The United States of America is a place on the map.  But, it has always been much more than that.  Theodore Roosevelt said it was “the hope of the world.”  It has a “Statue of Liberty” in a harbor – a gift from another country.  It stands for an idea – the freedom and dignity of the individual.  Here are sentiments on that ideal.

“but in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity.  And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get there.  That’s how I saw it, and see it still…And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurling through the darkness toward home.”   R. Reagan. Farewell Address, January, 1989 – on America as “the city on the hill” [J.Meacham, “The Soul of America”]

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”   G.Washington,  4/30/1789

“No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.”  Frederick Douglass, 10/22/l883

“The governments of the past could fairly be characterized as devices for maintaining in perpetuity the place and position of certain privileged classes, without any ultimate protection for the rights of the people.  The Government of the United States is a device for maintaining in perpetuity the rights of the people, with the ultimate extinction of all privileged classes.”  C.Coolidge, 9/25/1924

“Poverty curtails individual freedom.  So do illiteracy, prejudice, lack of education, inability to obtain the basic needs of life.”  H.H.Humphrey, 1964

“What is freedom?  Freedom is the right to choose; the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice.  Without possibility of choice and the exercise of choice a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing.”  Archibald MacLeish

“The native American has been generally despised by his white conquerers for his poverty and simplicity….his religion forbade the accumulation of wealth and the enjoyment of luxury….it was a rule of his life to share the fruits of his skill and success with his less fortunate brothers….Every religion has its Holy Book, and ours was a mingling of history, poetry, and prophecy….the Spirit of God is not breathed into man alone….the whole created universe is a sharer in the immortal perfection of its Maker.”  C.A. Eastman,   “The Soul of the Indian”

“Attack another’s rights and you destroy your own.”  J.J.Chapman, 1897

“America is not just a power; it is a promise.  It is not enough for our country to be extraordinary in might; it must be exemplary in meaning.  Our honor and our role in the world finally depend on the living proof we are a just society.”  N.Rockefeller, 1968

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.”  E.R.Murrow,  3/7/1954

“The problem that has no name – which is simply the fact that American women are kept from growing to their full human capacities – is taking a far greater toll on the physical and mental health of our country than any known disease.”  B.Friedan,  1963

“Americanism is a question of spirit, conviction, and purpose, not of creed or birthplace.  The politician who bids for the Irish or German vote, or the Irishman or German who votes as an Irishman or German, is despicable, for all the citizens of this commonwealth should vote solely as Americans; but he is not a whitt less despicable than the voter who votes against a good American, merely because that American happens to have been born in Ireland or Germany….A Scandinavian, a German, or an  Irishman who has really become an American has the right to stand on exactly the same footing as any native-born citizen in the land, and is just as much entitled to the friendship and support, social and political, of his neighbors,”    T.Roosevelt, 1894  [J.Meacham, “The Soul of America”]

“Privacy is absolutely essential to maintaining a free society.  The idea that is the foundation of the notion of privacy is the citizen is not the tool or the instrument of the government – but the reverse..”  B.C.Schmidt, Jr., 12/5/1986″

“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”  M>L> King, Jr.,  8/28/1963

“Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”  T. Jefferson,  3/4/1801

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.”   W. Phillips,  1852

“No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”  Justice R.H. Jackson, 1943

“Democracy can thrive only when it enlists the devotion of those whom Lincoln called the common people.  Democracy can hold that devotion only when it adequately respects their dignity by so ordering society as to assure to the masses of men and women reasonable security and hope for themselves and for their children.”  F.D.Roosevelt, 7/19/1940

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”  Justice L.D. Brandeis, 1928

“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  B. Franklin,  1759

“You inquire where I now stand…I think I am a Whig…others say…I am an Abolitionist….I am not a Know Nothing, that is certain.  How could I be?  How can anyone who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favor of degrading classes of white people?  Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid.  As a nation we began by declaring that ‘All men are created equal.’  We now practically read it, ‘All men are created equal negroes.’  When the Know Nothings get control it will read, ‘All men are created equal except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’  When it comes to this I shall prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty.”  A. Lincoln, 1855  [A.Gross, “The Wit and Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln”]

This leaves us with some questions.  Do these sentiments hold true in 2018 America?  If these greats were alive today, would anyone listen to them?  If not, why not?  Are we still “the city on the hill?”  Would any nation give us a second “Statue of Liberty” now?  Are we “a just society?”  Has the richest nation in world history been “so ordered as to assure the masses..reasonable security and hope for themselves and their children?”  Is the “American Dream” still alive?  What do we as citizens need to do?  Democracy is not a spectator sport.  A million Americans have died from 1775 to 2018 – does this country, in 20l8, honor that sacrifice?

Note;  quotes not attributed are from G.Carruth & E.Ehrlich, “The Harper Book of American Quotations”

In 2009,Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett wrote the international bestseller,”The Spirit Level, Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger.”  In the first 5 years after publishing, they spoke at 700 seminars and conferences; they talked to the UN, the WHO, OECD, the EU, and ILO.  Their work was corroborated both before and after they wrote the book.  Irrelevant!    They were attacked by some of “the usual suspects” from the right wing.  The second edition contained a 25 page postscript; ‘Research Meets Politics.”  They also set up a web site:  www.equalitytrust.org.uk.  Every person on earth should read this book.

 

To make their evaluation of the 23 “rich” states and the 50 American states, they used data for these metrics: level of trust in a society, mental illness [including drug and alcohol addiction]; life expectancy; infant mortality; obesity; children’s educational performance; teenage births; homicides; imprisonment rates; social mobility [not available for US states].  They spent over 50 “person years” research time on this project – why are some societies more healthy?  Obviously, attacks occurred because some people don’t want various publics to know this information – might raise questions!

The following is a summary of their findings with little commentary.

“..the truth is that the major changes in income distribution in any country are almost never attributable simply to market forces influencing wage rates.  What we see instead is the use of political power…”

Widening income differences, “with the exception of Canada..widened most rapidly in English speaking countries…accompanied in each case by a free-market ideology and by policies designed to create a more ‘flexible” labour force..English speaking countries caught the disease quickly from each other..”

For Britain, “the truth is that both the broken society and the broken economy [of post-2008] resulted from the growth of inequality.”

“as affluent societies have grown richer, there have been long-term rises in rates of anxiety, depression, and numerous other social problems.”

“..if a country wants higher average levels of educational achievement amoung its school children, it must address the underlying inequality which creates a steeper social gradient in educational achievement.”

“Increasingly, researchers are..recognizing that stress in early life, in the womb as well as infancy and early childhood..affects physical growth, emotional; social, and cognitive development.”

“More unequal countries and more unequal states have worse educational attainment – and these relationships are strong enough for us to be sure..they are not due to chance.”

A vivid contrast in trust following disasters can be seen in the American response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the Chinese response following a 2008 earthquake.  American “troops in New Orleans seemed to be used primarily to control the population [heavily armed & looking for looters], with the rapid deployment of unarmed soldiers in rescue and relief missions  in China..”

“America in the 1950s and 1960s was more egalitarian than it had been in more than a century.. those same decades were also the high point of social connectedness and civic engagement.. the last third of the twentieth century was a time of growing inequality and eroding social capital..Sometime around 1965-70 America reversed course and started becoming both less economically and less well connected socially and politically.”

“We also find that women’s status is significantly worse in more unequal states.:  “In the USA..over their lifetime more than half will suffer from a mental illness.”

“Low position in..social status..is painful to most people..the use of illegal drugs, is more common in more unequal societies.”

“In more unequal societies children experience more bullying, fights and conflict.”

“..more unequal countries have higher rates of imprisonment…people of lower class, income and education  much more likely to be sent to prison..”

“The harshness of the US prison systems at federal, state and county levels has led to repeated condemnations by..Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Committee against torture.”

In theory, imprisonment is for deterrence, retribution, incapacitation and rehabilitation; America’s prisons practice “three other purposes…class control…scapegoating…political gain.”  The Dutch and Japanese have far different principles [pg. 151].

Knowledgeable Americans will recognize the basis for the “law and order” political campaigns of the last 50 years – and the massive irony of what those “law and order” governments did in office – in the 3 purposes listed above.

“Societies that imprison more people also spend less of their wealth on welfare for their citizens…since 1984…California built only one new college but 21 new prisons [to 1998].”

“If you fail to avoid high inequality, you will need more prisons and more police…in the USA during the period since 1980, when income inequality increased rapidly…public expenditure on prisons increased 6 times as fast as public expenditure on education…”

“…after slowly increasing from 1950 to 1980, social mobility in the USA declined rapidly, as income differences widened dramatically.”

“…increased income inequality is responsible for increasing the segregation of rich and poor…poor people in poor neighborhoods [are] the ‘truly disadvantaged.'”

“Inequality seems to make countries socially dysfunctional across a wide range of outcomes.”

“The truth is that the vast majority of the population is harmed by greater inequality…BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF INEQUALITY ARE NOT CONFINED JUST TO THE LEAST WELL-OFF.”

“even the children of parents with the very highest levels of education did better in Finland and Belgium than they did in the more unequal UK or USA.”

“…greater equality can be gained either by using taxes and benefits to redistribute very unequal incomes or by greater equality in gross incomes before taxes and benefits…”

“…government may spend either to PREVENT SOCIAL PROBLEMS or, where income differences have widened, TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.”

“The scale of economic inequality which exists today is less an expression of freedom and democracy as of their DENIAL…THE TRUTH IS…modern inequality exists because  DEMOCRACY IS EXCLUDED from the economic sphere.”

“Robert Wade, professor of political economy at the London School of Economics, estimates that growing inequality meant in the years before the 2008 crash ABOUT 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR WERE BEING SIPHONED FROM THE BOTTOM 90% OF THE US POPULATION TO THE TOP 10%.”

Warren Buffett: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

“The Spirit Level” provides the results of what Buffett is talking about; the consequences of unprecedented greed; the consequences of deliberately hurting millions of people just to make another million or two; the consequences of corrupting the political and judicial systems to enrich the already obscenely rich.  Please read this book, and talk to your friends and neighbors.

A recent “Economist” magazine article, “How Democracy Dies,” discussed “How To Undermine A Democracy” in the context of newer world democracies.  It posited four stages of a democracy being dismantled: “First comes a genuine popular grievance with the status quo…Second, would -be strongmen identify enemies for angry voters to blame…Third, having won power by exploiting fear or discontent, strongmen chisel away at a free press, an impartial justice system and other institutions that form the ‘liberal’ part of liberal democracy – all in the name of thwarting enemies of the people…Eventually, in stage four, the erosion of liberal institutions leads to the death of democracy in all but name.”  The main lesson the “Economist” stressed was that “institutions matter.”  Other analysts have said that the basic process of government itself is extremely important.

President Grover Cleveland, 1894:  “the Ship of Democracy, which has weathered all storms, may sink through the mutiny of those on board..”

What would prompt this mutiny?  Once rebels take over the Ship of Democracy, what are they going to do with it?  What was their plan?  Once they’ve made the captain walk the plank, how do they propose to run the Ship?   Suppose the new leader turns out to be worse than the old captain?  What are the new rules?  Were they merely “cleaning house?”  Does the new strongman make up the rules on the fly?  Do the mutinous crew very quickly find themselves in “stage four?”  Whose head rolls now?

 

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are also concerned with what they have observed in recent years.  Their book, “How Democracies Die” is an examination of that.  They apply lessons learned studying European and Latin American democracies collapses.

“Over the past two years, we have watched politicians say and do things that are unprecedented in the United States..that we recognize as having been precursors of democratic crisis in other places….American politicians now treat their rivals as enemies, intimidate the free press, and threaten to reject the results of elections.”

Democracies work best..where constitutions are reinforced by unwritten democratic norms.”  Two big norms: mutual toleration and restraint.  “.. the guardrails of American democracy are weakening.  The erosion of our democratic norms began in the 1980s and 1990s and accelerated in the 2000s.. if one thing is clear from studying breakdowns throughout history, it’s that extreme polarization can kill democracies.”

Levitsky and Ziblatt offer four key indicators of authoritarian behavior:

1]  Rejection of {or weak commitment to} democratic rules of the game.

2]  Denial of the legitimacy of political opponents.

3] Toleration or encouragement of violence.

4] Readiness to curtail civili liberties of opponents, including media.

Readers can judge for themselves whether any of these four indicators have been broken recently [2018}.  In their experience, Levitsky and Ziblatt found that the undermining of democracy “often begins with words.”  Critics are attacked in harsh and provocative terms [so – on various media, have you observed this?…in the public sphere, has this happened?]  Journalists are attacked as “grave political enemy” of the people  [heard any recent claims that “the fake news” people have been accused of bad things?].  “The capture of the referees is done quietly by firing civil servants and other nonpartisan officials and replacing them with loyalists [ any chance you might have heard about this recently?].”  The courts are stacked by any means necessary [you haven’t been made aware of any highly unusual power plays to – say stack the U.S. Supreme Court, have you?]

Why do Levitsky and Ziblatt say “the guardrails of American democracy are weakening?”  What did they observe in the 1980-2018 period that frightened then?  Was the “mutiny” already becoming visible?   why are they and other analysts talking about “authoritarian behavior, ” not elsewhere, but in America?  What did the “Economist” magazine see?

Who would benefit if a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” did perish from the earth in America?  Who benefits from the current polarization?  Why didn’t we have this level of polarization and extremism before 1980?  We did have various craziness, but it was confined to the fringes and considered to be fringe, not mainstream, ideas.  The Russian attacks on American elections weren’t the first attacks on our system – the first came from within.  Who did that, and why?

STOP!      What’s missing here?   It’s  YOU.  What have you done?  What are you going to do?

Democracy is   NOT     a spectator sport.

The Constitution’s Preamble says:  “We the People….”   People have died – at Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Meuse-Argonne, Guadalcanal and Normandy, the “Frozen Chosin,’ in the Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan.  They’re still dying.  Others have died on America’s streets – fighting for economic justice and civil liberties.  The man who said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” died in Memphis, murdered, fighting for the rights of sanitation workers.

If we define American democracy by “government of the people, by the people, for the people”… FOR THE PEOPLE…          then it is clear that since 1980, and steadily escalating backwards – America is ceasing to be a democracy.  By many accounts and measurements – most notably rapidly worsening income inequality [and everything that comes with that] – America could now be called a plutocracy [“a class or group ruling or exercising power by virtue of its wealth”].  For confirmation, see billionaire Warren Buffett’s “class warfare” quote.

Robert M. Hutchins, 1954:  “The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.  It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.”  Slowly the heat in the frog’s boiling water is turned up.  Slowly “the guardrails of democracy” are violated and removed.  Slowly people accept wild accusations about “the Other,” about opposing politicians, about “the fake news” media, accept “alternative facts,” accept the claims that government is the problem [forgetting why “We the People” sacrificed and died for it].  The last 40 years is proving the if one tells “The Big Lie” often enough, some people begin to believe it.

by most numerical calculations, America as a middle class democracy peaked between 1947 and 1973.  America was the envy of the world – because ordinary people owned homes, cars, color TV sets, kitchen appliances.  One didn’t need a college education to accomplish all this – and usually, only one adult per home worked.  Before you vote in November 20l8 [2020], your task as a citizen is to establish why this is true.  Very importantly, to discover what government policies and citizen expectations did this.  Then, crucially, to discover how government policies changed to erode this world-class middle class achievement.  The downward change since 1980 is not an accident.

When families making between $100,000 and $150,000 are struggling, we need answers.  I recently talked with a small business owner.  She said that half her money was going to buy health insurance, with a $6,000 deductible – and no dental insurance.  This is why America is #37 in health care.  Why do we put up with this?   Why do we have so many “suicides of despair?”

 

We can, and should be better than this.  We deserve better than this.   We HAVE been better than this.  You’ve been lied to for 40 years.  Time to change this.  Insanity is voting for the same group that changed the envy of the world middle class democracy into just another country.  YOU can be a part of making American democracy real again – for all of us.  Please, do your homework – get past the propaganda, the hateful bluster, the outright lies – vote for an optimistic future America, not a fearful one that denies its own heritage, history, and heroes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your definition of “justice/”  Is it narrow, or broad?  Is it entirely legalistic?  One dictionary definition: “the quality of conforming to principles of reason, to generally accepted standards of right and wrong, and to stated terms of laws, rules, agreements, etc, in matters affecting persons who could be wronged or unduly favored.  2] rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim.”  A thesaurus: 1} “see fairness” – Impartiality, decency, honesty, truth, clarity, tolerance, balance, moderation, civility, reasonableness, rationality, humanity, equitableness, open-mindedness, benevolence; 2] lawfulness, equity, rightfulness, legitimacy, validity, constitutionality, legality.”

What jumps out here is the multiple parts of “justice.”  Certainly legalistic and constitutional; but also reason, right and wrong, not being unduly favored.  And – decency, honesty, truth, charity, balance, humanity, and open-mindedness.  By these definitions, in a perfect world, should one go to a court of law, any decision should be composed of several factors.  We start with law – assuming the law itself is impartial, not “unduly favoring” somebody. What is the court’s decision?  Is there any charity, humanity, and open-mindedness?  If this was us, could we accept this verdict?  Did the verdict follow “principles of reason?”  Is the judge in front of us a “Solomon?”  Or – is he/she a “hanging judge?” Did we get “a fair shake” here?

The moral foundation of the United States was set forth in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amoung these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..”

This was followed by the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..”

These sacred words implied many levels of “justice” and “Fair play.”  Certainly legal and constitutional.  If “all men are created equal,” then logic implies social justice to enable that.  “The pursuit of happiness,” without question, implies government policies enabling people to achieve it.

Economic justice is obviously intended.  “Happy ” people have a chance to find work.  “Domestic tranquility” would allow an economy to flourish. “Promoting the general Welfare” would be actively involved in aiding positive economic conditions.  “Justice” would mean a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work.

Wendell Willkie, 1944: “The Constitution does not provide for first and second class citizens.”  James Madison, Federalist #51: “Justice is the end of government.  It is the end of civil society.  It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”  Thomas Jefferson, 1816: “I believe..that {justice} is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our Constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing.”

Clearly, “justice” in America means more than the cold words of a law written on a cold piece of paper.  Willkie states the obvious – nobody is second class in America.  “The of government” and “the end of civil society” can only mean a government, a society, an economy exist only to “promote the general welfare” of all 330 million Americans.  Jefferson believes we’re born with the justice instinct “to do right,:” but collectively need the “moral sense” to make sure “justice” prevails.

But we haven’t always lived up to these scared thoughts.  Our failures have been monumental and well known.  Our original sin, embedded in the Constitution itself, was enslaving people kidnapped from Africa.  Our second original sin was the near extermination of Native Americans.  Henry David Thoreau, 1844: “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the only true place for a just man is also prison.”  He had few takers.

Two of the worst Supreme Court decisions were “Dred Scott” and “Plessy-v-Ferguson,” defending slavery and segregation.  The American government broke every treaty signed with Native Americans, later didn’t fully pay for oil taken from their lands.  Some of the greatest 20th century Americans were Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr, and Muhammed Ali.  They first endured persecution and humiliation.  Only much later were they seen as heroes.  They had one thing in common beside skin color – all they were asking for was simple justice.

We’ve had several infamous moments of war time insanity.  During World War I, German-Americans were persecuted; guilty of being identified with the real German Germans we were fighting in Europe.  This was followed by our first Red Scare – looking for Bolsheviks.  During World War II, we had the racially motivated internment of Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast.  Falsely accused of aiding the real Japanese who’d bombed Pearl Harbor, 110,000 innocents were put into “camps.”  The infamous “Korematsu” Supreme Court decision supporting this travesty.  While their families were locked up, a Japanese-American unit fighting in Europe was the most decorated unit of the war.  Nisei language specialists in the Pacific were credited with saving 1 million lives and shortening the war by 2 years.

Our post-World War II communist scare included the infamous “McCarthyism” period.  Thousands unjustly lost jobs, were blacklisted, and persecuted.  Griffin Fariello’s “Red Scare, Memories of an American Inquisition:” and Herbert Mitgang’s “Dangerous Dossiers, Exposing the Secret War Against America’s Greatest Authors” provide tragic details of some of the many lives ruined by one lying ambitious politician and his enablers.

But you don’t need to read books – you can just read daily newspapers.  2018 America has the current version of ” the Red Scare.”  This episode is atrocities committed against Muslim-Americans.  Somehow, these citizens are, in some minds, connected to 9/11 and subsequent Taliban-ISIS Middle Eastern atrocities.  The fact that some Muslim-Americans are risking their lives is apparently irrelevant.  So the cycle churns on.  More irrational injustice.

The above examples reveal that “justice” doesn’t just come from courts or government policies.  More importantly, it comes from what Jefferson said we’re born with.  Lincoln would have said “the better angels of our nature.”

Much of the hysteria during the above incidents came from misinformation and false accusations.  In the current age of rampant falsities on the internet [is there more false than true content?], some from the Russians and other enemies, much of the fault is our own.  The Russians can put lies out there.  The question is then: why are some of us so ready to believe this garbage?  The Russians didn’t attack innocent people. Americans did that for them.  The Russians didn’t vote for or against somebody on the basis of lies.  Americans did that for them.

The Russians, and other enemies have won so far.  They’ve got us at each others throats.  Without firing a shot, the Russians have gained huge benefits in weakening the one organization that defended Western civilization against them for 70 years – N.A.T.O.  We helped them do it.

The Russians are winning this contest – because they got us to violate one of our own most sacred democratic principles:  simple justice.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  A football team divided against itself will not win.  We once said: “united we stand.”

Little school children say the following: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”  Adults will continue to forget this at the risk of our united peril.

Are you asking questions?  Real fact-based questions?  Questions NOT based around the latest “news” from the internet?  Facebook and Twitter are removing millions of suspicious accounts.  Facebook has hired thousands of people to do this.  The latest technique is doctored videos – you can expect to see a person you dislike soon doing some supposedly evil thing in one.  If the internet is your primary “news” source, with maybe a 50-50 chance of the truth, how do you know when you’ve been manipulated?  People, right now , are confronting celebrities, angry their love notes haven’t been reciprocated – problem was they divorced their spouse for nothing, an impersonator was the real “celebrity who was supposedly “in love” with them.  Seven people in India were murdered by a mob – false viral message.  Germany has 1,200 Facebook agents removing hate speech.  Are you asking questions?

Did Mexicans,Muslims, colored minorities ship your job overseas?  Seriously?  Did they cause the 2008-xx min-depression?  Did they raise the price of drugs your Mom needs?  Did they poison your grandmother with bad peanut butter?  Are they cheating your pay envelope? Seriously?  If all 330 million Americans don’t have”justice” who REALLY is behind that?  Not everybody’s pay has stagnated since 1973.  Who REALLY has the economic-political power?  Who has the ability to give millions to political candidates?  If labor unions and government are weakened, WHO benefits?  WHO decided to end the historic American middle class 1947-73 golden age?  WHO had the ability to do it?  It wasn’t the Mexicans, Muslims, colored minorities, Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, commies, socialists.  THINK.  Start asking logical, fact-based, peer-reviewed, internationally accepted fact-based questions.  When you do, justice will emerge.

Once again, ever since the 1930’s, alarms are being raised on how America “cannot afford” to pay for Social Security.  These are false, as they always have been.  Alarms are also being raised about the “affordability” of Medicare.  These, again, ignore serous discussion about why America has the 37th best rated health care system; about why Americans pay double for Health care compared to other “rich” nations {with frequent less satisfactory results]; about why Americans pay double for prescription drugs; about why nearly 50% of American bankruptcies involve medical bills – often foe people who supposedly had Health care insurance coverage.”

The immediate, and forever lasting, permanent cure for any supposed “Social Security shortfall” is simple. Tax all income’ end the Social Security tax income cap.  In 2018, the maximum Social Security taxable amount is $128,400.  So, once a millionaire pays the tax on that $128,400 – all other income is tax free.  The rationalization is the millionaire/billionaire “doesn’t get any benefit” from being required to pay Social Security tax on 100% of his/her income.  Seriously?  Living in the richest nation provides no benefits?  Having a legal system protecting his/her wealth is of no benefit?  Enjoying the infrastructure paid for by allAmericans’ taxes is of no benefit?  Being defended by the world’s best and most expensive military is of no benefit?  Enjoying the safety and security of being protected by some of the world’s best police, fire and EMT people is of no benefit?  Seriously?

The real, and perpetual question is this: will the wealth of America be shared in any democratic and civil manner  Will the lower 95% be “given” any meaningful share of America’s wealth?  American workers work harder, and longer, and more hours than most people in other “rich” nations.  They have, and use, less vacation time.  Increasingly, they take work with them on “vacation.”

Americans have never asked foe a “hand out.”  They aren’t asking for it now.  No – the request is simply this: let us live a life with some dignity.  After 50 years of work {age l8-68}, let us finish our lives with a modest retirement.  Or, increasingly, let us have a retirement.  “70 is the new 60” is an obscenity.  The idea that people should literally be worked to death in 2018 America is a monstrous insult.  Supposedly, slavery in America ended in 1865.

During the middle class “golden age” of 1947-73, this was assumed.  People had health care and guaranteed pensions from employers, plus Social Security, and then Medicare.  Leaders like President Eisenhower assumed and accepted this.  Then the top 1% revolted.  This was “too good a deal” for ordinary people.  First came the attacks on labor unions, and soon wages stagnated {that purchasing power stagnation has lasted to this day].  Then came attacks on government – government was “too friendly” with ordinary people.  You were propagandized that there were “too many regulations” [like safe working conditions].  You were propagandized that corporate and top 1% {“the job creators” – but never, of course, the job eliminators] taxes were “too high.”  It was forgotten that some people had fought and died to get benefits for ordinary people.  It was forgotten that the top tax rates during the “middle class golden age” ranged from70-90%; producing the greatest mass prosperity in world history.

The “conservative”-reactionary talking point of the last 15 years is “entitlement reform.”  What does this mean?  To the corporate-WallStreet-top 1% pushing this “reform” it means cuts in your benefits, Mr and Mrs Lower 95%.  But, by their definition, other “entitlements” like corporate subsidies, corporate welfare, tax law benefits favoring the top 1%, etc. are not up for any reduction.  These “aren’t really benefits,” because these have “been earned” by the brilliance and “hard work” of the top 1%.  In their minds, the top 1% are better than ordinary people.  The mere fact they’re rich proves it.

The Reagan and Bush II tax cuts, the 2017 budget-busting Trump tax cuts are sacrosanct, and not up for discussion.  Today’s paper just reported the Trump Administration is now pushing a new, $100 billion tax cut for the rich!  They want to bypass Congress to do it.  Stay tuned!  The fact these tax cuts blew up the national debt from less than $1 trillion when Reagan took office to now about $21 trillion and climbing [future Bush II and Trump costs] is irrelevant.  The fact that Bush II could have reduced the U.S. national debt to $0 had he followed the Clinton plan is irrelevant.

The blown up U.S. national debt will now be weaponized by the Republican-Wall Street-corporate-top 1% reactionaries to claim we “need”austerity.  The major “necessary” sacrifice is Social Security and Medicare benefits must be reduced.  These claims have already been made, repeatedly.  There will be no permitted discussion of reducing Congressional pensions, or of any sacrifice of any kind by the top1%.  Consider this quote from a Bush II White House memo to pro-privatization groups regarding Social Security “reforms:”

“Our strategy will probably include speeches…to establish an important premise:  The current system is headed for an iceberg.  That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is a pre-condition to authentic reform.”

There you have it, Mr. & Mrs. Lower 95% – the propaganda was to be “seared into your consciousness” by repeated messages.  Repeated lies.  Outside of of reducing Social Security benefits for you, another favorite scheme has been “privatization” of Social Security.  Bush II wanted there, was stopped.  Good thing too, his mini-2008 depression would have severely hurt seniors with their retirement savings in a Wall Street fund.   Great Britain tried a privatization scheme.  After 25 years they gave it up.  It was a failure.  Bothe the public and government lost money.  A major item, “administrative costs” [profits] – which is why Wall Street wants to get its hands on people’s retirement money.

another small point is that in all the “reform” propaganda, there is no discussion of paying back to the “Social Security Trust Fund” the trillions that Congress has “borrowed” to run your government {instead of raising income taxes}.  So, part of the “Social Security crisis” is totally manufactured.  This is a “win-win” scenario for the top 1% – didn’t have to pay the taxes, they’ll get debt financing income, and – they cut your benefits [is this a great country, or what?].  They’ll get away with this scam if you, the lower 95% don’t act.

So – Mr. & Mrs. Lower 95% – you should be asking lots of questions about any so-called “entitlement reform.”  In this case, “reform” really means regression.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare mailed out a list of twenty things and events they’d done from 2005-2018 to protect Social Security and Medicare for you.  This involved stopping closures of Social Security offices; stopping a so-called “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the Constitution [various right wing forces badly want this to force all kinds of cuts]; stopping 20l5 cuts to pay for a highway bill.

The Alliance for Retired Americans just mailed out a warning about current Republican-backed legislation to pay for the Trump top 1%-corporate record 2017 tax cut [they will be working on the July 3l, 2018 scam soon]:  The bill will strip health insurance from14-15 million people immediately, more millions later; massively increase premiums for anyone with a pre-existing condition; charge an “age tax” for seniors up to five times more; drive up Medicare premiums by $8.7 billion to pay for a sweetheart tax break for pharmaceutical corporations [no dripping cynical irony here!]; put senior home-based care in severe doubt.  If you can think of a more immoral bill than this…….

Then there is Medicare itself.  Two books to read  here.  One is New York Times bestseller by T.R.Reid, “The Healing of America.”  Reid: “All the other developed countries on earth have made a different moral decision… guarantee medical care to anyone who gets sick…everyone has a right to medical care.”  And they do this without resorting to “socialized medicine.”  He tells you how they do it.  Reid opens his book with this:  “If Nikki White had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.”  But she lived, briefly, in America.  The other nations would’ve given her a standard treatment for lupus.  But, sick, with a “pre-condition,” Nikki died here, in the world’s richest country, at age 32; after spending the last few months of her life pleading for help.  Nope, “the market” can’t help you, Nikki.  Sorry, “the market” is never wrong.

Reid talks about the French “card of life.”  He talks about Otto von Bismarck’s l883 “Sickness Insurance Act” in Germany.  When Bismarck first proposed this in 1881, “He described it as a means for the more fortunate Germans to care for the least of their brethren…as “a program of applied Christianity.'”

The second book is from Pulitzer Prize-winners, Donald L. Bartlett & James B. Steele:  “Critical Condition, How Health Care In America Became Big Business – And Bad Medicine”   Page 34:  the #1 U.S. cost driver is “market-based” health care.  Page 75-76:  Wall Street corrupts medicine and increases costs.  The “financialization” of U.S. health care comes courtesy of the Reagan Administration, determined to alter health care drastically [sure did!] by “unleashing market forces.”  They cut off funding foe HMO’s and sold investors and venture capitalists on investing in health care’s “profit-making potential.”  The move to for=profit health care was “rationalized, explained, justified for one reason – as the only way to control costs.”  Yup, you read that right – restrain costs.

It might be difficult, but try to follow this “market-based” right wing logic.  Non-profit HMO’s were begun during World War II by industrialist Henry J. Kaiser.  Kaiser’s goal wasn’t to make money, but to keep workers healthy so they could keep building Kaiser’s ships.  Republican President Nixon’s law helped increase American HMO’s to around 300 in 1980, with an enrollment over 10 million.  From 1973 to 1980, it cost $350 million in loans and grants, to promote quality care and restrain costs.  This wasn’t acceptable to the Reagan Administration.  So, here we are, talking about cutting Medicare benefits – because of exploding costs.  America has the #37 best health care system.  But, we’re #1 in fraud; pay double for sub-standard care; pay double for drugs – and see various health care for-profiters making billions.  The “free market” that didn’t work for Nikki White works well for others.

One would think that America, the nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, possessing the world’s [for now] #1 economy, might want to learn something from the 36 countries above us in health care.  You’d be wrong.  In all the crazy events from 2010 forward – Obamacare, Republican efforts to repeal/sabotage it – what is non-existent is any serious talk about actually creating a system improving health care for all 330 million Americans.  There is now some talk about “Medicare for All.”  But without a new U.S. government, this will not happen.  Too “socialist” you know.  Sounds like ‘communism.”  Funny, one wouldn’t generally think of Otto von Bismarck as either a socialist or communist.

A 2013 analysis of poverty with and without Social Security provided some shocking insights about its value.  11.9% of Arkansas residents lived in poverty with S.S. – but without S.S., 55% would live in poverty.  5.6% of Iowa residents were in poverty with S.S., but without Social Security, 47.3 would be poverty stricken.  North Carolina had a 10% poverty rate with S.S., without Social Security would be at 50.9%.   Vermont had 8.5% with. 49.1% without Social Security.  A normal person, looking at these numbers, might think this is a very critical part of America’s social contract and “national security.”

President Teddy Roosevelt, 1910:  “Conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.  In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will.”

My fellow Americans, it is no mystery.  Some of your ancestors fought, and some of them died, often shot in the back, or lynched, standing up for their rights.  You don’t have to die – but you do have to fight.  What Roosevelt said in 1910 is true right now.  For the last 40 years, the right wing forces have attempted, with much success, to wipe out the entire 20th century progress of humans on every field – health, education, fair taxation, a government of-by-for the people.  Nothing is more emblematic of this than their attempt to take away elementary dignity for people in old age.

Time is short.  Maybe another election or two.  The plans to turn America into a theocratic plutocracy are all too real.  The organizations that want to do this have announced it.  People in previous Republican administrations and the current one, were/are hostile to the agencies they led/lead – and they’ve publicly said so.  They’ve told you they want to “privatize” both Social Security and Medicare.   When the robots take your job, it’ll be too late.  The top 1% will own them too.  Start with the 2018 election.  Ask candidates tough questions about how they’ll protect your future.  No “canned happy talk.”  What is their track record of Congressional votes?  What is their party’s record?

Anybody that tells you America “can’t afford” to allow hard-working Americans to live a decent retirement with Social Security and Medicare is lying, badly.  We have the money.  The top 1% doesn’t think you deserve it.  If you work 50 years  [l8-68] earning $30,000 each year, you’ll make $1.5 million in your life.  Top 1% members make that in one year, maybe in one month – year after year.  America has the money.  The only question is this: will you be allowed to live with any kind of decent respect?  Start asking questions.

 

We’ve all heard the “pro-life” complaint that their “Religious Values” are violated if, in any way, they’re forced to pay for contraception or abortion.  OK.  People get that.  We can accept that – IF – there is a two-way street.  A good old-fashioned “fair deal” American compromise.

The second half of the “Fair Deal” is that other Americans, people whose “religious values” are violated by being forced to have their tax dollars support, in any way, the schools and churches of the “pro-life” camp.  All of these people are violated by being forced to support schools and churches of religions that are politically using government to enforce their religious values on ALL Americans.  They should be able to refuse their tax dollars going to groups that violate their constitutional rights.  This means they can prohibit their property taxes, their state, local, and federal tax taxes of any kind going to religions violating their constitutional right not to have to support any form of an “established church” [a church supported in any way by forced tax monies].

The list of churches violating other Americans’ religious freedoms is determined by any church that in any way has participated in the post-1973 “pro-life” agenda.  This includes not only the church and school, but any other group or person, in any way, has assisted the church or school in this effort.  Activities included would be running newspaper ads, media efforts of any kind {including internet], handing out flyers, any public manner of promoting the “pro-life” agenda in any way, people supporting the religion financially in this effort.

We can’t see any real opposition to this compromise.  After all in the American democracy, one of “equal justice for all,” this is a very reasonable compromise.  Each “side” gets to deny paying tax monies to groups that are violating their basic religious values.  If one “side” gets to choose not paying taxes to one side of an issue, than the other side should have the exact same right.  What could be more fair?  What could be more American?

 

We can end the great “culture war” over abortion with a compromise.  Part one is a universal ban on abortion.  Part two is a “Mandatory Motherhood Fund.”  All 1973 forward antiabortion organizations and people of any kind will be taxed.       All politically active people in federal state, and local political parties, advocacy groups think tanks, and churches will be taxed.  Any person who has publicly endorsed the “pro-life” position in any way; people who have financially supported the”pro-life’ agenda in any way will be taxed.  All women forced to carry babies to birth will be cared for and compensated for expenses and lost income from the fund.  Any woman whose health is adversely affected’ or dies from forced birth will be compensated from the Mandatory Motherhood Fund.

Part three is the adoption list.  All politically active people, those in antiabortion groups, state, federal , and local officials who supported antiabortion laws of any kind, church personnel who supported antiabortion laws, any person who publicly supported the “pro-life” position in any way, people who financially supported the “pro-life” agenda will be put on the adoption list.  Any time a baby is born because of the Mandatory Motherhood program, people at the top of the list will be required to adopt that child, and raise it to age 18, age 26 if the child wants college or job training.

If funding for the Mandatory Motherhood program runs out, abortions instantly become legal.  If the list of people required to adopt unwanted babies runs out, abortions instantly become legal.  If funding for the “social safety net” is not adequately funded, abortions instantly become legal.  The “safety net” includes health, public education, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, child day care, universal pre-K for age 3 up – all the public services a modern civilized developed nation provides for its people.

The genius of this program is that it gives “pro-life: people a public chance to demonstrate how very much they love born babies and children.

The political-economic-social-religious right has many plausible sounding propaganda slogans.  The claim that some judges, usually called “conservative” though many are in fact reactionary, can read the Constitution’s tea leaves has been completely demolished by many, including the Framers who wrote it.  An excellent starting point is Leonard W. Levy’s “Original Intent and the Framer’s Constitution.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning Levy uses specific quotes from various Framers, analysis by respected scholars, and insights from judges to definitively show what a farce the entire “original intent” argument really is.

Former West Virginia Chief Justice Richard Neely said people who take seriously the Supreme Court’s “historical scholarship as applied to the Constitution also probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.”  Levy quotes “sophisticated conservative” United States Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Posner from his article, “What Am I?  APotted Plant?” repudiating the belief constitutional judges should speak the Framers’ mind: “There has never been a time when the courts of the United States, state or federal behaved consistently in accordance with this idea.  Nor should they.”

In light of the 24/7 propaganda war of disinformation, perhaps revisiting George Orwoll’s “1984” slogan of the Party: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past,” will be quite helpful in understanding the supposed theory of “original intent.”  See it as a clever trick to control the narrative.

As Levy says, a peculiar charm of “original intent” is that the judge employing it SEEMS to escape subjectivity.  The judge, supposedly, becomes an impersonal time traveler who merely reports what the Framers supposedly intended.  “Thus, an originalist judge supposedly rises above criticism if he is nothing but an intermediary for transmitting and applying the wishes of the Framers.”  A masterful trump card stroke – who would dare be guilt of criticizing James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et all?  Original intent is a form of name dropping, nothing more.

The Revolutionary Era generation revolted first against a corporation – the Boston Tea Party.  The main evolution was against the British king.  Throughout this era there was a consistent, publicly announced, desire to eliminate any type of theocracy, an official state church, thus “no law respecting an establishment of religion” in the First Amendment.  The common theme: human dignity, respect for the individual rights of man.  They said this over and over again: “We hold these truths to be self-evident;” these rights “are born with us:” “written as with a sunbeam..by the hand of the divinity itself..”  It is commonly accepted that when the Supreme Court has failed worst, it has failed to respect human dignity – Dred Scott, Plessy-v-Ferguson, Korematsu…  One does not need a book to stand for human dignity.  That comes from wisdom and compassion.  The legal school of thought embodied by “Original intent” doesn’t care about human dignity.  One judge practicing it has said: “That wasn’t my job.”  The very essence the real “Original Intent” of the 1770-1792 generation was human dignity.  The opposition to the Constitution demanded this be written, so the Bill of Rights was added to guarantee it.  Simple Justice.

Consider this – the Framers, the geniuses who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, often, and repeatedly, argued among themselves – in the 1790’s, within 10 years of creating it – over what they had written meant!  If the creators are arguing over their own “original intent,” how can anybody, in 2018, be saying THEY “know” it???  Levy relates during a 1791 Congressional debate, John Vining {Del] “summarily dismissed original intent” as the “opinion” of 1787, which he felt had become obsolete, “not a sufficient authority..for Congress at the present time to construe the Constitution.”

This is not an isolated incident.  Albert Gallatin [Pa], in 1796 felt the only opinions about the meaning of the Constitution that he accepted were those of the members of the state ratifying conventions who favored ratification. because they alone, acting on behalf of the people, adopted the Constitution, and so “their intentions alone might, with any degree of propriety, be resorted to.”  Madison often voiced a similar opinion.

But, as Levy relates, there is a problem with what was actually said, not only in 1787 Philadelphia, but also in the various state conventions.  Madison’s Notes are considered the most reliable account of 1787 Philadelphia activities.  But, by word count, Levy calculates that Madison probably had between 20-50% of what was said.  Another source was “butchered>”  State summaries were not only unreliable, but in some cases “doctored.”  Bill of Rights records were often non-existent; sometimes “imaginative.” including things not said.  Some of the identities of men involved are unknown

Levy notes the Framers’ “genius for studied imprecision and calculated ambiguity,” illustrating his point with several pages of ambiguities and “inappropriate specificity” – absurd literal readings – in the Constitution’s text.  Levy lists as a partial beginning half a page of questions like: “What is the meaning of infamous crimes” in the Fifth Amendment?  Then there is the matter that is perhaps the “definitive statement on a constitutional jurisprudence of original intent was made by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott case…”

Along those lines it is interesting that the primary users and pushers of “Original intent” are coming from only one part of the political-economc-social-religious spectrum.  The primary “accusation” is that some judges are accused of being unethical and “unconstitutional” in their “judicial activism.”  And, not coincidentally, say figures on the right side, these offenders have been guilty of center-left  “activist” revisions of what the Framers intended.

These charges ignore the documented historical truth that “judicial activism” has been practiced from America’s beginning.  It also ignores Supreme Court history.  Most Supreme Courts would be labeled “conservative” at best, reactionary [Dred Scott, Korematsu] in many major decisions.  Also of interest, in the last 50 years, a series of “conservative” regimes have labeled themselves “law and order” governments.  Problematic with that is th fact that the Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, Trump regimes have engaged in a large amount of dubious, even criminal behavior.  To say the least, it appears quite odd that “law and order” regimes also insist on appointing “original intent” judges.  Then, when court decisions lean largely in one direction [by numerical count] ideologically, questions naturally arise.  This is further troubling when the logic quoted behind decisions doesn’t square with known Framers’ goals and beliefs.  Questions naturally arise about the “original intent” scholarship that supposedly justified decisions.

If we take “original intent”literally, then America will be forever governed by 1787 thinking, no matter how America and the world change.  Therefore, modern technology like the internet will be governed by 1787 legal principles.  When robots become ubiquitous, how does the court rule when your robot injures my robot?  Is a robot a “person” or a “thing?”  Where does one find “robot-type thing/person in the Constitution?  Would the robot be subject to “cruel and unusual punishment if we unplugged him?

The Virginia Chief Justice had n answer, 6/l4/1788: “May we not in the progress of things, discover some great and important (right), which we don’t now think of?  In 1920, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: ” when we are dealing with words that are also a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEN completely by the most gifted of its begetters..The case before us must be considered in the light of OUR WHOLE EXPERIENCE and NOT merely in the light of WHAT WAS SAID A HUNDRED YEARS AGO..  We must CONSIDER WHAT THE COUNTRY HAS BECOME.”

Levy points out that: “Words of crucial importance in constitutional law are not even in the Constitution, including fair trial, executive agreement, beyond reasonable doubt, the spending power, clear and present danger, cross-examination, separation of church and state, war powers.. presumption of innocence..equal justice, the right to privacy, the right to travel, the right  to silence..strict scrutiny, interstate commerce..”   All these rights now understood, have been added since 1787.  Life, and the law without them would be unthinkable.

Alexander Hamilton, in 1775: “the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged among old parchments or musty records.  They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself..”  In 1766, John Dickinson said, speaking of “the rights essential to happiness,”  We claim them from a higher source – from the King of Kings..They are born with us.. they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.  This echoes “We hold these truths to be self-evident..”

If America is forever frozen in 1787, then we might ask if this is so, why is the process of adding amendments to the Constitution embedded init?  Since Article V says no amendments before 1808 – thus the Framers were plainly saying future changes, unexpected, could be added.  They are plainly saying, their “original intent” could be changed, modified, even eliminated.

So…what would we have if we could collectively build a Supreme Court justice from nothing?  What characteristics would we like to have?  If we’re giving lifetime tenure to a person, what expectations should America have, deserve??

 

Judge Learned Hand believed these people should be broadly educated in history, literature, and philosophy.  Because “everything turns upon the spirit in which he approaches the questions before him.”…the spirit in which he approaches issues..”

 

Judge Felix Frankfurter: “the words of the Constitution on which their solution is based are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if they indeed do not compel him, to gather meaning, not from reading the Constitution, but from reading life.”… compelled to gather meaning by reading life…

President Teddy Roosevelt: “.. their whole training and aloofness of their position on the bench prevent them from having, as a rule, any real knowledge of, or understanding sympathy with, the lives and needs of the ordinary hard-working toiler.”….real knowledge and sympathy for ordinary people….

Adlai Stevenson: “Knowledge alone is not enough.  It must be leavened with magnanimity before it becomes wisdom.”  …knowledge without magnanimity is not enough…..

We’re left to wonder…Did King Solomon rely on “original intent” when he threatened to split the disputed baby in half?  Or…. had he learned from reading the book of life?

My profound apologies, Trump voters.  I do not understand you – why most of you are still backing this man.  I didn’t understand why you voted for the man  Please understand that millions of Americans who voted against Trump frustrated and horrified that you did.  We non-Trump voters have difficulty with what some of you are saying.  We definitely have trouble with your apparent vision of what America is and should be.  We don’t want to insult you.  We really don’t understand why and how you got to this point.

I’ve read various articles on how a person should talk to a liberal, how to talk to a conservative.  These have been troubling.  The mere fact that I should have to talk “in code” to different groups of people is frustrating.  Two groups of people living in a democracy, two vastly different viewpoints with the same information on the same issues.  I always assumed that most, if not all people, would accept logic and two plus two equals four thinking.

What I’m learning, what others are saying, is that, somehow we’ve into “two different tribes.”  There have always been different opinions; but something has changed that difference in the last 40 years into near-war.  Thus a question: can a modern democracy continue to function this way?  Can there be two sets of “fact,” one based on “belief,” there other on numbers?

In trying to understand how good Americans could be deceived by deliberate lies I’ve read a number of sources on how people are deceived.  In 2007, Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson wrote “un-Spun, finding facts in a world of [disinformation];” in 20l4 John Grant wrote “Bulls*t, How to Detect Junk Science, Bogus Claims, Wacky Theories, and General Human Stupidity;” a recent “Mother Jones” article, “Disarming Disinformation;” before that, in 2004, Thomas Frank wrote best-seller, What’s the Matter with Kansas?,” about how middle America became outraged over lost jobs and unequal wealth distribution, then elected people who could {and did} make things worse.  European analysts are also trying to understand this.

“Mother Jones” magazine advises me my task is “about finding something that will make sense to you,” and that ‘It’s about how {you] came to believe it, and whether {you} may have been deceived>”  So, can I relate to you about Trump’s past and current behavior that might cause you to think he’d been dishonest?  So….maybe……..

Does it make a difference to you that, I believe it was Politifact, found Trump had lied 2,000 times in 2017?  And the count was up to 3,000 lies in office in early 2018?  Does it make a difference Trump has based policy on campaign “promises,” but what he does is often selective cherry-picking of which promises to keep?  For most people, “the swamp in Washington” to be drained was the criminal effect of money on public policy – but Trump has done virtually nothing positive on that?   Does it bother you that Trump’s “big win” – the 2017 tax cut is another gift to the top 1% and it’s been said Trump will get a $30 million tax cut?  And – this tax cut will increase the national debt by trillions?  This will also be used as an excuse to cut your Social Security and Medicare benefits?  Does it make a difference that Trump has, often deliberately, alienated virtually all of our 70-year foreign policy allies {the ones we need against China}?

If your answer to all of this is “NO, I still support Trump,” then we are left with only controversial issues – abortion , guns, and immigration.  Many non-Trump citizens would be incredulous if this is true.  Because,  suppose we give in- we give you all three: ban abortions, eliminate all gun restrictions, seal off the Mexican border.  You can write any law you want.  Now, do you really feel America is now a better place, that these laws solved all our problems – and- more not mentioned above – like the coming robot/automation of nearly 90-95% of all jobs’ the unsustainable health crisis {we’re #37 world-wide}; the massive opioid crisis, and the future American energy system {renewables, which Trump opposes – but the rest of the world is rapidly employing}

I apologizing if this sounds like a lecture – just raising questions in which you might have been “misinformed” by “alternative facts.”

I know all Trump supporters consider themselves real patriots.  How do you feel about “The Economist” recently downgrading America from a full democracy to a flawed democracy?  What has happened in the last 40 years that led to this ranking?  A vast number of books, articles, and programs have discussed this.  Some are: Pulitzer Prize-winning Headrick Smith”s “Who Stole the American Dream;?  double-Pulitzer Prize-winner Donald Bartlett and James Steele”s “The Betrayal of the American Dream;” Academy Award winner {for his film ,”Inside Job”] Charles Ferguson’s “Predator Nation, Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America;” and Pulitzer Prize-winner David C Johnston’s “Divided, The Perils of Growing Inequality” [and also “Perfectly Legal,” “Free Lunch,” “Fine Print”].  They all blame the top 1% and multi-national corporations for the cheating of middle America.

Would you believe any of them?  The top 1% and the corporations have, in a sense, committed “treason” against America.  They’ve weakened us by shipping jobs overseas, by wage suppression, and, in some cases, by giving away sensitive technology for short term profits.  The tax cuts for the top 1% have [using GAO & IRS numbers] escalated the American national debt from $1 trillion in 1980 to XX trillions now, and more guaranteed by Trump’s 2017 ta cut.  Do you believe these facts?  If not, where are we?

Dear Trump voters, where are we as a middle class democracy?  You have a vision of a America.  What information is behind this vision?  Have you been lied to?  Has corporate America done the same as the tobacco industry?  Have you been told the truth on global warming?  Exxon-Mobile scientists knew global warming was real in the 1970’s.

Have you been told the real truth on why your wages have been stagnate?  Numerous studies have shown the top 1% has, in effect, stolen from $500-1,000 a month from post-1980 workers, based upon pre-1980 IRS un-spun numbers.  The median American worker’s income is now about $31,000 annually.  If your income had gone up as much as the top 1%, one study showed you’d be making about $93,000 a year!!!

Dear Trump voters, has the post-1980 rhetoric that most of you apparently believe made life better for you and your family than the middle class statistical golden age of 1947-l973?  Is your life more secure, stable, stress-free than it was then?  Do you have the same affordable health benefits, decent wages, guaranteed pension as they did?  If somebody “is to blame” for misfortune, have you been told the real truth on “who did it?”  OR… have you accepted the “reasons” given you by your favorite media sources, and asked no questions?

Are you living in “Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood,” or Donald Trump”s?

Not trying to lecture you!   I just really, really do not understand why you are still supporting such a person as Donald Trump.  Many of your non-Trump fellow citizens see him as an “all hat, no cattle” 21st century P. T. Barnum.  We’re not only horrified, we’re scared over what he’ll do to America, the environment, and the world.  WE’re praying he doesn’t start a shooting war in addition to the trade war we thinks he can “win.”  We fear the “shaking up” of Washington isn’t going to be what you thought it was going to be.

Dear Trump supporters, we love America as much as you do.  That’s why we’re very frightened.  Living in Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood meant love, hope, tolerance.  Living in Mr. Trump’s neighborhood seems to mean hate, fear, and intolerance.  I’m sorry.  I don’t understand anybody supporting this as the vision of America’s future.

Internationally respected religious expert, Charles Kimball’s “When Religion Becomes Evil”{2002} lists five warning signs of corruption in a religion: absolute truth claims, blind obedience, establishing the “ideal’ time, the end justifies any means, declaring holy war. Kimball talks of his 1950’s background, in which many of his Baptist and Church of Christ friends were convinced Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians were in grave danger of missing “the true gospel” of Christ.  Catholics were “not even on the map.”

Katherine Stewart’s “The Good News Club, the Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children” documents a plan to undermine and eliminate public schools.  She attended a religious right convention in which one seminar’s main topic was “addressing the problem of how to subvert Catholic teachings and practices so subtly that the Catholic-born students won’t alert their parents..” because being devout Catholics doesn’t mean they are the “right kind” of Christian.

It has been said often that more people have been killed, more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than anything else.  Catholics and Protestants killed each for centuries in Europe.  Sunni and Shi’ah  Muslims have killed each other for centuries.  One reason Native Americans were nearly exterminated was they weren’t Christians.  There was long-standing prejudice against Jews in Europe before 1933.  Hitler used that bigotry to murder 6 million Jews.

America’s Founding Fathers knew some of this.  Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states; “..no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”   Amendment I states:    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”  A religious test cuts two ways.  Your religion is neither a positive reason for office, nor a negative reason against you.  Amendment I also cuts two ways, you have freedom to conduct your own religious experience and beliefs, AND, the rest of the American people have a “freedom from” you.  It is unconstitutional for you to force others by law to run their lives by YOUR religious beliefs.  In 1963, Boston Archbishop Richard Cardinal Cushing told a radio audience: “I have no right to impose my thinking, which is rooted in religious thought {opposition to birth control}, on those who do not think as I do.”

Using the Bible, any Bible, presents problems Kimball says.  The Christian Bible has 66 books written over 1,000 years and many kinds of expression, requiring interpretation at many levels.  The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek.  In 2002 there were “nearly two dozen contemporary English translations points to challenge of communicating the meaning and intent of the original text.”  Which Bible is the “right” one?

Kimball quotes Peter Gomes, Harvard Memorial Church minister of 38 years: “Literalism is dangerous..meaning is determined by what the reader         takes out of the text..Thus, what the reader thinks is there becomes not merely the reader’s opinion, but the will of God, with all the moral consequences and authority that that implies..”

Kimball places the Taliban and the American religious right on a continuum: “Christian reconstructionists in America are only one step removed from the counterparts with a concrete, divinely ordained plan for an Islamic state or the reconstituted, expanded biblical state of Israel.  The gap begins to close when the agenda includes denigration of Islam or direct action against abortion clinics.”

The major difference between Middle Eastern religious zealots and American zealots is the Islamic ones kill people physically, the American zealots kill people using laws.  Church doctrines are forced into laws and judicial interpretations.  Susan Jacoby, in The Age of American Unreason:” Justice “Scalia, a profoundly conservative Catholic as well as a profoundly conservative jurist, has said bluntly that Catholic officeholders should resign if asked to uphold any public policies that contradict church doctrine..”  Pat Robertson, in a taped, 9/18/97 speech discussing the goal of shaping America’s future and expecting to “select the next president of the United States” and Republican obedience: “We just tell these guys, “Look, we {the religious right} put you in power in 1994, and we want you to deliver..we’re going to hold your feet to the fire while you do it..”

The “culture war” the religious right has foisted on America didn’t begin with Roe-v-Wade.  It began with the Griswold decision process.  One of the religious right churches wanted to ban all Connecticut married women from using birth control.  The 1965, 7-2  Griswold decision, in part, said: “We deal with a right of privacy older than The Bill of Rights.”  Goldberg’s supporting opinion: “The entire fabric of the Constitution demonstrated that thew right to marital privacy were just as fundamental as any that were explicitly enumerated.”

Interestingly, in l987, following the 58-42 defeat of Judge Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, the Senate’s judiciary committee chief counsel said: “if the Bork struggle was over any one case, it was “Griswold-v-Connecticut.”  Others agreed: “Bork was deprived of a seat on the Supreme Court largely because of his refusal to acknowledge the ‘unenumerated’ right to privacy as being part of the set of constitutional rights legitimately enjoyed by Americans.”

In December, l977, a group of prominent theologians and ethicists said: “We are sadened by the heavy institutional involvement of the Bishops of the Roman Catholic  Church in a campaign to enact religiously based antiabortion commitments int5o law and we view this as a serious threat to religious liberty and freedom  of conscience.”  In the 1992 “Casey” decision, Justice Kennedy said: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.  In light of a woman’s pregnancy burdens: “her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist..upon its own vision of the woman;s role..”  {David J. Garrow – “Liberty and Sexuality”}

The original intent of the Founding Fathers, of the common people of the various states, of religions in l787-1792, is definitively described in Leonard W. Levy”s book, “The Establishment Clause.”  When they said “NO” law respecting an establishment of religion, they meant none, as in never, in any way.  Levy relates hoe Evangelicals in Virginia demanded separation of church and state; framer Richard Dobbs Spaight: “Any act of Congress on this subject would be a usurpation;” Baptist preacher John Leland advocated a radical separation of government and religion, and “religion is a matter between God and individuals..:”  Madison, Jefferson, and Christian fundamentalists felt the founding principle was that to require a person to support even the religion of his choice denied him his freedom of choice and his right to religious liberty; Evangelicals who profoundly cared about the purity of Christian faith warned against the corrupting embrace of government, and advocated separation in order to defend religion.

Levy spends considerable time explaining why 1980’s figures like Rehnquist, Meese, and Burger were wrong in their attempts to twist the First Amendment.  As many have noted, the  Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have further twisted the First Amendment out of the Founders’ original intent.  Ironically, this will be done in the name of “originalism!.’   And, of course, the prime beneficiaries of this twisting, surprise!, will be the top 1% and corporations.

 

Levy also relates Tocqueville”s famous trip to America and his observations about  American religion: ” ..all thought the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state.  I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.”

“When you pray, do not do as the hypocrites do, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men..Instead, when you do pray, enter into your room and shut the door, and pray to thy Father who is in secret.”  Matthew  6: 5-6