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.
Thursday, March 26, 2020
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?
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.
Why?
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.
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.
Why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, December 30, 2019
The Left's Game Plan: Authoritarianism over Civility
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)