Category Archives: government

Would He Really Have Said This? 

Posted on by
Reply

We wonder if he even saw it. Or read it.

He certainly didn’t write it because he only writes in the middle of the night and what he writes is semi-incoherent and dotted with numerous misspellings, usually lacking honesty, is often loaded with hateful attacks on those who dare to disagree with him, and id intended only to keep his base inflamed.

His Holy Week statement, issued on Palm Sunday, clearly was written by someone else. It is typically Trump, though, in that it reeks of faux sincerity and reverence.

Last Sunday, the day the statement was released, the White House listed his schedule for the day:

12:01 AM The President arrives Palm Beach International Airport
12:10 AM  The President departs Palm Beach International Airport en route Mar-a-Lago
12:25 AM  The President arrives Mar-a-Lago

10:26 AM  The President departs Mar-a-Lago for his golf club

10:34 AM  The President arrives at Trump International Golf Club West Palm Beach

5:00 PM  The President departs Mar-a-Lago enroute to Palm Beach International

5:15 PM  The President Arrives Palm Beach International

5:25 PM The President departs Palm Beach International en route Joint Base Andrews

7:30 PM  The President arrives at Joint Base Andrews

7:40 PM  The President departs Joint Base Andrews en route to the White House

7:50 PM  The President arrives at The White House.

We doubt that The President paused during his afternoon of worshiping the putter and the 5-iron and the 2-wood to have a prayer to celebrate Christ’s death and resurrection, as he promised that he would be doing.

This Holy Week, Melania and I join in prayer with Christians celebrating the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ — the living Son of God who conquered death, freed us from sin, and unlocked the gates of Heaven for all of humanity.

Beginning with Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and culminating in the Paschal Triduum, which begins on Holy Thursday with the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, followed by Good Friday, and reaching its pinnacle in the Easter Vigil on Holy Saturday night. This week is a time of reflection for Christians to memorialize Jesus’ crucifixion—and to prepare their hearts, minds, and souls for His miraculous Resurrection from the dead.

During this sacred week, we acknowledge that the glory of Easter Sunday cannot come without the sacrifice Jesus Christ made on the cross. In His final hours on Earth, Christ willingly endured excruciating pain, torture, and execution on the cross out of a deep and abiding love for all His creation. Through His suffering, we have redemption. Through His death, we are forgiven of our sins. Through His Resurrection, we have hope of eternal life. On Easter morning, the stone is rolled away, the tomb is empty, and light prevails over darkness — signaling that death does not have the final word.

This Holy Week, my Administration renews its promise to defend the Christian faith in our schools, military, workplaces, hospitals, and halls of government. We will never waver in safeguarding the right to religious liberty, upholding the dignity of life, and protecting God in our public square.

As we focus on Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, we look to His love, humility, and obedience — even in life’s most difficult and uncertain moments. This week, we pray for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon our beloved Nation. We pray that America will remain a beacon of faith, hope, and freedom for the entire world, and we pray to achieve a future that reflects the truth, beauty, and goodness of Christ’s eternal kingdom in Heaven.

May God bless you and your family during this special time of year and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

It makes sense, doesn’t it?  The President, who proclaimed that he would “celebrate the crucifixion and resurrection” would observe Palm Sunday by playing golf all day surrounded by PALM TREES.

Now that’s a sincere Christian for you. It’s a definition of Palm Sunday most of us never considered.

We wonder if he defended the Christian faith by mentioning the Savior’s name on the golf course, perhaps when one of his shots went the wrong way.

We have read some news accounts of The President’s Palm Sunday looking for accounts of Melania joining him in this celebration and observance, as he said she would. But nobody reported her presence.  It was probably a plot by the Associated Press to ignore her presence.  Had to be. Or maybe it was CNN or CBS or ABC or NBC.

And we wonder how his prayer “that America will remain a beacon of faith, hope, and freedom for the entire world” with a future “that reflects the truth, beauty, and goodness of Christ’s eternal kingdom in Heaven” sounds to the tens of thousands of people who are targets of his revenge and his deportations.

They didn’t have time for Palm Sunday golf.  They were too busy—really praying.

-0-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

The Meaning of a Wisconsin Election

Posted on by
Reply

When a people choose vindictive self-service over broader public concern, they make an eventually correctible mistake.

When Congress replaces responsibility for the many with loyalty to one, a nation is in trouble.

When courts replace justice with ideology, a nation might be lost.

We live in and often must endure our own humanness. But there are protections that we must trust within our political system that keep our mistake from becoming our destruction.

This is such a time.

The current administration has attacked the courts and the “unelected judges” who are overturning unconstitutional executive orders, preferring that the court system get out of the way. We can be grateful that our founders made the court a road block to injustice.

Elected? The dangers of an elected judiciary were on plain view in Wisconsin a few days ago where an effort was made to buy a seat on the state supreme court for someone designated as a Trump supporter who would tilt the court majority politically toward Trump.

It has become obvious to many within the last few days that they were mistaken when they accepted without question the promises given last year by Donald Trump.  Now, they must place their hope with a Congress in which some are beginning to question their loyalty to him and wonder if they have the courage to remember their responsibility.

In the end, though, it is the courts that have the ultimate responsibility for saving our nation.

The courts cannot completely nor immediately reverse the course set by the mistake. But the courts are our ultimate and final refuge—

—-which is why the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election was so critical, not just for Wisconsin, but for all of us; not just because of WHO was elected but because of WHAT was rejected.

History has shown liberal or conservative-tilting courts are not always as clearly divided as the labels we attach to their individual members seem to indicate they will be. There is a middle ground that often is the resting place for compromise on carefully designed decisions. And it is that middle ground on the finest points of a case that might produce no major progress but will save us from any major regression.

Missouri originated a system that avoids the fight we recently saw in Wisconsin that featured a concerted effort to buy a seat on the Supreme Court. It is regrettable that we still allow people to try to buy part of our state constitution by financing multi-million dollar petition campaigns (last year’s sports wagering campaign in which the casino industry spent more than $40 million to get 3,000 more people to vote for sports wagering than voted against it after a misleading campaign is an example) and they can bankroll candidates for the legislature in an effort to buy laws.

But because our highest court judges are not elected, they cannot be bought.

Chief Justice Laura Denvir Smith, who also was the Chair of the Appellate Judicial Commission, told the Missouri Senate Rules Committee in 2007:

Judges are not intended to be politicians, choosing sides based on political considerations, or what the judge’s neighbors, fundraisers or special interest groups might think was best.  Deciding cases based on the judge’s or another’s perception of what is popular or politically expedient is inconsistent with one’s duty as a judge and is just plain wrong.  

The judicial branch of our democracy instead must be neutral, seeing that the laws are applied fairly, and providing stability in the law so that there is consistency in the rules by which people live their lives.  Although some court decisions are not popular, popularity is not the benchmark of quality in the judicial branch: The nature of our business is such that half the people are unhappy because they lost and some of the ones who won are unhappy because they don’t think they won enough.  

In every case, from a marital dissolution that only affects the couple and their children to an issue of constitutional validity, the role of the judicial branch is to resolve disputes neutrally and fairly based on the facts that are presented in court.  If they are doing their job correctly, judges decide based on the law and the facts, not based on the possible political ramifications of different results.

Sometimes the public, the parties and even the judges deciding a case are unhappy with its outcome, because the law may not produce a result that accords with our personal preferences. But if you ask those same people, when they have a case in court, whether they want a judge to pre-decide it based on the judge’s views of what will look good in the newspaper the next day, or, instead, whether they want a judge who will come to court with an open mind, listen to their side of the case, and reach a fair decision – they will pick the open mind and the fair decision – every time.

No one wants to worry that the case will be decided against them because the other side, or the other side’s lawyer, gave a large contribution to the judge’s election campaign, or to those politicians who appointed or nominated the judge for office.  Missourians learned long ago, before they adopted the nonpartisan plan, that is exactly what can and does happen when politics becomes a key factor in determining who will be a judge.

Missouri was the first state to adopt a non-partisan judicial selection process somce adopted by a majority of the states, although some states have added their own tweaks.

Although we adopted our plan in 1940 in an effort to take as much politics as possible out of the judicial selection process, the issue goes back to our first Constitution that was written in 1820 and had to be accepted by Congress before Missouri was allowed to become the 24th state.

That Constitution had the governor nominating judges at all levels and if the senate gave its consent to his nomination, the judges cold serve until they were 65 as long as they engaged in “good behavior.” But if the legislature found a judge having badly, it could by a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber, ask the governor to remove a judge.

In the next couple of decades, though, Missourians began to doubt the wisdom of that latter point because it made the courts subservient to legislative politics and legislators were too influenced by special interests. Missouri became one of the states that decided the answer was judicial elections, legalized here in 1850.

By the start of the Twentieth Century and the machine politics of the time—the Pendergast family’s control of Democrat politics in its home town of Kansas City and in much of Missouri and the Butler machine in St. Louis, for example—the public became concerned that the judiciary’s independence was in doubt.

Beginning in 1903, when four state senators were indicted for taking bribes to vote on legislation specifying ingredients for Missouri-made baking powder and the supreme court overturned the first conviction and sentence and the other three cases never went to trial, there was suspicion that the supreme court had its own “boodle” scandal.

The Pendergast grip on Democratic politics statewide in the 1930s led to a push for adoption of a nonpartisan court plan known as “merit selection.” It was part of a national movement aimed at assuring our courts would be a true third branch of government.

When the legislature refused to hold an election on the proposal, an initiative petition forced a vote—and Missouri voters bought the idea in November, 1940.  When the legislature put a repeal of the plan on the 1942 ballot, voters strongly rejected it.

When our present state constitution was adopted in 1945, the plan was not touched.

The plan was limited to judges of the Missouri Supreme Court and courts of appeals. It also applied to some lower courts, including the probate courts, in the city of St. Louis and Jackson County. Other counties were given the option of adopting the plan.  But only six of our circuit courts have been put under the non-partisan plan, recognized nationally as The Missouri Plan.

Here is how it works:

A nonpartisan judicial commission, the Appellate Judicial Commission, solicits applications, interviews candidates and picks three finalists. The commission has three citizens appointed by the governor, three lawyers appointed by the Missouri Bar, with the chair being the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The commission picks three finalists whose names are made public, and the governor makes the final choice.

When a vacancy occurs, the commission seeks applicants and encourages the public to nominate well-qualified candidates for consideration. The commission reviews the applications of lawyers who wish to join the court and selects which applicants it will interview, then conducts those interviews in public. The commission then deliberates in a closed meeting to select a panel of three nominees for the governor’s consideration.

The governor has sixty days to announce his choice. If the governor fails to make a pick, the commission re-convenes and fills the vacancy. That has never been necessary.

The new judges then serve at least a year but then have to stand for retention in a statewide vote. The vote does not involve opposing candidates. It only asks citizens if the judge should be kept in office. There is no campaigning although the Missouri Bar’s Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee (made up of lawyers and non-lawyers) gives voters information about each of the judges up for retention so informed votes can be cast.

Although all counties can adopt this procedure, only a few use it. Only six jurisdictions do evaluations and hold non-partisan circuit judge elections—St. Louis city and county, Clay, Jackson, and Platte Counties in the Kansas City metro area, and Greene County (the Springfield area).

The plan is recognized as one that keeps politics out of judicial selection as much as possible. Unlike the federal system in which a President can reward friendly lawyers with juicy judicial appointments, this plan creates a process that sends up three people whose qualifications are based n their understanding of the law and the proper administration of it. There is no Senate approval of nominees, which would run the risk of politics being a major part of the process.

It does not keep those who want to degrade the legal system for their own protection or benefit from complaining about “unelected activist judges.”  But, having learned how it operates, this system might make it clear that some of the current attacks on the judiciary have no grounds, at least not here and not in our appellate court system.

The Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan is the greatest protection we have against those who want to replace justice with ideology.

 

The Immigrants 

Posted on by
1

I had planned on a more frivolous entry for today, but Monday I read Barbara Shelley’s commentary on The Missouri Independent website and I think it is far more important than anything I could offer.  She was an respected reporter with the Kansas City Star in my reporting days and remains a respected observer of our times. In this entry, she puts human faces onto the victims of President Trump’s vicious immigration policies that show no concern for who is hurt by them—people or our nation.

Once in America, immigration was a sign of our greatness, of our country’s promise, and our ancestors (yours and mine) came here to seek it. Now those people are villainized with lies from our President.

It is heart-breaking for one who memorized in his school days Thomas Wolfe’s Promise of America to read Barbara’s description of what President Trump has brutally cancelled in our national character. Perhaps you memorized it, too:

” So, then, to every man his chance—to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining, golden opportunity—to every man the right to live, to work, to be himself, and to become whatever thing his manhood and his vision can combine to make him — this, seeker, is the promise of America.”

Here’s her commentary about the crushing of that promise:

Friends and family arrived bearing flowers. Smiling volunteers pointed the way to seats.

Everyone loves a naturalization ceremony. I attended one recently at a branch of the Kansas City Public Library and watched 71 new American citizens swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Even more immigrants had taken the oath earlier in the day.

“This room is full of the most brilliant minds that the world knows,” Wasim Khan, a cultural leader, told the group. “You guys are the teachers. You know what it takes to be here.”

After the ceremony, as League of Women Voters volunteers swooped in to invite the new citizens to register, I asked a few people how long they have been in America.

Eight years, 12 years, too many years to count.

Naturalized citizenship is a long, expensive process and everyone who achieves it does so through a combination of grit and good fortune.

I’ve attended several of these ceremonies over the years to cheer on people I’ve had the privilege to know.

One was a piano teacher who came here from Kyrgyzstan to study at American universities. Several others arrived as refugees. They overcame language barriers and all the hardships of poverty to arrive at their naturalization ceremonies as educated, hardworking contributors to their communities.

The recent ceremony was no different from others I’ve witnessed, but I couldn’t summon the usual measure of joy.

Rather, I kept wondering what a naturalization ceremony will look like once the xenophobic policies of the Trump administration have been fully brought to bear.

Last year, I signed up to participate on a team that would sponsor a refugee family, in cooperation with a resettlement agency. I told myself that it would be a satisfying act of resistance in case Donald J. Trump won the presidency.

Along with others, I welcomed a family of eight at Kansas City’s airport on a snowy evening 12 days before Trump’s inauguration. They were exhausted and one person was ill but they were here and we were ready to introduce them to America.

We had no idea how difficult that was going to be.

Within a week of taking office, Trump had slammed the door to new refugee admissions and cut off funding for the families who had recently arrived.

The resettlement community had anticipated the first move. It was gobsmacked by the second. With an executive order, Trump wiped out money that was supposed to pay for rent and utilities, medical screenings and other services for hundreds of people who had entered the United States legally in the last 90 days.

Agencies went into emergency fundraising mode, but Trump’s action was crippling. The agency I volunteer for lost nearly $1 million of federal money it had counted on. Part of that amount was already spent in rent deposits and other costs.

It’s nearly impossible to cover a gap like that through donations. Within weeks two agencies in Kansas City laid off close to half their staffs. A smaller nonprofit laid off its entire refugee services staff. A mid-Missouri agency shut down its resettlement program.

My role in the resistance now includes scanning job ads for something that might work for adults who speak only a little English and will have to ride to work on the bus. I’ve become familiar with the difficulties of booking an appointment at the local Social Security office — and good luck once Elon Musk gets through with that program.

The family that my team works with was routed from their ancestral home and spent years in limbo in a neighboring country. The adults are fully aware that the leader of the United States does not want them here.

Their status is legal, but they are afraid. They grieve family members left behind in a refugee camp, clinging to hopes of a reunion that may not happen in this lifetime.

In my head, I construct sentences that begin with “at least.”

At least they aren’t here on humanitarian parole status — a category of immigrants more endangered than refugees.

At least they have a place to stay, a small rental house in a hollowed-out part of Kansas City. A recent New York Times story reported on newly arrived refugees in St. Louis languishing in motels on highway interchanges because the resettlement agency there was unable to pay apartment leases.

At least members of my family have friends. Immigrants from their home country have sought them out and embraced them.

The situation could always be worse. But it is bad enough.

Refugee resettlement is a way of participating in the global good. Therefore, it is not a priority in Trump’s “America First” agenda.

The immigrants whom I witnessed as they became naturalized citizens last month represented 36 nations, including some of the most troubled, like Haiti, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

They had cleared a high bar to get to the ceremony. All of them passed a civics test that most Americans would find daunting. They were deemed to be of “good moral character,” a standard that we don’t necessarily demand from our nation’s leaders.

Congratulations to the new Americans. May we always find a path for them.

-0-

Or, may we rediscover the greatness that provided a path for them and have the courage to admit the disgrace we have allowed our President to bring to the Promise of America.

Spineless

Posted on by
Reply

So they don’t want people such as you and me to tell them face to face what their apparent saint in the White House is doing to the country with no apparent regard for who among us is hurt by his actions.

A few days ago, Congressman Richard Hudson of North Carolina suggested his fellow Republicans avoid holding in-person town hall meetings after some constituents unloaded on some of his colleagues when they did hold one.  One video showed one of those who represents folks like us fleeing from the stage because he couldn’t stand the heat.

Hudson is the Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. He charged, without offering any proof that we have heard, that the town halls are being hijacked by Democratic activists, which seems to imply that there are no Republicans who have been moved to activism because all Republicans think the big guy is doing such wonderful things .

Funny, isn’t it?—that whenever people take to streets with pitchforks that it’s never the local folks who are causing the ruckus. It’s those lousy activists from the other party or other side of an issue who have driven for several hours just to be nasty to those poor elected representatives.

Some of those encouraging our representatives not to talk to us say those troublesome outside agitators are being paid!  How interesting that the Congresspeople seem to think nobody from their districts wants to put in their two cents worth about the events in Washington and wants a chance to be heard without buying anything, or anybody. It’s those well-paid troublemakers from somewhere else. Surely, the home folks wouldn’t be that worked up.

So they flee, shouting “outside agitators” over their shoulders.

There are two words that are not spoken as frequently as they should be to our political leaders at all levels who make such claims: “Prove it.”

Here in Jefferson City, it’s not much of a problem.  I can’t remember the last time our Congressman even showed a face around here, let alone had the mistaken impression that constituents might not be thankful for the voting record of their representative and what is being done to them. The one time I dropped by our most recent Congressman’s office, I found the door locked and when someone opened it, the attitude seemed to be “Who do you think you are?”

But elsewhere? Activists from the minority party are coming out of the woodwork and they’re not all outside or paid. But if even one insider in the district is asking questions, the Representative for that person should feel obligated to answer. Refusing to do so makes the Representative who lacks the courage to question anything his exalted leader is saying or doing uncomfortable. And what about the good unpaid people of the majority party? Would they never think to complain?

Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee claimed, “It’s pretty clear that they’ve got professional instigators, people that are showing up that are not even constituents,. And it’s getting dangerous. They’re going to people’s houses, they’re putting notices out, where do they live, where do they go to church, where do they eat — they did that on me. That kind of activity … breeds a very dangerous situation for families.”

Nobody in the White House is creating “a very dangerous situation for families”?

Speaking truth to power isn’t welcomed. The big guy in the White House won’t tolerate it from members of Congress or even from world leaders and lately has been denouncing some of his media interrogators as beneath his disrespect.  Members of Congress are upset when their constituents do have the courage to comment, and the constituents aren’t nice about it. They are upset at an obligation they should feel to hear what their people think even if it’s direct.

The big problem is that Republican members of Congress can’t dodge the issues. Or maybe we should say they can’t DOGE the issues.

Get a spine, Congressfolk.  Look at what the impact on the folks back home caused by a little man with a messianic complex. Come home and tell your farmers their markets are going to suffer because of tariffs, that the concerns about the social safety net are not valid, that the dismantling of the weather bureau and the disaster relief agencies  and the air traffic control system—and the price of Mexican beer should not be of concern.

We recall from our history-readings that when Andrew Jackson felt he had been wronged by future Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton and when Jackson was threatening to shoot Benton in a Tennessee hotel confrontation, he sounded at Benton, “Defend yourself, you damned rascal!”

It’s time for the damned rascals who are scared of the man in the White House (whose idol happens to be Andrew Jackson) who places loyalty above service; retribution above public responsibility; and lies above truth to explain themselves to the people who trusted them enough to put them in their offices.

Those who lack the courage to explain to their people why they lack the courage to oppose policies hurtful to the public interest don’t deserve more time to display their spinelessness.

Well—

They can run but they can’t hide.  And when they run again, the voting activists that they did not wish to face where they live might have a more important message than the “outside agitators” they didn’t want to address had.

Cartoon Man/Man as Cartoon

Posted on by
Reply

Editorial cartoonists occupy a unique position in American journalism.  They can comfort. They can interpret. They can inform. They can provoke.

They can capture a moment in our national existence in a way that is memorable. They can show in their work things we mortals grasp for words to express.  Steve Burns, a Pulitzer-Prize winning children’s book author, works for the San Diego Union Tribune.

A few days ago, he captured an image of the American economy that is not what our president promised in his campaign it would be. “Stocks Down,” he called it.

It’s the most creative illustration I have seen of our president and the times he has brought down upon us.

Burns’ cartoons are syndicated nationally by Creators Syndicate.

We hope he can do another portrait someday of our president that reverses the lines, not because we want him to succeed but because we want our nation to prosper no matter what he eventually does to it.

Hats off to Steve Burns who uniquely captures this moment for our nation.

(Image credit: Creators Syndicate March 14, 2025)

-0-

Patrick and Volodymyr

Posted on by
Reply

A country facing tyrannical control.  Enemy forces are at the gate. Should an effort be made for a cease fire or even full peace?  How great a price will be paid either way?

The other day I picked up a book containing a speech that might have been given 250 years ago. The style of public speaking has changed a lot in that time. But the situation and he sentiments of he remarks are appropriate for our time.

…The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained — we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

We don’t really know how accurate the account of this great American speech is. There was no transcript taken at the time in the Virginia House of Burgesses. .Author Willam Wirt reconstructed it in his 1817 biography of Patrick Henry, leading some historians to question its authenticity.

Whether these words were fully spoken 250 years ago, on March 23, 1775 or whether they were partially made up or completely made up by Wirt 208 years ago, the situation and the sentiment have a certain resonance as the President of Ukraine deals with Russia’s war on his country and the demands by Ukraine’s (former?) ally that it turn over a major part of its economy to the United States and a significant part of its territory to Russia.

We doubt that our president ever read the speech or, if he did, that he ever understood its importance to our nation’s attitude about ourselves or others who share our democratic vision.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”

What should be OUR answer in today’s world? We already know his answer. Chains and slavery.

The Meritocracy

Posted on by
Reply

We are waiting to see the day the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion do two things.

  1. Proclaims Black History Month will not be recognized.
  2. Eliminate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Black History Month began as “Negro History Week” in 1926 at the urging of one of our nation’s greatest Black historians, Carter G. Woodson, and the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, with Woodson saying it was important to the cultural survival of Blacks within the broader White society.  The week was observed in the February week when the birth of Abraham Lincoln was celebrated.

He commented, “If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated. The American Indian left no continuous record. He did not appreciate the value of tradition; and where is he today? The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition, as is attested by the Bible itself. In spite of worldwide persecution, therefore, he is a great factor in our civilization.”

The Black United Students group and Black educators at Kent State University proposed in 1969 that the week-long celebration become Black History Month.  The first observance was in 1970.

President Ford endorsed it as part of the national Bicentennial celebrations in 1976.

But with the arrival of the second Trump term, Black History Month appeared to be on somewhat shaky ground.  One of the first things Trump did when resuming office was to sign an executive order ending “all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government.”

Within a matter of days, agencies were circulating memos, many of them announcing in terms similar to the line used by a Justice Department memo, “These programs divided Americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars, and resulted in shameful discrimination.”

To the surprise of some, Trump did sign a proclamation recognizing Black History Month at the start of February calling on American citizens and public officials to “celebrate the contributions of so many black American patriots who have indelibly shaped our Nation’s history.”

EEOC:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission exists but President Trump has rendered it useless, as he has the National Labor Relations Board.

Acting quickly after resuming office, he fired then-Chairman Charlotte Burrows, a Biden appointee who became the first chairman ever fired by a President. He also canned Commissioner Joycelyn Samuels, one of his own appointees from 2020, leaving only two members of the five-member commission. Trump appointee Andrea Lucas was named the acting chair. She is identified as a strong opponent of DEI programs, which she says promote reverse discrimination. The also is known as a critic of legal protections for transgender people. Her term expires July 1.

Failure to reappoint her or to name a successor will leave only Kalpana Kotagel on the commission.  Kotagel is an African-American employment attorney appointee of President Biden. Her term expires in 2027, potentially leaving the commission with no members.

Kotagel is doomed.  She’s the kind of person Trump loves to hate. As a private attorney, she specialized in DEI cases, particularly involving the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and has represented clients in other civil rights employment actions. Four years ago she worked with the Transgender Defense and Educational Fund when Aetna Insurance Company granted access to breast augmentation surgery for male policyholders who underwent surgery to become women. She also is a member of the Advisory Board Office of Equity and Inclusion at the University of Pennsylvania.

Trump criticized the EEOC in his first term as ineffective and took no steps to make it so. The commission’s staff has been cut by more than 40% by Congress.

About the same time he was ravaging the EEOC, Trump fired National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, a Biden appointee, and Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox, leaving the NLRB also with just two members and three vacancies, thus unable to do any business.

In place of these and other programs created to insure qualified people have equal chances to become employed, Trump trumpets the meritocracy, saying people should be hired on the basis of merit, not race or other factors. But he has dismantled the agencies that were established to make sure that everybody was considered on their merits.

And he has celebrated the month by firing a lot of Black American patriots—including, just last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—who are shaping our present.  Someday our present will be someone else’s past.  We hope those of the future are harsh in their judgments of our present and the President who is making it.

The Golden Rule Today

Posted on by
Reply

It use to be darkly humorous to note than in contemporary society, “He who has the gold rules.”

But today, in this country where egalitarianism is taking a beating from the super-oligarch behind the simple-oligarch, there is no humor in that twisting of the verse from the New Testament Book of Matthew, “All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do even so to them.”

Or in contemporary English, “Do unto Oohers and you would have the do unto you.”

The sentiment seems completely unfamiliar to our President or to his top henchmen and his Meat Cleaver Vigilantes.

The Golden Rule is not just a Christian instruction.  Other faiths have their versions of it.

Sathya Si Baba, a Hindu guru who claimed to be the reincarnation of 19th century spiritual master Sai Baba of Shirdi, whose teachings were a blend of the Christianity and Muslim faiths, wrote: “You must examine every act to find out if it will cause pain to others; if it does, withdraw from it. Don’t do to others what you do not like done unto you. This is called the Golden Rule. Yes, it is the best test for distinguishing right from wrong.”  (SSS 7:227

The equivalent for Buddhists from Udana-Varga 5:18is, “In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and families by generosity, courtesy, and benevolence, by treting them as he treats himself and by being as good at his word.”

Judaism: “What is hurtful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.” (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)

Muhammed told his followers, “No one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” (Sunnah)

In The Great Learning, Ta Haio, Confucius comes pretty close to our contemporary language: “Do not unto others that you would not they should do until you.”

Mahabharta 5:17 tells Hindus, “Do not do to others that which if done to thee would cause thee pain.”

Followers of the Indian faith called Jainism, one of the world’s oldest religions, say, “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard “all creatures as we regard our own self.”

The lesson from Grantha Sahib in the Sikh faith is, “As thou deemest thyself, so deem others. Then shall thou become a partner in heaven.”

The Tao Tu Ching, The Book of the Way and Virtue teaches students of the Tao, “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and regard your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

Zoraster, who also is known as Zarathustra, was a teacher and preacher of an ancient religion that influenced the Abrahamic religions—Christianity, Muslim, and Judaism—and the great Greek philosophers. His teaching recorded in Dadisten-i-dinik 94:5 reads, “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

There also are Golden Rules from the writings of great philosophers:

About a century before the birth of Christ, Epictetus wrote, “What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others.”

Immanuel Kant, an 18th Century German Philosopher, wrote, “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.”

The Greek philosopher Plato, in the 4th Century BCE wished, “May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.”

About a century later, another Greek philosopher, Socrates, offered, “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.”

And Rome’s Seneca in the First Century CE, said in his Epistle 47:11, “Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors.”

Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who wrote his Meditations 2.1, said Nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, for we are made for cooperation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away. 

We’ll give American poet Edwin Markham the final observation:  “We have committed the Golden Rule to memory; let us now commit it to life.”

Markham might be best known for his simple poem, “Outwited”:

He drew a circle that shut me out
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

In Washington today, the Golden Rule is a tarnished gong, a clanging cymbal and the only circle is the one that shuts people out.

Wouldn’t a Christian Nation draw the circle that takes others in?

The Gulf

Posted on by
Reply

It’s the Gulf of Mexico. Period.

And calling it the Gulf of America is as silly as some people got after the September 2001 terrorist attacks when France opposed our invasion of Iraq by deciding to call French fries, Freedom Fries.

The pettiness and immaturity of a 78-year old man with a superiority complex was played out a few days ago when he threw a tantrum and banished an Associated Press reporter from an Oval Office press conference dominated not by the old man but by his  hatchet man. The reporters was not banned because he asked an impertinent question of either of the stars of the event.

He was barred from the event because the Associated Press won’t call the Gulf of Mexico the presidentially-designated Gulf of America.

To begin with, Trump’s executive order on the Gulf shows his usual ignorance of and respect for maritime/economic law and the authority of individuals as well as countries to keep calling it the Gulf of Mexico.

But never trouble Donald Trump with facts or with respecting any system, nations, and cultures that long-ago legally or at least culturally designated names of places.

Renaming Denali, for example, is disrespectful of the Koyukon Athabascan people who have lived in that area for centuries and have called it Denali. Not until 1896 was it called Mt. McKinley, and not by any official action or decision by an international naming agency but by a gold miner who started calling it McKinley to support a presidential candidate. President Wilson signed a bill in 1917 making McKinley the official name.

But the state of Alaska asked in 1975 that the United States Board on Geographical Place Names make the official name to the traditional Denali. Ohio Congressman Ralph Regula blocked it because McKinley’s hometown of Canton was in his district and he didn’t seem to care what generations of natives had called the mountain long before he came along. Canton is a long ways from Alaska and surely Regula (who died a few years ago) could have found something closer to home with which to make a headline.

The Board of Geographical Place Names?

The King of Renaming Puffery apparently does not know, or does not care about, the existence of such a body that was created in 1897 and assumed its present status by federal law in 1947. The board, part of the Department of the Interior, tries to allocate place names based on local custom “as well as principles, policies, and procedures governing the use of domestic names, foreign names, Antarctic names, and undersea feature names,” as one source puts it. More than fifty other nations have similar national bodies.

Such organizations are necessary to avoid confusion about what is what and where that what is.

Then there is the United Nations Economic and Social Council  and its nine-member Group of Experts on Geographical Names that has been reviews things every five years, beginning in 1960. Having a commonly-used name of a place is important in domestic and international trade.

But we are learning that this President has no regard for federal agencies or international programs, especially when he decides to show his power by ignoring them with executive orders. And woe be unto anyone who does not worship his impulses.

Here’s the deal about the Gulf of Whatever—

The United States does not OWN the Gulf of Mexico.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea grants countries control of waters about twelve nautical miles from the country’s shores. That’s the closest this country has to owning a gulf, a sea, or an ocean.

There also is an “Exclusive Economic Zone” that covers 200 miles of offshore water. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the zone allows this country to “explore, exploit, conserve and manage natural resources” in that area. That zone overlaps similar zones for Mexico and Cuba. But they don’t count in inner Trumpworld.

So the Great Geopolitician is asserting authority over Mexico and Cuba with his MAGA-pleasing proclamation, something outside his and his country’s authority. The solution to his situation should be easy for him: Make Mexico our 52nd state and Cuba our 53rd.

Canada already is in line to become number 51. And that brings us to another issue for our President and our takeover of Canada.

What’s with this St. Lawrence Seaway thing?

It allows oceangoing ships to travel from the Atlantic Ocean as far inland as Duluth, Minnesota.  It’s named for the St. Lawrence River that links Lake Ontario to the Atlantic. We expect an executive order soon renaming the thoroughfare the Duluth Seaway.

And while we’re at it, why is it the Missouri River when there are so many other states involved?  We can’t call it the Missouri-Kansas-Nebraska-Iowa-North Dakota-South Dakota, Montana River.  Let’s simplify it and just call it The Trump River and make it a symbol of his success at bringing the county together.

And then—

The administration’s new Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum says the department is considering redrawing boundaries of our national parks and historic sites so there’s more room to drill, baby, drill—even though we understand the major petroleum companies are less enthusiastic about the increased supply that will lower the pump prices of gas and oil.  But as long as we’re tinkering with those parks and historic sites—-

Let’s add the scowling Presidential visage to Mount Rushmore although rock experts have told the National Park Service the remaining rock is unstable.

It might be the perfect place for a Trump sculpture after all

(Actually, increased drilling should be welcomed by consumers who will pay less for the fuel it takes to buy their more-expensive groceries.)

And while we’re talking about the Gulf of Mexico, why don’t we annex the Caribbean?

Now back to the AP reporter. Trump’s action constitutes a punishment for a news agency that reports the news in a way he does not like.  That’s been illegal since John Peter Zenger was accused of libel by the Royal Governor of New York because Zenger’s New York Journal published an editorial critical of Governor William Cosby.

Cosby issued a proclamation condemning Zenger’s newspaper for “divers scandalous, virulent, false, and seditious reflections,” a crude eloquence we won’t find on (Un)Truth Social. It doesn’t even have an exclamation point, a misspelling, and a capitalized word.

Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton—the father of Alexander—argued that truth is an absolute defense against libel. It took a jury only ten minutes to find Zenger not guilty, a judgment that established press freedom in this country.

Trump’s hissy fit because the AP recognizes the internationally-established name for the Gulf of Mexico, while not a libel, is an exercise of press freedom. The press is not obligated to print the party line or the individual declaration of anyone, including Presidents with a totalitarian attitude.

–or as the AP put it, “As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audience.”  The AP does agree to change the mountain to Mt. McKinley in its style book.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment advocacy group, commented, “President Trump has the authority to change how the U. S. government refers to the Gulf. But he cannot punish a new organization for using another term.”

Well, he did.  And he’s moving to punish news organizations who dare question his bloviating about any issue that pops into his head.

Someday, perhaps, we’ll get into a discussion of “America,” another word about which Trump is, shall we say, extremely uneducated.

Not In Our Stars, But In Ourselves

Posted on by
Reply

We get a retreaded President today, a lame duck from the time the oath of office is concluded.  Many look with trepidation at the coming four years. Some anticipate they will make America greater in those four years. As we write this, we have no idea what the inaugural address will be but we anticipate no eloquence, little logic, and great appeal tor true believers.

If things go off the tracks, even more than the losers in the recent elecitons, fear or hope they will, who is to blame.

Edward R. Murrow borrowed frm a famous drama to give that answer during one of his television programs 71 years ago.

We need a preface for this discussion.

Reed Harris, who died in 1982 just short of 83 years old, was a writer and publisher and once deputy director of the United States Information Agency. In 1950 he became deputy director of the International Information Administration, the agency under which the Voice of America operates.

In 1932, he wrote a book called King Football: The Vulgarization of the American College, in which he tore into the commercialism of college football. He wrote, “To put forth winning football teams, alumni, faculty and trustees will lie, cheat and steal, unofficially.”

More than 20 years later, he found himself ensnared in Senator Joseph McCarthy’s stage show in which he charged the federal government, including the IIA, was full of Communists .  Harris and McCarthy tangled for three days, during which Harris charged McCarthy’s hearings actually were hurting anti-communist propaganda efforts.

When he resigned in 1954, he sent McCarthy fifteen testimonial letters documenting his loyalty. McCarthy, ignoring Harris’s support, called his departure “the best thing that has happened there in a long time. I only hope that a lot of Mr. Harris’s close friends will follow him out.”

Seventy years ago, one of my journalistic heroes also crossed swords with McCarthy, who used the new medium of television to spread his demagogic allegations that he easily made but could not prove.

Edward R. Murrow, with the courageous backing of producer Fred Friendly tackled McCarthy on his “See It Now” program on CBS.  McCarthy was given time to respond, and did so with more of his accusations without proof.

Murrow’s final observation on “See It Now” resonates today because a new form of McCarthyism has been abroad in our land for several years and is going to be with us for several more, apparently.

Murrow quoted Cassius from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar in placing the blame for McCarthyism on the American people as he closed his broadcast of March 9, 1954.

Senator McCarthy succeeded in proving that Reed Harris had once written a bad book, which the American people had proved twenty-two years ago by not buying it, which is what they eventually do with all bad ideas. As for Reed Harris, his resignation was accepted a month later with a letter of commendation. McCarthy claimed it as a victory.

The Reed Harris hearing demonstrates one of the Senator’s techniques. Twice he said the American Civil Liberties Union was listed as a subversive front. The Attorney General’s list does not and has never listed the ACLU as subversive, nor does the FBI or any other federal government agency. And the American Civil Liberties Union holds in its files letters of commendation from President Truman, President Eisenhower, and General MacArthur.

Now let us try to bring the McCarthy story a little more up to date. Two years ago Senator Benton of Connecticut accused McCarthy of apparent perjury, unethical practice, and perpetrating a hoax on the Senate. McCarthy sued for two million dollars. Last week he dropped the case, saying no one could be found who believed Benton’s story. Several volunteers have come forward saying they believe it in its entirety…

Earlier, the Senator asked, “Upon what meat does this, our Caesar, feed?” Had he looked three lines earlier in Shakespeare’s Caesar, he would have found this line, which is not altogether inappropriate: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Good night, and good luck.

There’s something else Murrow said although it was not original. It had its roots in a letter our Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1787:

“Under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress, & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor.”

Murrow put it more directly once: “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

Whose fault is that—Shakespeare and Cassius and Murrow told us.

The solution?  Jefferson had it in 1787.