The actions and words of those on the Progressive Left in the United States of America support the concept that they are prepared to sacrifice civility, honor, and respect for election results and people of a different opinion in favor of authoritarian Rule.
Consider that Leftist Office Holder were admitting intent to impeach duly elected Republican President Trump within moments of his taking office. He had not yet acted in any official capacity, yet the Left was prepared to obstruct his authority to hold office.
Consider that members of the Leftist action group, Antifa, wear face masks while harassing and assaulting any people even suspected of not favoring Leftist political positions and actions. Leftist Officials...police AND Judges...dismiss charges against any members almost universally without any penalty for their lawless actions.
Leftist Members of Congress encourage harassment in public of any who fail to vocally support the Leftist Agenda and Ideology.
Leftist Media censor news to allow only pro-Leftist events to air or appear in print, and both create and promote false reports that denigrate all non-Leftist points of view. The further refuse to investigate any actions by any on the Left that might be improper or criminal in nature. They have resurrected the Goebbels' Big Lie to supplant journalism.
Universities, Colleges and Grade Schools have given up teaching American History, requiring students to learn to read and do arithmetic at grade levels before being passed to a higher grqade and been shown to indoctrinate students with Leftist points of view, rather that to learn ALL points of view and challenge each in debate. Further, they now refuse to honor the Constitution's guarantee of Free Speech, in favor ot Authoritarian limit of all but Leftist points of view.
Civil discourse has disappeared from government and public arenas. Personal insults have taken the place of critiquing ideas and positions. "Meanness" prevails.
Defense of and acquisition of Power has become the singular goal of the Left, and they are clearly prepared to use any and all means, both legal and illegal, both moral and immoral, both Constitutional and unconstitutional, to achieve that power and authority. They are clearly prepared to destroy the Republic in order to achieve their goal of authoritarian Control of America.
They have awakened the animosity, the ire, and the violent anger of those long-suffering folks not on the Left, who are fed up with the disrespect delivered on them and will not condone a continuation of this destruction of civility, of respect, and of moral conscience.
Enough!
Monday, December 30, 2019
Monday, November 25, 2019
How to keep lies from destroying the American Republic
Whines! Groans! Cheers! Jeers! Wringing of hands and dire warnings abound...all over the internet, with particular targeting of "Social Media." THAT is a misnomer, if I ever saw one...it is NOT social and it is NOT civil. Social media isn't even truthful, except seemingly by accident. Not many "thinking" people disagree as to the falsehoods that abound on the internet.
The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media. The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).
Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.
So...is this unacceptable? If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)? Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?
It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists. But...how? Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.
First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.
Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.
Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods. It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice." If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.
Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable? Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person? That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.
Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet? Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal. I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.
As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting. So many today thing there are no such things as consequences. Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them. It is time to stop that thinking. Time for the chickens to come home to roost...
If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility. But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that. Will you?
The same complaint(s) are becoming rampant regarding the media, with particular attention on what is euphemistically called the "news" media. The term "fake news" appears everywhere, both truthfully and falsely applied so often as to make the label ineffective as either a warning or a label (truth in anything, including advertising and public relations, is a rarity).
Politicians and their supporters (does that end up labeling over 90% of our population?) add to the lack of candor, having expanded their falsehoods from campaign promises to include actions and positions actually taken while holding office.
So...is this unacceptable? If so, to who (or is it "to whom,"...I never did get that right)? Is there any desire...a heartfelt desire...to change this and return to a more truthful existence for all of us?
It would be nice to believe that such a desire exists. But...how? Here are a few ideas to consider...and feel free to think up additional and (hopefully) even more effective ways to accomplish the goal.
First, the so-called "news" media have to be forced to tell the truth and/or label their lies as lies.
Second, internet posting of any kind has to be able to be tracked to the person or organization that is commenting.
Third, all media (including that labeled as "news") has to be made legally responsible for falsehoods. It is time to, in the interest of Justice, to eliminate the qualification or claim of "absence of malice." If a person in private life can be legally made responsible for libel and/or slander, so should the "news," whether it be broadcast or print.
Is there any real reason why our people, our country, our government cannot pass laws that require all comments, all stories, all reports be attributed to real people and real organizations so they can be held accountable? Is there any reason why anyone should be free to repeat slander or libel just by quoting another person? That should be unlawful unless the person or organization repeating the story has independently verified it with attribution...not anonymously.
Why shouldn't a person that defames another be held accountable and not allowed to hide behind anonymity of the internet? Require that identification of those posting be available, so that there can be confrontation, both personal and legal. I see comments on "social" media and in stories that, if the commenter were made public and had to repeat the comments face to fact, would never say the things that they have posted or written.
As I grew up, I was advised to live my life, and speak and write, as if everything I did and said could appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow; think and consider before speaking or writing or acting. So many today thing there are no such things as consequences. Or, if there are, that someone ELSE will suffer them. It is time to stop that thinking. Time for the chickens to come home to roost...
If the voters demand this and insist that the internet providers not be allowed to censure but that all who use the internet be identifiable and legally liable for comments and statements, we can again enforce a degree of civility. But...we have to want to accomplish that and take action to demand that. Will you?
Monday, November 11, 2019
Multi-National Companies are never "Patriotic"
Haven't posted in a long time; the world and the Nation seem so tumultuous as to defy any reasonable discussion...on any level or any subject. But...I finally have come to believe that to do nothing is to approve of what is...even to encourage it. The other side of the coin is that if you do not have a better idea, then perhaps you should hold your criticism(s) until you do have something better to offer. Be that as it may, we all might want to at least be aware of and deal with the matter in my heading.
Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.
At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.
At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders; their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism. In the last 70 years that has changed. And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.
The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet. They have no allegiance to any particular country. Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued. Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue. Each company is concerned ONLY with profits. Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy. That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value. Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best. Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.
Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen? Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"
Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States. But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American"). Not anymore. Follow the money. Follow the power. And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant. Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law? Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America. And other countries are having the same experiences.
As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages. That is to be expected. But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom. Why?
It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things. Hogwash! Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets? This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries. Why?
One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.
So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.
Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy; that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.
Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority. Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?
Each of us view the definition and needs of personal security differently, but the one universal seems to be that we value our personal freedoms and do not wish others to impede or subtract from the baseline that we currently possess. Consistency demands that we honor the converse: that we should not expect to invade others' space or interfere with their freedoms.
At some level each of us also value and have an expectation of truthfulness toward and from others, including our institutions (government, schools, Courts, business enterprises.
At the beginning of the last century, our business enterprises operated within national borders; their identified with the nation in which they operated and supported the general national interests, aligning with the national sense of patriotism. In the last 70 years that has changed. And the change poses dangers to the concepts of national identity and national patriotism.
The largest and most powerful business enterprises on the planet operate across national borders, most (if not all) making profits from both sales and manufacturing in disparate countries throughout the planet. They have no allegiance to any particular country. Oh, they claim to care; their public statements of their Owners, Officers and in their Press Releases claim allegiance...but to each nation in which the statement is issued. Clearly this is a propaganda issue, not a truth issue. Each company is concerned ONLY with profits. Anything that interferes with profits is their enemy. That means that ALL ELSE holds no consistent place of value. Clearly allegiance is toward whatever will positively impact profits...and is fleeting at best. Once the profit element has been secured, there will be neither allegiance nor memory of any such thing.
Under this set of unassailable facts, shouldn't EVERY nation-state consider that every business enterprise be viewed, regardless of national origin, as a non-citizen? Shouldn't each enterprise be required to meet criteria and standards in a proven way and not given the presumptive standing of "citizen?"
Enterprises such as Google, Micro-soft, Amazon and Nike (and many more) currently show more concern about the welfare of China than of the United States. But, you say, those are American companies (with the emphasis on "American"). Not anymore. Follow the money. Follow the power. And any payoffs are a threat regardless of size or scope; there is no such thing as being a "little bit" pregnant. Does anyone think that the proximity of Google, Amazon and Nike offices with multitudes of employees in the Northwest has nothing to do with main cities in that area harboring felons and illegals contrary to United States law? Those companies and their employees see themselves as superior to and having no allegiance to the United States of America. And other countries are having the same experiences.
As of now, each multi-national plays nation-states against each other to obtain financial and regulatory advantages. That is to be expected. But none of these countries are consistent in recognizing (and trying to control the effects of) the threat to their borders, to their government, to their citizens' freedom. Why?
It would be easy...and nice...to state that our governments just aren't as aware of this, or are preoccupied with more important things. Hogwash! Does anyone not question how one can run for public office with relatively low personal wealth, hold elected office for decades at a relatively low salary lever, yet retire with millions in assets? This state of affairs has existed for more than a century, yet the media doesn't care and clearly the governments' Inspector Generals don't care either, even in the face of public inquiries. Why?
One opinion would be that despite the wording of Oaths of Office, laws, and conscience, the awarding of money and/or power constitute bribes more powerful than the concepts of truth, honor, promises, and/or conscience.
So...the ultimate question is how strongly do citizens feel about allowing their freedoms and security to be eroded, dissipated and perhaps even at some point eliminated.
Logic would suggest that the American citizen (and citizens of all the countries of the world) demand of their governments changes that would first arrest and second deminish the power that multi-national companies now enjoy; that such business enterprises not be allowed to fly under the radar of public accountability and not the private accountability of being able to "pay off" those who stand in their way.
Government exists because WE delegate to it power and authority. Perhaps we should consider voiding that delegation and start over?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)