Truth-tellers and Liars

This weekend we celebrate Presidents' Day and remember two of our greatest presidents. One, President Abraham Lincoln, helped preserve the union and steered us through the Civil War. The other president, George Washington, our first president, is considered the Father of our country. Already famous as the General who pulled the country victoriously through the Revolutionary War, he was a simple choice to be the first president, once we had established a country with a Constitutional government.

After serving two terms, he announced he would not seek a further term. There were many calls for him to stay, but he chose to step down because he wanted this fragile country to follow the guidelines established by the founders. They wanted a more representative government and that could not be in place if the voters did not elect new leaders, as he saw it. England had a king who ruled for life; that was not what this new government wanted to have in place. Washington knew he had to be firm in his decision and push the country toward a democratic succession made by the voters. In his quest to nudge the country toward democracy and reinforce the Constitution, he considered the needs of the citizens, and the rules that were now in place, over any personal needs or ambitions, unlike many politicians today. After decades of service, he was ready to retire to his Virginia home in Mount Vernon.

Washington gave what we now refer to as a Farewell Address as he stepped down. It is described here by the National Constitutional Center. In 1796, he gave some warnings to his countrymen about relationships. In these remarks, he set the stage for future events and established a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Washington set forth three major themes. He warned against political factionalism as he saw areas of his country eager to set off against another in considerations of commerce, finances, and slaveholding.. He encouraged a push toward national unity and efforts to find common responses to shared problems. He also warned against threats from internal and foreign forces; those who would seek to disrupt this fragile union. The president, upon leaving office, showed his vision as he spoke out against the United States getting involved in foreign entanglements. Consequently, he encouraged neutrality and diplomacy in foreign affairs. This was over 228 years ago. Many of these remarks ring true now, centuries later.

Washington recognized the need for the country to grow, become stronger, and find strength in a common purpose. Unity between states would lengthen the roots for the national body to survive, he thought. Saying "To the efficacy and permanency of your union, a government for the whole is indispensable."

He also wanted to reinforce the nascent Rule of Law, then tenuously in place. He set forth cautious guidelines in financial affairs, warned against factious political parties, and encouraged education generally, and in public affairs. Since there were no national communication means, this address was not a formal speech but an essay and newspapers initially printed this Farewell Address. The first paper to print it was the Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser, and it was then shared with other newspapers across the country.

Apocryphally, Washington was known for his truth-telling as a young man; he finished his governmental career with the same theme. He might then have loudly decried some of the political ads we see today that skirt the truth and rely on lies and innuendo. How different this is from would-be leaders today who care little about the truth and appear to relish the lies they tell with apparent impunity. Our first president, in his warnings against factionalism, may have realized that centuries later we would have red states and blue states, conservatives vs. progressives, and authoritarians against those who support democracy.

Over the centuries, we have had good presidents and bad presidents, and threats to our union and our nation, but we have survived as a country. Some now are wondering if the schisms being encouraged by the right-wing, pseudo-patriots and foreign bad actors might break through our national unity, as tattered as it is today. How different might the elections of 2016 and 2020 have been without the interference of Russia, Iran, or China?

While we cannot undo what others have done to unravel our democracy, we are forewarned now and can put in place roadblocks to autocrats, dictators, and the like. Voters can speak up and speak out, sharing information with their neighbors. And most importantly, voters need to vote. As a country, the percentage of voters is usually low, even in national elections. Many residents (about 21% in 2017, according to Pew Research) are not even registered to vote. This needs to change and there is a simple remedy. Many of these voters say voting is a hassle, they don't like politics; they don't have time, etc. But, at least in states such as MD with no-fault absentee voting, one can sign up, receive a ballot, and vote from their home. Their ballot can be mailed in or dropped in a county ballot collection box. In 2020, according to electproject.org/202g, approximately 160 million people voted in the 2020 general election from among a population at that time of around 320 million. Others note that the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022 have been among the three highest percentage turn-outs in history, so perhaps the negative trends are turning. I guess we shall see.

In other news, long-time Putin critic, Russian Alexei Navalny, died suddenly this week at his Arctic prison camp. Some think Putin now believes he no longer has to be concerned about international opinion and can continue to kill his opposition without restraint. Others believe the Republican Party and its presidential candidate are enabling these moves. Time will tell.

Til next week-Peace.

Courts, Ballots, Immunity!

This week the Federal Appeals Court three-judge panel finally released their ruling on the request of the former president to claim immunity from prosecution for any of his actions during the insurrection.

The ruling was lengthy but clear. The actions taken on January 6 were not in keeping with his presidential duties and he, as Citizen Trump, was not entitled to any more rights than any other criminal defendant.

The decision further said, as noted by the New York Times:

“At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches,” they wrote. “Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”

After further discussion, the judges conclude in a unanimous unsigned decision:

“We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results,” the judges wrote. “Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

The opinion would send the case being appealed back to the DC Court of Judge Tanya Chutkin to proceed to trial unless further appealed. The defendant was given until February 12^th to ask for the Supreme Court to step in and rule on this finding. Many legal minds discussed this ruling, and have concluded that this opinion is so well argued and final in its conclusions that the judges on the Supreme Court would have no case law to change or decision to edit and would likely leave it as stated, negating any decision on appeal.

George Conway, writing in The Atlantic, noted:

“In engaging in that analysis, the appeals court did something very important, from the standpoint both of bolstering its conclusion and of insulating its decision from Supreme Court review. The panel, as smart judges do, limited its analysis to the specific “case before us, in which a former President has been indicted on federal criminal charges arising from his alleged conspiracy to overturn federal election results and unlawfully overstay his Presidential term” (emphasis mine).

And so, the balancing question became: Does the nation’s interest in protecting democracy outweigh the danger that potential post-presidency prosecution might deter presidents from doing their job? When posed that way, the question admitted of only one possible answer: yes—by a country mile.:”

The public will soon learn whether the Supreme Court will take this appeal under advisement or decline to review the decision. I certainly hope that SCOTUS will affirm the appeals court decision and allow the criminal case to proceed apace.

The other major court case in town this week was the petition to keep anyone off the ballot who had engaged in insurrection as mentioned in the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution. The states of Colorado and Maine, responding to voter complaints, each petitioned the Court to rule on the continued eligibility of the former president to appear on the ballot.        

Radio stations broadcast the hearings as the Supreme Court does not allow televised proceedings. That morning, the curious public lined up outside the Court hoping to be allowed to snag the few seats in the court allotted to them as interest in this topic was quite high. I feel DJT should never hold public office again and applaud the intention of the petitioners. However, I also believe that his personality is so unstable, that were he denied a place on the ballot, he could call out the fury of his small group of irrational conspiracy-minded followers who would again heed his bidding. While Constitutional questions such as these need to be decided, congressional legislation may be the best way to go. However, with Congress, as messed up as it has been recently, I doubt that such serious legislation would be possible.

Several Justices questioned the reasoning from the states and some wondered if this scenario could lead to blue states acting one way and red states another, resulting in serious confusion as to who qualified to appear on said ballots. Defenders of the ballot changes stressed the unique quality of the charge of insurrection and its rarity, while the justices looked toward the question of riots vs. insurrection and officer vs. presidential office. In the end, it appears that the cases were defended one way and heard in an entirely different mode by the Court. Several commentators noted this week that the Justices may even rule 9-0 against this petition. Several lawyers guessed the Justices were looking for an off-ramp, a loophole, or anything that could allow them to not favor this ballot change. Others have posited that if they ruled for the former president in this instance, they could they could then support the ruling of the appeals court, and maybe be less criticized as partisan. (One from column A and one from column B perhaps?)

Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, believes the Justices should hear the appeal, even as she thinks it will not be supported.

“The justices are going to be understandably leery of doing anything that looks like they are putting a thumb on the scale for, or against, Trump. But the unavoidable reality is that whatever course they choose has political reverberations. A decision to treat the case as if the calendar doesn’t matter carries political consequences as well.

We’re in uncharted territory here, with the likely GOP nominee facing an array of criminal charges. It is in the public interest for that liability, or as much of it as possible, to be determined before the election. If Trump is acquitted, so be it. If he is convicted, that might affect some voters’ choices, but it would not disqualify him from being elected or serving. Don’t the voters have a right to know if they are choosing a felon?”

 

For many, the Court is already at a questionable standing regarding its impartiality or inability to review cases based on law without a heavy finger on that supposedly fair scale of justice. Writing in Vanity Fair, Attorney Christian Farias of Inquest states “he has marveled at how much of his legal training has been rendered irrelevant by Chief Justice Roberts.” Not only does he fault the Justice for not adequately considering the swirling ethics questions, gifts, and trips, but he chides him for hiding behind judicial independence in his refusal to answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee. And, his article concludes, that in a city running on political capital, the court may be, by coming to unpopular conclusions on matters central to our democracy, running on empty.

We should have more clarity tomorrow when we find out if an appeal will be filed and, if so, if it will be accepted.

I seriously hope that speedy justice is served, and a criminal trial will take place soon. This man has avoided accountability his entire life, and I am so pleased to see that some delays he put in place are eroding.

News note: That is all for tonight. There are reports that Israel will bomb Rafah, the last safe haven for civilians in Gaza. The leaders have been warned to not do this by the US and many other countries. From what I can determine, there is no justification for these raids, and they should cease.

Till next week – hope for peace.

Whacky Week!

The news has been a little weird this week.

Down in Texas, there is a kerfuffle of sorts as Texas Governor Abbott wants to show his muscle and stand up to the Federal Government over his defense of the border. He ordered his National Guard to place razor wire along the border in an area called Eagle Pass. The Federal government sought an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court regarding the illegality of these actions and the rights of the border guards to remove the wires, as migrants were getting injured while trying to avoid this barrier. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court allowed the Birder Agents to continue to cut the wire along the area in question. The agents were stopped previously by an order of a lower court. However, the Texas Governor ignored the Court's order and claimed he had to protect the border, as that is his duty as governor. This ignores the fact that border protection is a federal function, not one allowed to a state. Saying otherwise does not make it so.

So, now a group of Republican Governors have joined in this controversy and some have even sent state National Guard troops to the Eagle Pass area. The groups appear to want a confrontation with the Federal government. Then a bunch of MAGA hangers-on joined in and traveled to the nearest town, accompanied by Christian Nationalists who set up revival meetings and baptisms. In the meantime, truckers said they would start convoys in solidarity heading to Texas from multiple points across the country. Despite claims of thousands headed in that direction, news reports noted groups of under 100 in observed convoys. As these events were unfolding, protests against Abbott's actions also greeted arrivals.

Does this sound like a three-ring circus or what? Some concerns were voiced about the potential for violence in such a diverse group, but organizers said they were looking out for trouble and were allowing no known trouble-makers, permitting attendees to only carry sidearms and no long guns. Why am I not reassured?

Eugene Robinson, writing in the Washington Post, reminded Abbott and others that federal confrontations with governors did not go well during the Civil Rights era.

After noting: "In a jaw-dropping statement last week, Abbott echoed the secessionist rhetoric of the Confederacy. He claimed that the federal government "has broken the compact between the United States and the States and that, therefore, Texas has "the right of self-defense. …..Border security is a matter for Congress, the president, and the federal courts to decide and enforce — not for grandstanding governors such as Abbott."

Robinson noted the defiance of Governors Faubus of Arkansas and Wallace of Alabama during the Civil Rights era and when both governors defied Court Orders, both Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy federalized the state National Guard and enforced the orders of the courts that allowed black students to enter educational institutions.

"Biden surely does not relish going so far as to federalize the Texas National Guard, seizing command from Abbott. But Eisenhower and Kennedy did not want to take that step, either. They tried hard to persuade Faubus and Wallace to obey the Supreme Court, and when the governors refused to comply, the presidents did what they saw as their duty."

Robinson concludes his remarks with these thoughts:

"If they are truly interested in securing the border, Abbott and the other Republican governors should become part of the solution. By tossing around rhetoric that sounds more like Jefferson Davis than Thomas Jefferson, they make themselves part of the problem.

 

We get it: They don't like Biden, and they want to weaken him politically as he runs for reelection. But Biden has the duty, and the power, to defend the Constitution. I hope foolish political machinations by Abbott and others do not force Biden to act."

 

I think we all hope wiser heads will ultimately prevail and that the harmful razor wire will be removed as ordered by the court. But, given the desire of the Republicans, as stated by Senator Chuck Grassley, to refuse to solve problems that might give a win to President Biden, hoping for some standing down at Eagle Pass might be too far a road to follow.

 

Some other news to note:

President Biden won the Democratic primary in South Carolina with 96.2% of the total votes cast. His 126,321 votes there and in the write-ins for NH (79,455) were more than expected since he did not campaign in NH and seems to belie the claims that Democrats are staying home this year. However, the turnout was lower than in 2020 when there were multiple candidates still in the race.

 

The economy added over 300,000 jobs last month, higher than expected. Inflation is down and the Stock Market hit record highs. So, of course, the former president claimed the Market went up as investors seeing his win in Iowa were excited about his prospects of returning to the Oval Office. Really? That is so much spin, it is a wonder his head is still attached!

 

Some Republicans in the House refused to allow funding for the summer lunch programs to be offered to those who receive free lunches during the school year. One Republican governor even quipped something to the effect that since we have too much childhood obesity, maybe going without lunches might help. Of course, she appears ignorant of the fact that poor people eat lots of carbs since proteins such as meat are costlier. Could someone with saner views step up and speak out?

 

On that sad note, I'll just say goodnight!

 

Til next week- peace!

83 Million!

That was the amount awarded by a jury after only three hours of deliberation, to author E. Jean Carroll in her defamation suit against our former president. According to the report in The Washington Post:

“Most of the award involved $65 million in punitive damages after jurors concluded that Trump acted spitefully and wantonly toward Carroll after she accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Jurors also awarded a combined $18.3 million in compensatory damages.” ($11 million for repairing her reputation, and $7.3 million for emotional harm.)

The jurors made a powerful statement in their decision to award such enormous sums. To me, their award stated that no man is above the law. Even a former president cannot and should not say and do what he was accused of doing. He claimed, while he was in office, that he was immune from any charges against his speech and got the Department of Justice to defend him for a while. That suit was pended then until he left office. Now, maybe, for once, DJT will have to pay up. (He is appealing the five million Carroll was awarded at a previous lawsuit where the jury determined that DJT sexually assaulted her.)

In an opinion essay in the New York Times about this verdict, Professor Ron Nell Anderson Jones discussed the issue and concluded:

“Libel law imagines that we, as a people, respect the rule of law. It envisions that libel damages will protect not only plaintiffs like Ms. Carroll but all of society as we sort through what is relevant and provably accurate, band together to reject falsehoods, and denounce and deter those who knowingly lie. It expects that jurors doing this work on behalf of all of us will be celebrated, not that they will have to be warned to keep their participation secret from even their families and their identities shielded even from one another. It assumes that those who have told deliberate fabrications will see their audience dry up.

Libel law assumes that we wish to share a single, objective reality. It cannot tackle the supply-and-demand problem that today leaves us wondering if tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages will stanch the flow of a lie. It presupposes that we crave truth.”

So, how do we, as a country, move on from here? The nation adheres to the Rule of Law but this former president has never accepted that basic format of our country. A democracy depends upon some common definitions that are generally acceptable to the population. What do terms such as freedom and liberty mean to most people? What might an authoritarian leader do to our concepts of being a republic?

The charges, the childish behavior he demonstrated in the courtroom, the predatory nature of the offense and the continued defamation of an 80-year-old woman were all shown out in front of the world. How can the voters in America even think of allowing a sexual predator to again gain the highest office in our land? Do we, as a nation, actually crave truth as the author above notes?

Adoring crowds applaud MAGA speeches even as they know they are lies. They cheer as he claims he was properly elected in 2020. They repeat stories about the insurrectionists and echo his claims that the perpetrators were patriots. His almost cult-like fans repeat the fake rumors he uses in his speeches, such as blaming Nancy Pelosi for not calling in the National Guard, when it was his administration that would not permit its use until late on January 6^th.

How could this person meet with other international leaders as the representative of our democracy when such crass behavior is so well known? Recently, many financial leaders and others met at the annual International Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Many thought that DJT had a good chance of becoming president again and wondered out loud just how America would then act regarding the several international conflicts underway. Some wondered if Putin was just trying to hang on in the Ukraine War until his “friend” could be elected. So, already, actions proposed by President Biden are being considered in the light of what might happen in the November election.

The former president won Republican primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire and wanted to be anointed as the party nominee. Opponent Nikki Haley did not concede and continued campaigning, angering the winner. Her campaign moved forward, calling him confused and a chaos maker. He immediately started attacking her with racist remarks and hinted that she had scandals in her background that he would release in the future.  He even tried to claim that she was ineligible to serve as president since her parents were not American citizens when she was born in this country. Haven’t we heard similar claims from him before? Is this Birtherism again?

So much is happening in the world this weekend! Guess I will stop here or I’ll end up writing all night! I’ll have more to say next week, hopefully, Texas will still be part of the union then!

‘Til next week-Peace!

And Then There Were Two?

This week we saw the results of the long-awaited Iowa caucuses. Just before this event, former Governor Chris Christie dropped out of the Republican Presidential race

but still spoke out against the former president. The weather in Iowa was dismal with blowing snow and below-zero temperatures, so the turnout was depressed. The

eventual results, as reported by the New York Times, were for a total of 110,298 caucus votes, which was significantly down from the 2016 result of 186,932. The final tallies

showed that the former president won about half of the votes cast: Trump: 51% (56,260 votes), DeSantis 21% (23,420), Haley 19% (21,085), and Ramaswamy 8% (8,449).

 

While some are touting this as a big win, these numbers are not as impressive when one realizes these numbers represent a small portion of the total Republicans in Iowa (approximately 719,000). Pundits reported that the basis for DJTs support in Iowa was the Evangelical Voter, despite his lack of a religious focus, moral code, or church identification. He even ran strange ads that showed him as blessed and made him seem like one sent from God. One caucusgoer even claimed that good Christians could not vote for Democrats.

 

After that result, two candidates, Asa Hutchinson, and Vivek Ramaswamy, dropped out of the race and suspended their campaigns. Former candidate, and fellow Haley neighbor, South Carolinian Senator Tim Scott, endorsed DJT this week in a personal appearance with the candidate before a large crowd. Today, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis joined Ramaswamy by not only dropping out but also endorsing DJT. So, it appears the Republican ducks are falling under the pressure being applied by the leading candidate. They, along with elected congressional representatives and senators, supposedly have been told they are expected to endorse before Super Tuesday in March or face consequences.

 

Those actions leave Nikki Haley as the only viable opponent to the nomination of the former president. She touted her third-place finish in Iowa as the momentum she needed to do well in the New Hampshire primary. Since she appeals to more moderate voters and Independents, she is expected to do well in New Hampshire. Currently, she is polling about 15 points behind the Maga candidate. She does not seem to have any robust campaign organization in other states that could propel her to any primary wins. So, does she join the crowd and endorse the former president or stand back and see what lies ahead for her politically? I guess we shall soon learn the answer.

 

In case you are wondering where the Democrats are in this political season, well, they are getting there. After a disastrous caucus in 2020 in Iowa when the new tabulating software did not work well and the results were not known for days, the Democrats decided to not have a caucus this year. Since neither New Hampshire nor Iowa are demographically representative of the Democratic Party’s diverse base, the party wanted to showcase states that were to kick off the primary season. The party censured New Hampshire for declining to change its first in the nation's primary status, so the state could not run an official Democratic contest this year. However, there is an unofficial write-in campaign for President Biden, so he will at least have a showing. The Democrats start their campaign with the primary in South Carolina on February 3^rd , followed by a primary in Nevada on the 6th. The Republicans hold a Caucus in Nevada on the 8^th. Sixteen states are holding primaries on March 5^th, now dubbed Super Tuesday. Maryland, because of issues with its legislative session and restrictions about campaigning and fundraising, will not hold its primary until May 14^th, when most of the other states have already voted. However, since votes on the Democratic side are not contested, this will not make a difference in choosing the Democratic candidate. In another year, having such a late primary would make Maryland’s votes somewhat anti-climactic, but this year, without a contest, it does not make a difference.

 

Over the last year, press reports noted that Nazi memorabilia collector and great friend of Justice Clarence Thomas, Harlan Crow, and many of his wealthy business associates funded the group No Labels. Former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan just stepped down from the board of No Labels. He announced he was endorsing Nikki Haley and was not himself a candidate. Mother Jones reported on the donors listed by No Labels, many of whom are in the oil and gas industries or have ties to conservative causes. Senator Joe Manchin and former VP candidate Joe Lieberman are both involved with this group, thought by most Democrats to be a potential spoiler in the 2024 race, pulling more votes from Biden, than Trump. Manchin has not yet announced a candidacy, although he has flirted with it for a while. This third-party effort does not yet have a candidate, nor is it on the ballot in all states. Recently Move-on reported that No Labels is claiming that its workers are being harassed and intimidated by Democrats when they try to get signatures for ballot placement and has asked the Department of Justice to intervene.

 

According to Mother Jones:

“No Labels is continuing to organize petition drives to win lines on the 2024 state ballots. “We’re going for as many states as we can across the country,” Clancy recently told NPR. The group says its aim is to run a ticket comprised of a Democrat and a Republican, if the public sours on the available choices (such as Biden and Trump). Its top officials have issued conflicting statements about what would trigger the organization to proceed with its own nominee.

The most discussed potential candidate for No Labels has been Manchin, who has declined to say whether he would participate in this effort. Poll data suggesting a No Labels campaign would hurt Biden more than Trump—as well as the conservative bent of the few previously known funders of the group, such as billionaire Harlan Crow, the billionaire benefactor of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and a collector of Nazi memorabilia—has prompted Democratic strategists to speculate that this endeavor is a not-too-secret project to elect Trump or another Republican. Prominent Democratic operatives and Never-Trump Republicans recently met privately in Washington, DC, to discuss how best to counter a No Labels presidential campaign.”

“No Labels insists its work addresses the concerns of voters who have become disillusioned with modern American politics and the partisanship of each side. Yet it sticks with the cynical and common tricks of the trade and eschews transparency and accountability, cloaking the moneybags who underwrite its operation. The list of donors found in the IPFA (Insurance Policy for America) filing covers only a modest fraction of the money that has so far flowed into this No Labels venture; it is a small slice of the $70 million the group is aiming to collect for its 2024 plan.

The lion’s share of the money that has moved in and out of IPFA has not been disclosed in its filings with the IRS, and there is no telling whether the listed donors are representative of the organization’s overall sources of financing. Most of the funding for No Labels’ 2024 project remains secret, as this group that claims to be addressing popular disenchantment continues to use the same-old tactics of big-money politics and keeps the voters in the dark.”

Then, of course, there is anti-vaxxer Joe Kennedy and a few others, such as the Green Party with Jill Stein and activist Cornel West running as third-party candidates. Marianne Williamson, who ran in 2020, and Dean Philips are also running as Democrats. I hope No Labels does not get on the ballots across the country and cannot cause mischief, but I guess time will tell.

 

That’s enough for tonight.

Till next week – Peace!

They’re Not Hostages; They Are Criminals.

 

Lately, on the campaign trail, the disgraced former president has been claiming that when he is elected, he will pardon those convicted for their activities on January 6^th. He called these people hostages. Now VP wannabe and congressional representative Elise Stefanik has been echoing this claim, using the word hostages again. We need to remind them both that most of the offenders who have been arrested and charged, either pleaded guilty to misdemeanors or felonies or were found guilty by a jury of their peers for offenses against the government on that day.

Retired General Russell Honorè disregarded these claims̀ in an interview in the Washington Post stating “You want to see what a hostage looks like,…. look at what’s going on in Gaza. These people are in jail because they have been convicted…by a court. Those who use the word ‘hostage’ should never be in office again.”

He is, as the reporter describes, not a casual observer of the events of that day and is not one likely to excuse the insurrectionists or buy into the reframing many Republicans are trying to do. Speaker Nancy Pelosi tasked him, after the insurrection, to perform a Capitol Security Review, so he is intimately familiar with the criminal activities of that day, the injuries suffered by the Capitol police and others, and the role of the former president at that time. In the interview, this soldier who spent over 37 years in the military noted he is worried about the state of our democracy.

“I got a lot to say about this. This is my bottom line. If we lose our democracy, we’ll never get it back. There are people that have become enamored with the authoritarian process. … They’re depending on the repetitive misinformation, these storylines that they’ve been wronged, and it’s all based on a lie that the last election was not a fair election.”

When asked how the insurrection had shaken American democracy, he replied:

“I think it went beyond being shaken. I think it was cracked, and it shows the vulnerability of a democracy that is dependent on trust, is dependent on the truth, dependent on the law, that people follow the law. And when you have people that deliberately don’t follow the law, that deliberately don’t tell the truth, and then repeat that in their positions of responsibility, it shows a weakness of a democracy.

Most of the people in our government argue in the truth, argue in the law, argue in the courts, and respect the work of the press. But that is very fragile in a democracy when you get somebody with a few collaborators who can [mess] up a democracy up overnight. You saw that happen on 1-6.”

When asked what should be done to strengthen US democracy, he said:

“We have to take on a full-out information campaign to counter the misinformation that’s out there … We have to convince young people that they have to get out and vote because many of them are losing their faith in democracy … We’ve got to attack that with full engagement from everybody, to get people to go vote because the alternative is we could end up with another Trump or Trump-like MAGA president again. And I think that would be the end of our democracy.”

The General certainly laid out the issues that are before us today. The media, the public, and the government have to stop these lies and have to counter the propaganda being spread around by the forces that would unite to take down our democracy as we know it.

The New York Times editorialized on January 7^th about the DJT presidency:

“By now, most American voters should have no illusions about who Mr. Trump is. During his many years as a real estate developer and a television personality, then as president and as a dominant figure in the Republican Party, Mr. Trump demonstrated a character and temperament that render him utterly unfit for high office.

As president, he wielded power carelessly and often cruelly and put his ego and his personal needs above the interests of his country. Now, as he campaigns again, his worst impulses remain as strong as ever — encouraging violence and lawlessness, exploiting fear and hate for political gain, undermining the rule of law and the Constitution, applauding dictators — and are escalating as he tries to regain power. He plots retribution, intent on eluding the institutional, legal, and bureaucratic restraints that put limits on him in his first term.

Our purpose at the start of the new year, therefore, is to sound a warning.

Mr. Trump does not offer voters anything resembling a normal option of Republican or Democrat, conservative, or liberal, big government or small. He confronts America with a far more fateful choice: between the continuance of the United States as a nation dedicated to “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and a man who has proudly shown open disdain for the law and the protections and ideals of the Constitution.”

 

After much more discussion about the actual problems with this presidency and a look at the revenge he is promising, should he be re-elected, the Times comes to this conclusion:

 

“Mr. Trump has made clear his conviction that only “losers” accept legal, institutional, or even constitutional constraints. He has promised vengeance against his political opponents, whom he has called “vermin” and threatened with execution. This is particularly disturbing at a time of heightened concern about political violence, with threats increasing against elected officials of both parties.

He has repeatedly demonstrated a deep disdain for the First Amendment and the basic principles of democracy, chief among them the right to freely express peaceful dissent from those in power without fear of retaliation, and he has made no secret of his readiness to expand the powers of the presidency, including the deployment of the military and the Justice Department, to have his way.

Democracy in the United States is stronger with a formidable conservative political movement to keep diversity of thought alive on important questions, such as the nation’s approaches to immigration, education, national security, and fiscal responsibility. There should be room for real disagreement on any of these topics and many more — and there is a long tradition of it across the American experiment. But that is not what the former president is seeking.

Re-electing Mr. Trump would present serious dangers to our Republic and to the world. This is a time not to sit out but instead to re-engage. We appeal to Americans to set aside their political differences, grievances, and party affiliations and to contemplate — as families, as parishes, as councils and clubs, and as individuals — the real magnitude of the choice they will make in November.”

 

I support this conclusion and urge every thinking voter to consider not only the damage the former president has done but also the considerable damage he might yet do, should he be elected again.

 

The Atlantic Monthly has printed a special edition (Jan-Feb) addressing these topics:

 

“The next Trump presidency will be worse.

A special issue of The Atlantic, launching today, warns of the grave and extreme consequences if former President Trump were to win in 2024––building an overwhelming case, across two dozen essays by Atlantic writers, that both Trump and Trumpism pose an existential threat to America and to the ideas that animate it. With each writer focusing on their subject area of expertise, the issue argues that assuming a second term would mirror the first is a mistake: The threats to democracy will be greater, as will the danger of authoritarianism and corruption. A second Trump presidency, the opening essay states, would mark the turn onto a dark path, one of those rips between “before” and “after” that a society can never reverse.

 

The Atlantic has made covering persistent threats to democracy its top editorial priority. Editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg explains this focus in an editor’s note to lead the issue: “Our concern with Trump is not that he is a Republican, or that he embraces—when convenient—certain conservative ideas. We believe that a democracy needs, among other things, a strong liberal party and a strong conservative party in order to flourish. Our concern is that the Republican Party has mortgaged itself to an anti-democratic demagogue, one who is completely devoid of decency.” Goldberg recounts a meeting at the White House with Jared Kushner, who said of his father-in-law: “No one can go as low as the president. You shouldn’t even try.”

In the lead essay, “The Revenge Presidency,” David Frum writes that a restored Trump would lead the United States into a landscape of unthinkable scenarios. “In his first term, Trump’s corruption and brutality were mitigated by his ignorance and laziness. In a second, Trump would arrive with a much better understanding of the system’s vulnerabilities, more willing enablers in tow, and a much more focused agenda of retaliation against his adversaries and impunity for himself. When people wonder what another Trump term might hold, their minds underestimate the chaos that would lie ahead.”

 

I urge all readers here to find the time to read these essays. They explore the various

 

ways this potential president could damage our democracy and governance as we now

 

know it. Topics covered in the 24 articles in this issue include everything from foreign

 

policy to immigration, abortion, disinformation campaigns, civil rights, democracy, and

 

freedom, among others. When alarms are being sounded all around us by thinkers,

 

historians, doers, and others, we would be best served if we not only listened, but

 

acted. I believe it is not enough to just make a plan to vote, but each of us should

 

counter the lies we hear, speak out against those who would re-characterize

 

January 6^th. We should also speak up for those who are civil servants and work at the

 

election boards or serve on school boards and might be under attack. Threats to

 

Judges and those who work in the judicial system are increasing (and encouraged by

 

the former president who speaks darkly of bedlam and worse) and are trying to the

 

police or FBI agents who have to investigate threats, whether they are real or fake.

 

We need to demand order in our communities and speak out against those who would

 

disrupt.

 

Before I close today, I need to mention that it is the anniversary of Dr. King’s birth and

 

we commemorate this day in his memory. I think his message of brotherhood and

 

peace needs to be remembered and honored now because our world is sadly lacking in

 

both.

 

‘Til next week-Peace!

The Insurrection Happened

 

Despite the efforts of many on the right to revise, rewrite, and cover over the actual events of January 6^th, 2021, that day’s violence was real. Those were not patriots visiting their seat of government, it was a mob sent by the president to disrupt the certification of a free, fair, and legal election because he lost. There were armed groups of thugs, carrying clubs, zip ties, bear spray, and hidden weapons. The groups were, in some cases, parts of militia organizations formed previously in opposition to the Federal Government and called to DC by the president to defend his election lies. Shouting “Hang Mike Pence” some members erected a gallows on the Capitol grounds. Others broke the equipment used by TV crews and threatened those covering the event. Still others used flagpoles, fence posts, and batons to attack police officers defending the grounds and the building. Many officers were severely injured with concussions, loss of an eye and poisonings, heart attacks, and suicides. The GAO reported 174 police officers were injured and seven deaths resulted from the riots.

The Capitol architect reported that damage to the Capitol itself was expected to exceed 30 million dollars while the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted an ultimate expense of 2.7 Billion dollars in estimated costs if the damage to the Capitol, costs borne by police and federal agencies, and the expenses to add security to the grounds and investigate these crimes were all calculated. The GAO further estimated that between 2000 to 2500 mob members entered the Capitol, although there were thousands more around the building façade and on the grounds.

At no time during the height of the insurrection did the man who encouraged their rage, the president, attempt to calm them down, encourage a retreat, or ask them to back off. Staffers report he watched the events on TV and enjoyed the show. In her book, Cassidy Hutchinson reported, in her Congressional testimony, that he wanted to join them at the Capitol after his speech, but the Secret Service would not allow the trip.

Even today, the conspiracy theorists on the right and their Maga friends claim that Antifa (anti-fascists) attacked the Capitol. Others claimed that members of the FBI orchestrated the entire event to make the president look bad. Those claims are not true and the arrest data confirms this. They have charged over 1265 in all 50 states, according to a Department of Justice report. 213 individuals have pleaded guilty to felonies. 505 have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. 130 defendants have pleaded guilty to assaulting or obstructing law enforcement during a civil proceeding. Four of the above have pleaded guilty to charges of seditious conspiracy in addition to the felony charges. To date, 749 individuals have been convicted and received incarceration or home detention. Other court proceedings are ongoing as the public continues to help identify the rioters. Three known fugitives were arrested as recently as this week. Not one of those admitting guilt is an Atifa member.

Still, when he received copies of the January 6^th tapes from the Select Committee, House Speaker Michael Johnson said he would blur the faces of those in the Capitol before he released the tapes, to make it more difficult for the FBI to identify them. Republican members of Congress who narrowly escaped the marauding horde, as they ran to their secret hide-a-way, and condemned the actions broadly, now are pretending it was all a walk in the park. There is a saying that if a lie is repeated often enough, it is accepted. This is what the Maga folks and their surrogates are trying to do. Right-wing media is promoting this packet of lies so much that many voters in Iowa, where the first Republican votes are scheduled next week, can parrot out the same claims, no matter how fantastic they seem. They don’t ask the obvious questions, such as why would over 1000 individuals plead guilty to crimes they did not commit? If it wasn't true, why would many defendants testify under oath that they came to the Capitol that day because their president urged them to come and "stop the steal"? (I know using logic to destroy these lies does not work, as a reporter noted tonight. He tried telling an Iowan voter that he was at the Capitol that day and could vouch for the fact that Antifa was not there.)

Because DJT has perfected the art of lying, his tactics baffled many of us who rely on truth-telling for our daily lives. But they are tactics in his war on truth. He just makes up stuff and uses whatever seems to work. An example is the tale about the two election workers in Georgia discussed previously. The lies made for a good story. The ladies were black women ‘whom no one cared about’, so they made good victims to pick on. It mattered little to him or Giuliani that these lies subjected them to threats, destroyed their usual lives, and cost them their jobs.

So, as the campaign season gets into full gear, we will hear more and more lies, some more preposterous than others. President Biden gave a speech this week where he spoke about the threats to democracy from DJT and his refusal to live by the rule of law and respect the Constitution. The next day, they accused Biden of being ant-democratic and against the Constitution in tweets from the Maga crowd and DJT. Projection is a known psychological ploy. The next several months promise to be a rocky roller-coaster ride for the American public. I just wish that the media would stop giving this the “both sides” treatment and speak out more on how aberrant it is to have a major candidate for president of the US, just make stuff up and not care to speak the truth.

“Til next week-Peace!