Free Thought

On August 8, 2022, approximately thirty heavily-armed FBI agents raided President Donald J. Trump’s home.  Many citizens praised the raid.  Many citizens criticized the raid.  The government’s reaction to the critics was chilling.

On August 11, 2022, the FBI Director declared: “Unfounded attacks on the integrity of the FBI erode respect for the rule of law”.

On August 11, 2022, the Attorney General declared: “let me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors.  I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.”

Critics of school boards are at risk for prosecution as “domestic terrorists”.  Critics of the 2020 presidential election are at risk for prosecution as “insurrectionists”.

As of August 11, 2022, a date which will live in infamy, critics of the FBI are at risk for prosecution for “eroding the rule of law”.  The First Amendment right of Free Speech is not a defense.  The chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America “will not stand by silently”, when citizens criticize the FBI.

Be honest with yourself.  When you’re alone, and nobody knows what you’re thinking, how often do you wonder: What in the world is happening to our country?

We’re struggling.  We’re crying.  We’re fearful.  We’re sad.  We’re rudderless.  We’re angry.  We long for “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, as President Abraham Lincoln envisioned.

May we all be inspired by the Declaration of Independence.  May we all pray: God Bless America.

In As You Like It, William Shakespeare wrote “all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”.  That was 400 years ago.  it’s still true, in the world of public figures (the “players”).

Why did Nancy Pelosi go to Taiwan in August 2022?  Do you think she wanted to convey the message that America has the power and determination to not let China invade Taiwan (or not let China do anything else)?  You can stop laughing.

Nancy Pelosi and her fellow players do what they do for power and/or money … for no other reason.

The mid-term elections are approaching.  Nancy Pelosi can read polls as well or better than anyone.  She wants to change the headlines.  She wants people talking about something other than what she and her fellow players have done to America.

Abracadabra … let’s go to Taiwan.  And let’s kill a 70-year-old terrorist in the ISIS organization that President Trump defeated.  There you have it … Act I and Act II.  New headlines, with the Fourth Estate being the Playbill.

What will Act III be?  The players don’t give a hoot.

If Act III is war with China, the military-industrial complex won’t complain.

If Act III is winter with no oil for home furnaces, investors in green energy won’t complain.

If Act III is no antibiotics from China, Big Pharma won’t complain.

If Act III is inner-city children who can’t read or do math, teacher unions won’t complain.

No matter what Act III turns out to be, Nancy Pelosi’s husband probably will be busy picking stock market winners and losers with extraordinary success.  He won’t have time to notice the drug-ridden homeless sprawl near his gated community.

Willie Sutton said he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.”  He “lived in the moment.”  He didn’t fear getting caught.  He didn’t give a hoot about Act III.  The players are just like him.

Winning a one-sided debate is a whole lot easier than winning a two-sided debate.  Everybody knows that.  The loud voices who shout at us all day every day know that.  That’s why they cancel people who question them or disagree with them.

A memorable one-sided debate was the Trump-Biden presidential debate moderated by Kristen Welker of NBC News.  President Trump tried to talk about Hunter Biden’s laptop computer.  Kristen Welker wouldn’t allow him to talk about it.  That was after she allowed Joe Biden to say that fifty members of the intelligence community said his son’s laptop computer is Russian disinformation.  Kristen Welker was, and forever likely will be, the gold standard for one-sided debates.

There are lots of other examples.

Anti-fossil-fuel advocates talk about the downside of fossil fuels.  Why don’t they talk about the upside … energy independence, manufacturing plastics and medicines and clothing, heat in the winter and cooling in the summer without electric-grid brownouts and blackouts, fuel for airplanes, all at a low cost without taxpayer subsidies?

Abortion advocates talk about the upside for the mother.  Why don’t they talk about the downside for the unborn baby … torture and death?

Advocates of teaching children that White babies and Black babies are different at birth talk about what they say is the upside of that lesson.  Why don’t they talk about the downside of that lesson … eliminating parents, and indoctrinating children to judge people by the color of their skin?

Advocates against charter schools talk about what they say is the upside of unified education for all children (of course, not including children from wealthy families who send their children to private schools).  Why don’t they talk about the downside of promoting inner city children every year, accepting their sub-standard standardized test scores as a normal life, and handing them a diploma they can’t read?

As long as loud voices continue to ban two-sided debates, they will not convince us that anything they say is true.  Their refusal to engage in two-sided debates tells us everything we need to know.

A day will come when loud voices are a distant memory.  We will overcome.  History tells us so.  Until then, may we not sink to their level, may we trust in truth, and may we pray for the wisdom and courage to trust in God.

Loud voices make the case against conservatives all day every day.  A transcript of everything they say would contain more pages than the entire collection of the Library of Congress.

Cumulatively, all future historians who ever live will not live long enough to read the entire transcript.  But, lo and behold, I have a solution.  A simple solution.  A solution that would enable a single future historian to read the entire transcript in half an hour.

And, here it is.  Here is my solution …

Delete from the transcript all name-calling, all factually-false statements, and all arguments based on nothing more than “I want what I want.”  The remaining transcript would be shorter than short.

The United States of America didn’t always exist.  It didn’t just pop into existence by unknown means for unknown reasons.  The Founding Fathers created it with the Constitution, which begins as follows: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the General Welfare, and secure the  Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

How many Americans ever read it, or even heard of it?  Walk up and down the avenues of America and ask Americans to tell you about it.  You’ll go home wondering: What species are these things who call themselves Americans?  Ask Americans to tell you the first three words of the Constitution, which purposefully are in bold typeface.  You’ll go home wondering: Should I laugh or cry?

Ask any politician whether We the People, Congress, President, or Supreme Court should be in bold typeface.  No, on second thought, don’t bother asking.  You already know what they think.

Ask everybody what “a more perfect Union”, “Justice”, “domestic Tranquility”, “common defence”, “General Welfare”, and “Blessings of Liberty” mean.  The answers given today make a mockery of the answers given just a short time ago, when Americans joined hands in unity to land a man on the moon.  Is that because Americans changed, or is it because loud voices changed America?  The answer to that question is as plain as the nose on your face.  Simply compare the trustworthiness and civility of today’s loud voices to the loud voices when America landed a man on the moon.  Are you laughing or crying?

In America’s quest for “a more perfect Union”, it took a wrong fork in the road.  It now is dipping its toe into quicksand.  Loud voices are selling maps that they say will show America the way out of the quicksand.  But the loud voices are more interested in selling maps (and all sorts of stuff), than in getting America out of quicksand.

The Founding Fathers showed America the path out of quicksand, the path to “a more perfect Union”.  All America needs is to do is what the Founding Fathers did.  First, recognize that America doesn’t have a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.  Then, do something about it … turn off the loud voices, and vote to elect a government that represents We the People.

God gave Americans the right to vote.  The Founding Fathers put it in writing.  We the People should not give it up easily.  We the People should try harder, to find the way out of the quicksand, and get back on the path to a more perfect Union.

America is diving down a rabbit hole faster than fast.  It’s deteriorating.  it’s darkening.  It’s dividing.  It’s disappearing before our very eyes.  We’re suffering.  In many ways.  We’re losing our sense of unity, equality, nationality, civility … and, not at all the least, we’re losing our sense of humor.  We need a good laugh.

We can get our funny bone back.  Here’s how.  We can re-elect President Donald J. Trump in 2024.

Democrat Senators and Congressmen will object to Trump’s Electors at the counting of Electoral Votes.

Democrats, Big Media, and Big Tech will condemn the election as Russia Collusion, every one of them using the same exact words and phrases.

They will claim that voter id laws made it impossible for Democrats (and only Democrats) to figure out how to vote.

They will claim that the vote-counting procedures they extolled in 2020 actually are fraudulent.

They will claim Jim Crow laws prohibit non-citizens from exercising their right to vote.

“Re-elect President Trump, and laugh yourself silly!”  Now, that’s a campaign slogan!

Put down your Tsingtao beer.  Imagine Adam Schiff promising he has proof that shows President Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.  Imagine Peter Strzok and Lisa Page getting out of bed and working on an insurance policy against President Trump.  Imagine The Washington Post‘s front page headline: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun”.

It will be a cornucopia of comedy for Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.  We will get our giggles back.  We will laugh, all of us, together.

At the 1984 Democrat National Convention, Democrats cheered wildly at the Keynote Address by New York’s Democrat Governor Mario Cuomo.  He painted a picture of a Republican party for wealthy elites and a Democrat Party for the middle and lower classes.  Referring to A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, Governor Cuomo criticized President Reagan for describing America as a “shining city on a hill.”  Governor Cuomo preached “In fact, Mr. President, this is a nation — Mr. President you ought to know that this nation is more a “Tale of Two Cities” than it is just a “Shining City on a Hill.”

1984 was 32 years before 2016.  That’s when We the People elected Republican President Donald J. Trump, a populist politician.  That’s when we gave the boot for the second time to Democrat Hillary Clinton, an elitist politician who disdains “deplorables” and “irredeemables”.

What a reversal!  Democrats are going to have to raise Mario Cuomo from the dead, and make him re-write his Keynote Address.  Why?  Because Democrats now are the wealthy residents of the “shining city on a hill”.

We can snigger at Democrats, and we should.  But we should snigger at ourselves even more.  Why?  Because we elect and re-elect politicians who snigger at us all day every day.  Only in America could Ilhan Omar (a poverty-stricken, Muslim, woman of color, immigrant from war-torn Somalia and a refugee camp in Kenya) be granted asylum, be elected to Congress, and be given a bully pulpit from which she calls our Constitution and nation every nasty name in the book.

When politicians talk about “A Tale of Two Cities”, what they really have in their minds is one city for them (a “shining city on a hill”) and an entirely different city for us.  If a Senator ever deigns to come to your home town and deigns to talk with you, listen to him carefully and ask yourself this question: Does he think he works for me?

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and George Orwell’s 1984 are not fiction.  They touch us deeply … and in our heart of hearts, we all know why.

Awake,
To your singularity,
To your self,
To your soul.

Awake,
To your senses,
To your seeing,
To your sense.

Awake,
To your honor,
To your humility,
To your humanity.

Awake,
To Heaven,
To God.

Awake,
From the Garden of Eden,
From the Great Flood,
From the Tower of Babel,
From Sodom and Gomorrah,
From the Golden Calf,
From Golgotha,
From the Holocaust,
From you know who,
From you know what.

Awake,
To rejoice,
To give thanks.

Awake,
To pray.

What you see isn’t always what you get.

Did you ever go to the supermarket, buy a package of beautiful, fresh, red chop meat … get it home, open it, dig into it … and find the middle an unsightly brownish color?  They weren’t selling what you thought you were getting.  They packaged it that way, on purpose.

They package everything they sell.

We know their most infamous packaging technique.  They want us to buy politicians’ lies and false promises, so they package them in a legal system that says it’s legal for politicians to lie and make false promises.  You can sue a carpenter or electrician who lies to you, but you can’t sue a politician who lies to you.

We don’t know all their packaging techniques.  How could we?  We don’t devote our entire lives to packaging (also known as deceiving).

For decades, I asked myself “Why do supermarkets incur the cost of sending us full-color flyers with advertisements and coupons that they know are thrown in the garbage by almost everybody?”  An expert in the food industry at long last answered my question.  Food manufacturers and distributers who want supermarkets to give their products increased and more visible shelf space are not allowed to pay for that, but they are allowed to pay handsomely for advertising space and coupons in supermarket flyers.  And supermarkets are allowed to give their advertisers increased and more visible shelf space.

For decades, I asked myself “Why does Big Pharma advertise prescription drugs on television?”  An independent journalist at long last answered my question.  Big Parma is not allowed to pay television stations to suppress news that’s adverse to Big Pharma, but Big Pharma is allowed to pay handsomely for advertising on television stations.  And televisions stations are allowed to not expose news that’s adverse to Big Pharma.

If a politician really and truly advocates for free and fair elections, why would he package his advocacy in a wrapper that excoriates voter id and signature verification?  If a politician really and truly advocates for an apolitical Supreme Court, why would she package her advocacy in rhetoric that demands the right to pack the Court with Justices who promise to Rule as she wants them to Rule?

If you want to see what they’re really selling, try to see what their packaging is hiding.  Try not to be distracted.  On Broadway in The Magic Show, magician Doug Henning made an elephant disappear before our very eyes … and his budget was mere peanuts, compared to politicians’ budgets.

“Dehumanize” means to deprive someone of “human qualities, personality, or dignity”.  [Merriam-Webster online dictionary]

Does that define the majority of loud voices that fill the airwaves and periodicals today?  Of course it does.  Why do the loud voices devote themselves all day every day to dehumanizing?

When you declare that someone lacks human qualities, when you declare that someone is something other than human, you can do to that person whatever you want.  And you can lure other people into doing the same.

Adolph Hitler dehumanized Jews.  He called them every vile name in the book, and blamed them for everything wrong with Germany.  He lured an entire nation, joined by other nations, into doing whatever they wanted to do to Jews … gas chambers, ovens, whatever.  The entire world refused to accept a ship (the M.S. St. Louis) filled with Jewish refugees from Germany, and sent them back to Hitler to do whatever.

In its Opinion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court refers to “potential life”.  It does not refer to unborn babies, to human beings, to human life, or to any form of life at all.  It denies that life exists in the womb, only “potential life” exists.  It was no accident that the Supreme Court Justices who joined in the Opinion denied the existence of “life”.  They did not want to go “on record” for unabashedly saying “It’s okay to destroy human life during the first trimester.”  They wanted to dehumanize.  A 2018 study by Yale University found that conservation policies threaten tree frogs, and calls for a rethinking of conservation policies … killing tree frogs is inhuman because they are “life”, not merely “potential life”.

This is not about anti-semitism or abortion.  This is about dehumanizing human beings.  Dehumanization merely is a tool (albeit a very effective tool) that helps loud voices normalize anti-semitism, abortion, and whatever.

The next time you hear the loud voices call someone a vile name (racist, domestic terrorist, whatever), ask yourself: What is the evidence that justifies the vile name … real evidence, actual facts, not an unverified statement by an unnamed source, not the mere opinion of the name-caller?  We now know that Affidavits verified under oath by the FBI and submitted to the FISA Court can be pure balderdash, can fail to justify vile name-calling and dehumanization.  This is not about President Donald J. Trump.  This is about the loud voices dehumanizing him based on fake “evidence” … and then being able to do whatever.

Dehumanizing is not new.  Galileo was called a heretic, which dehumanized him and greased the path to his lifelong house arrest.  Merely disagreeing with his scientific opinion was not good enough.  Think about it, the next time you hear the loud voices.  Or, better yet, turn them off.