Farewell, My Republic - A Threnody*

I’ve made no qualms about my love for most things Disney.  I grew up on their animated features and television programming.  Mom painted me a mural on my early childhood bedroom wall that had all the characters coming out of the castle.  I’m fascinated by the theme parks and what makes certain areas successful.  How they operate and grow through the years.  And I’ve grown to appreciate the life of Walt Disney.  His desire to continue to evolve and grow, tackling new and more challenging projects at each step, from animated shorts, to animated features, to live action features, to combining live action and animation, to theme parks, to television, and even to urban planning.

One part of my love is a great appreciation for theme park music, both ride attraction soundtracks and area music.  It’s something I can put on in the background while I work and continue to appreciate.  In particular, I greatly appreciate those Walt-era attractions, both the ones I’ve been able to personally experience and those that have not existed for years.

A particular favorite album collection is the 1964 World’s Fair attractions.  A four disc set, with each disc covering a different attraction and experience at the fair created by Walt and his team.  Ford’s Magic Skyway, GE’s Carousel of Progress, Pepsi’s it’s a small world, and Great Moments for Mr. Lincoln for the Illinois state pavilion.

That last album has been getting a lot of play recently, as the words of Lincoln continue to remain relevant today.  The show begins with a state song and summary of Lincoln’s life, before transitioning into the more familiar part of the show, an animatronic figure of Lincoln rising from a chair and delivering a five minute speech.  

The speech is actually a combination of five famous speeches made by Lincoln through his life, performed by actor Royal Dano.  The collection of speeches is designed to greatly reflect the challenges Lincoln faced in holding the country together in perhaps its most tumultuous time to that point.  To convey the weariness and stress of the President, Dano was required to provide take after take, with the last one ultimately being chosen; the weariness, soreness, and tiredness in his voice being just right.

My favorite section of the attraction comes from the Young Men’s Lyceum Address of January 27, 1838.  In this segment, Lincoln highlights the strength and fragility of the nation, ultimately revealing the only way our country can fall.  A statement that still proves true today.

How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

In this segment of the speech, Lincoln is highlighting a truth we know today.  Against a foreign invader, a foreign enemy, we will coalesce and unite.  Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both remind us of this fact, pushing us together for the defense of the nation.  I remain convinced, no external threat could take America by force.  

They would first have to achieve Lincoln’s second truism.  To cause us to destroy ourselves from the inside.  Partisan fighting, tribalism, nativism, nationalism.  Isolationism.  America First, damn the consequences.  

When America falls, it’s at our own hands.

In the attraction, Lincoln skips to a later section of the speech, a plea for unification and dedication around the central unifying ideal at the foundation of the country: the rule of law.

Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

Here, Lincoln isn’t speaking of specific letters of the law, not individual minutiae of specific legal provisions and regulations.  Rather, he is referring to the spirit of the law.  The idea of the rule of law and of the laws which underpin the foundation of our nation.  A reverence for the basic ideal of America.

For America has always been unique among countries.  Perhaps most striking in that there is really no true native child of the United States of America; there is no national identity of American.  What I mean by that, is that the nation, as a country again, has always been a collection of immigrants and their children united not by race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the traditional markers of a country, but instead united by a set of ideas.  The borders of our country outlining primarily the bounds of the people held together by those ideas.

Chief among those ideas is the rule of law - the idea that everyone is held accountable under the law.  We have no king that can claim privilege.  No notable exceptions.  We’re not perfect in execution, but as a principle, everyone from child to president is held accountable under the law.

To allow otherwise is to foster tyranny, and we were literally founded as a country to escape tyranny.

We wrote it in the Declaration of Independence and our foundational documents.

“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 among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

We recognize these rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, belong to every person (not citizen), every human being on the planet because they are provided to them by God, foundational to their creation. They are not granted by a government and thus subject to being taken away by the whims of that government, but part of our birthright from the Divine.

Because of that, everyone is equal and accountable to the law. Again, sometimes we have forgotten and not acted accordingly. We’ve spent way to much of our history trying to define exactly who was included in “all men,” but the consensus and recognition now and continuing is that it means every human being.

Beyond those foundational human rights outlined in our Declaration, we highlighted other rights of people in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the Constitution, we outlined a system of government with extensive checks and balances to make sure that no one branch or no individual could hold themselves above the law. The Legislature writes the laws and brings them into effect. The Executive can put a check on that by vetoing the bill, but that can be overturned by the Legislature if there is sufficient agreement. The Executive then enforces the law as written, but can determine implementation. The Judiciary can check both the law as written and evaluate its Constitutionality, as well as weighing the Executive’s implementation of the law. Did the Executive overstep its authority, etc? All parties keep each other in check and those checks are to be respected. If the court deems something unconstitutional, the Legislative can try to write another law addressing the issues, or the Executive can try alternative enforcement. The checks cannot just be ignored.

Likewise, we wrote into the Bill of Rights limitations on any government branch acting against people’s rights. It is imperative to remember, these rights apply to people within the borders of the United States or its jurisdictions, not just citizens. These are fundamental human rights, and the Bill of Rights outlines limitations on how the government can act in response to them.

Rights of free speech and association
The right to a free press
The right to be secure in your personal, house, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure
The right to due process

These last two are especially important, as we recognized that it is not enough for us to achieve a “right” outcome in any legal proceeding. We demand that things be done in the right manner.

These are what make America - not color, not race, not ethnicity, not status or any other defining characteristic. Our recognition of these rights as human rights and our protection of them are what define us.

And when we begin to systematically dismantle them, we are no longer America.

When we refuse to allow protest on college campuses because of the topic being protested and prosecute private universities because of their curriculum and policies which disagree with the administration’s thoughts.
When we strip access of the Associated Press to the White House press pool and install a cherry-picked group of “media” personnel
When the administration threatens suit against news organizations that have provided unfavorable coverage
When we allow ICE to invade churches and schools to “pursue” non-citizens, placing children in handcuffs to remove them from the country
When we deport individuals not to their country of origin, but to a gulag in El Salvador
When we deport individuals without any pretext of a hearing or judicial process
When we detain individuals including citizens because of the color of their skin matching the undocumented profile
When we turn away tourists at the door because their plans didn’t match government expectations
When we go through individuals phones to determine their eligibility to re-enter the country based on their social media posts regarding the current administration

When we make toddlers represent themselves in deportation hearings

Especially when the administration ignores the rulings of the Judiciary which have determined executive actions to violate these fundamental rights and proceeds anyway.

The deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be chilling to every single person in America. When any person, citizen or not, under the jurisdiction of the United States is sent to a foreign gulag admittedly by mistake and the government spends weeks minimizing its error, ignoring lower court orders to return him (especially given his protected status from his 2019 immigration hearing), ignores the part of a unanimous Supreme Court decision that direct the administration facilitate his return, and then digs in its heels, determined to leave him there, the entire populace of the country should be outraged. We should demand the administration correct its mistake and do things properly.

For that’s the point - it doesn’t matter if ultimately under the current administration, Garcia would be in line to be deported anyway. We demand something better of our government. Our foundational documents demand something better of our government. We demand that the government do things in the correct order, in the correct manner.

It’s the same in any criminal prosecution. It doesn’t matter whether the accused truly did the crime or not, if law enforcement and the prosecution do not handle the case in the appropriate manner. If law enforcement obtain the evidence illegally, it’s inadmissible. If the prosecution tampers with the jury pool, their verdict is null.

This stems from a fundamental principle that we would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be imprisoned. We feared the abuse of the Executive power that much. We feared that without proper restraint on the Executive, without risking guilty men going free because of improper methods in prosecution, that there would be far too many innocent men imprisoned, because its easy for the Executive to do.

It is what happens under tyranny. The Executive is able to penalize and imprison anyone they wish.

It’s what Washington feared in his farewell address. It’s what Lincoln immediately addressed after noting the country would only perish at its own hands.

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny.

The dismantling of due process, the determination that a subset of the populace does not deserve due process, is beyond a Constitutional Crisis.  We’ve long crossed that threshold. 

It’s an attack on the fundamental character of the nation.

And we know the administration recognizes this.  They’ve admitted they are dismantling due process.  Trump has stated that if he were to actually follow the requirements of due process for all those they intent to deport, it would take 200 years.  

They don’t care and they are doing it anyway.

What remains is to see how long they continue to ignore court orders to do so.  As of now, it seems our checks and balances are failing.  The administration has decided to play chicken with the courts arrogant in its position.  So far, we’ve had no punitive action from the court - no contempt finding, no removal of licensure, etc.  It remains unseen whether they have the will to do so, or the power.  

This used to not be a political issue.  The idea that character mattered; that how things are done matter as much as the outcome used to be a Conservative rally point.

What changed?

In 1787, when Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, a lady famously asked Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic, or a monarchy?”  Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

And keep it we have, for nearly 240 years.  It’s been tried and tested, but keep it we have.

I don’t know how much longer we can continue. It really feels like our government is no longer trying to keep the republic, but actively dismantling it.

We have witnessed in just 93 days, a constant undermining of the rule of law and of fundamental rights of people by the current administration.  And by many it has been met with thunderous applause.  The urge for authoritarianism has proved too seductive, too appealing, such that we are sliding back into authoritarianism and there appears to be no stop to this progression - only forward momentum.

For the rest of us, we mourn.

To quote Lincoln again, “the bottom is out of the barrel.”

Oh the country will remain, but can we keep the ideal any longer?

Our questions now are whether it is possible to win back, what is the cost to restore it, and are we willing to pay that steep of a cost.

Is there anyone left willing to fight?

*Threnody is a fun word and was almost not the choice for today.  It refers to a work of mourning composed or performed as a memorial to a dead person.  I almost chose requiem, but that refers to music and there is no music here.  Since threnody covers a greater variety of media, it seems more appropriate.

What is Ordo Amoris?

 

JD VANCE: There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world

A lot of the far left has completely inverted that pic.twitter.com/XkoTiKgq3g

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 30, 2025

 

Just google “ordo amoris.” Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone? https://t.co/otvv5g1wFN

— JD Vance (@JDVance) January 30, 2025

 

Time for a bit of seminary.

Thanks to a bit of discourse JD Vance engaged in, we have our next big question. 

What is ordo amoris?  

The Vice President appeared on Fox News to discuss the administration’s immigration policies and picked up an emergent thread in conservative circles regarding the “sin” of empathy, arguing the political left carries empathy too far and attempted to shrink the bounds of empathy to a closer circle of people.  From the quote, highlighted in the tweet above, “There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world.”

It’s a great quote and it’s a great sound bite.  

The problem is that it is a stretch and a misstatement of the Christian concept.

As many in the subsequent days, including Vance himself, have pointed out, Vance seemed to be trying to highlight the theological concept of ordo amoris, or “ordered love”.   

The concept comes from the work of St. Augustine in The City of God.  Augustine believed that true virtue and moral goodness stem from properly aligning our affections and desires with what is truly valuable and worthy. Thus, God’s love must be centralized in reordering our affections.  Our ultimate fulfillment then lies in the pursuit of virtue and moral goodness required the proper ordering of our desires, with God as the ultimate object of love and devotion.

“But if the Creator is truly loved — that is, if He Himself is loved, and not something else in place of Him — then He cannot be wrongly loved. We must, however, observe right order even in our love for the very love by which we love that which is worthy to be loved, so that there may be in us that virtue which enables us to live well. Hence, it seems to me that a brief and true definition of virtue is ‘rightly ordered love.’” (City of God, XV.22).

We can see the genesis of Augustine’s theories in Jesus’s encapsulation of the commandments.   “And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and Prophets.’”  Matthew 22:37-40.  In these two, Jesus is likewise tying the order of love together.  To love others, we must love God first, and to love God is to love our neighbor.  

C.S. Lewis described this relationship in his letters.  “To love you as I should, I must worship God as Creator. When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. In so far as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.” Letters of C. S. Lewis.  To do otherwise, is to create idols in one’s relationships.  We’ve all seen these.  The parents that have made idols of their children and lift of their children as the greatest importance in their lives.  The spouses that lift up their mate as their idol, prioritizing their mate to the exclusion of all else.  It’s not to say these relationships aren’t important or that making them a priority is bad.  It’s when it comes out of order that a person’s life is unhealthy.  But that is a sermon for another time.

Vance doesn’t include God in his list of loves, so it’s hard to determine if his list would follow the concept of ordo amoris or not.

His comments instead seem to go to a related concept discussed by Thomas Aquinas.  Ordo caritatis, or the order of charity, a concept in which the application of our love, or of how our affection is expressed is directed to those more closely related to us.  This principle is outlined by St. Paul in his letter to Timothy.  “But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Timothy 5:8.   Aquinas ordered love as follows:

• God
• Ourselves, as a man ought to love himself more than his neighbor
• Our neighbors
• Our bodies, as a man ought to love his neighbor more than his body

“On this respect we love all men equally out of charity: because we wish them all one same generic good, namely everlasting happiness. Secondly love is said to be greater through its action being more intense: and in this way we ought not to love all equally.” STh q. 26, a. 6.  Our love therefore applies universally, but our charity is not distributed equally.  The degree of our charity is then applied according to our proximity.  In friendship, in kinship, in nationality, in physical space, etc.  “Moreover there is yet another reason for which, out of charity, we love more those who are more nearly connected with us, since we love them in more ways. For, towards those who are not connected with us we have no other friendship than charity, whereas for those who are connected with us, we have certain other friendships, according to the way in which they are connected.” STh q. 26, a. 6.

This is just common sense.  Of course we love those closest to us in different ways.  The bonds are stronger, we go to greater distances for them.  

It is not, however, a good philosophy for foreign policy, nor is it exactly applicable to our current immigration issue.  First, as foreign policy, we would have to assess at a broader scale the concept of our neighbor.  Who is the United States neighbors?  Is it just Canada and Mexico, literal proximate neighbors?  And of late, it doesn’t seem like we are acting too charitably to them.  Is it the countries we share kinship with, like the United Kingdom?  Or friendship or our allies?  What is the neighbor to a country?  Vance would like this to be just another part of America First, but it ignores a much deeper concept.

Secondly, with regard to immigration, we are largely dealing with an issue that is here already.  The issue is proximate.  It’s at our door.  So the question is more how we treat the stranger that is already among us than the foreigner that is very distant.  

Here, I think John Calvin gives perhaps the greatest critique.

"Now, since Christ has shown in the parable of the Samaritan that the term 'neighbor' includes even the most remote person (Luke 10:36), we are not expected to limit the precept of love to those in close relationships.

I do not deny that the more closely a man is linked to us, the more intimate obligation we have to assist him. It is the common habit of mankind that the more closely men are abound together by the ties of kinship, of acquaintanceship, or of neighborhood, the more responsibilities for one another they share. This does not offend God; for his providence, as it were leads us to it.

BUT I say: we ought to embrace the whole human race without exception in a single feeling of love; here there is no distinction between barbarian and Greek, worthy and unworthy, friend and enemy, since all should be contemplated in God, not in themselves.

When we turn aside from such contemplation, it is no wonder we become entangled in many errors. Therefore, if we rightly direct our love, we must first turn our eyes not to man, the sight of whom would more often engender hate than love, but to God, who bids us extend to all men the love we bear to him, that this may be an unchanging principle: whatever the character of the man, we must yet love him because we love God."     John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 55.

As Calvin outlines, this is the whole point of the parable of the Good Samaritan.  Remember, the parable of the Good Samaritan comes in Luke immediately following Jesus outlining the two greatest commandments.  A young student of the law asked Jesus what he must do to attain eternal life and Jesus asked him the commandments.  The student repeated the two commandments Jesus stated above. Jesus then acknowledged his correct statement.  

The young student of the law had to ask one more question.  Luke adds, desiring to justify himself, the lawyer asked, “Who is my neighbor?”

The lawyer, the pharisees then and now wanted a neat box tied around who their responsibility to love covered.  Fellow Israelites would be certain.  Showing hospitality to foreigners and travelers was to be expected.  But surely Jesus could not expect them to love a Samaritan, or worse, a Roman.

Jesus responds with a familiar story that I've written about before.  He tells of a Levite and a priest that pass by the injured man and worry more about themselves. What will happen to me if I touch this man?  Will I be defiled?  What has he done to deserve such a fate?  It's important to note that both the Levite and the priest could not imagine themselves in the man's position.  They could not empathize enough to see his need for assistance, so they crossed on the other side of the road to avoid him.

The Samaritan on the other hand worried about what would happen to the man if he did nothing.  Perhaps, the Samaritan could imagine himself in a similar situation.  He knew the treachery of the road and saw how it could have easily been him in that fate.

From the story, we see that the only response to Jesus' question at the end, asking who was the neighbor to the man who fell to robbers, is "he who showed mercy on him."  We see that all we come in contact with are people who are our neighbors.  And we have the opportunity to be neighborly in response by being the ones who show mercy and love.

Who we are called to love in our order of love, who we are called to those in our order of charity is those that God has brought into our paths.  We focus on that proximate connection.  The one that God has ordained and brought around us.  Not just the nice ones.  Not just the ones we choose.  Not just the convenient ones. 

Our order of love extends to the messy ones, the broken ones, the bleeding ones, the inconvenient ones that are brought in our circles.  The ones that don’t look like us.  The ones that we disagree with.  The ones that we have no other connection beyond a creator.  And especially the ones where we have no other connection than a faith, as we love our family in Christ.

So here, it calls us to care for and love to the migrant among us.  The refugee.  

They are here.  They are our neighbors.

For, the order of our love is in God’s control, not ours.  So let’s stop trying to justify ourselves.  Let’s stop putting limits on what God has called us to.

And if you need more encouragement…

"You shall not wrong nor oppress the stranger, for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt"  Exodus 22:20

"The strangers who reside with you shall be to you as your citizens … for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."  Leviticus 19:34

"For the Eternal your God is God supreme and Lord supreme, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who shows no favor and takes no bribe, but upholds the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, providing food and clothing — you too must love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."  Deuteronomy 10:18-19

“Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.” Romans 12:13

“Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.” 1 Peter 4:9

“Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”  Hebrews 13:2

“Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.”  Titus 1:8

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”  Matthew 25:35

“Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers and sisters, even though they are strangers to you. They have told the church about your love. Please send them on their way in a manner that honors God. It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. We ought therefore to show hospitality to such people so that we may work together for the truth.”  3 John 1:5-8

Punching Down

I’ve been thinking a lot about why Trump’s recent actions and foreign policy bother me so, and I think I’ve identified it.  There’s a concept , a maxim in civilized culture, that you never punch down.  If violence, force, even comedy needs to be used, it should always be used laterally or upwardly.

“Punching down” is a concept that has come from the world of comedy.  It speaks of the idea to attack or criticize someone who is in a worse or less powerful position than you.  Simply, in comedy, you make fun of the rich and powerful, not the marginalized.

To put another way, you don’t attack those that are smaller, less powerful, less able than you.  You only go after those who are bigger than you, stronger than you, more powerful than you.  You go after those that are abusing their power.  You go after those who are punching down on others.

Punching down makes you a bully.  You are preying on a power imbalance to force your way.

And it’s quite clear today, that America is now the great bully of the world.

There are those that would have claimed we were before this administration and recent actions.  And there are times in our past when they would have been correct.

We are at one of those times now.

For Trump to initiate trade wars with Canada and Mexico, to seek territory from Denmark and Panama, to remove the protection and aid we provide to the rest of the world, turns us into the bully.  We are definitively punching down.  

We’re not going toe to toe with China and Russia, our economic and military rivals.  We’re not holding them accountable for their actions in the world.  We’re not acting on behalf of smaller countries like Ukraine, that are being pushed around by those same superpowers.  We’re not seeking to lift up or support those countries and societies that need our aid.

We’re looking to force our way on everyone else.

We’re the bully.  We who used to see our role as the great protector of freedom around the world, are now the world’s bully.

And there are honestly people who think we can keep up the trade wars and tank Canada’s economy to make them our territory.  That we can do the same to Denmark to make them give us Denmark.  And we can pressure Panama to make them give us back the canal.

We’re just taking the lunch money away from the world, right?  I mean, we do see that these are mob tactics, right?

As if there would be no consequences.

Why does this sit well with so many people?  Were there that many Republicans that were just waiting to bully the rest of the world back into submission?  Is that who you are?

Is it how we want to be perceived?

No seriously, I’m asking, does our public perception matter any more?  Does it matter if the rest of the world sees us as their protective older brother?

Or are we okay with being the school yard thug?

Writing in the Age of Trump

There are days when the writing just flows.  Where the ideas are coming left and right and can move to the fingers very easily.   Where emotion, frustration, inspiration, or celebration make it easy to share and to document.  

On the other hand, there are days where nothing comes.  No ideas. No even an inkling.  Just completely at a loss.  Writer’s block.  Hit the wall.  Done.

But writing in the age of Trump has a third problem. 

There’s no shortage of ideas.  In fact, it’s overwhelming.  There is so much to be frustrated by, saddened by, angered by, to the point where there are topics that could go on for days.  Our government, our country is being dismantled piece by piece and handed over to the world’s richest man to do with as he pleases.  We should all be enraged and moved to action.

And yet, it’s so overwhelming, it’s so all-encompassing, it’s hard to sit with.  It’s all coming so fast and from some many different directions, it’s impossible to keep up.  

There’s no time to react, there’s no time to grieve, you just have to move on to the next thing and pray it’s not as bad as what came before.

It creates a different type of writer’s block.  An overwhelming paralysis moving to apathy.  So much we care about is being utterly destroyed, that it’s getting hard to care about any single piece. 

And that’s where I’ve been.  These first two weeks have been overwhelming and dizzying.  It’s been hard to process it all and to determine what can be prioritized to discuss.   

Plus there is the overwhelming need to remove all expletives from my vocabulary before I start to write, because otherwise, this would be a very different blog.

And that’s the point of this whole blitz.  They are trying to break all resistance in addition to everything else.  They are trying to wear us down to the point where we don’t care anymore.  To where we don’t speak up, don’t fight back, just let it pass by.

We can’t let that happen.  

Take a break.  Take a breath.  Step away and relax.  

Listen to comedians to help diffuse the blow.

Implement time constraints on social media and the news.  

But don’t become numb to it. 

It all still matters.  None of this is normal. None of this is appropriate.  Much of this is illegal.

We have to remember it.  

We just have to be prepared to keep it up.  It’s going to be a long four years.

No Longer Grand, Just Old

Here lies the Grand Old Party, and all it once stood for. In its place, we recognize the Old Party. And May God have mercy on us all. 

Seriously, though, any vestiges of the ideals of the GOP are long gone. The party of Lincoln is now firmly and unalterably the party of Trump. They finalized that switch yesterday with their removal of Liz Cheney from leadership. 

Removing her for telling the truth. For refusing to continue to propagate the Big Lie. For refusing to bow down to their kingmaker Trump. 

In short, they ousted her for having principles. 

There used to be an ability or at least a desire to present an educated and principled Conservatism. The air of William F. Buckley and his brand of conservative thought. The ability to debate and spar at the same level as progressives and liberals. The hope to win on thoughts and ideas. 

Today’s Republican Party could barely spell Buckley much less identify him. 

Just look at Marjorie Taylor Greene, the QAnon favorite, accosting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the hallways.  The gloating by Madison Cawthorn on Twitter after the ouster of Cheney. 

We don’t have statesmen anymore, we have thugs. 

This isn’t surprising; it’s been the trajectory of the party ever since Trump took power. At least, up to this point, there was hope that some of the party was resisting.  That people like McCain, Romney, Cheney, and others were fighting for and speaking for the traditional conservatism. Fighting for the great roots of the party.   

It’s clear that fight is now over.  

The powers that he have determined that Trump is the only hope for success at the polls. If Biden’s approval numbers are any indication, it would seem they are making a grave error.  And if my suspicions are true, it will take a long time for the Republican Party to recover, if ever.   If they err here, demographics are already turning against them, decreasing the likelihood of any success without a great change in policy.   They know these things and are unwilling to do so.  Hence the perpetuation of the Big Lie and the voter restriction laws they are trying to pass. If you can’t win on principles, you win on technicalities.

Thus begins the slow death of the Old Party.  No longer Grand.  No longer in power.  Appealing to an ever dwindling minority, promising to bring things back to the good old days.

Whenever those were.

What We've Learned

I originally wrote this on November 9, 2016 and I thought it would be good to revisit now that the Trump presidency is over.  It's eery how prescient it seems now, with hindsight being what it is.  Particularly in light of the events after this most recent election and the violent insurrection of January 6, 2021.  I wanted to give this a week after the inauguration; I think it's timely now.

I've added a few editorial thoughts throughout with my feelings regarding our current state of the union.

"It's been a very interesting election season and the night itself last night proved to be just as unpredictable and frustrating. I look over the things we've learned this year and there are some bitter pills to swallow.

 
We've learned that fear is still the greatest political motivator.

          It still is, it's what has carried on through this election.  If I see one more post about how socialists are overtaking America, I might scream.  They all reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism actually means and looks like, and how easily that word can be used to stir up voter's fear.
We've learned that personality matters more than policy.

          Again, yes.  How many times has Sleepy Joe popped up?  Or that the new press secretary isn't as "appealing" as Kayleigh McEnany.
We've learned that opinions and feelings matter more than facts.

          Alternative facts, the Big Lie that the election was stolen despite no evidence to support it.  The fact that a number of Congressmen are still calling for an audit of the 2020 election simply because their supporters "feel" that it was illegitimate should be concerning enough, but when you remember that the base "feels" that way because their leadership lied to them, it's downright frightening.  Watching people like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley go out of their way to avoid saying their was actual fraud (because they can't support it), or to avoid saying that they believe there was actual fraud, but to continue to beat the drum of their supporters believing it has been nothing short of incredible.
We've learned that words do not matter.

          "There are very fine people on both sides."  "Proud boys, stand by and stand back." "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness.  You have to show strength and you have to be strong." "So go home, we love you, you're very special."  I could go on and on.  For everything, there's always a tweet.
We've learned that moral relativity is acceptable so long as it is for the right side.

          This is what broke me.  I'm old enough to remember the Clinton presidency well, and it's not hard to see great parallels between Clinton and Trump.  To see the same people in my circles who called for Clinton's head now praising Trump defies logic and description.
We've seen that the Church can be swayed with promises of power.

          This is the most disappointing.  How many in the church have not only just supported the Republican party, no matter what, but have whole heartedly embraced everything Trump stood for and shamed anyone who could not agree.  A president who displayed none of the characteristics of a Christian life, embraced by many as the savior of our country is disheartening.  The Christian imagery at the insurrection is sickening.

 
I wish President Trump the best, I really do. I hope he is at best able to surprise us and show a deftness in political maneuvering that is not expected, or at worst, he is truly just a figure head like he has indicated he wishes to be and lets Pence and the rest of his team actually run things.
          This lasted for a few months, apparently before Trump couldn't stand people telling him no.  The high turn over rate in his executive staff was historic.

 
But this is not a win for America. Honestly, there was no win for America in this election.

          Similarly, there was no win for America in this presidency.  We were not "made great again."  Our flaws were exposed and laid bare.  The worst demons of our nature were empowered.  And we will be dealing with its repercussions for years to come.

 
This is how the republic falls.
        And it nearly did.  More than anything, these last four years taught us how fragile our republic is.

 
A country extremely divided, with little hope of bridging those gaps and a incoming president whom seems more interested in continuing to drive the wedge with the policies that he has espoused. We are divided by race, religion, class, and education. And the polling statistics bear this out.

         We're still here.  We're still divided.  And this should be a friendly reminder that unity doesn't mean one party gets to hold the other hostage.  One party doesn't get to demand the other capitulate and then cry that the other doesn't want to unite.  

 
And this is not a win for the Republican Party. This reveals the path forward of the Republican Party for years to come and it's not pretty. It turns over traditional Republican values to the far right portion of the party.

         And the movement to the extremes continues as it seems Trump will either split or continue to guide the Republican party for the foreseeable future.  Hawley, Cruz, Gohmert, Boebert, and Greene continue to pander to the Trump base, positioning themselves for greater position in the party because of it.

 
Dear God forgive us, I fear we know not what we do. We thank you that ultimately in control and watching over your people. Let us trust in you for our future and cling to you for our peace. Show us how to stand out and be different in this country going forward and to be your salt and light in this extremely divided climate."

The prayer remains the same.  I pray for the Biden administration.  I pray for our country.  I pray for the Church to repent of its idolatry of politics, to repent of its looking for an earthly king as a savior, and for it to get back to the business of being the set apart.

If only we would.

Trump Impeached Once Again

In a historic move, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Trump for a second time.  The vote was 232 for impeachment, 197 against, and largely along party lines.  Though there is a spot of hope - 10 Republican Representatives voted FOR impeachment, including high ranking leadership like Liz Cheney.

This is unprecedented.  This makes Trump the first president to be impeached twice.  It makes Trump's impeachment count equal with all prior presidential impeachments.  Trump's impeachment included just one article, incitement of insurrection, making him the first president to be impeached for ties to insurrection.

We remain in dark days in this country.  While this move is necessary, it is not something to be celebrated.  The fact that we are here reflected on how fragile our democracy is, how easily portions of us can be swayed by mis- and dis-information, and just how much damage has been done over the past five years.

We do have bright spots, though.  While once again, this may not result in any kind of action in the Senate, it reflects an attempt to provide consequences for the president's actions leading up to last Wednesday.  We also see Republicans willing to step up and be patriots.  To put country above party and to endanger their seat by refusing to capitulate to Trump and his cult like base.  Their willingness to vote for impeachment signals the beginning of the end for Trump in the Republican party.  Whether that is through a complete fracture or through a disassociation remains to be seen.

Either way, it will certainly be an interesting seven days ahead

Once Again, This Isn't How The First Amendment Works

Looks like 2021 is shaping up to be much like 2020.  Too much happening, delaying what I want to write about for what I need to write about.  And since it seems everyone has become a Constitutional scholar once again, I feel we need to have a discussion about how the First Amendment (and in fact, all of our Constitutional protections actually work).

For those who mercifully don't know, discussions of censorship and the First Amendment protection of free speech are popping up again because social media companies like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter banned President Trump from their platforms as a result of Wednesday's insurrection at the Capital.  Tech companies like Apple and Google have gone further and removed or threatened to remove the social media site Parler from their app stores, unless the "unregulated" platforms put in some kind of content moderation.

This move has of course led to cries of censorship and a violation of the First Amendment Protection of Free Speech from those on the right.  There have been both calls to leave Twitter and to launch a Spartacus-like #WeAreTrump hashtag.  Hard to both leave and trend at the same time.

You can tell the Twitter ban particularly hurt Trump, especially when you view the timeline of his epic addict-like downward spiral yesterday.

It began when Twitter and Facebook immediately banned Trump on Thursday following his incitement of the protestors leading to the sacking of the Capital and the failed insurrection attempt.  Facebook's ban was almost immediately announced to be permanent.  Twitter's was initially a temporary suspension - a twelve-hour ban or cooling off period if you will.  

Once his twitter was reactivated, Trump sent out two since deleted tweets.  The first looked to the future, the second addressed the inauguration.

"The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future.  They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!" - January 8, 2021, 9:46 am

"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." - January 8, 2021, 10:44am

Emphasis mine.

Twitter decided in light of those two tweets and in light of Trump's half-hearted "concession" speech, to ban Trump indefinitely.

As part of Twitter's analysis, it feared Trump's most recent tweets were being interpreted as supporting the rioters and that plans for future armed protests had already been proliferating both on and off the platform, including a proposed attack on the U.S. Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17.  They also feared that Trump's announcement of his intent not to attend the Inauguration could be seen as free rein to attempt a second uprising at the Inaugural event.

Trump took the banning as well as any toddler who has been told no does.  Which is to say, it led to a desperate meltdown.

Trump first tried to tweet via the official President of The United States Twitter handle @POTUS.

Twitter quickly deleted those tweets as a violation

Trump was undeterred and moved to the TeamTrump twitter handle.

It too quickly joined the ban.

Trump then got Gary Coby, his Digital Director, to hand over his account and to rename it to Donald J. Trump, though the @GaryCoby still remained.  Through that account, Trump made it very clear who was tweeting, trying to reach out to Dan Scavino, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Director of Social Media.

Coby was then banned for a violation of their Enablement Policy.  Essentially a clause that prevents others from helping someone around a ban.

Trump's latest was to create a new handle @ThisIsPOTUS45, on which he tweeted "BIG CENSORSHIP FROM TWITTER! IT'S NOT OVER YET!" and including screen grabs of his previous attempts.

That didn't work either.

It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.  It reeks of an addict jonesing for his fix, desperate to send out another 140 character bon mot.  A cult leader who needs to be in constant touch with his followers to ensure that he maintains his grip on their reality.

And this is our president.  At least for a few days more.

This brings us to the cries of censorship and a violation of Free Speech and a necessary reminder as to why there is no actionable violation in all of this.  

First, yes, this is censorship, but that really doesn't matter.  Censorship isn't actionable unless it affects a protected class based on that class identification or is perpetuated by a governmental actor.  Neither are present in this case.  Political affiliation is only a protected class in only a few states.  It's not protected on a federal level.  So you can be dropped from a platform for being a conservative and it still wouldn't be actionable.  It would be highly problematic, it would be financial suicide for companies, but it wouldn't be legally actionable.

It's also not what happened here.  Trump wasn't dropped because he is a "conservative."  (I can't even write in good conscience that he is a conservative without the air quotes.  Trump is Trump and a party unto itself.)  He wasn't dropped for spouting conservative talking points.  He was dropped because he's proven himself to at least negligently and at most deliberately incite a riot because he lost.  And he's still refused to acknowledge his involvement in the event, to shame those involved, and to fully admit defeat.  His statements since the insurrection attempt continue to perpetuate an image of him continuing to fight for a victory "stolen" from him and to encourage his followers to keep up the faith.

He was dropped because he continues to peddle in lies and at some point, if we want to put an end to misinformation, to disinformation, and to "fake news," we have to recognize that those that peddle it cannot be given platforms to continue to speak it.  Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google are private companies that have no obligation to provide the president a platform to voice his every thought.  He already has a press department, can call a press conference at the drop of a hat, and could be aired on every network if he needed.  They've even activated that forced message to all cellular phones technology.  He hasn't been silenced; he's just been inconvenienced from using his favorite rant delivery mechanism.

Which brings us to Free Speech.  Again, Free Speech isn't implicated because these are all private actors.  Private companies and individuals can censor all they like, within very few restrictions.  They can refuse service to anyone, so long as it is not a person in a protected class.  Facebook could decide to only let on people with red hair, green eyes, and who love the band Bowling for Soup.  Twitter could block all vegetarians if they so decided.  They could, it wouldn't be smart and the market would bear that out, but they absolutely could legally do so.  

What we are seeing is a free market action deciding what is permissible in its space.  You know, the kind of thing conservatives used to champion.  It's the same argument conservatives were making when it was a Christian baker and a cake for a gay wedding.  It's just getting a different response when the shoe is on the other foot.

I have to admit enjoying a bit of schadenfreude last night.  Watching a president who has repeatedly and continually used Twitter as a weapon to appeal to the lowest demons of our nature be locked out from his favorite past time was a bit of beautiful serendipity in the midst of all this chaos.  This same person who unleashed a 44 tweet monstrosity in October last year following his hospitalization for COVID, revealing how deep his addiction goes.

It's another reminder of why what we do, what the Congress does over the next eleven days is so vitally important.  It matters, the precedent it sets matters, and his actions have to have consequences.

This one, at least, was somewhat funny to watch.

Trump’s America

AKA American Carnage

I tried to write today and had planned to discuss the events that happened yesterday.  What it says about us.  But I can't.  It's too raw.  Too soon.  Hopefully will be up tomorrow, as I'm still processing and gathering my thoughts on the events of the day.

Instead, I offer 8,000 words and other media, that should leave us all speechless.

“If we are wrong we will be made fools of, but if we are right, a lot of them will go to jail!  So let’s have trial by combat! I’m willing to stake, I’m willing to stake my reputation, the president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there!”  Rudy Giuliani, speaking at the so called "March to Save America", 10:00 am

"And after this, we're going to walk down there, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down ... to the Capitol and we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.  And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."  President Trump at the so called "March to Save America," 12:00 pm

Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2021

I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2021

”The words of a president matter, no matter how good or bad that president is. At their best, the words of a president can inspire. At their worst, they can incite. Therefore, I call on President Trump to go on national television now to fulfill his oath and defend the constitution and demand an end to this siege.”
President-Elect Joe Biden, 3:30 pm

“This was a fraudulent election but we can’t play into the hands of these people, we have to have peace.  So go home, we love you, you’re very special.”  President Trump's video calling the seditionists to stand down, released on Twitter, 4:17 pm

"Senator Tuberville? Or I should say Coach Tuberville. This is Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer. I’m calling you because I want to discuss with you how they’re trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. And I know they’re reconvening at 8 tonight, but it … the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow—ideally until the end of tomorrow.

I know McConnell is doing everything he can to rush it, which is kind of a kick in the head because it’s one thing to oppose us, it’s another thing not to give us a fair opportunity to contest it. And he wants to try to get it down to only three states that we contest. But there are 10 states that we contest, not three. So if you could object to every state and, along with a congressman, get a hearing for every state, I know we would delay you a lot, but it would give us the opportunity to get the legislators who are very, very close to pulling their vote, particularly after what McConnell did today. It angered them, because they have written letters asking that you guys adjourn and send them back the questionable ones and they’ll fix them up.

So, this phone number, I’m available on all night, and it would be an honor to talk to you. Thank you."

Rudy Giuliani in mis-dialed call intended for Senator Tuberville, voicemail left between the insurrection and the reseating of Congress, revealing the President's priorities at the time

"These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

President Trump in tweet deleted by Twitter, 11:01 pm, repeating his lies about the 2020 election

Welcome to Trump's America.  Had enough yet?

Ken Paxton, Texas, and the Definition of a Frivolous Lawsuit

UPDATE: Supreme Court summarily rejected the Texas motion on Friday evening December 11, 2020

Long post, one again I wish didn't have to be addressed.

As if the craziness surrounding this election couldn't get sadder, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit Tuesday in the United States Supreme Court to invalidate presidential election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  The filing argues that those states used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to unlawfully change their election rules “through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity,” and that any electoral college votes so cast could not be counted.  According to the suit, this would make the election results in those states unlawful and should be declared unconstitutional.  In the days since Texas filed suit, eighteen other states have joined Texas by filing an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit, as well as the president himself, and 106 House Republicans.  And as if 2020 could not get weird enough, two pseudo-states, New California and New Nevada, have joined with amicus briefs.  These pseudo-states are movements in the two states to form new states from rural counties, separating them out from the urban counties (or separating red from blue). 

It's important to underscore that this lawsuit is the very definition of frivolous.  It's political theater writ large, in the form of a baseless lawsuit.  It's the very latest in baseless lawsuits that Trump's team and supporters have made.  Or as election law expert Richard Hasen put it to NPR, "This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit. ... What utter garbage. Dangerous garbage, but garbage."  One tell, can be found in who is filing the suit.  Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General filed, instead of the Texas Solicitor General.  For the uninitiated, the Solicitor General would typically represent and defend the interests of Texas in Supreme Court litigation.  Texas Solicitor General Kyle D. Hawkins, so far, has kept his distance from the litigation.  Likewise, Trump's brief was not signed by the United States Solicitor General or any other Department of Justice Official, but rather John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University, so Trump could appear in his "personal capacity."

There are other major issues with the lawsuit.

First, the suit will have standing problems, meaning Texas really has no right to sue.  There is no national election process, even for president.  What we have is a system of state elections that are run and managed completely by the states.  This means, Texas has no real say or no injury from how Georgia runs its election, for example.  Combine this with the fact that states must ask for and receive permission to sue other states from the Supreme Court, and you have an enormous uphill battle for the suit to be heard.  The most likely outcome will be that the Supreme Court will simply refuse to hear the case in an unanimous decision with no other comment, just like the outcome of Trump's lawsuit against Pennsylvania.

Second, the Supreme Court really has no authority to move the date the Electors meet and vote for the Electoral College.  That power is explicit in the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.  "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."  And Congress has set December 14.  Given the time frame of the case, and this impending date, it makes the suit more of final "Hail Mary" attempt to derail the vote, than a legitimate suit.  Especially given the Supreme Court can take forever to vote on these motions.  Texas filed a similar suit against California in February regarding a California law banning state-sponsored travel to states deemed discriminatory against LGBTQ people.  The Supreme Court has, as of yet, not voted on whether or not it would hear that motion.  It would not be surprising for the Supreme Court not to have made any determination before the electors vote on Monday, and after they vote, the Court may view the motion as moot.

It's also pretty clear the case was thrown together hastily.  Paxton in his brief has misstated the number of electors at stake and other simple math mistakes, misquoted Justice Neil Gorsuch, contains circular logic regarding "expert" statistical analysis, and otherwise relies on the same innuendo and conjecture that the previous Trump lawsuits have used, so far to no avail.

To drive home that last point, Trump is 1 and 55 in court to date.  The avalanche of lawsuits that the Trump team has filed have all fizzled out but one.  It's important to note here that they have all largely been dismissed at the outset, at the very first opportunity for frivolous lawsuits to be dismissed.  After the first defendant's motion to dismiss.  This is because there is no there there.  The Trump team has yet to provide substantiated evidence of their allegations.  Their attorneys have even gone so far as to avoid even naming a cause of action like fraud - meaning they refuse to accuse that actual fraud has been committed, but rather raise the presumption that fraud could have been committed.  This is so the attorneys filing aren't disbarred.  Trump's one victory was pyrrhic.  He won a victory regarding the Pennsylvania election to prevent the mail in ballots received after November 9 from being counted, which the state's Secretary of State had already agreed to do.

I'm including a better explanation of the timing of Trump's losses below from a friend from law school, in which she outlines the initial filing process and the point at which his cases are being dismissed.  Why it matters, emphasis mine.

"It's clear to me after looking at Facebook that a quick legal lesson is in order for those who are confused about Trump's lawsuits regarding the election. 

When you file a lawsuit, you have to have a minimal level of proof that what you are saying is true.
You don't have to prove your entire case before you file it. The process of discovery is designed to have both parties exchange documents and information in the course of the lawsuit. 

For those who hate frivolous lawsuits, there are several stages of the process where a Defendant can ask the judge to get rid of the lawsuit because the Plaintiff can't carry their burden in proving their case. 

The first stage of getting rid of a baseless lawsuit is right after filing the lawsuit. Personally, I have never seen this happen in any case I have filed. Because I don't file baseless lawsuits. (There's a duty that lawyers owe to the court under Rule 11 which prohibits that.) But, this is an important safeguard to stop baseless lawsuits. So, if I am sued by someone I have no connection with and there is no evidence I have done anything wrong, this is when I would file a motion to get rid of the lawsuit. The standard applied to this type of motion is high. And It basically just means that the evidence attached to the lawsuit is fraudulent or fake or that even assuming all of the evidence is true, the Defendant did nothing wrong under the law. 

This is the stage at which all but one of Trump's election lawsuits have been dismissed. I think this is being lost somewhere on people who care. The last count I saw was that this has happened 39 (now 55) times and only 1 lawsuit has even been permitted to proceed to the next stage. 

I can't express how rare this is or how deeply it shows how baseless these lawsuits are. This is not a normal thing that happens in lawsuits. 

These lawsuits have been dismissed largely by Republican-appointed judges, even though that shouldn't matter. And they have been dismissed with some of the strongest language I have even seen coming from federal judges.

In case you are confused by these baseless lawsuits, the election is over. Even though our President is acting like a toddler and cannot accept reality, reality and the facts do not care about his feelings. He will stop being the president on January 20, 2021 at noon by operation of law. Because the law still matters, no matter your feelings about it."

And that's our one source of hope.  The law still matters and there are those that are still dedicated to upholding the law.  Country over party, even country over appointer.  The Supreme Court itself, all 9 justices including his recent appointees, refused to hear Trump's appeal over the Buck County Pennsylvania ballots.  The four states at issue in the suit have roared back in a blistering response, firmly denouncing Texas's actions and telling it to butt out of their elections.  "The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated."  Twenty two other states and territories have filed amicus briefs supporting the defendants.  Republican Senator from Texas John Cornyn has issued his own rebuke of his state's actions.  "Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections?" and "I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it... It's an interesting theory, but I'm not convinced."

That's because there is no cogent legal theory.  This is political - just as it has always been.  The prevailing thought is that Paxton filed the suit to curry favor with Trump for a presidential pardon.  Paxton has been indicted for securities fraud and is currently being investigated by the FBI for abuse of authority.  

That's where we are, currying favor of a lame duck president because of the influence he has over the party.  How he has shaped the GOP into his personal party and how Republicans are too afraid of upsetting his base with reality.  Especially given his floated interest in running again in 2024, meaning he will continue to influence the actions of the GOP for years to come.

It would be laughable if it were not for the millions of Americans who stand by and accept his every word and accusation.  As if he were the only person telling the truth.  The depth of conspiracy you have to believe where literally everyone is out to get you except for the ones who support this man.  That is what makes this terrifying.

It's the beginnings of a stupid coup.  And I use that term, because if it happens, it happens through our sheer stupidity.  So far, we have every signal that it will not succeed.

But if you want to look for the battle lines of Civil War 2: Electric Bugaloo, look no further than this case.

This May Be The Most Important Speech I've Ever Made...

Those ten words are perhaps the truest thing President Donald J Trump has ever uttered.  While I'm loathe to perpetuate the mis- and dis-information contained in the video below, it provides important context for the discussion and the importance of the speech.

Because the importance of the speech lies not in the content itself, but in the context and its meaning.   Largely because the content is nothing new, it's the same allegations repeated again.  Shades of narcissistic personality disorder, where he cannot be wrong - reality cannot be right if he loses.  No, this is the speech of a person in power that has a game plan to keep that power, no matter the cost.

This is the start of a coup.

I'm really at a loss, as a cannot understand any other endgame here, if the president is not planning a coup.  In an hour long press conference the sitting president propagates accusation after accusation that has been repeatedly proven false, following litigation after litigation that the president's team has lost, all while refusing to raise more than a suspicion of evidence.

His only concrete evidence offered comes in the form of charts showing ballot "dumps" as he calls them, charts showing the progression of ballots counted.  The fact that two charts have huge swings at a specific time to him is suspect.

This is coming after his own Attorney General, William Barr, a man has been the staunchest of Trump's supporters and has enabled much of Trump's excesses,  acknowledged there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would impact the outcome of the election.  One must assume, Trump's speech comes in response to this reversal by the Attorney General.

This speech also follows the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure security agency declaring the 2020 election the most secure in American history.  Chris Krebs, a Trump appointee as the head of the Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity division, was later fired for the remarks.

Also following Republican Senator Ron Johnson admitting candidly he knows Biden won, but that acknowledging it would be "political suicide" to oppose Trump.

Is that really where we are at - that we cannot acknowledge reality because of the fears of the whims of a mad king?  One who is threatening to defund the armed services through the NDAA if Twitter isn't punished by amending Section 230?

We really are in Act 5 of King Lear aren't we?  Or perhaps Macbeth is more appropriate?

In that spirit...

Bart: Well, can't you see that's the last act of a desperate man?

Howard Johnson: We don't care if it's the first act of "Henry V," we're leaving!

Blazing Saddles, 1974

 

Statement by Donald J. Trump, The President of the United States

Full Video: https://t.co/EHqzsLbbJG pic.twitter.com/Eu4IsLNsKD

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2020