Blog

I was speaking to a friend of mine the other day about the Alamo, that treasured symbol of Texan independence and the Texan spirit. The 186^th anniversary of the Battle of the Alamo was celebrated last month.

My friend informed me that the Alamo was not about brave Texans who fought to be free from Mexican domination and sacrificed their lives to this end, brave Texans who should be remembered with reverence and pride. Instead, it was about protecting the interests of rich Southern plantation owners who wanted to bring slavery to Texas.

Apparently, there was such great demand for cotton in Europe that the plantation owners wanted to expand their slave-based cotton farming into Texas so that they could make greater profit for themselves. Mexico needed American settlers in their territory to fight the Native American Comanche tribes who were brutalizing the Mexican population. Mexico was strongly anti-slavery by that time but was also politically unstable and unfocused.

The Texans sacrificed the Alamo as a military diversion so that they could obtain a decisive military victory and ultimately take Texas from Mexico, and then created the romanticized story of the Alamo as a social and political diversion to obscure the true nature and motivation that was behind the battle.

Now, being aware of the liberal, myopically critical, and somewhat anti-American viewpoint of my friend, I did a simple fact-checking web search about the history of the Alamo.

It turns out that my friend was correct. The full story of the Alamo involves slavery, corruption, greed, betrayal – essentially all the sordid elements of the human condition that has played out over and over for thousands of years.

It is likely that many of the Texans who lost their lives at the Alamo did not know that they were fighting and ultimately sacrificing their lives so that the wealthy, privileged Southern aristocracy who made their money from slave labor could expand their businesses into Texas and make more money by continuing their exploitation of slaves. These brave Texans were probably told that theirs was a noble cause in defense of the Texan way of life.

If one has any doubt about the influence of rich plantation owners in the Texan-Mexican saga, consider that Texas eventually became the number one cotton producing state in the U.S. – by far.

There have been other military and economic conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in that were tainted by special interests, most of which have turned out badly for the reputation and security of our country. Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran immediately come to mind.

It is difficult to impossible to retain our noble sense of purpose and moral and ethical balance when decisions are made by our government to satisfy the economic objectives of special interests. This leads to charges that the U.S is hypocritical, corrupt, and cannot be trusted, charges that are not entirely without merit.

However, the answer is not, as my friend appears to believe, to characterize every action taken by our government in a negative, cynical light, basing such characterization upon this country’s history, which admittedly contains many examples of ignorant, racist, bigoted, unjust, exploitive, and manipulative treatment of citizens and non-citizens alike – but this is a history shared by the world.

This refusal to recognize and acknowledge this country’s inherent goodness and generosity is a self-defeating denial of the democratic ideals upon which this country was founded. It also cedes the moral, ethical, and principled high ground to autocratic countries that wish to justify their systemic misdeeds by comparing and equating their acts to our own.

What my friend, and others of a similar mindset need to understand, is that one of the best aspects of this country is that we are free to investigate, discover and publish the truth about our history, and to learn from it.

Rather than turning away from uncomfortable truths as if the events being described never happened or choosing to make uncomfortable truths the basis for condemnation and division, we need to acknowledge that it is better to forgive our collective selves for our past sins and to accept that our history contains acts of darkness that we should take care not to repeat.

Our history needs to be written by both the victors as well as the victims so that our history will be balanced and complete. The actions and motivations of those responsible for past acts of darkness need to be fully understood and brought to light but should not be used to pass judgement or make demands on those alive today who bear a superficial resemblance to those who brought the darkness.

When we remember the Alamo, it should not be limited to just remembering the heroic acts of the Texan defenders. The history of the Alamo is much richer and more nuanced than that, and it requires that the full story be told.  The same can be said about many things.

Joe Biden has wanted to be president for a long time. 32 years is a long time. You don’t want to become president and not be consequential, not make a difference, not do something great.

So now Joe Biden is president, and so far, he has not fulfilled his ambition. Whether he is limited by cognitive decline, the ineptitude of his advisors, or the siren song of the progressive left, one can argue that his first year as president has been worse than inconsequential.

But now, as fate would have it, Joe Biden has the opportunity of a presidential lifetime, a God-given defining moment. If Joe Biden can meet this moment, he can transcend the negativity and harsh disrespect that is being used to weaken his presidency, and in the process provide his political party with a rallying cry that could save the mid-term elections for the Democrats.

President Biden has stated that the world is at an inflection point – whether democracy and individual freedom can coexist with, or even triumph over, autocracy and subservience.

An autocratic society can exist only by controlling its people, whereas a free society can exist only by controlling its government.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has brought this ideological conflict into sharp focus. It demonstrates that a free society can be a threat to an autocratic society just as much as an autocratic society can be a threat to a free society.

By extension, freedom anywhere threatens autocracy everywhere.

As the leader of the free world, President Biden needs to rise to the occasion and champion freedom and democracy as if our very lives depend upon it.

“What does it mean to be free? To live our lives as we want, to follow the god that we wish, to be able to think and dream and express great thoughts without fear, to risk failure to achieve great goals, to rise in the morning knowing that anything is possible, to retire in the evening knowing that the next day will bring the same.

What does it mean to be free? To live our lives without the tyranny of oppression by either government or places of work and worship, to know that an honest day’s work will bring the bounty of a dignified life, that no man or woman will be subjugated by another, that everyone will receive the blessings of self-determination.

What does it mean to be free? To live our lives knowing that frailty and infirmity and misfortune will visit us all, and that we will be able to rely on the generosity of our friends and neighbors and fellow citizens to provide us with comfort and security when we are unable to provide these things for ourselves.

What does it mean to be free? To live our lives prepared to defend our freedom at whatever the cost, to reject rule by dictator or ruling class, to have no patience for corruption or for legal theft of property and wealth and achievement.

What does it mean to be free? To live our lives where our laws are fair and just for all, where opportunities exist for all in equal measure, where our accomplishments are based upon our merits, where the advantages of birth and family are tempered by generosity and compassion, where strength of character means more than wealth and status.

Those of us who are free benefit from those who came before us, those who had to fight to be free even at the sacrifice of their own lives. Freedom honors each one of us equally, standing in defiance of the belief that it is somehow God’s will that the strong shall dominate the weak.

And so, when freedom is threatened, whether by kings or dictators or despots or others who would force their dominion upon us, we must rise up together as one free people in defense of freedom, to confront the threat, to never surrender, to see the battle through to the end. For once freedom is lost, it is all the more difficult to regain.

So let the voice of freedom ring out loud and strong, from ocean to ocean, from mountain to mountain, from field to field – We who have been born free will fight to live free and will die to stay free.”

Or words to that effect.

Just as Abraham Lincoln had his “four score and seven years ago,” and Franklin D. Roosevelt had his “we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” and John F. Kennedy had his “ask not what your country can do for you,” Joe Biden needs to have a similar moment.

If he can find his moment, then Joe Biden will achieve his ambition.

Every day we hear stories about the magnificence of the Ukrainian resistance, the tragic suffering of the Ukrainian people, the horrifying destruction of Ukrainian cities and towns.

Every day we hear our loudest and most popular/respected/vilified talking heads give their opinions on the state of Putin’s physical and mental health, the inadequacies of the Russian military, the unprovoked nature of the ongoing Russian attack, and the horrors of war.

Every day we hear about the tragic deaths of civilians, the dwindling supplies of food, water, heat, and medicine, the use of vacuum bombs and cluster bombs in violation of the Geneva Convention, the possibilities of chemical and biological warfare and possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, the indiscriminate bombing of schools and hospitals and residential neighborhoods, on and on and on.

And always, there are these spoken or unspoken questions – what is Putin going to do next, and how can we avoid provoking him?

The number one concern of NATO seems to be to avoid escalation of the war and avoid any direct confrontation of Russia, even if that means the destruction of every Ukrainian city, the displacement of millions of Ukrainian refugees, and years of urban warfare.

NATO needs to be reminded that it exists specifically to confront Russian aggression. There would be no NATO if there was no threat of Russian aggression.

Plan A, which consists of economic sanctions, financial isolation, limited arms support to Ukraine, the hope of a negotiated settlement/surrender, and the refusal to sell any more Big Macs to the Russian people – this is a very cautious and measured response, not the very strong and principled response that is needed at this time.

Even if the Russian offensive never leads to a Russian victory, the unwillingness of the free world to confront a Hitler-like dictator until it is almost too late sends a clear message to other dictators and repressive governments – free societies are weak and indecisive and will not defend themselves or each other.

It is time for Plan B.

First, Ukraine must set forth its own terms of negotiated peace, to consist of the following:

• Immediate removal of all Russian military presence from Ukrainian lands, including Crimea and Donbas, including the removal of all Russian warships from Ukrainian seas.
• Payment from Russian gold reserves for the reconstruction of Ukrainian cities, towns, and infrastructure damaged/destroyed by the Russian military.
• Arrest and imprisonment of Vladimir Putin and all high-ranking members of his government pending trial in the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Second, NATO must provide full humanitarian support to the Ukrainian military so that it can effectively put an end to the ongoing destruction of Ukraine and the indiscriminate murder of Ukrainian civilians by the Russian military, to consist of the following:

• The gift of MIG-29 fighter aircraft and armaments from Poland to the Ukrainian air force.
• The gift of F-35 and F-22 fighter aircraft and armaments from the U.S. to the Ukrainian air force.
• The establishment of protected corridors to/from all areas of conflict in Ukraine to facilitate the delivery of food, water, medicine, and weapons, and to allow refugees to leave if they choose to do so.

Third, NATO must be more proactive in accepting new member countries who wish to be protected from Russian tyranny, and to be more understanding that not every government will be as democratic and free of corruption as it would like.

The type of aggression and the willingness to reject the sovereignty of nations as exemplified by Russia’s actions cannot be tolerated in today’s world. It is a malignant cancer that threatens world stability and self-determination. It must be stopped now.

The interdependency of all nations becomes more and more apparent as time passes. The fact that many people far removed from the Ukrainian conflict are likely to die from starvation because the conflict has disrupted Ukrainian wheat production is clear proof of this.

The 141 nations who condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine are 141 nations who understand that the sovereignty of nations is sacrosanct and are repulsed by Russia’s unprovoked aggression. These nations do not believe that the decision of nations formerly dominated by Russia to join NATO to protect themselves from future Russian tyranny in any way justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The world overwhelmingly rejects Russia. What is missing now is a clear and profound statement from the UN Secretary-General that provides a vision for the future based upon global cooperation so that together we can address our shared earthly concerns, and how war between nations has no place in a civilized world.  

The stark brutality and inhumanity of Vladimir Putin stares the entire world in the face as Ukraine is being blown apart to satisfy his megalomaniacal ambition. He laughs at our inaction as he threatens us with nuclear war should we dare to interfere with his destruction of a sovereign state.

This is what the world has come down to – one man’s insanity that could result in death and suffering the world over at a level never before seen, the promise of untold nuclear destruction being used to blackmail and intimidate all who would dare oppose him.

Now the world sees what true imperialism and evil is really like, what all countries will be threatened with should such aggression be left unchecked. And the world thought that the U.S. had imperial ambitions?

Russian and Chinese aggression threatens to destabilize a geopolitical order that has allowed the entire world to enrich itself during an extended period of peace, and for what? Trade between countries and regions has flourished during Western guidance and oversight. How will the Russian and Chinese models of unbridled brutality and ruthless centralized control do anything but crush the human spirit?

Corruption exists in all systems of government, but Russia and China practice corruption on a massive scale. They speak of communistic ideals, but the reality is that it is only the ruling class that enjoys the fruits of everyone’s labor.

In the purest sense, capitalism is about rewarding people who are creators, innovators and risk-takers, socialism is about ensuring that every person has dignity and a basic standard of living, and communism is about ensuring that every person works together to create an efficient and organized society.

The shared danger for all forms of government is that they can be bastardized into dictatorships where a strong and ruthless leader or political party achieves total control and systematically eliminates any dissent through propaganda, the police, informants, and the military.

Russia and China have clearly strayed away from the socialistic and communistic ideals upon which they were founded. They have become dictatorships and use their power to systemically control their populations.

As we have seen in Ukraine, people would rather be free than controlled. In theory, freedom is possible within all types of governments. In practice, it seems that only in governments that embrace fair elections, term limits and a peaceful transition of power can truly be free.

It has been a difficult and painful lesson for the U.S. to learn that it is not for us to decide for other countries what form of government they should choose to have. Clearly Russia and China have yet to learn this lesson.

The time of the U.S. acting as the peacekeeper for the world and attempting to create democracies everywhere has come to an end. It is critical now that the U.S. concentrate on the more positive aspects of diplomacy and avoid involving itself too much in the affairs of other countries.

While it is acknowledged that American values as codified by the Bill of Rights and as defined by our democratic system of government represent our beliefs and are worthy of emulation, other countries have their own values and traditional forms of government. The U.S. must learn to accept these differences and withhold moral judgement.

In addition, the U.S. must learn to lead by example and not by coercion. This is made more difficult by the dark money interests that have corrupted our democracy, the thousands of innocent people our military forces have accidentally murdered as part of our peacekeeping missions, and the political and social unrest in our own society that has stagnated our own development as a nation.

If the U.S. continues to be unable to address its own problems and unwilling to acknowledge its own mistakes, it will be difficult for the U.S. to lead by example. Given our hyper partisanship, it is unlikely to see how this is going to be accomplished any time soon.

Even so, it is vitally important that the U.S. reaffirm all our allegiances to our allies and take all necessary actions to strengthen them on an economic and cultural basis.

The U.S. must address our relationships with all countries in the Americas, including Cuba and Venezuela. We need to be perceived to be a friend and a partner who helps and supports without being judgmental or manipulative. Live and let live should be our guiding principle. The Americas are our natural sphere of influence, and we need to concentrate our efforts there.

The U.S. must also learn to accept Islam in the same way that we have accepted the Hindu and Buddhist faiths within our country. We need to become more enlightened regarding other ways of life and points of view, and to do our best to repair the schism between Islam and this country.

With respect to Russia, for as long as Vladimir Putin is alive, the Russian people will suffer from oppression, a substandard quality of life, and the resentment and distrust of countless people of all nations around the world. When he is finally dead, history will judge Vladimir Putin harshly as a man who would be Tsar, a man who cared nothing for his own people, a terrible man obsessed with his own grievances and ambitions.

However, Vladimir Putin is still alive, and arguably the most dangerous man in the world. He is clearly a sociopath that suffers from paranoia, who is isolating himself even from his closest advisors, and all the while he remains in control of the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

One can only hope that the unprovoked atrocities and war crimes in Ukraine will eventually disgust and repel the Russian military to such an extent that they will turn on Vladimir Putin and stage a military coup before Europe and the U.S. decide that they must intervene to stop the carnage.

Just as the Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine have flourished by developing closer ties to Western Europe, the Russian people and Russia itself would also flourish by renouncing its Imperial past and simply being a proud nation among many. This is what the world needs now.

If Russian aggression in Ukraine proves to be Vladimir Putin’s downfall, and Russia is no longer an ally of convenience for China, then it makes it more likely that the world can influence China to act in a more reasonable manner.

The world has clearly and emphatically renounced this unprovoked Russian aggression that was based upon a selective interpretation of historical boundaries and claims of past dominion that have no relevance to current geopolitical reality. Russia has been economically and socially isolated from the world community because of its actions.

It remains to be seen if the world would be willing to renounce a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the same manner.

By all accounts, the Chinese Olympic games were full of excellent performances by many athletes, and the performance venues themselves received generally rave reviews.

But there was much more Olympic drama than usual. There were poignant performance failures, more evidence of performance enhancing drug-based cheating by the Russians, and dozens of foreign-born athletes of Chinese descent abandoning their countries of birth to represent China. The athletes themselves were subdued and intimidated by the oppressive Chinese system that kept them isolated and afraid to speak their minds.

Moreover, the entire Olympic games have played out as Russia has steadily amassed an overwhelming military force at the border of Ukraine, and as soon as the Olympic torch was ceremoniously passed to the Italians in preparation for the next Winter Olympics, the Chinese immediately pledged their support in principle for Russian aggression.

The spirit of the Olympics has been degraded by these Olympics, if not broken.

Although it is still likely that the Olympics scheduled for Paris in 2024, Milan and Cortina in 2026, and Los Angeles in 2028 will be held, it is no longer a certainty. The sports world, and the world in general, is entering into unsettled times.

These Olympics feel too much like a repeat of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which was intended by the Germans to display the superiority of the white German race. Three years later, Germany invaded Poland and World War II began.

To a significant extent, the Chinese Olympics feels like a display of the supposed superiority of the Chinese totalitarian system and a rejection of the established world order that has allowed the entire world to prosper.

When both Russia and China exhibit nationalistic behavior that includes the stated willingness and intention to invade sovereign nations, how does the spirit of the Olympics survive?

When athletes become an extension of the State instead of an expression of love of sport, how does the spirit of the Olympics survive?

When the competition of sport becomes an extension of the competition of ways of life and thought, how does the spirit of the Olympics survive?

We all need to stand down and chill out about Covid.

Those unvaccinated people who are old or have comorbidities – many, many more are going to die unnecessarily over the next several months. This cannot be prevented without vaccinating people against their will.

In the end, this pandemic will have claimed the lives of a million Americans. More than half of these people could have avoided dying if they had availed themselves of the free vaccine, but they refused the vaccine and that was their fatal choice.

For the rest of us – those of us who have survived – we need to figure out why our Covid response as a country was such a failure. And it clearly has been a failure – no other country will have lost one out of every 330 of its citizens to Covid-19.

We need an independent commission of experienced medical scientists, statisticians, social scientists, psychologists, immunologists, accountants, etc., to conduct a thorough review of our Covid-19 response. This cannot be left up to our partisan politicians.

Beyond our excessive death rate, we will have spent and wasted an incredible amount of money, caused developmental damage to our children, exacerbated the economic inequity in our society, irreparably harmed many of our small businesses, and unnecessarily created an even more polarized country.

There are many questions that we need answers to:

• How did the Federal government lose the trust and respect of so many Americans when it came to disseminating information about the virus and making recommendations regarding our response to it?
• To what extent did scientists purposely mislead the public about the probable source of the Covid-19 virus, and why?
• What is the purpose of the gain-of-function research being conducted in the two laboratories located in the United States? Were these laboratories involved in the development of vaccines? Are their safety procedures sufficient to prevent accidental virus transmission?
• How did we allow our Covid-19 response to become such a politically polarizing issue instead of remaining a straightforward public health emergency?
• Why did so many Americans believe that it was more patriotic to exercise their individual “right” to refuse to be vaccinated instead of simply getting vaccinated and supporting our country’s collective effort to control and eradicate the Covid-19 virus?
• Did shutting down the country accomplish anything statistically significant with respect to reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths?
• Do N95 masks prevent transmission of the virus, or are N95 masks ineffective?
• Why is natural immunity not considered to be the equivalent of vaccination if the same level of antibodies is being produced?
• Why were stimulus checks sent to families who remained employed and did not suffer economic loss due to Covid-19 instead of being selectively sent only to families that were?
• How much of the money intended to support small businesses and their employees actually went to small businesses and their employees? Where did the rest of the money go?
• Why were larger big-box stores allowed to remain open while smaller local stores were made to close?
• Why have renters and homeowners with mortgages been able to avoid paying their financial obligations when they have had the financial means to do so?
• How much of the money that was distributed to improve the ventilation systems in our schools was actually spent to improve ventilation systems? Where did the rest of the money go?
• Are Pfizer and Moderna realizing extraordinary profits from the sale of their vaccines? If so, why is this being allowed when the Federal government paid for the R & D to develop the vaccines and when the vaccines are being provided for free?
• Does this country have sufficient domestic sources of personal protective equipment to address our needs for future pandemics? If not, are there measures being taken to address this?
• Does this country have sufficient domestic sources of the basic raw materials, vials, syringes, etc. required to produce and deliver the vaccines needed for future pandemics? If not, are there measures being taken to address this?
• Why did nurses refuse to get vaccinated despite their medical training and understanding of the importance of vaccines in preventing the spread of disease?
• Why did police officers, fire fighters, and EMT personnel refuse to get vaccinated when being vaccinated is an important means of protecting the public from Covid-19 infection?
• Why did public school teachers avoid in-person learning and insist on remote learning when there has been increasingly conclusive evidence that remote learning is ineffective and damaging to the social development of children?
• Is there a significant statistical difference in Covid-19 infections between private school students and teachers who practiced in-person learning when compared to public school students and teachers who practiced remote learning?
• What were the most effective and what were the least effective aspects of the differing responses taken by individual states to the Covid-19 pandemic?

These are important questions to answer, but whether this type of serious evaluation will occur is highly questionable. The urgency of the Covid-19 pandemic has greatly lessened as fewer and fewer people feel threatened by the Covid-19 virus. Being better prepared for future pandemics will become less and less of a priority as time goes on.

Soon the pandemic will start becoming a distant memory to many. Only the families of the dead and those with long-term Covid-related disabilities will remember it. The rest of us will simply go back to our pre-Covid lives.

What should be concerning to all of us is the extent to which so many of us refused to acknowledge our social responsibility to care about other people, which was to become vaccinated and in doing so minimize the pathways for the Covid-19 virus to spread. Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if everyone had been vaccinated in a timely manner.

Unfortunately, learning from our mistakes, let alone acknowledging them, is not something that most people do very well. It is much easier, more entertaining, and more profitable to blame others, to be self-righteous, and to proudly display our own ignorance and hypocrisy for all to see.  

We need to get past this Covid craziness and take a long, sober look at who we are. There is little to be proud of.

If the world wants to see what living in a totalitarian society will be like, it has only to observe the Olympic Games currently being held in China.

So far, this seems like the most joyless Olympics ever. The facilities themselves look to be world-class, but venues with man-made snow surrounded by barren snowless landscapes are a depressing metaphor for the soullessness of totalitarianism and its thin veneer of humanity.

Reports of journalists being forcefully moved by Chinese security forces shows how oppressive a totalitarian society can be.

Athletes resorting to the use of burner phones to avoid the monitoring of their conversations by Chinese security is a perfect illustration of how a totalitarian society threatens personal freedom.

Stories of the poor living conditions provided to athletes who fail the Chinese Covid testing protocols and who are isolated in Covid internment camps provide evidence of the impersonal and uncaring nature of totalitarian regimes towards those who fall out of favor.

The absence of any spectators other than a select group of Chinese creates an eerie atmosphere that in a way underlines the inhospitable nature of contemporary China towards anyone who is not Chinese.

The fact that the U.S. Speaker of the House feels compelled to tell American athletes to keep their mouths shut to avoid retribution by the Chinese government makes it clear just how much China has successfully intimidated the rest of the world.

The pictures of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping cozying up together reinforces the point that these Olympic Games are less about sports than they are about global politics. Their unified focus on retaining totalitarian power has stolen the humanity and history of their rich cultures from their own people as well as from the rest of the world.

This is likely to prove to be a soulless, heartless Olympics that does nothing to relieve the geopolitical tensions created by China and Russia but instead serves to reinforce them.

The fact that this is the second Olympics hosted by China in less than 15 years confirms the suspicion that the International Olympic Committee has somehow fallen under the sphere of Chinese influence in the same way as has the World Health Organization.

I feel sorry for the athletes who have diligently trained through the limitations imposed by Covid to compete in the Olympic Games. They deserve more recognition, attention, and appreciation than they are likely to receive.

Part of this has to do with the fact that this is China’s Olympics. The abuse, the lies, the theft, the weaponization of a virus – all the self-serving actions of the Chinese government over the past decades have cast a pall over the Olympics that even the temporary closure of polluting Chinese factories cannot eliminate.

Part of this has to do with the depressing willingness of American businesses and their associates to ignore Chinese immorality and sell out American interests to realize profits from the Chinese market.  

Part of this has to do with the suspicion that the Democratic party leadership is somehow indebted to China and will not speak up on behalf of democratic freedom, let alone take action to counter the insidious nature of totalitarianism.

No one believes anymore in the Olympic ideal of bringing about global unity through competition, except perhaps the athletes themselves.

China’s Olympics may end up revealing the true nature of China to the world despite all the efforts being made by the Chinese Communist Party to glorify its system and obscure its failures. This could prove to be more important than the number of gold medals won if we are not too afraid to face the truth.  

Crimson, def.: A rich deep red color tinged with blue, inclining towards purple. Alt. def.: In politics, representing socially responsive conservatism.

Much is being made of the liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican nature of the Supreme Court. Clearly, the Supreme Court is currently in an era where partisanship has become much more of a factor in the selection of Supreme Court justices as well as appearing to influence the actual decisions of the Court, and this has become detrimental to the rights of the American people.

Beginning with the refusal of the Republican Senate to even consider the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland solely because it was made by a Democratic President, continuing with the increasingly contentious and partisan confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and culminating in the fast-tracked party-line vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, partisanship has never been more apparent in the selection of our Supreme Court justices.

Some people may take satisfaction in the increasingly conservative/Republican balance of the Court believing that traditional Judeo-Christian values will be maintained, others will take satisfaction because it represents a partisan victory. However, being the arbiter of societal values or showing preference for the principles of a particular political party is not the role of the Supreme Court.

Based upon a commonsense reading of the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has a limited number of responsibilities:

• To ensure that the powers of the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government remain in balance.
• To ensure that the powers of the Federal and State governments remain in balance.
• To ensure that the rights of the People remain in balance with the powers of the Federal, State, and Local governments.
• To ensure that individual rights of the People remain in balance when there is a conflict between them.

Beyond these responsibilities lies the potential for both judicial overreach and underreach.

The U.S. Constitution and its Amendments provides the basis for the Supreme Court to render its decisions. Constitutional scholars have written many overeducated articles about the merits of the two fundamental philosophies regarding Constitutional law that form the basis for many decisions, but the difference between them is quite straightforward.

The first Constitutional philosophy is that of textualism and originalism. This holds that the Constitution was written as a definitive document that should be interpreted as originally written by the ratifiers in 1788. Any disagreement as to the intent of the ratifiers can only be resolved by means of an actual Amendment to the Constitution because the ratifiers are no longer alive to explain what was intended.

This philosophy essentially means that contemporary societal issues cannot be considered in the application of Constitutional law. In addition, this means that the Federal government has a limited jurisdiction within individual States, and that each State is generally free to determine its own laws and to determine to what extent the rights of its People can be abridged.

From the perspective of textualism and originalism, continuity of laws between the individual States is of no concern. The population of the U.S. is nearly one hundred times greater now than it was in 1788, interstate commerce has become a fundamental basis for our economy, and people travel and move from state to state freely and with great frequency. It can be argued that strict textualism and originalism has become a detriment to our unity as a country by minimizing the extent to which the Federal government can establish a more consistent legal framework that individual States must abide by.

The second Constitutional philosophy is that of judicial activism. This holds that the courts can and should go above the applicable law to consider broader societal implications in its decisions. Judicial activism is expressed through judicial discretion. Such a discretionary decision essentially becomes a new law without the benefit of legislative action. Judicial discretion overrides historical precedent and existing law in the interest of a perceived common good.

This philosophy essentially means that the judicial system can make significant and far-reaching changes to society without the involvement of duly elected representatives of the People. Remedies to reverse such decisions involve appealing to higher courts. When the Supreme Court itself acts with judicial discretion, however, no appeal is possible, and it falls to Congress and the President to pass a new law to reverse such a discretionary decision.

Judicial activism is typically associated with liberalism and is used as a pejorative against judges who are perceived to be liberal.

Case in Point: Brown v. Board of Education, which resulted in efforts to desegregate schools through student busing, the intent being to integrate children of different ethnic backgrounds for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunities and ending racism. Although in retrospect the decision has had mixed results, this was fundamentally a well-intentioned decision intended to address a problematic societal condition.

Judicial activism has been used by conservatives as well but is typically not labeled as such due to the weaponized liberal-directed connotation of this term, and this tends to obscure the true nature of activist conservative decisions.

Case in Point: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which effectively resulted in corporations, associations, and labor unions being allowed to make unlimited political donations as an expression of their 1^st Amendment rights.

In a direct contradiction to the philosophy of textualism and originalism, 1^st Amendment rights were extended to organizations, who were now considered to be de facto people. The Bill of Rights, inclusive of the 1^st Amendment, was specifically intended to protect the People from government tyranny. It took a convoluted and torturous interpretation of the 1^st Amendment to arrive at the Citizens United decision.  

Eleven years later, the clear result of this activist decision has been a virtual takeover of our political system by special interest groups who are able to make unlimited dark money contributions through Political Action Committees to influence elections and to ensure that laws and regulations will favor them, all to the detriment of the interests of the People.

Very few exercises in judicial activism in the entire history of the Supreme Court have been so injurious to the common good of the People as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has proven itself to be. The corruptive nature of this decision cannot be overstated.

Clearly, both strict constitutionalism and judicial activism run the risk of rendering decisions that lead to unjust outcomes that are injurious to rights of the People.

The Supreme Court is most effective when it stays true to the limited responsibilities as previously described but is also willing to consider its responsibilities in a contemporary context. Essentially, this means that the Supreme Court should strive to be conservative in its approach, but also recognize that there are human consequences to the decisions it makes and that decisions must be made first and foremost to protect the rights of the People.

The three Supreme Court justices appointed by President Trump are thought to be extremely conservative and the expectation is that the decisions made by the Supreme Court will now favor State’s rights over Federal law. If this holds true, this could certainly result in the rights of the People in a significant number of states to be negatively affected.

Restrictions on women’s reproductive lives, restrictions on voting access, restrictions on the rights of workers to organize, restrictions on the right to assemble, restrictions on freedom of the press, the intimidating influence of armed civilian militias, the use of religious freedom to deny services and access to previously protected categories of people – in fact, in some states much of this is already occurring.

It is too soon to tell how much or how little these newest Supreme Court justices will protect the rights of the People. Once confirmed, the gravity of the position as a Supreme Court justice is likely to make one or more of these justices reflect on their previously held beliefs. It is possible that the views of these newer justices will moderate over time, making concerns regarding their perceived partisan leanings irrelevant.

There is precedent for this – Harry Blackmun comes to mind. A conservative-minded justice, Blackmun recognized that the rights of the People needed to be considered first and foremost, and he became more liberal-minded as time went on.

It would be much better, however, if Supreme Court justices could somehow be selected without the primary consideration in their selection being that they share in and support the views of the political party in power at the time.

Republican presidents look to the Federalist Society for recommendations on possible Supreme Court justices. All six of the current conservative justices are recommendations of the Federalist Society.

Democratic presidents could but apparently do not look to the American Constitution Society for recommendations on possible Supreme Court justices. The American Constitution Society was established in 2001 as a philosophical counterbalance to the Federalist Society.

That being said, what if the President were to take a different approach? Suppose that the President asked both the Federalist and the American Constitution Societies for a list of judicial candidates that each society believed would be acceptable to the other society. The expectation is that there would be candidates that appeared on both submitted lists. If not, additional lists could be requested by the President until consensus candidates were obtained, and the President would have the opportunity to choose from these candidates.

There is the question as to whether the Federalist Society and/or the American Constitution Society would accept this challenge. Extremists rarely consider other opinions or points of view.

That being said and acknowledged, this approach would prevent the nomination and confirmation of extremist candidates from either end of the judicial spectrum and should result in a more moderate and impartial Supreme Court that focuses on the rights of the People.

For much too long, the selection of Supreme Court justices has been used to satisfy the political ideologies and ambitions of an elitist group of people. The independence of the Supreme Court as well as the rights of the People have suffered for it.

We need to spend some time as a country thinking about our health. Not our physical health – i.e., the Covid pandemic, but our mental health – i.e., the Trump syndrome that has infected us for years.

I recently heard a description of the events of January 6, 2021 that put its profoundly serious nature in the proper perspective – this was the first time in the history of our country that the transfer of power after a presidential election was not peaceful.

Instead, there was a violent and illegal forced entry into the Capital building by hundreds of people that temporarily delayed the transfer of power. If things had gone differently that day, our vice-president and various congressional members would have been assassinated.

When a recent poll indicates that 40% of Republicans believe that armed insurrection against our government is justified in some situations, and when a majority of Republicans believe that illegal actions were taken during the presidential election that changed the outcome of the election – despite all such allegations having been shown to be false – one can only conclude that the stage is being set for more violence to come.

We have former high-ranking government officials boasting of their efforts to prevent the will of the people from being carried out despite the outcome of the election. These officials have shamelessly provided a blueprint of their intended manipulation of our Constitution to achieve an outcome that they felt was preferable to that of the actual election.

These officials expressed pride in the fact that their plan did not require any violence in order for it to be carried out. They gave no consideration to the violence that would have resulted if their plan had actually been successful.

The excessive polarization of Americans due to decades of dysfunctional government and the callus profit-driven manipulation of society by special interests has led many Americans to be deeply fearful and distrustful of the government. Many believe that their constitutional freedoms are being threatened by the government, as well as their values and way of life.

In the absence of thoughtful leadership and civilized discourse, and in the presence of a stated unwillingness of our elected officials to respect the will of the people, how can things ever become better?

No wonder that the emergence of Donald Trump struck such a chord in the hearts and minds of so many Americans. Here was a man who spoke his mind without fear or filter, a man of strength of character and sense of purpose. Here was a man who seemed to understand the people and was willing to stand up for them against the politicians, the press, the special interests, the socialists, and everyone else who was not a true patriot.

So, if a violent insurrection or a bloodless coup is required in order to keep Donald Trump in power, then so be it. To hell with the Constitution and the will of the people. Having a strong leader to follow and believe in is the most important thing, a clear example of the ends justifying the means.

The complete surrender by the Republican party to the will and ego of Donald Trump is frightening. That one man could intimidate an entire political party and essentially become its only voice exposes the hollowness of the Republican cause and the weakness of those who represent it.

It does not help that the Democratic party is lead by old politicians past their prime who cannot speak to the hearts and minds of the American people, and who are afraid to confront the simple-minded ideology of the progressive agitative socialist leftist element of the Democratic party.

It is no wonder that, for many Americans, there is no alternative to Donald Trump, America’s strong man, and they may be right.

Like many others, I went to church on Christmas Day. I am not a Catholic, but I went to a Roman Catholic church. I am not an unquestioning believer, but I recite the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed from memory. Sometimes I listen intently to the biblical readings and the homily, and other times I sit in private contemplation as the service continues around me. I do not partake of the Eucharist because I have not met the requirements of the Church to do so, but I understand and appreciate its significance.

It occurred to me this Christmas as I sat in the pew how special it is to be among people who follow their faith and to share in their celebration of the beginning of Christ’s life. Even though it is unlikely that Christ was born on December 25^th 2,021 years ago, the exact date does not really matter. What is important is that Christianity began and then became a religion and way of life based on love and generosity of spirit, encompassing our humanity, and requesting our humility.

I am not a religious scholar nor am I a historian, but my profound sense is that all religions share in this fundamental foundation of humanity and humility. This shared purpose has been bastardized by rules, dogma, ceremony, control, and an insistence that there must be one true faith. Because of this, our shared humanity and humility have been forgotten.

Instead of appreciating the value of faith in all its manifestations, we dismiss those who do not share our beliefs. Those who have no beliefs find it easy to dismiss those who do. In the end, we find it difficult to practice acceptance and tolerance, and instead practice condescension and condemnation.

It is in the smallest and most remote of churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples that one can find the purist expression of faith. Removed from the trappings of politics and power that exist in religious hierarchies, priests and rabbis and imams who have no earthly ambition or aspiration are free to simply speak the word of God.

It is only when religious leaders, full of earthly conceit and arrogance, insist on their divine authority to interpret the word of God that religion begins to lose its connection with the holy spirit of God.

Quiet contemplation and meditation on the word of God will inevitably lead to a sense of humanity and humility, both of which are very much absent from many people’s lives. Many people profess their faith but do not practice it. Anger, intolerance, indifference, a manifestation of hatred and distrust and a willingness to engage in violence – there is no spirit of God at work when these emotions prevail.

What difference does it make if our constitution guarantees us freedom of religion when so many of us believe that there is only one true religion and only one true way to worship? We should not let ourselves be offended by the way in which other people seek the word of God.

We need to treasure our freedom to worship. In other countries where there are restrictions placed on religion and religious worship, other freedoms are equally in jeopardy. Freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of passage, freedom to think and dream and imagine – they can all be lost here in this country as well.

The very act of seeking the word of God brings enlightenment, and with enlightenment comes a sense of freedom.

No matter how much we believe that we know the word of God, there is always something more to learn, a deeper understanding to be attained. In the end, the fullness of knowledge lies beyond our brief existence, no matter what our belief and our faith, but is that not a great wonder in and of itself? If we cease to wonder and cease to learn, we cease to be enlightened, and then we cease to be free. We return to our earthly worries and material desires and imprison ourselves by them.

This is how faith and freedom are inseparably intertwined.

During this holiday season, as we visit our family and friends, and freely celebrate the season with food and drink and music and gifts, we should not forget to also spend time in quiet contemplation of the importance that faith has always had throughout the history of mankind.