🗯️ On The Horizon

This week has truly disturbed me. I’m not specifically talking about the specific people in the news and what they have done (although that’s been pretty horrific). Rather, I’ve been talking about what I’ve seen on social media in response — and it truly is frightening me. If we look back at the American Civil War in the 1860s, the groundwork for it was laid many years before — some argue it was laid at the time at the founding of this country, and the specific items that led to the actual Civil War were triggered by a number of Supreme Court cases, including the Dredd Scott decision. But that Civil War — horrible as it was — had one distinct advantage. The ideological lines roughly could be drawn as geographical lines. There were clear areas that held one view strongly, and clear areas that held a different view strongly. That led to secession and a traditional ground war.

The foundational problem that led to the Civil War is still around. There is a divide in this country and it is growing, a divide created by some fundamental constitutional decisions. The wounds from the first Civil War are festering and malingering. This week — again, a battle over a Supreme Court justice, and his positions on a number of decisions — are adding fuel to the fire. But unlike the last Civil War, this one will not have clean geographic battle lines. There is no territory to secede, no traditional armies to form, no place for those armies to line up and take aim at each other (except on social media). There is still anger, there is still brother against brother, but this time it is at the level of Shia vs. Sunni in the Middle East: a block by block, house by house, room by room division that can only be fought in the most dangerous way: through propaganda, through terrorism, through mess shootings, through IEDs. It is a something that is not fought by formal armies, but by lone angered crazies, trying to bring a point home, so desparate for their side that they will do anything.

As we have seen, such a war is dangerous not only for the civilians in the middle, but it is a war where there is no clear victory and no one to surrender. It is a war that does not win a cause and destroys a nation. It is a war that stops only when the people arise and say, “Enough!”, and either convince the losing side to  change their mind (unlikely) or find a pocket of the country where they can be kicked out to, to be isolated and live the way they want. The latter, although *a* solution, is not *the* solution. Further, the solution is not legislating one side’s goal, for that just kicks and anger and resentment down the road, to let it fester and grow. The solution may not be compromise either, for that doesn’t resolve the fundamental problems. Ask yourself: Did the Civil War solve the race problems in America? Did the Civil Rights Act of 1965 solve the problems?

Here’s the divide as I see it.

On one side you have what I we’ll call the “Blues”: using the name Democrat is wrong, because the coalition is broader than that; the name Progressive is wrong because of the pejorative nature of the term; the term Liberal is wrong because it has been coopted into an curse word. These folks are libertarian in the social sense: what people do is there own business, and someone else’s beliefs should not be forced upon them. They fundamentally respect the rights of others in a similar way — and argue against discrimination or privilege based upon characteristics — sex, skin color, orientation, gender, social status, religion, and many more. They care about others, often at a personal cost to themselves (and often, they are willing to take burdens upon themselves, such as taxes, to help others). That does not mean they are fiscally irresponsible — they don’t want to spend just for spending’s sake — there needs to be an outcome. They are not universally against war, but I do think there is a belief that when war is waged, it must be just and for the right purpose, and have a clear victory point. They are a bit more against the war machine — the complex that supports war and tends to want to feed itself — and would rather not only those funds, but the talent and intellect to be used for productive purposes and to benefit society (as was done with the DARPANet). They are distinctly against inherit and inherited privilege, believe in consent and the right for the individual to dictate what is done regarding their bodies, and they demand respect for themselves as individuals.

On the other side, you have a few of the same characteristics — a demand for respect, calls for fiscal restraint. Let’s call this side the “Reds”, for it isn’t the traditional Republican Party, and it has gone beyond the Tea Party. The term Conservative is wrong because it too has both become pejorative and coopted, and to call it the party of the Privileged Old White Men is wrong because there are other sexes and races represented. But it does appear to be a party of Fundamentalist beliefs (including evangelical), and all that goes along with them. It does appear to be a party that believes in fixed social and economic strata, and that people have their places therein. It is the party that believes in the divide between the 1% and the rest, in the divide between black and white, man and women, and that each have their place in society. It is a party that believes it is acceptable to mandate their fundamentalist views on people that believe differently (although, arguably, they view what the Blues are doing as exactly the same thing). Thus, if they believe life begins at conception, everyone has to hold that view. If they believe that certain characteristics give an entitlement for a particular behavior and privilege, then that is how it must be. They are willing to fight war — and not only have the guns, but are willing to use them against the Blues whenever and whereever necessary. They don’t understand the positions that the Blues take, and weaponize that mis-understanding. This week was a good example of that: when the Blues get concerns about sexual assault and their victims, the Reds threaten to weaponize sexual assault claims — real or imagined — against the Blues (and that has started). The Reds will figure out a way to weaponize any freedom, and use it to destroy and divide — freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the 2nd Amendment. While the Internet wasn’t designed for this purpose, they’ve weaponized it as well, using it as a way to amplify their voices, spread propaganda, engender distrust, fan the flames of resentment, and sow the seeds of discontent. They’ve used it to find others with similar feelings, and they’ve begun to organize (and, in response, the Blues have used the Internet for the exact same thing).
——————
†: Admittedly, this is from my perspective as a Blue, and thus is a bit skewed, and perhaps a bit pejorative. But that is (at least) the perception I have, so if someone wants to clarify or correct my characterization of the Reds, please do so.

This divide is real. The adherents are intransigent. There is more similarity between the two sides than they would admit about wanting to legislate their worldview on those who believe otherwise. The worldviews may, indeed, be incompatible. But both sides believe in their hearts and mind, with 100% of their being, that they are in the right. If there is reconciliation, it is only temporary. Both take advantage of any tool that is given, and use it in the worst way.

[ETA: One of the things leading to that is inconsistency. If some particular action is done, it needs to be done independent of whether it is your candidate or not. So, if you establish the tradition of not considering a Supreme Court candidate nominated by the other side in an election year because — you know, election — then don’t be surprised when the other side wants the same delay when your side nominates a candidate. To not delay shows the original delay to be weaponized political ploy. Or, to use the Ford case as an example, if you bring up sexual harrassment charges, then you must be consistent. Don’t stop the investigation if the accused candidate withdraws the nomination — continue to investigate and either confirm the charges, or clear the name and go after the false accuser. To do anything else demonstrates it was just a political ploy weaponized. Further, you need to be willing to believe as true and investigate any claim made against your side as well. The issue is believing the claim, investigating it  well, and taking actions based on the findings — whoever the claim was against. If you investigate every little claim of bad legal behavior when your opposition is in office, you need to be willing to do the same level of investigation when it is your guy behaving badly. One of the best tools to close the divide is consistency.]

The most disheartening thing is that I can’t see a solution. The anger will grow and grow on both sides until it erupts in warfare. I like to point out one of my favorite books, The Late Great Days of the State of California by Curt Gentry — about the election of Ronald Reagan in 1965 in California — as a warning shot of what was to come. The seeds of this war and anger were planted by the election of Reagan to the Presidency in 1986, and the subsequent election of Bill Clinton in 1992. Each set the anger in motion; each was a dividing point for the country. The election of Bush 43 and the Supreme Court intervention in Florida that gave him his office and the subsequent swing to Obama was the fertilizer, and the election of Trump has combined the ingredients into a weapon.

It’s not pretty out there, except for being pretty disgusting. What is worse: I don’t see an answer. It just leaves me very worried and scared for our future.

If you see a reasonable answer and a way to fix this before it becomes worse, please share it.

Share

🗯️ Thoroughly Regusted at the Lot

userpic=divided-nationI was working from home today, and in between tasks, I was following the reactions from the Judiciary Hearings. I’m completely regusted at the lot.

From the Democratic side, I’ve seen nothing but support for the folks making the accusations. I heard about the Republicans constantly interrupting Democratic speakers and women. I heard about Kavanaugh acting like a child, crying and shouting. Certainly not judicial temperament. Everything that I’ve seen about this is a clear demonstration that the man doesn’t have the temperament for the Supreme Court, let alone respect for the judicial, evidentiary, or legal processes. We’ve seen the Republicans treat women who accuse men as if they were dirt, and I hope the voters remember come November.

As for my Republican friends: Well, they’ve been sharing memes that slut-shame. They’ve been blaming the women for any attacks received. They’ve had nothing for praise for Kavanaugh and the Republican leaders. They didn’t care about the outburst. They don’t want any investigation; they don’t care about any evidence that contradicts the story they’ve been fed. They believe these women are doing this solely out of political motivation and to besmerch Kavanaugh’s good name. They’ve made up their minds, and they will hold the vote and confirm him, despite what they’ve heard and seen. Oh, and anyone who comments with a different view is attacked mercilessly and mocked.

I had an evangelical friend yesterday write about “Three words”. He was complaining about the three words “He assaulted me. He raped me. He groped me.” and their impact on men’s lives. He proclaimed the women were lying, using the example of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. In his view, all women were deceitful and temptresses. I didn’t have the energy to point out to him that the Bible was written to support the view of the patriarchy, to build a society where men were in power and to justify that power. This is what led to both the evangelical as well as the Orthodox Jewish view of women and the notion of Complementarianism (which you should understand — it is fundamental to why the toxic masculinity culture is what it is). I didn’t have the energy to point out the impact of three actions: raping, groping, and assault, on women.

The interesting question is: Why? What did Kavanaugh do to be rewarded so handsomely, besides his record of torpedoing anyone with the name of Clinton? It is his Belief that the President is above the law? More likely, it his position on abortion.

I have seen evangelicals touting the fact that Kavanaugh’s appointment to the court will protect the deaths of unborns. They care more about their interpretation of Christian theology and forcing that on everyone no matter what  their religious views. What we have in this country is a compromise between the view that life begins at conception, and the view that human life begins at birth (a more Jewish view). We’ve compromised on the point where the foetus can be viable outside the womb on its own, perhaps with some life support. That is a compromise.  However, in order to enforce their view, they are willing to put one of their own on the court, no matter what it takes. Never mind his temperament. Never mind his past. Never mind that he really isn’t Supreme Court material — that he’s going in to push one ideology.

All this comes from the notion that Trump was selected by God. A while ago, I posted a great article on why evangelicals love Trump, even with his behavior. Read it. Understand it. Be scared.

The divide in our country is growing. Intolerance and hatred is growing. I fully expect that if the blue wave arrives, we’ll see impeachment of Supreme Court justices on top of the President. I don’t know what can be done to stop it (the hatred and partisanship, I mean. I’m all for the impeachment.).

Share

🗯️ Chickenheart, Chickenshit, Grab Me Some Tail

Yesterday, when I read about the prison sentence for once-comedy-icon Bill Cosby, I sent myself a note with the words “Bill Cosby and Suge Knight”. I had planned on writing a blog piece on a subject I’d touched upon before: What do we do about the art, when the artist is problematic? Or, to be more concrete: What should I do with my Bill Cosby comedy albums (I’ve always loved “Chicken Heart”) now? Did folks stop listening to rap artists when the artist or the artist label committed murder?

But then, during my shower, an interesting contrast hit me: We have a black man attempting and committing sexual assault, who gets those charges investigated, and gets convicted and sent to jail. We have a white man, Brett Kavanaugh, who also has charges made against him from multiple women for sexual assault, and we can’t even get those charges a proper investigation, and the white man will likely go to the Supreme Court as a justice. He was nominated by another white man who has also assaulted women, and those charges were never formally investigated. All three are men of power. So what are the differences? Why do the white guys dodge responsibility? What does this say about our attitudes?

I’m not trying to defend Bill Cosby — far from it. Rather, I’m disturbed by the fact that when the person who has allegations of sexual shenanigans is black and/or an entertainer, we get investigations and prosecutions. When it is a white politician — especially a politician from the party in power — we get … excuses. Oh, why didn’t she bring this up earlier (note: she did). Oh, these charges are politically motivated. Oh, the woman is lying. Oh, she can’t remember every detail, so it must not be true. Oh, he has friends that vouch for him — he couldn’t have done it. The Cos had friends that vouched for him as well. He still did it. Oh, he was drunk, so it shouldn’t count.

What message are we sending to our daughters and sons?

In an interesting bit of parallelism, the LA Times has an article on the impact of the #metoo movement and its connection with both Cosby and Kavanaugh. Interesting reading. These are very different times than the days of Anita Hill, or the days when Bill Clinton was being impeached for lying about an affair. Today, Clarence Thomas might not be on the Supreme Court, and Bill Clinton might have been charged with sexual harassment, abusing a position of power. It is completely wrong that a man with multiple allegations of sexual misconduct is not having those charges seriously investigated, even if he is from the party in power. Political affiliations does not make it right. The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary committee, and the politicians that support them, are sending a message to the women of this country (and the men that stand with the women).

I’m not sure they will want to hear the reply in November.

Share

🗯️ Anger Makes My Head Explode

userpic=divided-nationYesterday, a Conservative friend of mine began a political post (wherein he shared a link from Fox News) as follows: “Whereupon liberal heads explode…”. This is a style of rhetoric I’ve seen from the right before: Doing things just to “make Liberal heads explode”. There’s so much anger and hatred expressed towards a broad group. It is as if they were _______-ist. But what gets me most is this attitude of hate towards groups.

Further, if you think I’m letting my side off the hook, you’re wrong. I get equally annoyed when I see on the Liberal forums that a read: “Oh, that will piss them off” or other things that express hatred towards all Trump supporters or all Conservatives. Of course, these are Liberals, so we know there’s no hate or _______-ism in them. Right? But for Conservatives? [In fact, there’s a cartoon going around Facebook making just that point — of how Liberals are accepting of anyone … except Conservatives].

Hate. Hate. Hate.

I just hate hate.

Seriously: If we are to move this country forward, we’ve got to get past this hatred of groups of people. Yes, people can choose their politics, unlike their skin color, sex, gender, orientation, or other protected classes. But that’s not a reason to hate people as an entire group. Hate and protest ideas and political positions. Dislike individuals. But don’t do things just because you don’t like broad groups, or just to piss off broad groups.

Doing things to piss of groups of people — doing things to make others angry — that’s just being a bully. You are better than that.

Just stop it. In Jewish tradition, tomorrow is the day of repentance — a day to commit to make changes in your behavior. Take advantage of it, and vow to stop this senseless hatred of groups, and doing things just because it will piss someone else off. You’re better than being one of the “Get off my lawn” nasty old men.

G’mar Chatima Tovah.

Share

📰 The Last Straw

Humans are technological creatures. We invent new technologies. We embrace new technologies. Quickly. Often before we fully consider the ramifications or consequences. As we’ve seen over the last few years, the Internet is a great example of that. It has enabled marvelous new things. It has allowed us to keep in touch with friends and relatives across the globe, and to write and express our opinions with ease. Perhaps too much. It has also amplified the voices of the haters, enabled them to discover each other and grow their propaganda. It has enabled foreign countries to manipulate our media and propaganda easily to achieve their goals, and we’ve seen who and what those goals have elected to our highest offices, here in America. A two-edged sword indeed — with remarkable benefits, but with a terrifying downside.

But I’m not here to write about the Internet and Trump. I’m here to write about a different technology, one that was immortalized in that famous exchange from The Graduate:

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
Benjamin: Exactly how do you mean?
Mr. McGuire: There’s a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?

Have you ever thought about how plastics have changed the world? Look around you. How much of what you see is made of plastic, or depends on plastic, or has components of plastics? Think about how much of our lifesaving medical marvels depends on plastics, on how much of our technology depends on plastics for cases and insulation and structures. Just imagine what life would be like without plastics — a world where we only had fabric, wood, strone/concrete, metal, rubber/latex, and glass.  Now think about where much of our plastic comes from. Do you know? Petroleum. The big risk of our dependence on oil — a limited resource — is not the fuel for our cars, but that one day we may not be able to make more plastic, or that it will be very expensive. Look around you, and think of that impact the next time you throw away your sandwich baggie.

But our dependence on plastic and our acting like they are an unlimited resource is not the only problem we didn’t consider. There’s also the disposal problem. Plastics last in the environment for a long time. Unless specifically engineering to biodegrade (and that’s a different can of worms, so to speak), plastics will be in landfills for many generations to come. We can’t recover the oil from plastic, just like we can’t recover the sand from concrete. Lightweight plastics find their way to the ocean, together with microplastics from so many cosmetics and containers, and everything we discard in the street that goes down storm drains. There they get smaller and smaller, forming the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and other trash eddies. Sea life eat these and absorb the plastic, and we eat that sea life, and … you get the picture.

This brings us to the actual point of this article: banning straws, and other news about plastics. First and foremost — why are we banning straws? To be precise, they aren’t being banned, but they are moving to “on request only”, as some people need plastic straws due to disabilities (ADA). There are lots of reasons, but the simplest is: it’s a low hanging fruit. Straws and lightweight grocery bags are easy things to ban because reusable alternatives are easily available, or can be made from other substances. They increase visibility of the issue without being a major pain, except from the Conservatives who use the issue to make fun of Liberals. There would be much more impact from banning disposable styrofoam take out containers, disposable cups, plastic eating utensils. But straws and grocery bags are easy. Some companies are even finding ways to thrive.

What may be next? Balloons. True, these are more made of latex or different plastics, but they create significant problems — both for power companies with the mylar metallic coated plastic that causes electrical shorts when they hit power lines, to the traditional balloons that go up so pretty …. and then deflate and come down for animals to eat. There is a move afoot to ban balloons, or to at least ban releasing balloons. Another area of concern is glitter. Glitter is a lot of small pieces of plastic mylar, that easily goes down the drain and to the ocean, to be consumed by animals.

What about all this consumption? We tend to think of plastic as something inert and non-reactive. It isn’t. Research is increasingly showing that using plastic for food — especially heating and microwaving food — is potentially very bad. [ETA: Even supposedly BPA free plastic appears not to be food-safe.] Consider this (from the linked article):

Most of our food containers — from bottles to the linings in aluminum cans to plastic wraps and salad bins — are made using polycarbonate plastics, some of which have bioactive chemicals, like bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates.

These man-made chemicals can leach from the containers or wrappings into the food and drinks they’re holding — especially when they’re heated. Research released earlier this year found that more than 90 percent of bottled water from the world’s leading brands was contaminated with microplastics, sparking a review of plastics in drinking water by the World Health Organization.

The main cause for concern is that these chemicals can mess with our hormones. Specifically, they can mimic hormones like estrogen, interfere with important hormone pathways in the thyroid gland, and inhibit the effects of testosterone.

There are those who opine that this one reason for the marked decrease in male fertility and births in recent decades. It could also be behind increases in cancer. What ever it is, there are reasons to use glass for food instead. Of course, manufacture of glass requires sand (another limited resource), but glass can be recycled.

Do you feel better now? Do you have a better understanding of why the humble straw is just the tip of the concern?

P.S.: Of course, there’s always more to be worried about. Millennials may killing mayonnaise, and all those pesticides we use on our crops (such as Roundup) may be ending up in our breakfast cereals and granola bars.

Share

🗯️ What This Liberal Wants

No, Folks, I do NOT want this to become a full-on Socialist Country.

I want the beautiful balance of Capitalism and Socialism that we had back before Nixon and Reagan, when we looked out for Rich and Poor, back when a one-income working person’s salary meant he or she could afford to rent – or even BUY – a nice little 2-bedroom house with a little bit of yard. I want the days when kids could learn a trade or go to college, or both, without spending a fortune, and usually ended up living as well as their parents within 10 years or so. I want days when people could afford to go to the doctor and get the medical treatment they needed, and there was confidence in the quality of that treatment.

If only this system had worked for everyone!

The blot on this sunny scenario was … Racism. Non-white people were treated badly and paid far worse and jailed far more often than white folks, even with other factors (intelligence, work ethic, education, nature of infraction, etc.) being equal. What’s worse is that this still goes on. At times, I seems that the Far Right’s entire purpose has been, since the 1950s, to make sure this state of affairs continues. If not for the Civil Rights Act — an act brought forward by Democrats that lost them the Southern Vote to this day — we would still have legally separated neighborhoods!!!

You should SEE the bullshit in the original CCRs (from the 1940s and NULLIFIED BY THE CRA) for the neighborhood I grew up in the Crestwood Hills community in West Los Angeles! These state that no one of Asian, Negroid, or Hispanic heritage could own or rent in our neighborhood. I even recall that there were initially covenants against Jews. In other neighborhoods, POC were not allowed to SLEEP in the neighborhood unless they were household servants living in separate quarters on the property.

This was an era when the best position to be was White, Male, and Christian. Those who were not in those categories were viewed — either explicitly or implicitly — as “beneath”. There was implicit privilege in three attributes: you got the better jobs, you got better treatment from law enforcement, you got the better pay, you got the better working conditions, you got accepted at the better colleges, you could join the right clubs and organizations — all without you having to do anything.

The GOP, which was once the anti-Slavery Party, is now the chief supporter of discriminatory actions in policing, in housing, in hiring, in firing.

Notice the completely different rules THEY follow when THEY are in power (e.g. “No criticism of US; To HELL with the First Amendment!”) versus when they are OUT of power. When they are out of power, they criticize, they investigate, and they complain about the corrupt ethics of those in power. When they gain power, that goes out the window. No criticism is permitted, despite what the First Amendment says; investigations into corruption are “witch hunts”, and there is a distinct lack of ethics.

From what I can tell, the GOP now represents only the those that have money, privilege, or position, and those that want to preserve their money, privileges, and/or positions. I’ve seen this characterized as the “Richies and the Racists”.

If we REALLY want America to be “great again”, we need to truly crown our good with brotherhood and knock off the racist crap,  We need to go beyond the “under God” in the pledge, and focus on the “liberty and justice for all.” We need to move beyond the constant fearmongering and international saber-rattling that make us cut beneficial social programs so we can spend insane amounts on the military … all while military families struggle MORE than the rest of the middle class. We need to truly and realistically understand the external risks that this nation faces, and use our military power to defend against those realistic risks, and as a way to help other nations protect and promote freedom, which benefits this country through the reduction of overall risk.

I have no idea how we can fix this, when when we live in a country where a large portion believe it to be a Christian Nation (despite what is written in the Constitution), where Christian values are to be legislated in statute and imposed on all. When we live in a country where Black Men Kneeling during the flag salute is treated as a soulless act of disrespect, but White Men marching to support White Privilege and re-segregation of society, and deliberately killing a counter demonstrator with one of their cars during the process, is treated as merely a product of understandable frustration. When our leadership proclaims that there is equal wrong on both sides.

The Right has gone insane, thanks to twisted religion, racism, greed, bully-worship, and fear. They have abandoned the values of their once respectable party to the cult of personality, and the worship of power and privilege.

Luckily, there is one way to bring us back to where we need to be. Please, Sane People! GET OUT AND VOTE! Every Primary. Every Election. Your vote is the difference.

[Note: This was adapted from a post by my friend Mary W. over on Facebook. Shared and adapted with permission.]

Share

🗯️ Taking the Pledge

userpic=trumpThere’s a meme going around Facebook asking why we ask our students to pledge allegiance to the flag every day, but we don’t ask our leaders to recite their oath of office every day? That’s a damn good question.

First and foremost, we should push our Democratic representatives to pass a bill requiring all congresscritters, senators, and executive officers to recite their oath of office every workday in front of the staff. This would be win-win. First, it would remind them daily that their duty and allegiance is to the Constitution above all, not to the President. Second, if they refuse to do it, what does that say about where their loyalty lies? It’s not un-American to disagree with the President, but to refuse to affirm your oath of office?

Next, on the Pledge itself. We’ve debated whether “under God” belongs in the Pledge, but no one debates “with liberty and justice to all”. That’s not qualified. Citizen and non-citizen. Hetero or homo. Gender normative or not.  Any race. Any creed. Any sex. “to all” is simply that — to all. We need to remind those folks who fight for “under God” that they must honor the rest of the pledge — arguably the most important part — as well.

Share

🗯️ A Few Simple Questions

A few simple questions for my Republican and Trump-supporting friends. But first, let’s enter the Wayback Machine, shall we? (harp music plays). Just imagine. It is Summer 2014, four short years ago. Obama is President; Kerry is at State. While investigating Benghazi, the FBI uncovers information about the President and follows the leads:

  • They discover that during the 2012 campaign, President Obama’s lawyer illegally paid off two women who had threatened to expose sexual affairs with President Obama, and that such payments were “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office” and had been done “for the principal purpose of influencing the election”.  What would you demand to be done about Obama’s behavior?
  • They discover that Obama’s campaign advisor had comitted bank and tax fraud, and was subsuquently indicted and found guilty of those crimes.  What would you demand to be done about Obama’s behavior?
  • They discover that Obama and top members of his campaign team had met with the Russian government to obtain information on Mitt Romney in order to influence the election?  What would you demand to be done about Obama’s behavior?
  • They discover that Russia, immediately after President Obama made a call for them find Romney’s smoking gun, had broken into Romney’s campaign servers.  What would you demand to be done about Obama’s behavior?
  • They discover that Russia was still attempting to influence American elections and was hacking into election systems and state and local voting systems to influence the 2014 elections.  What would you demand to be done about Obama’s behavior?
  • They discover that Obama is trying to influence the investigation and publicly discredit it, and is attempting to influence witnesses through any means at his disposal.  What would you demand to be done about Obama’s behavior?

I truly doubt that, in such a situation, Obama and the Obama administration would get a “pass”. I doubt that you would consider the investigation a “witch hunt”. After all, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a cigar.

What you would demand be done about Obama in such a situation?

What does the fact you are not demanding the same thing be done about Trump say about you?

If some action is wrong, it is wrong no matter who does it. People of your party do not get a pass just so they stay in power. Corruption in government and foreign influence of our elections is wrong whether it is done for or by the opposition party or your party. If you don’t speak up about it, and demand action, further investigations, and potentially the President’s impeachment, you are at minimum hypocritical. You are at minimum putting political parties over the nation’s welfare. And, if you are doing it because you didn’t like that black man in the White House, you could be racist.

If your white son and his black friend both stole cars, and then used them to steal money from a bank, and you don’t think they should get the same penalty for the same crime, what does that say about you?

 

Share