Divided States of America - Part II

I grew up in the 1970s and I remember President Richard Nixon running for re-election in 1972. While Nixon’s Watergate scandal rocked his short-lived second term in Office, the United States (U.S.) remained united in its views of the Executive Office. The Attorney General did his job by appointing a Special Counsel who wasn’t swayed by political pressures. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, provided the necessary balance of powers to force Nixon to resign from Office in 1974. Nixon was replaced by his Vice President, Gerald Ford. With the intent of keeping the U.S. from falling apart, Ford decided to pardon Nixon for the crimes that were committed at the Watergate Hotel under Nixon’s direction. The pardon was not well received and resulted in Ford becoming the only President to never be elected to the Office. For both Nixon and Ford, their actions had consequences and the U.S. moved forward.

In 1986, I entered the U.S. Navy with Ronald Reagan as Commander-in-Chief. For the first time in my young life, I took the oath to “support and defend the Constitution” of the U.S. Years later, in 1990-1991, with President George H.W. Bush as Commander-in-Chief, I fought in Operation Desert Storm, an action designed to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Unlike the Vietnam War, the people of the U.S. came together to support the troops that participated in Desert Storm.

By the end of 1995, with Bill Clinton as Commander-in-Chief, I had served with the Navy under three U.S. Presidents, two Republican and one Democrat. In 1996, having served nine years in the Navy, I joined the FBI where I served for just over twenty years after once again taking the oath to “support and defend the Constitution” of the U.S. Those twenty years were served under Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, two Democrats and one Republican. I believe the rotation of the Presidency between Republicans and Democrats is what kept the country in balance.

I experienced eight Presidents between Nixon and Obama where each of those Presidents, for the most part, upheld the solemn oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. Those eight Presidents, balanced by a Congress that performed its function of keeping the Presidency and Supreme Court in check, preserved, protected, and defended the entirety of the Constitution and didn’t pick and choose the parts they liked while ignoring the parts they didn’t like.

Following the terrorist attacks within the U.S. on September 11, 2001, the U.S. began to slowly unravel, and partisan politics soon took center stage. In 2010, the Democrats who controlled Congress played some highly divisive, political games to shove President Obama’s Affordable Care Act down the throats of the Republicans. The games began following the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and the vote by the people of Massachusetts to replace Kennedy with a Republican who strongly opposed to the ACA. As a result, the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate along with their ability to stop a Republican filibuster. Rather than present the ACA to the newly configured Senate, Democrats decided to use a work-around, a budget reconciliation process, to take advantage of a version of the bill that had been passed by the House and Senate before Kennedy had died. The final version sent to President Obama was not the version that had been passed by the Senate with Senator Kennedy’s vote. This was the beginning of a relatively bloodless Civil War between Republicans and Democrats that continues to this day.

Unlike the Civil War of the 1860s, there was no President Lincoln to reunite the country, and soldiers weren’t lining up on battlefields to shoot one another to death. Instead, for example, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell withheld President Obama’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court for an unreasonably protracted period of time so that Obama’s Republican successor, Donald Trump, could replace Obama’s nomination with his own. Following the Presidential election of 2020, McConnell fast-tracked a Trump nomination against the vote of We the People, a move that served to fan the flames of War with the Supreme Court as the primary battleground. Essentially, McConnell did to the Supreme Court what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did to the ACA, partisan politics in the extreme.

On January 6, 2021, the relatively bloodless Civil War experienced the first substantial sight of blood when thousands of angry U.S. citizens stormed the U.S. Capitol at the direction of Trump in an attempt to stop the ceremonial certification of the 2020 election. Throughout the four years under President Joe Biden, that group of insurrectionists and their staunch supporters, who had become known as MAGA, continued to fan the flames of War with no apparent desire for reconciliation and reunification.

Like the U.S. Civil War of the 1860s, friends and brothers have now become enemies of one another and the U.S. has moved as far as possible away from being united.

Beginning on January 20, 2025, Donald Trump took the War to an entirely new level. Using what he learned during his 2017-2021 Presidency, Trump appointed loyalists that were willing to swear their loyalty to Trump over their oaths to “support and defend the Constitution”. As a result, those parts of the U.S. Government that had been traditionally independent from partisan politics, such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Federal Reserve Board are all coming under the direct control of the occupant of the White House.

The despotic evolution of the U.S. is nearly complete as the Constitution has been relegated to the sidelines and both Congress and the Supreme Court are making no effort to stop it. The balance of powers built into the Constitution have ceased to exist, at least for now.

On July 4, 2026, the U.S. would have reached 250 years of independence from despotic rule but has instead fallen short by just under two years. The following excerpts from the Declaration of Independence signed on July 4, 1776, show why the U.S. has fallen short of 250 years:



“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

“the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”



It seems history is destined to be repeated, especially when those in power choose to relive such histories. With the Constitution out of play, the United States of America has very clearly become the Divided States of America.

American Civil War, 2010-2024

In 1789, a Constitution was ratified to create the United States of America. The Constitution began, “We the People of the United States” and put the power of governing the United States in the hands of the People of the United States, “We the People” (WtP). From 1861 to 1865, WtP engaged in a very bloody Civil War after several southern States seceded from the United States, calling themselves the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). After four years of bloodshed, that Civil War came to an end and the southern States, the Confederacy, rejoined the United States as President Abraham Lincoln began the process of reuniting the divided country and restoring “a more perfect union” as had been described in the Constitution.

It took 145 years waiting in the shadows and another fourteen years of Civil War (2010-2024), but the sympathizers of the Confederacy had finally avenged its loss against the United States back in 1865. Because this Civil War was fought almost exclusively in the political arena with very little bloodshed, most Americans weren’t even aware they had been at war with themselves. With a vast majority of white men among WtP, alongside a substantial minority of white women and a spattering of black and brown votes, one half of WtP voted to give up the power that had been entrusted to WtP by the Constitution to the leader of a small subset of WtP that made up a group proclaiming themselves MAGA, from their battle cry of “Make America Great Again”.

When I had first begun to hear the term MAGA around 2015-2016, I found myself constantly wondering what era in American history MAGA had been referring to as having been great. Once the power to govern had been handed over to MAGA, it became quite clear. The intended era was pre-1861 when minorities were enslaved and women, along with those enslaved minorities, were not allowed a voice in how the United States was to be governed.

Unlike with President Lincoln following the Civil War of 1861-1865, this time there was no leader that would attempt to reunify the divided country. Instead, a single Party system with a dictator at the helm was chosen, a model very similar to that of the Communist Party in Russia.

The United States of America, once perceived as a strong example of democracy in action, was no more after only 235 years in existence.

MAGA’s Single Party Dream

“Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp. We don’t want them, and will not accept them, because we Put America First, and ALWAYS WILL!” - Donald Trump

“The Nazi Party … was a far-right political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945 that created and supported the ideology of Nazism … The party aimed to unite ‘racially desirable’ Germans as national comrades while excluding those deemed to be either political dissidents, physically or intellectually inferior, or of a foreign race … “Adolf Hitler, the party's leader since 1921, was appointed Chancellor of Germany … on 30 January 1933, and quickly seized power afterwards. Hitler established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich and became dictator with absolute power.” - Wikipedia on Nazi Party 

 

“The political system of the Soviet Union took place in a federal single-party soviet socialist republic framework which was characterized by the superior role of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the only party permitted by the Constitution.” - Wikipedia on the Soviet Union

The Russian Federation has a de jure multi-party system, however it operates as a de facto one-party system. As of 2020, six parties have members in the federal parliament, the State Duma, with one dominant party (United Russia) … Russian politics are now dominated by President Putin, his United Russia party, and Prime minister Mikhail Mishustin. At the 2003 legislative elections, United Russia reduced all other parties to minority status. Other parties retaining seats in the State Duma, the lower house of the legislature, are the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and A Just Russia.” - Wikipedia on the Russian Federation

“Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the government in Beijing officially asserts to be the sole legitimate government of all of China, which it defines as including mainland China and Taiwan … In China, politics functions within a communist state framework based on the system of people's congress under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with the National People's Congress (NPC) functioning as the highest organ of state power and only branch of government per the principle of unified power. The CCP leads state activities by holding two-thirds of the seats in the NPC, and these party members are, in accordance with democratic centralism, responsible for implementing the policies adopted by the CCP Central Committee and the National Congress. The NPC has unlimited state power … The nature of the elections is highly constrained by the CCP's monopoly on power in China, censorship, and party control over elections.” - Wikipedia on the People's Republic of China 

“Cuba [Republic of Cuba] has had a socialist political system since 1959 based on the ‘one state – one party’ principle. Cuba is constitutionally defined as a Marxist–Leninist state … Cuba is a one-party state, with the Communist Party of Cuba being described as the ‘superior driving force of the society and the state’ in the Constitution of Cuba, and the communist party is the only official political party. Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting …” - Wikipedia on the Republic of Cuba 

“The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is supervised by a supreme leader and an appointed & unelected Guardian Council which is made up of Islamic clerics … The Supreme Leader is the head of state (above the president), and he either has direct or indirect control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well as the military and the media … Iran's president, a parliament, an Assembly of Experts, and local councils are all elected, but all candidates who run for these positions must be vetted by the Guardian Council (which disqualifies the overwhelming majority of the candidates) for their loyalty to the Islamic Republic's system of government.” - Wikipedia on the Islamic Republic of Iran 

MAGA and Single Party Government 

While observing MAGA since before January 6, 2021, I wondered why the members of MAGA continued to support its leader, Donald Trump, who despises the United States Constitution and would like nothing more than to terminate it. For a few years, I thought it was because they were blind to what that Trump was hoping to do to the Constitution. Recently, however, it has become quite apparent to me that the members of MAGA continue to support Trump because they actually desire his vision of a single-party government under the complete control of Trump and his MAGA party. 

Under the Constitution, the United States has thrived for more than 235 years. If you look at the more well-known, single party governments mentioned above, the longest lasting of those governments, and the only one that some might consider to be thriving, is the People’s Republic of China from 1949 to present. That is a whopping 75 years in existence. 

If MAGA truly wanted to make America great again (I still have no idea what period of American history they are considering as great), they’d look at the history of single-party governments and realize it is a formula for disaster rather than a formula for success. 

Issues of succession are one of the biggest problems with single-party governments. Trump is 77 years old. Unless he is the Second Coming as some MAGA would like to believe, he is unlikely to be around to govern for more than a decade or two. Who does MAGA think will have the ability to take over the MAGA Party after its one and only leader is no longer here? Trump isn’t grooming anyone to take over and the person he is will never allow him to groom anyone to take over. How can the MAGA vision of a great America keep it great after their Supreme Leader is gone?

Government Shutdowns, Good for We the People?

QUESTION ASKED BY CNN:  Are you concerned about a potential shutdown of the federal government? Tell us about it.

The federal government could shut down on October 1 if Congress can’t come to an agreement to fund federal agencies for fiscal year 2024. A shutdown could have wide-ranging impacts on everything from air travel to national parks and museums to food safety inspections. Are you worried that a federal government shutdown will disrupt your life or business?

MY ANSWER:  I am more worried about continuing to have a completely dysfunctional House of Representatives.  They all claim they want to do what's best for We the People of the USA (WtP), but do they really?  A shutdown is not in the best interest of any of WtP.  A dysfunctional House is not in the best interest of any of WtP.  Allowing extremists (either Left or Right) to have any say in Government whatsoever is not in the best interest of any of WtP.  The Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats have shown an ability to work together for the benefit of WtP.  It's time the more moderate House Republicans start working with the more moderate House Democrats and bring this country back toward its much more stable center.  THAT is what is in the best interest of WtP, the collective of all the people from the right, left, and center.  Anything less is an indication that the GOP is not working for WtP.

Presidential Disqualification by 14th Amendment

As of 9 September 2023, should Donald Trump be disqualified from running for President of the United States of America (U.S.) in 2024 based on the 14th Amendment, Section 3, which is written as follows:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Let’s focus this discussion on the part that says, “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”  Who determines whether someone has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” for the purposes of Section 3?  I, like many other registered voters that make up We the People (WtP), believe his actions following the election of 2020 should disqualify him, but should my personal belief or say so be enough to disqualify someone from running for public office?  Or, should the disqualification be determined by individual States, the State or Federal Judiciary, WtP in a referendum, or some other way?

Regardless of personal opinions, what about the principle commonly used in the U.S. where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law?  Should Trump be disqualified from running when he has not yet been convicted of a crime related to insurrection?  If he gets convicted of any crime in any of his four indictments, should any conviction disqualify him based on Section 3?  Section 3 does not specify any crime to be a disqualifier.  It specifically refers to being “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.  Does “engaged” in the context of Section 3 require a conviction, or can some other criteria be considered?  This seems more and more to me like a question that the Judiciary would have to answer for WtP.

Trump has been charged in four separate, criminal cases.  In New York, he is charged with crimes associated with paying hush money in violation of election laws.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I don’t believe so.

In Florida, he is charged with crimes related to mishandling classified documents and obstructing justice in the investigations around the mishandling.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I don’t believe so, even though I believe mishandling classified documents should be its own disqualifier.  That is for a separate discussion outside of the 14th Amendment.

In Washington, DC, he is charged with many counts related to unlawful acts associated with criminal attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election which culminated in a violent attack against Congress at the U.S. Capitol while Congress was in the process of performing a Constitutionally mandated function.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I believe it absolutely is.

In Georgia, he is charged with using the power of the Office of the President of the U.S. to attempt to overturn an electoral function reserved for the State of Georgia relative to the 2020 election.  Is that insurrection or rebellion?  I believe it absolutely is.

So, by my estimation, Trump is charged in two cases where Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should disqualify him from running for President and two cases where the 14th Amendment should not apply.  However, should there be a conviction by a Court of Law before Section 3 could be applied?  If we don’t require conviction, then what should be the alternate threshold and who should make that determination?

Am I Pro-Life or Am I Pro-Abortion?

I’d like to begin answering this question by stating that it is an infantile question that could only be accurately answered in its given form by a person with the brain of an infant.  Anyone who says they are one or the other is clearly living their life without a clue about much of anything.  For example, as much as I might wish to be, I can’t be considered pro-life because I believe there are certain circumstances in which the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for certain people convicted of murdering one or more human beings.  I also can’t be considered pro-abortion because I am opposed to abortion in more scenarios than not.

I have taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (Constitution) on many occasions since I was 21 years of age.  It seems silly every time I had to take it after that because once was all I needed.  I consider it an oath for life and I will support and defend that ideal until the day I die, and perhaps beyond.  From that personal perspective, I will now address the titular question.

Since the topic of abortion appears to be at the top of mind for most Americans as we approach the 2024 Presidential Election, let’s focus on how the Constitution informs my opinion about the topic of abortion.  To begin, the Constitution contains only two references to the word “born” with no references at all to pregnancy or anything else related to one human being giving birth to another human being:

1. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Unlike born, words related to elect, such as election, appear in the Constitution about 46 times.  Election is defined as “a process in which people vote to choose a person or group of people to hold an official position.”  So, the Constitution makes many references to “We the people of the United States” (WtP) having choices about how the United States of America (USA) is to be governed.

Based on my reading of the Constitution and my oath to support and defend it, I am heavily pro-choice because WtP are given the exclusive responsibility to choose our government and how we are to be governed.  I don’t believe any of us should be making choices for others of us except for those WtP have properly elected to do so.

Without regard to individual choices, the government of the USA has a responsibility to protect its “born” citizens:  

“The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States”.

So, should Congress have a responsibility to protect “unborn” children without infringing upon the rights of WtP to make our own choices?  Personally, I believe it is reasonable to require the protection of any “unborn” person who could survive on their own, outside the body of the mother, without extraordinary medical or other scientific intervention.  Prohibiting the choice to abort a pregnancy before the prospective mother could even know for certain she was pregnant, on the other hand, would be a clear infringement of that person’s right to choose.

Those who claim to be pro-life, which is unlikely to be completely true, have used the argument that life begins at conception.  That, however, is an unknowable point in time and is a bit arbitrary since some could argue the life began with the independent creation of the egg and the sperm.  Such arguments about the beginning of life often arise from religious beliefs, but religious beliefs should not be used in a Constitutional discussion.  The USA is not a country that is governed by religion and it was clearly created with an intent to avoid being ruled by any particular religion.  Regardless, setting a time earlier than it could reasonably be known that a pregnancy exists clearly infringes on the person’s right to choose to have a pregnancy.

For the vast majority of WtP, conception is a non-starter due to the unknown factors.  For the vast majority of WtP, the due date is a non-starter because the child could survive on its own just like those who are already “born”.  What is that point in between that would be least objectionable to WtP as a collective?  That is what our elected representatives should be working to determine instead of trying to force the majority to one extreme or the other.

The question shouldn’t be about pro-life or pro-abortion.  It should be about the timing of a reasonable dividing line between being allowed to abort and not being allowed to abort.  Abortion should also be defined in terms of personal decision versus medical emergency.  Terminating a pregnancy that could very well end in a successful delivery is a reasonable definition for an abortion.  A medical emergency to save a life, on the other hand, should never be characterized as an abortion, and such decisions should be made between medical personnel and the patients who are at risk, not the government or other members of WtP.

If WtP keep pushing for extremes instead of reasoned solutions, the Constitution will cease to function as it was designed to function and the USA will be no more.  Being a Democratic Republic requires negotiation and compromise.  WtP consists of more than 300 million individuals each having different ideas about how things should be.  If we can’t once again figure out a way to combine those different ideas into how we are to be governed, then the Democratic Republic of WtP will suffocate and die.

“Independence Day USA” in 2023

As we celebrate 247 years of governing independent of the English Empire of the 1700s, there is a great deal of concern regarding the direction Our country will take in the next 247 years.  We appear to be locked in another Civil War where this time is Red vs Blue rather than Blue vs. Gray.  Can we survive another one?  Is our two-Party duopoly equipped to bring an end to the war this time around?

Written by a former colleague of mine:

“The term ‘tip of the spear’ has come to represent those individuals, companies or organizations who popular opinion has deemed the first to face whatever unknown danger is hurled at them.

The FBI is such an organization and many of its people have lived at the tip of the spear previously, before migrating to the FBI. They are, generally, solid unassuming men and women who do the job without seeking public praise nor fearing public scorn.

As this LA Times column makes perfectly clear, the nation must have confidence in its institutions, particularly in the FBI.

The FBI is most often in the vortex of having the sole responsibility for investigating politicians accused of criminal violations and conducting those investigations with consistent standards no matter whom the target might be.

Under the law, a former president is no different from any other citizen.

Hand-wringing over ‘optics’ or fearing the unprecedented nature of an investigation is not and should not be a factor when conducting an investigation. It falls to the FBI director and the Attorney General to underscore that point publicly and early in such cases. Even during congressional hearings.

Now is not the time to be timid. Now, more than ever, it is time to reinforce that the rule of law applies equally to everyone.

As stated in this piece, ‘The chilling effect from their harping is obvious in the crazy caution Justice and the FBI displayed toward Trump.’

When you're the tip of the spear, there is room for caution, but not crazy caution.”

The following article was shared with the text written above:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-06-21/weaponization-justice-department-fbi-republican-democrat-merrick-garland-bill-barr-hunter-biden

From the opening of the article:

Republicans keep gunning for Justice Dept. and FBI, but it’s Democrats who should have a beef with the feds

If Democrats are weaponizing the federal government against their political opponents, as Republicans charge, they’re doing a really bad job of it.

My reply to my colleague and the article:

Will we ever get people under the exclusive control of one of the two major Political Parties to remove their blinders long enough to see and face reality? How on earth has this corrupted form of democracy we have, a duopoly where less than 60% of voters exercise 100% control of government power, survived for 247 years.

And 100% of those registered to one of the two Parties hates the 28% (give or take) of registered voters that are in the other Party. It’s no wonder the country that is supposed to be controlled by 100% of #WtP has become so dysfunctional. It’s time to give control to the 40% that think for themselves!!!

Another former colleague then responded:

“It’s not a ‘Democracy’, it’s a ‘Republic.’ Many dismiss that statement by trying to equate the two, but the difference is significant. A Democracy is majority rule and infringes on liberties. A Republic provides for representation of all citizens, including the minority. The genesis of the duopoly is the reduction and now often outright elimination of the teaching of Civics. A majority of youth, fellow citizens, and even elected representatives I’ve encountered fail at demonstrating the genius of our founding fathers to put forth our Constitutional Republic which embodies power in the people. We do not elect ‘leaders’, we elect ‘representatives’. The word leader does not appear in the Constitution, but representative does. Most don’t understand the power they as individual citizens have and thus fail to exercise it. Most don’t understand the Article I branch is the most powerful as our representatives over the other two ‘co-equal’ branches. The Article I branch can overrule the Article II branch veto. The Article I branch can also overturn the Article III branch rulings via legislation passed into Law by the Article II branch signing it or having the veto overruled. It will take a generation of teaching to correct.”

To which I replied:

“It will take a generation of teaching to correct.” Except our Article I duopoly will continue to ensure that education is never allowed to happen in order to maintain self-preservation of the duopoly.

Shortly after the online conversation above, I came across the following article that is, coincidentally, completely independent of the conversation I had been having, but it has some striking similarities and so much more that should be read by every U.S. citizen before November 2024:

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/04/politics/american-political-divisions-july-fourth/index.html

A couple excerpts from that one:

The ideal of national unity celebrated on July Fourth has almost always been overstated: the country from its founding has been riven by sectional, racial, class and gender conflicts. Large groups of people living within our borders have always felt excluded from any proclaimed national consensus: American Indians who were brutally displaced for decades, Black people who faced generations of legal slavery and then decades of state-sponsored segregation, women denied the vote until the 20th century.

To Wolfe, the US is now trapped in a “vicious cycle” of rising partisan and ideological hostility in which political leaders, particularly on the right, see a “benefit in fueling the rage even more.” While President Joe Biden, Wolfe says, has struck traditional presidential notes of emphasizing the value of national unity, Trump – currently the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination – has built his political strategy on widening the nation’s divides in ways that may be difficult to reverse any time soon. “I don’t know if [Trump’s] a political genius or just instinctively knows something, but he sure has exacerbated the shocks, and I don’t know how we are going to recover from him,” Wolfe says.

I’d say more from my own perspective and experience, but there isn’t anything I could say that wasn’t said above.  I know it’s been a long while since I’ve had the desire to post here, so thank you for checking in today.

America’s Collapsing Democracy

As a country, the United States of America (US) exists with its Constitution as its foundation.  As its foundation crumbles, so too does everything it supports.  Many are saying the US is heading toward a second Civil War.  Truthfully, this country has been locked in a second Civil War for more than a decade where the sole purpose of each of two sides has been to destroy the other side.  But how did the US get here?

For more than two centuries, the US Constitution has provided a solid foundation which has been strong enough to support both democracy and the political establishment (The Establishment) consisting of two political parties maintaining 100 percent of the power to govern the US.  Though the Constitution was never designed to create a country controlled exclusively by two parties, it has always been able to support The Establishment because there had been enough balance to place a nearly equal amount of stress on each side of the foundation.  In the 1860s, that foundation crumbled, and it took strong leadership from people like President Abraham Lincoln to rebuild the foundation and restore the balance required to sustain it into the future.

Civil War II

Civil War I

From 1789 until the 1850s and again from the late 1860s into the 1990s, The Establishment made up a vast majority of the US Electorate, with each half consisting of nearly 50 percent.  All that began to change as the US entered the 21st Century and voters began to become more and more disillusioned with The Establishment and renounce Party affiliation.  As of today, it is estimated that less than 25 percent of registered voters are affiliated with the half of The Establishment currently listed on ballots as the Republican Party, while less than 30 percent make up the Democratic Party.  That is less than 55 percent of the Electorate holding 100 percent of the power to govern.  Is that how democracy is meant to operate?

While many Democrats still get a bad taste in their mouths when they think about President Ronald Reagan, one of the things that made Reagan so successful was his ability to get the two sides of The Establishment to collaborate.  Since 2010, however, the US Congress has operated exclusively under the principle that whichever half of The Establishment had control at a given point in time would use their majority to pass legislation without any input or support from the other half.  It was that lack of compassion and compromise that began to crack the foundation.

Fast forward to 2016, when the Republican Party itself began to splinter.  By 2021, the two very separate and distinct pieces became the Party of Insurrection aka the Party of Trump (PoT) with Donald Trump as its leader and the RINOS (Republicans In Name Only, as Trump would refer to the other piece) with no leaders and no organizational structure.

Party of Insurrection

RINOS

Remember, the entire Republican Party for much of the 21st Century was made up of around 25 percent of the US Electorate.  Now that the Party has split in two, each piece is considerably less than 25 percent of the Electorate.  Because The Establishment has exclusive control of the US Government, the Republican Party is still allotted one of two lines on each ballot in every US election.  Whichever piece of the less than 25 percent wins the race will get rewarded with a near 50 percent control of the US Government.  Is that democracy?

The Establishment was built to ensure outsiders would have little access to get listed on election ballots and even less of a chance of being elected.  Before the splintering of the Republican Party, protecting The Establishment from the rise of third parties had always been the one issue for which Republicans and Democrats could always agree.  As the Constitutional foundation continues to crack, however, the chaos resulting from the division of what used to be the Republican Party will soon cause the foundation to completely collapse, just as it did in the 1850s.

Since its formation in 2016, the PoT has been shedding members like a furry dog sheds fur.  Does the PoT experience any growth to sustain itself, or does it only shed members?  Are the departing members of the PoT joining the ranks of the RINOS, the Democrats, or the Independents?  In six years of existence, what is the PoT doing, if anything, to grow its base?  Also, how can a Party successfully lead a government when it considers government institutions such as the FBI, the IRS, the CDC, the EPA, and many others to be among its biggest enemies.  I can tell you from experience, the FBI has many, many enemies.  Those enemies all have one common characteristic – they either are criminals or they love and support criminals.

Rest assured, any enemy of the US Government is an enemy of We the People (WtP), the owners of the US.  It is up to WtP to either preserve democracy by repairing the cracks and restoring the Constitutional foundation to be able to withstand the weights of the 21st Century or by letting it be replaced by a huge Trump Tower in 2024, with its brand new foundation designed by one person rather than WtP.  Vote for Democrats in November 2022 (VoteBlueIn22) or you’ll be voting to give up the rights of WtP forever.

Party of Insurrection, RINOS, or other?

The Constitution and Abortion

Should abortion be a legal healthcare option available for women to choose to terminate a pregnancy?  How is this question addressed by the Constitution (Constitution) of the United States of America (USA)?  How is this question addressed by the Congress of the USA (Congress)?  How is this question addressed by the various States that make up the USA (States)?  Read on to learn more.

What does the Constitution say about abortion?  Nothing.  There are no references in the Constitution to the words “abort”, “abortion”, “woman”, “women”, “birth”, “pregnant”, “pregnancy”, “child”, “children”, or anything about individuals having choices beyond electing representation.  Does the Constitution apply to how laws are enacted related to abortion?  Absolutely.  Keep reading.

What parts of the Constitution may apply to abortion?  Let’s discuss the possibilities.

Article VI. 

[The Supremacy Clause] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment I.

[Freedom of Religion Clause] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Amendment XIV. 

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What are the most influential laws related to Abortion?

Roe v. Wade

In 1969, "Jane Roe" challenged a number of criminal abortion laws in Texas that were used to force 25-year-old single mother Norma McCorvey to give birth to a child conceived from rape. The State forbade abortion as unconstitutional, except in cases where the mother's life was in danger.  Rape was not an acceptable exception to those laws.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion laws in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24-hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion was required to have the consent of one parent.  A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians.  A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement.

The Supreme Court ruled that a law cannot place legal restrictions imposing an undue burden for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus”.

Others

The Texas Heartbeat Act

“AN ACT relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action.”

Mississippi's "Fetal Heartbeat" Law

bill banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which occurs at about six weeks. Under this law, after detection of a fetal heartbeat, women would only be able to get an abortion to save their life. Doctors performing an abortion that isn't in compliance with this law would face up to six months in jail. 

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.  Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both". The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

How can a diverse country like the USA come to a consensus on an issue as contentious as abortion?  To get to consensus, we must start with questions for which agreement can be reached with relative ease:

Is there some point in which a fetus becomes a human being?  I can’t imagine this question not having a very high majority of “Yes” answers, whether from science or religion.

Does Government in the USA have a responsibility to protect the life of human beings?  I believe the Constitution pretty clearly makes a strong case for a “Yes” answer, even though the Constitution doesn’t apply to those who aren’t “born”.

Should abortion be a legal option for women’s health care?  I think a vast majority would answer “Yes” since even the laws that have been challenged in Court have had use cases where abortion was considered legal (especially in terms of the life of a mother-to-be).

Should abortion be an available option just before, or even after, a full-term delivery?  I would be shocked if even one percent of We the People (WtP) didn’t say “No” to that question, even though the Constitution is applicable only to those who have been “born” which, in this case, includes the period following delivery.

Should any law addressing abortion have allowances for specified exceptions?  Again, even the most restrictive laws contain exceptions, so I can’t see any path to an answer other than “Yes” to this question.

Should a woman be allowed to take actions, at any point in time, to prevent or terminate a pregnancy?  While there are some among WtP that feel strongly that even birth control should not be allowed, I still think an overwhelming majority of WtP would answer this question with a resounding “Yes”.  Don’t forget, the USA is supposed to be, according to our Constitution, a Democratic Republic, not a Rule by the Few.

With the easier questions settled, we can then begin to focus our attention and discussions on the more difficult questions:

At what point does a fetus become a human being?  Since the Constitution refers only to people who have been “born”, this becomes a question of law.  But, who should make the laws and how restrictive can the laws be without violating the Constitutional protections of the pregnant woman who is protected since she is already “born”.

What is the point in fetal development where a Government’s responsibility for protecting human life should outweigh a woman’s choice to abort a pregnancy?  Again, the Constitution applies only to those who have been “born”, but it would be very reasonable in 2022 for a Government to protect those who are about to be “born” and certainly those who could live if separated from the mother.  It would also be quite unreasonable, on the other hand, to expect a mother-to-be to make an informed choice about whether or not to abort a pregnancy before she has even had time to process the fact that she is pregnant.

From the Constitution:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

- Does any State have jurisdiction over persons before they are “born”?  The Constitution does not give any jurisdiction over those who haven’t been “born”, but it also doesn’t prohibit States from exercising jurisdiction, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the Constitutional protections given to those who have been “born”, such as the mother-to-be.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

- Many of the arguments against legalized abortion are based on religious beliefs.  The Constitution does not address people who haven’t been “born”, but it does provide protections against imposing one person’s religious beliefs upon another person?

Roe vs Wade

[the Privacy Clause] “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This is the basis for the 1973 Supreme Court decision known as RoeVWade.  The clause applies to the mother-to-be who has been “born”, but it doesn’t apply to the fetus that hasn’t been ”born”.  How does this apply to abortion?  Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself “argued that it would have been better to take a more incremental approach to legalizing abortion, rather than the nationwide ruling in Roe that invalidated dozens of state antiabortion laws. She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.”  Regardless, the Privacy Clause was not intended to address abortion and its use for such is definitely questionable.

RoeVWade was determined by the Supreme Court to be excessively restrictive.  Current laws being enacted by States such as Texas and Mississippi are considered by many to be just as restrictive as the Texas and Georgia laws that were deemed unconstitutional in RoeVWade.  But, who is responsible for creating and enforcing laws in the USA, the Representatives of WtP or the Supreme Court of the USA?  If WtP have an overwhelming determination that States are being too restrictive with their laws, then WtP have the ability to vote for Representatives in the federal Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government that would represent our determination by placing Constitutionally acceptable boundaries, per the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, on the States.

What is the point in fetal development where a Government’s responsibility for protecting human life should outweigh a woman’s choice to abort a pregnancy?  The Constitution applies to people who have been “born”, but it doesn’t say we can’t put in protections for those who haven’t been “born”.  In 2022, that is where the discussion should be focused.  We need to move away from the extreme solutions favored by the far right and far left if we are to have any chance of coming to a consensus on this very important issue in what is supposed to be a civilized society.  Put limits on abortion while also giving a mother-to-be a reasonable opportunity to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy to full term.

https://twitter.com/m64mcbride

Republic – Conservative, Liberal, or Democratic

The United States of America (USA) was established some 233 years ago as a Republic, which meant that We the People (WtP) would elect People among Us to represent Us in Our Government.  But what does that mean and how is it really supposed to work?  On the surface, it appears as though it could be a rather simple concept.  However, WtP have grown from a few million interpreters in 1789 to more than 328 million interpreters as we prepare to enter 2022.  One thing that has become abundantly clear over the past several years is that Our interpreters have gathered in many different and often opposing camps of thought.

In a Country over Party camp, one might consider the USA to be a Democratic Republic with a Government elected to represent constituent groups of WtP where the elected Government fulfills its duty to represent those constituent groups.  In some Party over Country camps (such as the Democrat and Republican Parties), WtP are asked to decide between a Liberal Republic and a Conservative Republic where the winning side gets to preside over the losing side with little concern for the opposite half of the population for two to eight years at a time.  When all We do is take turns bullying the half of our population having the opposing perspective, can We legitimately be surprised by the intense animosity that has festered over the past decade?

The four years under the control of Donald J. Trump stand out today as an extreme example of Party over Country including an overt attempt to establish the USA as a permanent Conservative Republic, or even a Conservative Dictatorship.  While WtP are singularly focused on what consequences should be faced by the Party of Trump for its abuses of power, We need not lose sight of the fact that there are Liberal Republic camps out there that, if given a chance, would likely not hesitate to turn the USA into a permanent Liberal Republic, and maybe even a Liberal Dictatorship.

The USA has survived for 233 years because of the delicate balance that has long been established between the Right and the Left with a heavy Center to keep it from tipping too far one way or the other.  We could not have become such a prominent force in global affairs if that balance didn’t exist.  As the Left and the Right now dig in to become opposing factions in a new Civil War and pull those in the Center toward the Left or the Right, it is the shift in that long-established balance that is threatening to tear Us apart just like what happened in the 1860s.

Now is the time for Us to restore Our Democratic Republic and put Country over Party once again.  Part of that restoration needs to include options for choosing representation beyond the binary choice of Democrat or Republican.  The two-Party system is no longer suitable in a connected world for a country that has grown to more than 328 million interpreters of a broadly written Constitution that was designed in a much simpler time.  The time to take a stand is now!  Tomorrow, it may be too late.

Who Are America’s “True People”?

This question came up following an organized march in Washington, DC on 4 December 2021 by a group of just over 100 people who call themselves “Patriot Front”.  Thomas Rousseau, the Front’s leader, said, “Our demonstrations are an exhibition of our unified capability to organize, to show our strength—not as brawlers or public nuisances, but as men capable of illustrating a message and seeking an America that more closely resembles the interests of its true people.”

So, who exactly are the “true people” of “America”?  Could it be the indigenous peoples who lived on the lands now defined as the United States of America before that nation was formally documented in 1789?  Could it be anyone who has been granted citizenship to the country that became the United States of America in 1789 and still exists today?  Could it be any person who has successfully established a life inside the borders of the United States of America?  Or, are there other possibilities that I haven’t presented here?

Indigenous Peoples are defined by the World Bank as “distinct social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced.”  While it turns out that the indigenous peoples from the lands that now make up the United States of America were not “Indians” as Christopher Columbus called them, those native American peoples clearly have solid arguments to claim themselves to be the “true people” of America.

The United States of America has been globally recognized as a sovereign nation with defined borders since 1789.  The current borders have been unchanged since Hawaii was added on 21 August 1959.  The Constitution of the United States of America defines requirements for citizenship.  There are currently more than 300 million people in the world who are recognized as citizens of the United States of America.  There are certainly solid arguments for making a claim that citizens of the United States of America are the “true people” of America.

Anyone who has established a life within the borders of the United States of America is a true person, if we consider that most definitions of person include a reference to any individual human being.  Given the common belief in America that “possession is nine-tenths of the law”, there is definitely an argument that can be made to claim that anyone who breaths air within the borders of the United States of America could be considered among the “true people” of America.

Perhaps there are other groupings of people who could make a claim to being the “true people” of America that I haven’t thought about yet?  Regardless, I say with a high degree of confidence that the group calling themselves “Patriot Front”, or any other small group of people occupying space in the United States of America (for example, any group making up less than one percent of the populations described above as candidates for “true people” of America), is not among those who can stake a claim to being the “true people” of America.  If anyone, including the Patriot Front, disagrees with me, I’d love to hear the legitimate arguments they’d care to make.

The United States of America exists as a Democratic Republic and it can’t be a true Democratic Republic if its “true people” make up such a miniscule portion of its population.  In addition, the United States of America will not survive as a Constitutional Government if we keep fighting amongst ourselves over which small group should be in control.  “We the People” are a collective of ALL THE PEOPLE, not just the people that think in one, very narrow way!