  And it benefits all who qualify.

The United States of America is just such a group.  We fought to remove the "boundaries" or borders of England in order to create out own "group" with our own set of rules for living together.  In our case this was the Constitution and the ideals presented so succinctly in the Declaration of Independence.  Today's United States of America was created by wars, by purchase and by treaties.  Once acquired, we established "boundaries" and "borders" that reflected "ours" and an implicit warning that "outsiders" would only be allowed if they abided by our rules and requirements for entering, visiting and immigrating to our country.  Our government was and remains in charge of defining and enforcing those rules, which have changed over the years.

Respect for law and a desire to abide by laws is only natural to about 30% of us; and lack of respect or desire to abide by any laws rules another 20%.  The remaining 50% will govern their lives by whatever the laws and rules governing behavior declare to be acceptable.  But it is only the laws that are written, but the enforcement of them that makes them real and governing.  It is arguably the failure to enforce laws that has reduced the general respect for all laws in today's America that has resulted in so many crimes and so much disrespectful behavior.  To many in positions of authority had refused to enforce laws because they believe them to be wrong;  they have never worked to get our legislature(s) to change the laws or write new ones with which the disagree.  Yet the voters have continued to return to office the people who have abdicated their oath's of office to enforce our laws and protect the citizens.

Would those who argue for no border enforcement allow strangers onto their property and/or into their homes?  Would those same people give up their security services, fences and locks to allow anyone at all to come onto their property, into their homes, take possession of rooms in their houses as living and entertainment quarters without objection?

Would you?

What the "no borders" supporters want is identical to the goal of the United Nations "Agenda 21."  The goal is a world government where a country's borders are equal to State, or county, or Town boundaries: for maintenance and policing only with no legal prohibitions of free movement from one to the other of any sort.

The Laws of the United States as of this moment require formal permission to enter our country if you are not a citizen of the United States.  And if not a citizen, you have no right to vote in our national elections upon punishment of law.  If you want to change that, it is our Federal Government that must vote changes in border enforcement and immigration law.  In the meantime (until and unless the law is changed) our Congress and President must:

  1. Secure our borders
  2. prevent as well as remove any and all persons who cross our borders illegally.
Can any government or society survive without borders?
My opinion (and I could be wrong) is...yes, but not for long. All of us want freedom for ourselves and, as long as it doesn't cause us harm or discomfort, for others.  But if the freedoms granted (or appear to be granted to) others becomes a violation of our own freedom, that attitude not only vanishes, but reverses; if there is going to be some loss of freedoms, then let it be by "others," not us.  Over time, the resentment builds to the point where the governmental entity that eliminated the concept of "borders" loses general public support and respect.  Revolution or "Coups Detat" cannot be far behind and will be led by those advocating the re-imposition of enforceable borders and immigration rules that protect the present "citizens" of the area withing those borders, provided we preserve our Second Amendment Rights to Own Firearms.

What do you think?  And why?

Thursday, March 26, 2020

Is America over-reacting to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its COVID-19 disease?

America is, as of this date, virtually shut-down.  Citizens are forbidden to assemble, to interact except electronically, and in many states more than 5 meeting together, whether on purpose or by accident, may be fined or imprisoned.  A friend commented,j "it took 36 years more than anticipated, but '1984' has finally arrived."  But the government tells us this is due to a medical emergency, is necessary, and temporary.

Such reassurances bring to mind the fact that EVERY tax ever levied in America came with the assurance that it was TEMPORARY. Yet virtually all of them continue to this day.  But perhaps that will not apply to this current assumption and presumption of government(s) to control us all.

But the medical concerns are demonstrably real; as of March 26th, 2020, we have over one thousand (1,000) dead (a mortality rate of just under 2%); there is no vaccine, and necessary medical supplies are less than adequate.  We hear this and accept that "stuff" happens and just obey the directions given to us. And the government is about to finalize spending more that Two Trillion Eight Hundred Billion ($2,800,000,000,000) Dollars response to the challenge.

But as time goes by, history keeps knocking on my mental door asking for a bit more analysis.  What history, do you ask? Consider:
     1.  In 2002-2003 There was a SARS outbreak worldwide.  My research reveals that in 2002, America's total Federal medical expenditure(s) were Four Hundred Twenty-Two Million ($422,000,000) Dollars, and that the SARS mortality rate was Ten (10%) percent,.  There were medical advisories, but no business or social shutdowns mandated by our government at any level.
     2.  In 2009, we had the H1N1 swine flue to deal with. World wide mortality was between One Hundred Fifty-seven (157,000) thousand and Five Hundred Seventy-five (575,000) thousand people.  We spent Two Billion ($2,000,000,000) Dollars to fight this.  Mortality rates differ by age, but one estimate put forth a rate of Three point four (3.4%) percent.  Again, there were medical advisories, but no business or social shutdowns mandated by our government at the Federal or State levels.
     3.  In 2012, there was the MERS to deal with.  World wide, the mortyality rate approached Thirty-five (35%) percent.  America devoted Four Hundred Twenty-two ($422,000,000) Million Dollars to meeting its challenges, although the impact on the United states was minimal.  Neither the Federal or State(s) mandated any shutdown of business activity or social interactions.
    4.  Between the Fall of 2019 and now (Spring of 2020), influenza has resulted in the deaths of over Ten Thousand (10,000) people.  There was no public or governmental outcry except for medical advisories promoting getting "flu shots."  Flue shots have variable rates of protection for those receiving them, as the death rate reveals.  But, neither Federal or State governments mandated shutdowns of business or social ineraction.

A broad historical review of this country's (and the world's) reaction to serious health threats reveals that today's SARS-CoV-2 virus and the resulting COVID-19 illness is remarkable different from similar (arguably) threats in the past.  And that invites the question: Why?

I am not a conspiracy theorist or promoter.  I can't answer the question.  But I believe we should ask those at the highest State and Federal levels to explain.  Today's impact word wide is serious and severe.  Although there are political implications and politics has (in my mind, inappropriately) influenced what should and is being done, politics doesn't seem to be the primary factor in today's reactions.

One possibility is that the world of 2020 is seen and felt by mankind to be a more fearful one than of even eight years ago...but I have no proof ot that.  What is clear, though, is that in the America of 2020 people have accepted fear as the primary controlling factor in their public and private lives.  My father, and I today,would have reacted with a "snort" to any suggestion that because of the chance of catching a cold, getting the flu, or any other illness he should stay home and not conduct his business...that was NOT going to happen. I am in my seventy-seventh year, and I feel perfectly comfortable with making my own choice(s) as to where I should go, who I will see, what business or social activities I will have...all while doing all the logical self-protecting steps available (washing hands, avoiding people with colds, etc.) any semi-intelligent person should take without my government (at any level) mandating my behavior and threatening prosecution by law for disobedience.  That is NOT right...unless my friend was right: 1984 has come, just thirty-six (36) years later than the author predicted.

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Politicians retire Rich; should that be?

A member of the House of Representatives, and a United States Senator each receives a salary of One Hundred Seventy-four Thousand ($174,000) Dollars a year.  Each gets allowances for staffing their offices, Office space and travel allowances.  And, of course, each gets status as well as the power to influence the actions of our Federal Government, including impacting our taxes as well as our individual freedoms.  Their performance is important to every citizen.

Some members of both houses have retired in the past couple of years,and more will retire at the end of this year.  A review of how long they served in public orffice, and their net worth on retirement seemed in order.

Senator "A" 18 years service,                net worth:   $2,794,024
Senator "B"  23 years service,               net worth:   $1,695,514
Senator "C" 12 years service,                net worth:   $2,668,017
Representative "1"  22 years service,    net worth:   $2,781,015
Representative "2"  30 years service,    net worth:  $24,290,511
Representative "3"    8 years service,    net worth:    $5,727,032
Representative "4"  35 years service,    net worth:    $1,348,011
Representative "5"  25 years service,    net worth:    $2,464,049

Whether these accumulations of wealth are legal or not is not my point.  Does anyone believe that these increases in net worth can happen of the Congressmen and women involved were spending their time looking after ever constituent equally?

Does anyone wonder why over the years none of these "accumulations" have come under Media scrutiny?

Is there any question about whether or not any of the accumulations (and expenditures) have not seen detailed audits and investigation by ANY legal entity or Inspector General(s)?

I cannot be the first to wonder about the ethics and legality of this sort of activity on the part of those who we euphemistically call "Public Servants.

Any ideas?

Thursday, March 5, 2020

is the Electoral College essential to preserve our Republic?

Many of today's students and young adults seem to either have never been taught American history or American Government, or have totally forgotten it.  And I won't spend time here pointing out the woeful performance of all when it comes to answering simple questions about today's elected, and/or appointed office holders and members of the Supreme Court.

What is totally puzzling is the apparent lack of understanding about the purpose of the Electoral College, the way it works, and the rights it guards.

Who wants to do away with the Electoral College? 

Predominantly, it is Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, and those they have successfully indoctrinated. 


Because if only the highly populated states need to be courted for votes, those who live in rural areas will no longer count...will no longer be of value to office seekers and their interests will be ignored in favor of satisfying "the mob."

What is their objection to the Electoral College?  It essentially takes away any value from the size of a numerical victory.  Once you win your state, the Electoral College awards you that state's Electoral College votes.  Whether a candidate wins a state by one (1) vote or ten million (10,000,000) votes is immaterial...he or she merely gets that State's Electoral College votes.  The extra 9,999,999 don't matter. 

Why is this of value to the Republic and its citizens as a whole?  It requires a successful candidate to campaign and attempt to prove his or her value to EVERY STATE's voters; It protects the value of ALL States, not just States that have the largest populations.  For a candidate to be elected, his or her value to Wyoming, Idaho, and Rhode Island is just as important as the value to New York, California, Texas, and Florida (among others).

If the Electoral College did NOT exist, those citizens of the United States who lived in the less populated states would not only NEVER see or hear from a Presidential Candidate, their ideas and needs would NEVER be considered by any elected official.

That is what motivated the framers of our Constitution. The less populated colonies demanded protection from being "steamrollered" by the more populated "States" if they were going to be a respected part of the United States of America.

Our President should HAVE TO prove to ALL the voters that he has their interests at heart, not just the people in the most populous States.  Right now, middle America counts too.  The political party that is most populous on the coasts doesn't want that to be so.

The Electoral College puts a damper on "mob rule."  Shear numbers don't, and shouldn't, over-ride the agreement that make the United States of America possible in the first place.  If the Electoral College hadn't been created, neither would our Republic.  And if the Electoral College were to be eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment, this current Republic would also cease to exist as a bastion of individual rights.

Saturday, February 15, 2020

Is ANY successful Prosecution of Domestic Spying on Trump possible in Washington, D.C.?

The recent DOJ (Department of Justice) announcement that it had closed without prosecution the investigation into ex-DOJ employee A. McCabe triggered (you'll excuse the term) public scrutiny and thoughts on when, if ever, there would be prosecutions stemming from the apparent (& in some cases, admitted) over-reach of our intelligence agencies in spying on citizens and on those in the Trump election campaign.  Such spying is explicitly illegal unless a FISA warrant is first obtained.

McCabe has admitted in involvement in leaking confidential material to the "Press."  Such actions are a violation of law.

Years earlier Sec.State Clinton kept a private unsecured email server which was used on multiple occasions for keeping and transmitting classified material & documents.  She claimed not to know the material was classified, and also claimed she had no intent to break the law.  The applicable law does not require either intent or knowledge of the classified nature of material held or transmitted.

In both of these cases there was admitted and demonstrable violation of law with significant penalties attaching.

In both of these cases (and there are many others that could have been added if numbers were the goal) no prosecution was brought.

Those not favoring the actions of Ms. Clinton & Mr. McCabe have suggested both collusion (a favored word today in America), and partisan abandonment of law enforcement obligations and oaths on the part of the DOJ as the reason(s) behind the failure to prosecute and punish admitted law-breaking.

Such bad-faith reticence is certainly a possible if not probable factor;  to hold anyone accountable, a prosecutor must bring charges, either on his(her) department's own initiative or on and indictment brought by a Grand Jury.  The recent ascendancy to the position of Attorney General of the United States by Mr. Barr was seen by many as the needed antidote to the dedicated practice of not bringing charges for political spying.  Yet...the recent decision to not prosecute Mr. McCabe after a two year investigation seems to pour cold water on expectations of renewed law enforcement.

Whispers currently heard in Washington suggest that a "fail-safe" secondary level of protection of the Deep State and its members exists that has remained little considered, investigated and/or received the publicity it deserves.

FACT: to convict, there must be a conviction by PEOPLE!  They sit on the Grand Jury if the case is prosecuted on an indictment, and in any trial, on the jury impaneled for that specific purpose.  The people eligible for a Grand Jury are residents of the place where the Prosecutor is investigating possible crimes.  In a Jury trial, the members of the Jury are residents of the town or county where the trial is being held.  In cases where consideration is of law breading by employees of the Federal Government at the highest levels, that place is Washington, D.C., and its immediate surrounding environs (eastern Virginia, Maryland, etc).

The single most ubiquitous employer in this area is the Federal Government.  Is it reasonable...or even possible...to conceive of the ability to impanel a Grand Jury and/or Jury where the members did NOT have (in descending order) a relative, spouse, close friend, neighbor or employer that was employed in some direct or indirect way by the Federal Government?  And, despite protestations, does anyone seriously believe that they will chance loss of regard, friendships and club memberships by not protecting the common employer and "friend," the Federal Government by voting to convict any Federal employee or associate of simply protecting themselves and all beltway residents from unwarranted attacks by "outsiders?"

Contrary to the Media claims of attacks FROM President Trump, I'd suggest that should President Trump while in attendance is a meeting on a high floor of any building in Washington, D. C., with FBI, CIA, and members of Congress and suddenly fall to his death, the unanimous testimony would be that Mr. Trump stabbed himself 15 times in his back with a carving knife, then broke a window and threw himself to his death and a clear case of suicide.  And the matter would be closed without prosecution of any sort.

And the matter would likely be reported in the papers on the bottom of page 22, and receive a one line mention on the evening news, and not at all in the Congressional Record.

It is NOT possible to successfully prosecute any member of the Deep State for any law-breaking that the Deep State sees as simply protecting itself from "out of towners" that want to both reveal and stop the self-serving practices of centuries in Washington.

The only way to change that is to change the venue.  Move the Grand Jury process to a place like West Virginia...or, better yet, Texas.  And hold the jury trial there also.

Of course to do that, a Judge would have to approve the reason for, as well as the choice of, such an action.  And that brings up still another un-investigated element standing in the way of enabling objective law-enforcement:  the Federal Judiciary.

But that is a subject for another day.

Sunday, February 2, 2020

What makes President Trump the focus of such hatred?

President Trump is hated by those who disagree with him.  It is a visceral hatred, and extends to those who support him.  In the last seventy (70) years no other President has been the target of such violent hatred, vocal disrespect, and harassment.  The harassment has been public ( directed at those who work in his administration), private ( mob confrontation at the homes of those who support and work for him), and in Congress (through the contrived and partisan investigation(s) and impeachment actions).  What makes President Trump a target of such intense, virulent, physical attacks?

Is it his performance in office?  Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely.  And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama.  So his performance cannot be the added element.

Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background.  That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection.  We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.

How about getting along with people?  Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause?  Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day).  But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.

Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us?  Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump  and that of President Obama.  Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office.  So...why?  Why indeed!

Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology?  With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view?  A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.

Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery.  All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.

What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different?  I suggest two (2) primary factors.

President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years.  Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served.  President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become.  He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years.  He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.

That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened.  And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve.  And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!

The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected.  Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.

For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.

Beware of "haters,"  they have something at risk and something to hide.

The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office.  They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right.  So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning.  The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government.  President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.

So surprise turned to fear, then to hate.  President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate.  And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate.  And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate.  All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."

Disagree?  Tell me why...give specifics.

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Why is there more Hatred and Violence in America today?

Some push back on the claim that hatred and violence are more prevalent in America today and in the past hundred years.  They suggest that it may seem that way but it is only because of faster and more thorough communication of violence than any statistical increase.  That is open to discussion.

There is no argument, however, that civility is at a low ebb...lower than that in the past half century at least.  Insults, disrespect, and harassment used to be not only objectionable, but cause for being ostracized from society at large and any consideration for holding authoritative office or employment.  If you wished to be respected and have your ideas and beliefs considered seriously, you did not act or speak impolitely or insultingly.  To do so was to invite violent reaction; most of us remember the term, "fighting words" as cause for violent reaction. Insulting your family would result in a violent fight and the courts saw the person uttering the disrespectful phrase or label as at fault.

Today, such a person is not ostracized, disrespected or shunned.  Instead, they are elected to public office.  If they are proven liars, they are re-elected to public office and not held to account; they are even granted immunity from legal action for libel and slander.  Apparently consequences no longer exist for such.

Consider it may very well be this lack of consequences that has given rise to increased violence and deaths.

Hatred, anger and disrespect have always existed.  It has been the combination of laws and societal norms that have served to cause those with those feelings to keep them to themselves in order to continue to earn a living and be generally accepted in society...these people felt the pressure of being unacceptable to all around them should they "act out" their antisocial feelings.

For many who disagreed with the ideology, beliefs and false statements of President Obama, these factors controlled.  Mutterings were heard, but the concept of honoring our elective system(s) over-rode the anger and dislike of some, if not many, of President Obama's administration.

The election results of 2016 was considered by many at the time as a case of "what goes around, comes around."  But the Left decided, whether individually or collectively, that such was not to be the case.  They have, so far, thrown a three year tantrum! Vocal calls for Impeachment were heard even before President Trump was inaugurated.  Disrespect and anger were the watchwords of the day.  Harassment and actual assault was deemed appropriate behavior.  Supporters and members of Mr. Trump's administration  were chased from public spaces, from restaurants and followed down public streets subject to vile insulting language.  They were not protected by the law or law enforcement; courts now discovered that such vile behavior was "free speech."  Never before had assault and harassment been considered by the law or American society as constituting "Free Speech."

Consider that the more acceptable emotional outbursts become, the closer those that have emotional feeling come to that line of behavior that involves actual violence.  An analogy would the that allowing everyone permission to stand closer to the edge of a cliff is not only likely, but certain, to result in more people falling off the edge.

That is what America is living with today.  If we truly desire to be a civilized nation...if we want once again to respect all around us even as we disagree on programs, ideas and personal lives...perhaps we need to consider reining in our passions...our emotions.  Maybe it is time to respect each other; not just our friends, but even those who are not our friends.

What continues to be aggravating is that the Left is currently blaming President Trump's administration for this hatred and the resulting violence, calling upon him to put a stop to it.  Considering that the hatred AND the violence began with the "resist" movement, assaults and harassment by Antifa, calls on the public to harass any and all Trump appointees and supporters by the Left's elected representatives (Representatives Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters,  Senators Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, among many others) one is tempted to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy. 

Almost half of the voters in  2016 (some suggest MORE than half) have abandoned civility and past societal norms, advocating the casting away of the United States Constitutions Freedoms and protections in favor of mob rule.

Their words and actions have brought the American Republic to the brink of disaster.  If they succeed we all...our children and grandchildren...will reap the consequences.