Temper Tantrum

   If he doesn't get his way, Donald Trump throws a temper tantrum at those who dare to disagree, according to testimony before a Congressional committee hearing evidence about him.
   On one occasion, he threw a dinner plate full of food against the wall of a White House dining room, and on Jan. 6, when the driver of the presidential limousine refused to drive him to the Capitol insurrection, he grabbed the driver by the throat with one hand and the steering wheel of the limo by the other.
   Does this lack of control matter?
   You decide.

Return to the Past

   The Supreme Court of the United States cited the attitudes of the founders when ruling against strict federal gun control. But at the time the Constitution was written, gunfire technology was not what it is today.
   High velocity automatic rifles such as the AR 15 did not exist. Even pistols capable of holding six rounds of ammunition did not exist until Mr. Colt invented the revolver some 50 years later.
   As for government licensing, that didn't happen either. Doctors, lawyers, real estate agents and others in skilled professions, including truck drivers and plumbers, are some examples.
   So to claim that guns should not be subject to licensing misses the point. There is a need to regulate firearms, just as there is a need to regulate other things in life. Otherwise, we would live in chaos.

   Reality check: We already do.

Government Control

    Consider the contrast between the Supreme Court's rulings on gun control and abortion control.
   The first means less control over gun ownership, and the second means more control over women's lives.
   Granted, both are on the federal level, so states can enact their own laws accordingly. But which is more important, and which favors men's attitudes?
   In a sense, both favor men, and women's rights are relegated to second place.
   As for the debate over when life begins, whether at the moment of conception or at birth, both deal with the issue of control. The conservative argument is that life begins at conception, so any move to terminate that amounts to murder, and should not be allowed.
   But where are these same pro-life people when the unwanted child grows up to become an enemy of society? They are nowhere to be seen, except to complain that there are not enough jails, and to blame the mother for failing to raise a well behaved teenager.
   In a larger sense, all parts of the issue deal with control, and that has been a problem in societies around the world since the days of creation. Adam blamed Eve for luring him into temptation. Even today, women in some parts of the world must wear clothing to cover everything, lest men be lured into temptation.
   But whose fault is it if a man assaults a women? Is it her fault that he cannot control his mind or his body?
   Today in America, the nation's highest court has ruled that the federal government has little control over what a man does with however many guns he owns and whether he can carry them openly in public. Except, of course, shooting other people, but that is a state offense, not federal, and there has been a splurge of mass shootings recently.
   On the other hand, the court says that what a woman does with her own body is indeed a matter of government control.
   The issue remains a dispute over control, and who is in charge -- men or women.

Judgment Day

   The Republican strategy to stall Supreme Court nominees by President Obama so they could pack the court with conservatives paid off again today as the court overturned Roe v Wade, thus banning abortions in many states.
   Technically, the court ruled that the federal government had no status to regulate abortions, leaving it up to each state. That means some states will rush to ban abortions, and the guideline is likely to be after six weeks of pregnancy.
   But many women won't be aware of their pregnancy before that, so the result is to ban abortion entirely. In turn, that means women will travel to other states for the procedure. In effect, however, that prohibits many low-income women from terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
   A larger question then becomes, what of the children in these low-income families who cannot afford to support them?
   The result, sadly, is an increase in misbehavior by these unwanted children. They are there largely because others decided their fate. These same people who insist that these children exist do nothing to help support them in poverty-stricken neighborhoods.
   Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Separate And Equal

    Early settlers came to America seeking freedom to worship as they chose, rather than follow the dictates of a ruling government. The slogan of separate but equal was used in the 20th Century to justify separate schools for children of different races, but in many regions the schools were not equal, either in physical structure or in educational practice.

   In the early years of American colonization, however, beginning with the Puritans in New England and later the Irish Catholics in Maryland, many people came to America because their status in the home country was indeed separate, but not at all equal. In addition, slaves brought here from Africa were not considered equal, or even fully human.

   Times have changed, but some attitudes have not. To call for a single standard of religious worship and to combine that standard with a single government standard is to collapse and destroy all the principles that early settlers sought, and to replace them with a combined church-state system.

   That would return us to the very system that early Americans came here to escape, and they wrote that freedom of and for religion -- or for non-religion -- into the Constitution itself in 1789.

   Therefore, it is essential in order to preserve the American way of life that we cannot, should not and must not in any way combine a church – any church – with the state.

   They are separate and must remain so, even as they are equal in importance.

Common Copout

    "I'm not a lawyer, but ... "
   That's a common phrase often used by talk show commentators, and it implies that only lawyers understand the meanings of words.
   Lawyers argue over which meaning of a word applies to the issue they're arguing about. Perhaps if they really understood the meanings of words, they would not argue.
   But their goal is to win the argument, so many lawyers manipulate the meanings, connotations, interpretations, subtleties, shadings, differences, sub-meanings, synonyms and many other angles to cover a wide variety of changes that would best serve the interest of their client.
   Argue, argue, argue.
   Truth matters less than winning the debate. Or, as Humpty Dumpty famously said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more nor less."
   When Alice questioned him on "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
   "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
   Lawyers try to master the art of communication so they can win arguments.
   In contrast, linguists understand that words have many meanings, and the choice of which one to use depends on many factors. This is what lawyers argue about, so linguists (and journalists) leave it to lawyers to argue over which meaning applies.
   Linguists and communication experts will note that all the various meanings can apply, depending on circumstance and context.
   So the real issue that lawyers argue about is not always fact or reality, but rather about which word to use in order to minimize or eliminate any responsibility on the part of the accused.

Trial

   The House committee hearing evidence against Donald Trump is moving into high gear, with witnesses providing evidence that is likely to lead to criminal charges against him.

   So even if the Senate rejects all the allegations, legal beagles are watching intently as the evidence piles up. Especially New York officials, criminal and civil, who are already pushing charges. There will be more.

   Not that many of his devotees will listen or believe, but the law will deal with them also.

Testy Hearing

    Rising weather temperatures throughout America matched the increase in testiness among Republicans about the House committee hearing testimony on ex-President Donald Trump's behavior.
   A leading Trump supporter complained that there are only two Republicans on the committee, and therefore the procedure is unfair to the former president.
   He neglected to note that more Republicans were invited, but declined the offer.
   Committee hearings today disclosed more evidence of Trump's activities, providing specifics as to what he did and when he did it, including pressure on his advisors to manipulate the vote count. But testimony from several advisors detailed conversations they had with Trump, wherein they told him that no evidence was found of fraud, and they refused to follow his demand that they publicize details of fraud.
   Major TV networks are covering the hearings live, and reporters consistently use the term "lie" to describe what Trump said about the election results. Gone are the days when journalists seldom used that word.
   In short, Trump knew he lost but refused to accept it. Instead, he planned the events of Jan. 6 to block the formal vote count that favored Joe Biden.
   More important, Trump demanded that his vice president overrule Congress and name him to a second term.
   That was rejected, because the vice president has no authority to do that. His function is solely to preside over the vote count. Trump was reminded of this, but rejected it, and encouraged the planning of a mob demonstration to force a change in the election result.
   Evidence on all this is strong and growing as the House panel continues its work.

Do Something!

   Protest demonstrations nationwide today called on Congress to do something about continuing gun violence in America. But conservative Republicans from many states are not likely to support such measures.
   Gun owners and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have a strong presence in the South and the Midwest, so representatives from these states typically move to block national laws.
   That leaves it to each state to strengthen their laws even more. This will not, however, slow mass shootings in states that do not tighten gun controls. This is where some of the deadliest mass shootings have occurred.

   Separately, efforts in the House of Representatives to prove the influence of Donald Trump in arranging the protests on Jan. 6, 2020, will add to the public knowledge of his role, but this will have little or no influence on the Senate, where Republican senators have a strong enough presence to block any censures.
   However, as all the evidence is forwarded to prosecutors -- both federal and state, under civil and criminal law -- courts at several levels will hear new allegations. And any attempt to block charges by citing presidential executive privilege will not work, for several reasons:
   1/  State investigations, both civil and criminal, are independent of federal jurisdiction.
   2/ Trump is no longer president, so he cannot succeed in claiming executive privilege which would make him exempt from prosecution.
   3/ The current president has lifted any potential block to such a prosecution.
   4/  Any claim that he is still president, allegedly because the election was "rigged" and that he really did win re-election, is false.
   5/  It is also false that he won the 2016 election. He lost the popular vote, but became president by manipulating the electoral count.

   Hearings by the House committee investigating gun violence in America will continue in the coming week as officials pile up evidence of civil and criminal wrongdoing by the former president and his supporters, including some members of Congress.
   These questions remain: Will the former president be prosecuted? When and where?
   Here are some likely answers:
   On a state level, yes, he is being prosecuted.
   On a federal level, probably will be prosecuted.
   Also, will Congress act officially to sanction the former president?
   By the House of Representatives, the answer is yes.
   By the Senate, probably not this year, but possibly next year, assuming the November election changes the balance of political representation.
   
   Meanwhile, here are some of the attitudes taken by the Ultra Right:
   -- Ignore it. That means it didn't happen.
   -- We're call Rightists because we're correct.
   -- Conservatives want to conserve things. If it was correct in the 18th Century, it must be correct today.
   -- Liberals need to be liberated from their delusions.

   Or, to quote Chico Marx, their attitude is this: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

Political Hypocrisy

    Conservative politicians (Republicans) praise the glories of the free enterprise economic system and its ability to serve the needs of consumers without government control of prices.
   Yet when corporations boost prices by double-digit percentages, as is happening now, these same political types blame Democrats in government for failing to control prices.
   You can't have it both ways.
   Either government has a role in helping to stabilize economic patterns or it does not.
   In the past, lack of government intervention in corporate activities has resulted in the marketing and selling of poisonous substances, pollution of the air and water, and economic downturns so severe as to endanger the lives of consumers.
   Then, after economic disasters hit the voting public, government strengthens the rules to help save lives.
   Now, soaring prices are hurting many consumers whose incomes cannot keep pace with corporate pricing policies.
   Blaming events on the other side of the world for the necessity of boosting the price of eggs produced here is a poor rationalization.
   A better explanation: Greed.

Prime Evidence

    A Congressional committee reported evidence of wrongdoing by the former president's men, and all major American TV networks -- both commercial and public -- as well as several international systems, carried the presentations live and uninterrupted in prime time, 8 to 10 p.m. East Coast time.
   Except the Fox network, the Trump favorite, which carried a running commentary, usually negative, on who was saying what.
   Extensive video, some never before seen by the public, was shown as evidence that the former president was actively involved in promoting an attempt to stop the formal counting of votes to certify Joe Biden as the duly elected president.
   The committee's presentation also included a video of Ivanka Trump, the former president's daughter, testifying that she accepted the conclusion by Bill Barr, the former attorney general, that where was no voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
   Barr called the allegation of voter fraud "bullshit."
   Today, Trump rebuked his daughter for accepting Barr's conclusion.

Listen up, Congress

    Congressional committees are hearing from survivors of recent mass shootings as lawmakers consider revisions of federal gun laws to limit the spread of military style weapons among the general public.
   There has been a lot of talk about background checks before a buyer can get a gun.
   A lot of talk.
   But recent mass shootings have been made by people who acquired their weapons a few days before and even the same day as their killings.
   They easily passed background checks.
   It's not likely, however, that most Republicans in Congress will agree to stiffer restrictions. Increasingly, there have been comments on television and in testimony that some officials are accepting financial support from gun makers so lawmakers will not limit sales.
   What's more important, gun profits or children's lives?

Christian Nationalism

    There has been much talk recently about Christian Nationalism and its role in American government. There is an undercurrent of fear among many that other belief systems will somehow be made secondary or even outlawed.
   The Constitution forbids any attempt to establish an official state religion, but that does not stop Christian Nationalists from saying the government should recognize that many Americans embrace Christianity.
   The problem becomes a question of which branch of Christianity -- Methodist or Baptist or Episcopal or even Roman Catholic. There are also millions of Jews in America, as well as Hindus and Muslims, all of whom have members in Congress and in the judicial system nationwide.
   At one point, a spokesman for the Christian Nationalist movement referred to the Anglo-Saxon heritage and its belief system that supposedly dominates American culture.
   This leaves out Irish Catholics and those of African heritage, as well as new immigrants and those whose ethnic background is French, Scandinavian, Polish, Hungarian and other European cultures, including Hispanic -- plus Central and South American heritages as well as Spain and Portugal.
   And we cannot forget the many Chinese laborers who, along with many Irish workers, helped to lay the tracks for the transcontinental railroad.
   Also, there are newcomers and their offspring whose heritage is throughout Asia and the Middle East -- for example, Japan, India, Vietnam and the many other cultures in that region.
   In short, America is not and never has been an Anglo-Saxon nation. That culture may be politically dominant, but it is not and never has been shared by most Americans.
   The Constitution guarantees that no religious system shall ever be required as a qualification to any political office in America. Yet that is precisely the goal for those who call themselves "Christian Nationalists."
   Until and unless they change the Constitution and eliminate the First Amendment. That would also mean banning the right of free speech.

Trump and Nixon

    Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have taken on Donald Trump.
   In a foreword to the 50th anniversary edition of their book, "All the President's Men," the two journalists compare in detail Trump's actions and attitudes to that of Richard Nixon, the president who resigned in disgrace after it was clear that he led his election team to a series of illegal actions.
   The Washington Post today published the foreword.
  

Assault vs Defense

    Guns like the AR 15 are often referred to as "assault weapons." This is true. They are indeed designed for assault, rather than defense.
   Therefore, the designation AR means "assault rifle."
   That shoots down any gun lobby claim that the semi-automatic military style weapon is intended for defense.

Fake Beliefs

    "Belief without thought endangers freedom" has been the motto of this blog for many years. Now, it seems more important than ever as politicians -- especially followers of Donald Trump -- embrace his claims of election fraud perpetrated by his opponents, enabling them to "steal" the presidency from him.

   Oddly, he was making the same allegations even before the election of 2016, which enabled him to move into the White House after manipulating the electoral vote count despite losing the popular vote.

   Four years later, of course, he lost both counts, and had to leave office even as he continued his claims of election fraud.

   Even now, he insists there was fraud, and his supporters move to dominate state election boards so they can out-vote the people's count next time around.

  The problem, therefore, is that Trumpians believe him, without thinking about fact or reality. Belief without thought.

  This is what endangers freedom in America.

   If the Constitution is suspended and the free press is no longer able to expose lies, this is what this democracy faces.

False Logic

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) insists the purpose of gun control is to "stop criminals." But recent mass killings were not done by people with criminal records. Rather, they were done by those who legally bought military-style semi-automatic weapons legally, and used them to gun down children, church goers and medical personnel in mass shootings.
   Those with criminal records cannot legally buy guns, and recent killers bought their weapons only a few hours or days before they used them in mass slaughters.
   Therefore, gun control does not stop criminals. If a criminal plans to shoot and kill someone, theft is the least of his worries.

Enough!

   The President of the United States urged voters to remember the recent deaths of hundreds of Americans by gunfire in recent weeks, as they consider whom to support in the coming election.
   He repeatedly called out, "Enough!" referring to the deaths of children and adults by gunfire in recent days.
   "How much more carnage are we willing to accept?" Joe Biden said during his televised speech. He blamed Republicans in Congress, especially in the Senate, for blocking laws to limit gun ownership, particularly of semi-automatic firearms.
   He referred to the government's ban on machine guns, which were outlawed after waves of violence nearly a hundred years ago, and cited that as a precedent for the current Congress to follow.
   Whether they will is a question for voters to remember as members of Congress face Election Day in early November.