Repeating History

    News media often compare some government administrations to others, either in the same nation or that of other countries.
   Currently, historians compare the Trumpian goals to those of others, and topping the list is mid-20th Century Germany and early 19th Century America.
   Was treason involved? That is the question. Some 200 years ago, Aaron Burr was the target of that accusation, and the issue was fought at court levels all the way to the Supreme Court. But the question of jurisdiction stalled any action there, and it may be the same now.
   Historians go into great detail when writing about Burr and his activities, and some are reluctant to give an answer to the treason question, just as some others stress his guilt, even though he was not convicted.
   Now, the issue of treason is at the root of debates on the episode of January 6, 2021, especially whether it was spontaneous or planned by allies of the president at the time, Donald Trump.
   As governments in other countries swerve to the political right wing, scholars and journalists ask whether the U.S. is participating in this movement.
   Next month, Americans will choose a new set of representatives for Congress -- all members of the House and a third of those in the Senate.
   Other nations are also experiencing a shift to the political right, and victorious conservatives act quickly to reduce or eliminate government welfare programs that tax the wealthy for funds to assist those who are not.
   It's certainly understandable that many of the wealthy want to keep as much as they can without crossing the border into greed. Many others, however, have already crossed that border and resist any program that would trim their wealth in any way. Not all the rich are that way, of course, but many are.
   That's why they are called conservatives. They want to conserve as much of their wealthy as they can. An acceptable goal, but part of this belief is the idea that the poor are poor because they deserve it, and therefore the rich are not obliged to help them in any way.
   Circular reasoning.
   Complicating this is the reality that the economy is taking a growth break, and the non-wealthy are having a more difficult time than before. That's called a recession, because buying and selling activity recedes from its previous levels.
   Another part of the worry is caused by news media that play up any change, so that it sounds worse than it really is.
   For example, broadcasters lament that 30-year mortgage rates have "soared" to 7 percent, compared to its substantially lower rates a year ago, causing substantial financial harm to home buyers.
   Not mentioned is the fact that the lower interest rate holds at that level for 30 years. That's why it's called a 30-year mortgage. (The term "mortgage," by the way, comes from the French, and it means that the loan dies after a specified period of time, typically 30 years.) Therefore, a family that bought a home a year ago is not affected by the current rise in rates.
   Also not mention is history that a mortgage rate of 7 percent was common a few decades ago, and was considered a bargain because not long before that the typical rate was above 10 percent.
   At that time, a home priced at $1 million was exceedingly rare, well past the status of a luxury mansion affordable to only a rare few. Now, finding a home in a good suburb below that price is a major accomplishment -- depending, of course, on what part of the country a home buyer is looking.
   One reason for the high price is that more people can afford it, especially in prominent suburbs near major cities.
   Income levels also play a part in home prices. Some years ago, a job that paid more than $400 weekly was available only to highly skilled professionals.
   Now, with minimum wages set at $15 an hour in some regions -- well above state requirements -- that pay level goes to part-timers at unskilled jobs.
   But prices have also soared, so that leaves many workers in the same predicament. Their income does not cover monthly living expenses.
   So who's responsible for the disparity in income versus expenses? Political candidates typically blame their opposition for the problem, even when a reality check reveals that the problem began when their side was dominant in government.
   Neutral economists point out that government has limited influence on the economy as a whole, and should resort to high spending only when needed to stimulate economic health. Otherwise, government intervention becomes interference.
   Somewhere there is a middle ground between major government control and total industrial freedom. And that is the inherent difference between full socialism and absolute capitalism.
   Historically, America has sought that middle path ever since the rise of the labor movement and its challenge to what was sometimes despotic industrial control.
   The challenge now is to stay on the middle path.

Stormy Sees

   Showing the documentary of a former Trump aide talking up the plan to control voting dominated  news coverage even before the entire film was formally shown to a Congressional committee.
   The full documentary was scheduled to be shown to the House panel Wednesday, September 28, 2022 but was postponed because of hurricane activity. What  influence the documentary will have on devoted supporters of the former president remains an open question, especially if they refuse to watch it, or if they claim it is a fraud, deliberately made after the reputed action as a way to attack Trump's credibility.
   But claiming that the action on January 6, 2021, was a gathering by Trump opponents masquerading as supporters remains part of the scheme to manipulate history. And insisting that showing a fraudulent film makes the committee guilty of lying to America is another tactic.
   Can history be manipulated?
   Certainly. It happens in every country regularly as part of an effort to make one group look good and help it rise to or stay in power, as well as to keep a minority subordinate.
   But when members of that smaller group protest and seek to gain the same rights as the majority dominant group, they are called troublemakers, arrested and prosecuted for disturbing the peace.
   However, if that peace results in wrongful attacks on members of the minority, the supposed "peace" deserves to be disturbed until equality is gained.
   All this does not justify manipulating a major election to insure a victory for someone whose history shows a pattern of focusing on his own benefit and not that of the general public.
   So what will today's hearing show, and how will it affect the coming election as people try to resolve conflicts that may lead to major changes in American life?
   More importantly, how will voters react to the mounting evidence of misconduct -- if not fraud -- by senior government officials before and after the election that put Donald Trump in the White House for four years?
   Will they accept the evidence?
   Will they accept the allegations?
   Will they deny both?
   Will they seek a new leader, one who promises to take America to a major new role in the world?
   Are we seeing a repeat of what happened a century ago, as economic problems led to ultra-conservative government systems in Europe and to a world war within a few years?

Closing the Circle

   Legal beagles are barking louder and louder these days as they close in on Trumpians for questionable activities, which they allege have been happening for decades.
   Why they waited is another question. Perhaps the answer is that prosecutors were not sure of public support for a very costly investigation.
   Cynics will say that's one reason law enforcement focuses on perpetrators who cannot afford squadrons of lawyers to drag a case through multiple court levels for years.
   Unless, of course, they can utilize news media exposure to help build public support.
   Should it be this way?
   Certainly not. Prosecutors will deny they do this, and insist that wealthy suspects are treated just as strongly as anyone else.
   Nevertheless, that perception is hard to erase, especially when wealthy perpetrators can hire extremely talented lawyers and get more media exposure for both their legal and suspect activities.
   This leads to a discussion of the current media prominence of the Trump family. They are high on the list of families of wealth and prominence, both social and political.
   So why have prosecutors waited so long to close the ring of law enforcement?
   News media report that New York State law enforcement did not start investigating possible violations until after they were revealed during congressional hearings in Washington.
   Really? Were they not watching, or were the alleged perpetrators too powerful locally to be challenged?
   Law enforcement will deny this, but the question remains.
   Corruption in government is common. We just don't hear about it until it becomes too flagrant to ignore, and that's when news media and prosecutors do their thing.
   Sadly, this phenomenon is worldwide. Nevertheless, America still has news media and law enforcement ready and willing to expose wrongdoing.
   Whether they are able is another question.
   If some folks are able to manipulate and control government and law enforcement as well as muzzle news media, then the Constitution and the nation are facing deep problems.
   So the question now becomes this: Are we already in deep doo-doo?

Pelagius Was Right

   Sales of my book, "Pelagius Was Right" top the list of my writing efforts. It's a collection of essays dealing with the attempts by major religious institutions to condemn him as a heretic because he taught that people are basically good, and do bad things because they choose to do so.

   That compared to the view of his 4th Century contemporary, Augustine, who insisted that people are basically ungood and commit sin because they are controlled by a devil. Augustine's supporters won the debate, and Pelagius left Rome as invaders neared the city.

    Eventually Augustine was declared a saint, and Pelagius was labeled a heretic.

   By definition, a heretic is someone who disagrees with official "wisdom."

   Nevertheless, Pelagius was right.

   The book is available via Amazon.

Fraud

   The New York State attorney general has filed fraud charges against Donald Trump and the ex-president's family, alleging they manipulated real estate reports as a way of getting lower tax rates. The allegations list millions of dollars being involved.

   These are civil charges. Later, other charges alleging criminal behavior are expected. The defense may argue that a president is not liable in legal actions. But the issue now is whether this applies to a former president, and to his behavior before taking elective office.

Word Play

   Playing with words and their definitions often means the players are stalling because they know they're wrong.
   Donald Trump's lawyers say he did no wrong because the documents are no longer secret, because they were declassified.
   At the same time, they say he doesn't have to disclose them to the judge monitoring the dispute because the documents were classified.
   But if the documents are no longer "secret," there's no need to hide them, therefore they can be given to the monitor. Or even made public entirely.
   Unless, as the lawyers also imply, they may become part of a legal case, and therefore they can't be disclosed.
   But if they are part of a legal case over keeping documents that he shouldn't have taken home with him in the first place, that means even more trouble.
   That's playing both ends against the middle, as the saying goes. Which can mean you're wrong on both sides.

Legalized Bigotry

   No one is above the law.
   We have heard this said many times. Recent events and attitudes, however, indicate that some people believe their favorite politician is indeed above the law, untouchable by prosecutors for activities clearly against both federal and state laws.
   They cite the danger of prosecuting their favorite person, because the reaction from devoted followers would bring riots and mayhem. Therefore, the reasoning goes, let him do what he does because any attempt to stop him or punish him would be dangerous. That reasoning does not apply to so-called ordinary citizens, but only to the leader.
  This is how dictators rise to power.
  Historians can supply a long list of political leaders who rose to power by exploiting and magnifying the fears and prejudices of the many against the minority few.
  There are many alive today who survived the bigotry of the Holocaust.
  Bigotry has long been the cause of attempts to gain control of a government by targeting a minority few.
   It has happened in America numerous times, as some gained control and forced others into circumstances that endangered their health and safety.
   Here are some examples:
   -- The Trail of Tears, when Eastern native tribes were forced from their homes to regions in the West.
   -- World War Two, when Americans of Japanese heritage were forced from their homes in California to encampments in the West.
   -- In Eastern states, people of German and Italian background were closely watched and some even imprisoned.
   -- Even today, Americans of color are harassed and watched as they try to go about their everyday lives. This includes those whose ancestors were brought here as slaves several hundred years ago.
   America has long been a country of refuge for people escaping violence and poverty in other nations. Currently, many of these refugees are coming here from Latin America.
   The cause of their flight is little different from those in the past. Neither is the bigotry that greets them.
   America now faces the danger of a dictatorship set up by a man who insists that he is above the law; that historic practice and the Constitution do not apply to him and to his adherents.
   He has promised full pardons for those convicted during the rioting and rebellion of January 6, 2021.
   This assumes he again gains the presidency and escapes the Constitutional provision that those convicted of criminal activity cannot hold public office in America.
   Unless Congress as well as state and federal prosecutors decide not to prosecute because he is above the law.
   But is he?
   Is anyone?

Danger

   Americans would rebel if Donald Trump were indicted, said the ex-president.
   "If it happened, I think you'd have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we've never seen before," he said in a radio interview. "I don't think the people of the United States would stand for it."
   Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt then asked how Trump would answer if the news media said such comments would incite violence.
   "That's not inciting," Trump answered. "I'm just saying what my opinion is. I don't think the people of this country would stand for it."
   Listen up.
   When a major public figure offers an opinion, it is heard as ... pick a word: suggesting, encouraging, inciting, warning, threatening -- or any of several others.
   The danger is real. Claiming it is not only increases the danger.

Unity

   The change in monarchy dominates the news this week, raising the question of how long and whether the British association of nations will continue as it has for so many years.
   Already, there has been talk of some countries changing its association with Britain, and that talk has increased in recent days as the new king moves in.
   Britain has shown unity for several hundred years, since the death of the first Queen Elizabeth enabled her cousin, King James VI of Scotland, to add the English crown to his collection. A few years later, to satisfy the peoples of each nation, the two kingdoms were formally united, and adopted its current name. By calling itself "Great Britain," the kingdom avoided the hassle of having to choose which nation came first: Was it to be the United Kingdom of Scotland and England, or the United Kingdom of England and Scotland?
   The problem was solved when the phrase Great Britain was adopted. Even now, some broadcast journalists refer to the combined nations only by the one where the monarch spends most of her/his time -- England.
   This, of course, annoys the Scots greatly, plus the Welsh and the people of Northern Ireland. The rest of Ireland broke away and became a fully independent nation a hundred years ago.
   Meanwhile, the use of the term "united" was adopted by several of its colonies when they declared independence in 1776 and became the United States.
   Eventually, a similar rationale led to the formation of the United Nations in 1945, even as the union was less political but more brotherly.
   This brotherly attitude remained part of the United Kingdom even as its former colonies became more self-governing. But they retained the image of the monarch on their coins, and acknowledged the monarch as the chief of state.
   Head of government, however, was another issue. Even today, many nations, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several dozen others retain the monarch as their head of state even as they name a prime minister to lead their governments.
   Now many of those nations are considering again whether it is time to break that tie with the British monarchy and become fully independent even as they retain close ties with Great Britain.
   The American colonies declared their independence in 1776, but there remains a great sense of loyalty to Britain.
   Is it largely because many nations share the same language? Perhaps. Or is it a matter of maintaining an association to benefit the common weal?
   No, that's not a typo. The phrase is the root from which the term commonwealth is taken.
   This union is likely to remain, on a social and linguistic level, even as the political and governmental association is separated.

Behavior Rules

When we do it, it's education.
When they do it, it's indoctrination.

  There are four sets of rules for human behavior, and they differ by culture. The four sets are legal, moral, spiritual and religious.
   Some cultures combine the legal and moral, leaving the other two to personal preference. America is one example.
   Others combine the legal and religious, enabling its leaders to impose laws and punish those who do not conform to specific religious beliefs.
   Still others say spiritual behavior is an individual choice, and no group -- government or social -- can tell others how to approach or honor an Otherworld, or even to acknowledge that an Otherworld exists.
   A major problem arises, however, when one society imposes its guidelines and rules of religious behavior on other groups within that society.
   In some countries around the world, such a conflict leads to violence. And much as some would deny it, that same disagreement over how to behave and honor an Otherworld is becoming more common in America, resulting in violence, despite the Constitutional and legal prohibition on such behavior.
   It is long past time that those who support violence toward minority groups actually read the Constitution.
   "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." -- Article VI
   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." -- Amendment I.
   

Capitalists vs Socialists

    Define your terms. One is good, and the other is not. But capitalists are often greedy, and greed is ungood. Does that mean capitalism is ungood?
   Or consider the terms socialism and social welfare. Socialists are often opposed to capitalists because greed can be harmful to others. Meanwhile, capitalists brand socialism evil. But if those concerned with social welfare oppose capitalist greed, they are branded socialist and therefore evil.
   But is concern for the welfare of others evil?
   If you brand socialism "evil," therefore those who need social aid are incompetent and therefore evil.
   Logical?
   Only if you have already defined those in need of social help as evil. Unless you are a member of the same social group. Otherwise, you can say non-members are evil and don't deserve assistance.
   Logical?  No. But it is a common attitude throughout history and still common.

   So which term is evil and which is good?

   Answer: Neither. Evil can infest each, just as good can improve each.
   The ethnic groups may differ but the bigotry is the same.

Time of Change

   September in America brings a return to education, as young people return to school and Congress returns to work after a brief vacation.
   Journalism, however, never gets time off from its duty of monitoring and researching the behavior of government and political leaders who try to manipulate policy to increase personal control.
   In that sense, journalism has a constant duty to keep readers aware of the dangers America faces from power hungry politicians. Meanwhile, leaves are ready to change, but dedicated followers of Donald Trump are not.
   Yet.
   
   The political climate is about to change, however, and the first signs are in the legal system. Local grand juries and congressional committees are increasing their pressure on Trumpians and their charges are being answered with increasing volatility.
   But shouting them down doesn't make them go away. This only makes for increasing news coverage. (Note: Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.)
   The season started with a report gathered by the Washington Post that among the documents seized in the search of the Trump resort at Mar-a-Lago was an analysis of nuclear weapons held by another country.
   This report got major coverage by news networks -- except Fox, which focused instead on President Joe Biden's handling of student loan forgiveness.
   Response from the Trump team criticized the news media for leaking a confidential top secret report. This ignored the reality that the report should not have been in the possession of the ex-president in the first place, much less on the premises of his vacation home.
   All things considered, it's time for more education in America, to lead voters out of the propaganda that claims Trump should still be in the White House, and therefore he has the right to keep classified top secret material as if he were still America's leader in chief.
  Problem: A Trump appointed judge has called for a "special master" to review documents taken from Trump's home by government law enforcement, and to decide which, if any, of those documents can be used in legal proceedings against him.
   But many law agents have already seen the documents. If the judge's ruling holds and the reviewer says the agents should not have seen them, that would mean a new set of investigators would have to be selected to review the remaining documents.
   All this despite Trump's initial claim that he didn't have any documents, then his insistence that he had already given back all of them, followed by his claim that investigators had no right to them in the first place, even though we was present at one of the visits and welcomed the FBI agents.
   Confusing? Yes. Time consuming? Yes. Law breaking? Yes. Largely an effort to delay the investigation? Probably.
   All this happening while talk of criminal charges increases.
   Already, a Trump supporter who assaulted Capitol police during the January 6 incident has been removed from his local government office because he violated the Constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office.
   The same Constitutional ban applies to those who support insurrectionists. This raises the question of how a judge would rule if Trump tries again to gain a government office, given his support of January 6 insurrectionists.
   And what of other supporters campaigning for government positions in the next election day, just two months away?

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive.
-- Sir Walter Scott

Mumble Jumble

   The Trump team keeps arguing to courts that the ex-president still has the executive privilege to take home and keep top secret classified documents provided to him because he was president.
   But he is no longer president.
   Taking classified documents home does not automatically mean they are kept secret.
   Only a current president can have access to classified top secret documents.
   Donald Trump is no longer president, despite his ranting that he was cheated out of the job. Dozens of courts have ruled that claims of cheating were fake and had no merit.
   So when will the ranting finally stop and the loser finally admits he lost?
   That's anyone's guess.
   The danger is that his many believers will hold fast to their faith and try again.
   And again.
   And again.
   To regain power.
   The have tried already using force.
   Now they're trying to manipulate nationwide ballot boxes by disallowing non-supporters from voting.
   Will they succeed?
   Will the American system survive?
   Stay tuned.

Say What?

   "An overdue library book" is what ex-president Donald Trump's lawyers called the top-secret documents found by government officials in his Mar-a-Lago home.
   And in a posting on his computer network site, Trump made repeated references to the documents as if he did, in fact, have them in his possession after he left the presidency. In the past he has denied having them.
   This despite federal law that stipulates government documents remain government property and do not belong to a president, either in or out of office.
   But comparing top secret government documents to an "overdue library book" has only drawn angry laughs from Americans who hear that defense.