I have mixed feelings about House Bill 610.  Here is a summary of the bill, in case you’re living under a rock and have not seen it:

“This bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and limits the authority of the Department of Education (ED) such that ED is authorized only to award block grants to qualified states.

“The bill establishes an education voucher program, through which each state shall distribute block grant funds among local educational agencies (LEAs) based on the number of eligible children within each LEA’s geographical area. From these amounts, each LEA shall: (1) distribute a portion of funds to parents who elect to enroll their child in a private school or to home-school their child, and (2) do so in a manner that ensures that such payments will be used for appropriate educational expenses.

“To be eligible to receive a block grant, a state must: (1) comply with education voucher program requirements, and (2) make it lawful for parents of an eligible child to elect to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the state or to home-school their child.

No Hungry Kids Act

“The bill repeals a specified rule that established certain nutrition standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs. (In general, the rule requires schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in school meals; and meet children’s nutritional needs within their caloric requirements.)”

Working from the bottom up:  I oppose abolishing the “No Kid Hungry Act”.  While I had no difficulty feeding my child during his school years, 90% of the students at his K – 12 campus qualified for the breakfast and lunch program.  I absolutely agree that a child must be fed in order to focus on school.  Our public schools need funding to insure that no empty bellies sit in school desks.

But I also think that equal education is a great American myth.  We pretend that children in high-dollar zip codes don’t get fancier buildings and newer books.  We roll our eyes when parents of disabled children press districts for greater accommodations.   Society winks behind the backs of children in Appalachia and Harlem.  Anyone who thinks that education is equal lives under that proverbial rock.

On the other hand, here is what we lose if this bill passes and #45 signs it into law, which he most certainly will do.

The bill will eliminate the Elementary and Education Act of 1965, which is the nation’s educational law and attempts to insure equal opportunity in education.   The ESSA is a comprehensive program that covers programs for struggling learners, AP classes, English as a Second Language programs, and programs for students of color including Native Americans;.  It also addresses Rural Education, Education for Students who are Homeless, School Safety, Monitoring and Compliance and Federal Accountability for these and other Programs.

For children with disabilities, the ESSA insures access to the general educational curriculum; mandates needed accommodations on assessment testing; guarantees use of the Universal Design for Learning in materials; and requires school districts to use research-based instruction and curriculum in schools, especially with students who represent groups that have been consistently under-performing or underachieving.

The ESSA also requires that states write Title I (ESSA-granted federal funds to assist students and schools in poverty) plans to address how they will improve conditions for learning including: Reducing incidents of bullying and harassment in schools; reducing overuse of punitive discipline practices; and reducing the use of aversive behavioral interventions (such as restraints and seclusion).

All of this goes away if the ESSA does.

The argument in favor of eliminating the ESSA focuses on “states rights” and the right of the individual parent to make school choices by endorsing tax vouchers for families utilizing private or parochial schools.  Thus, this attack on federal education laws suggests that instead of our national horizon insuring the closest thing to equal education for our students, we should leave that task to the states.    This will doubtless be disastrous.

The laws of states are not uniform in many areas.  Exceptions are so scarce as to be easily identified, such as the Uniform Commercial Code and the Uniform Probate Code.  If states are left to enact individual educational schemes to address equal education, our country’s children will doubtless suffer.  Only the wealthy will be able to afford quality education adapted to individual needs.  The rest of America will return to the broken buses, ancient text books, and crowded classrooms of pre-1965 ilk.

The reason we have national legislation attempting to equalize access to education lies in this disparate provision of educational opportunities through the states.  The education of children insures their productivity and the potential of economic success.  This in turn enhances the fabric of America by providing our future job force, and our future leaders, researchers, doctors, and scientists.  No one loses; everyone wins.

As with the Affordable Care Act, the ESSA has flaws.  But removing one set of regulations before replacing it with another, better scheme defeats every objective served by education.  If the separate states already had statutes in place to serve the goal of equal education, I might take a different view of the repeal of ESSA.  But they do not and likely will not.  If the only aim of repeal of this federal regulation is to allow for states to take the reins on this critical issue, then perhaps we should let them have a guide wire before letting go of the controls.

I had a long conversation with a young mother yesterday in which I asked if she knew what Congress intended to do with the educational system in our nation.  She shook her head.  This impacts you and your daughter, I cautioned.  I  need to educate myself, I guess, she replied.

Exactly.

Education knows no equal; and equal education knows no rival.  Congress should be expected to address and implement new solutions before removing those presently in place.  We, the people, must demand a measured approach to the enactment of all legislation.  If we do not make such a demand, then when we crawl out from under our respective rocks, fifty years of progress in the American education system will be lost.

The progress we have made does not really guarantee equal access to education in America.  But the ESSA took education fifty years closer to equal access.  Without it, we will regress.  Quality education will become a privilege accorded to the wealthy few.

And that, my friends, will not make America great.

This week, the press secretary for the 45th president of the United States excluded certain media outlets from a press briefing.  The exclusion came after #45 blasted what he called “fake news” which he vowed to fight. He cited no particular stories which he could demonstrate contained falsehoods, and has not responded to the various misstatements — possibly deliberate untruths — by himself and his staff.

The mind boggles, time after time.  Brave bloggers and bold reporters keep reminding us, paragraph after paragraph, that these actions echo the way in which Hitler gained control of Germany.  The Nazi machine disparaged freedom of thought and eventually took over the press.

My fear for the demise of our First Amendment rights sent me to the computer to research the evolution of how our nation has protected those rights.  Ironically, some of the most powerful words from our U.S. Supreme Court date back many decades, reminding me of the current administration’s promise to “make America great again”.  It’s difficult not to infer that #45 thinks America was great back when women couldn’t protect their bodies from men’s hands and white males occupied every office.

Yet that same era brought us the bold statements of justices who strove to identify and protect the rights which comprise the fabric of the American experiment.  In  Roth v. U. S., 354 U. S. 476 (S. Ct. 1957), Justice William Brennan wrote:

“The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. This objective was made explicit as early as 1774 in a letter of the Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Quebec:

‘The last right we shall mention, regards the freedom of the press.  The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in the diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communicaiton of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.  1 Journal of the Continental Congress 108 (1774).'”

Thus we know without supposition that our nation’s founders considered a free press vital to the advancement of ideas and protection from oppression.  Advancement.  Not regression.  Promotion of union, not the driving of a stake between groups of people.  Nor did the founders of our nation intend that the press itself should be repressed when it challenges the administration.  Rather, as Justice Brennan continued:

“The fundamental freedoms of speech and press have contributed greatly to the development and well-being of our free society and are indispensable to its continued growth.^[22] Ceaseless vigilance is the watchword to prevent their erosion by Congress or by the States. The door barring federal and state intrusion into this area cannot be left ajar; it must be kept tightly closed and opened only the slightest crack necessary to prevent encroachment upon more important interests”.  Roth, 354 U. S. at 488.

I cannot believe that  Trump voters expected him to suppress information and block the media from reporting on the policies and practices of his administration.  But that is precisely what he has signaled he intends to do.  He tell us that he believes certain media report “false news”, and because he deems them “false news”, his staff will curtail their access to his administration.

“The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.” Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931).  This statement has not lost the shine of truth.  Yet this fundamental principle stands in peril today, 86 years after its utterance.

Our Supreme Court finds the Freedom of Press so integral to our nation’s fabric that it will not allow the press to be challenged even by a claim of libel.  It has observed:

“Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth—whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials—and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 525-526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon “the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered.” N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 445. As Madison said, “Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press.” 4 Elliot’s Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571.”

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 271 (S. Ct.1964).

I struggle to understand how contemporary events will contribute to the greatness of America.  Yet I do find one kernel of light in this frightening incident.  Two news outlets allowed into the press briefing refused to attend because of the exclusion of their colleagues from The New York Times, CNN, and the LA Times, among others.  Bravo, AP and Time Magazine.    Bravely done.

Freedom of the press shines brightly among the self-evident truths that I used to take for granted.  I find myself re-thinking the grandeur of America.  During the presidential campaign, my pride in this nation prompted me to question how any one could look at Donald Trump’s behavior, hear his rhetoric and believe that he could make our nation great.  Now I  realize that my concept of greatness might conflict with that of Trump and his supporters.

My blood runs cold at the thought of living in an America made into the kind of place that Trump seems to contemplate, where he gets to pick and choose what is said of him and his administration. and by whom.   Our nation grew out of the notion that such power should not be wielded on our shores, much less in our capitol.  That is not my America.  That is not the America of the Boston Tea Party, the Bill of Rights, and our founding fathers.  It is some place else; some place dark and cold, a place in which I for one do not long to dwell.

A friend recently asked if I thought the present administration spouts unintelligible nonsense to distract us from something sinister brewing in Washington.  Surely they can’t all be that stupid, my friend opined.  I shook my head.  Maybe they can,  I answered.  But I don’t think they are.

We referenced such lines as “the president will not be challenged”, or “we want a good relationship with Mexico, we don’t want a bad relationship, but we can’t let it happen” (Trump, 23 February 2017), or even the astonishing references to supposed incidents of terrorism which never occurred.  The lame  explanations offered for these monumental gaffes boggle the mind.  “I heard something on Fox News” battles for most astonishingly inept statement with “I said Atlanta [three times in one week] when I meant Orlando”.

Most of what the current administration appears to be planning will reverse policies of the last eight years.  The policies under attack include such important agendas as the equal treatment of persons regardless of gender identity; an acknowledgment of the value of long-time residents who entered our country unlawfully particularly where they came as unwitting children; and a recognition of the need to provide access to affordable insurance and healthcare for every American.  It is difficult to understand any set of values which would mandate the erosion of these aims.  Yet our current administration promises to identify and reverse presidential orders, rules, regulations, and statutes which underpin these concepts.

Because the administration unequivocally articulates its objectives in these pivotal areas, I reject the notion that its members lack intelligence and acumen.  My judgment in this regard extends to the president.  He simply cannot be as unintelligent and befuddled as he sounds and still clearly delineate his intention to dismantle the accomplishments of the last eight years.  Therefore, I conclude, his master plan requires this insidious smoke-and-mirror display of deliberate obfuscation.

The week’s news includes a smattering of administration hierarchy conveying to various nations that “We ain’t as mad as we seem.”  I doubt world leaders  will be fooled.  The president sits in Washington with the ability to pull the plug on every healthy political alliance; every scheme of justice and fairness;  and every agency intended to guide America to clean water, equal education, unbiased access to resources, and unfettered opportunity for economic success.  He announces both the plan to do so and his belief that carrying out those intentions will somehow improve our country.

Though I cannot imagine how anyone can hold such beliefs, I hear the president on the radio every blessed day spewing rhetoric which underscores his plan to strip our nation of every element of progress we have made in the last 240 years.  Like the ugly screaming of the conspiracy theorist whose website the president is alleged to use as a news source, the plans of our current administration threaten immigrants, gay and transgender persons, our environment, and our children.  The hasty executive orders, the fights with the media, and whining of his spokespersons, all distract us from whatever machinations take place behind the curtain.

So pay no attention to the stumbling buffoon.  He only looks like an idiot.  He’s not as drunk as he seems, and that diabolical gleam in his eye tells the real story.

(1) With apologies to Robin Seydel Ryan.

I tried to listen to #45’s press conference but couldn’t.  His particular brand of governance exhausts me.   The necessity for fact-checking every other word out of his mouth forces me to view him in recorded reality so I can pause, go over to Reuters or some other reliable website, and figure out the truth of the matters at hand.

My sixty-one-year-old gut tells me that I shouldn’t have to do that.  His advisers should provide him with facts.  I expect a politician to shade and characterize reality with nuance, but not to just flat-out lie about verifiable situations.  If I can run a search on the internet and disprove a speaker’s statements, I shut down.

When The Toronto Star fact-checks the American president and points out The 80 biggest lies he’s told in the scant month of his administration, you know we’re in deep trouble.

I’d like to link to a piece by John Oliver in which he hilariously but intelligently eviscerates #45’s disconnection from reality.  I refrain from giving you that link only because of its vulgarity.  But Oliver’s observations should alarm all of us.  The president of the United States gets “news” from opinion rants on television. He repeats the statements of the ranters as fact in his television appearances.  The fans of the president around the country quote him.  The statement which started as alarmist opinion now carries the imprimatur of legitimacy and others quote the statements to prove their allegiance to the president.  The president then uses those people to demonstrate a claimed level of agreement with  his positions.

This process can be annoying on a small social scale but now the mutation of opinion into fact grounds the policy of the American president.  Our future as a democracy stands on an insubstantial foundation formed from bricks made of polluted air.  Any legitimate or workable strategy for governance arising from this corrosive process will be completely accidental.

The question we must ask: Do we want to leave the running of our nation to happenstance?  I don’t like to think of Washington as operating like a blindfolded drunk teenager playing darts in the back room.  The wild throws might occasionally hit the board, but everybody in the place runs the risk of getting punctured.  The contemplation exhausts me.  For four long years, those darts will keep coming at the unsuspecting waitress passing through the game room with a tray of drinks.

I don’t want to believe that we are doomed.  But it’s beginning to look that way.  When alternative facts and misinformation underpin the daily existence of the person holding the codes to world destruction, nothing good can result.

When that person lets the guy toting those codes pose for selfies in a  Florida country club, it’s time to knuckle down and figure out how to save ourselves from this insanity.

We have not even reached the 30-day mark since #45 took the oath of office.  Yet one of his people has already resigned for lying about his contacts with Russia.  It’s been a chaotic week in Washington, surpassing most expectations of how bad it can get.

I’m not an SNL watcher except for the clips which make the rounds on social media.  They might have gone a bridge too far with their “Fatal Attraction” mimic of Kellyanne Conway.  But she disturbs me, with her muttered defenses of #45, her insistence that life is beautiful all the time on his already-strained watch, and her 180-turnabout in her opinion of him which I’ve yet to see anyone confront.  Oh, I get that she got twisted in her bungled mention of a non-existent massacre in Bowling Green.  That can happen to anyone.  And who doesn’t just bet she regrets coining American’s favorite term, “alternative facts”?  But she just spews and defends lie after lie, and seems shocked when someone calls her on it.

But here is where my mind boggles:

“The presidential powers will not be questioned.”

Say that to yourself.  Say it out loud.  Say it with me:

The presidential powers will not be questioned.

Have you raised your hand in a Nazi salute yet?  Have your gonads shrunk?  Are the little tiny hairs running along the back of your neck rigid and cold yet?

Is your passport current?  Did you send a message to your Facebook friends in Europe asking if their guest bedroom might be rented for a proportional share of what you’ll have remaining when you sell your house and close out your retirement account?

Or are you satisfied to watch our democracy morph into the kind of place where presidential powers cannot be questioned?  In castigating the judges who stayed the effectiveness of #45’s executive order on travel, Senior White House policy adviser Stephen Miller “seemed to be serving notice Sunday that the administration thinks the courts should play no role in reviewing any of Trump’s decisions related to national security.”  (Aaron Blakes, Washington Post, 13 February 2017.  Does that bother you?

I’m thumbing back in my Laurence Tribe  just to confirm. Yes, this nation has three branches of government:  Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  “Separation of powers. . .refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  ”  National Conference of State Legislatures, “Separation of Powers:  An Overview”.

I see challenges to the current administration’s bold disdain for these checks and balances but none of these challenges will succeed unless they become more pervasive and gain bi-partisan support.  Even the many lawsuits filed in federal courts by stalwart defenders of liberty such as the ACLU will eventually flounder when they reach the rocky shores of an increasingly conservative Supreme Court.  Yet the majority of American citizens did not vote for the current administration.  Moreover, we have no idea how many of the 48% who did would have endorsed the autocracy that he gathers around him like an ermine cloak.

Those who lie for him must not escape scrutiny and punishment.  We can only hope that eventually the number of people willing to fling alternative facts and incomplete information to bolster his exercise of power will dwindle.   I look to Congress to finally answer their constantly ringing phones and hear the voice of the American people, reminding them of their solemn duty.

I’m late to the band wagon in commenting on the attempts by Mitch McConnell to silence Elizabeth Warren, though my Facebook cover and profile picture both broadcast my admiration.

I’ve been thinking about the concept of persistence as I struggled through a week of working despite a nasty cold, maladjusted clotting time, and secondary sinus infection.  News of Senator Warren being prohibited from reading Coretta Scott King’s letter opposing Jeff Session’s appointment to the bench boggled my mind.  I view Senator Warren as one of the finest politicians we have — a statesperson, like Senator Bernie Sanders.  I don’t know her entire voting history, and I frankly found myself disappointed that she backed Hillary Rodham Clinton.  But good golly, you’ve got to admire the woman.  She takes a stand and hammers at it, regardless of the opposition, irrespective of the castigation of her colleagues, far into the night and into long weeks and months of fighting.

She defines persistence.

I’d bet money, marbles, or chalk that if Mitch McConnell had thought for ten seconds, he would not have handed the resistance movement such a beautiful line.  She was warned.  She was given an explanation.  Nevertheless, she persisted.  Beautiful, right?  I, for one, would have paid good money to a marketing company for such a gem.  I can see the advertising agencies all over the east coast shaking their heads in regret that they did not conceive the brilliant new slogan of those who oppose the administration of old #45 and his Congressional cronies.  Billions of dollars in licensing revenue lost!

I’ve already ordered my t-shirt from a campaign benefiting Planned Parenthood.  I am not much of a t-shirt-wearing person, but I plan to sport mine all spring, alternating with the Women’s March on Washington in Kansas City shirt that I got at the rally.  I haven’t felt so motivated in decades.

But why?  Is this a throw-back to the sixties when women rose against low pay and stereotypes that oppressed us?  Possibly.  But the fight now seems more critical even than the push for fair wages, the right to breast-feed in public which still eludes us, and the good-old-boy mentality that stubbornly lingers even in 2017.  America faces a clear and present danger akin to that facing every abuse victim whose face bears the hammered bruises of her attacker’s blows.

I warned you!  I told you to shut up!  You made me do it!

How many victims of a bully mentality have heard those words?  Now we face their repercussion on a national scale.  Our environment, our civil rights, and our national identity as inclusive can and will be pummeled into dust if we do not challenge those who would send us reeling backward.  Rumblings from Washington suggest that pivotal agencies face curtailment;  taxes will be adjusted to favor corporate greed; equal access to health care will take a back-seat; and sweeping changes in policy and law will threaten our neighbors based on national origin, gender, and sexual orientation.

We’ve been warned:  Changes loom.  Twenty executive orders in the first ten days and six months of campaign promises tell us what #45 and the Republicans plan.  Ban Muslims entering this country. Dismantle the EPA.  Rollback educational reform.  Abolish women’s reproductive rights.  Eliminate corporate taxes.

We’ve been given an explanation:  The Republicans and #45 want a return to the days when the rich got richer; the poor fell further behind; and anyone whose face did not reflect the color and contours of established norms got the shaft.  Regardless of how they cast it, “Make America Great Again” reflects their desire to return us to earlier times: before civil rights, before protections for the environment, before marriage equality, before the enactment of laws to protect disabled persons and persons “of color”.  What else do they mean?  If they have another explanation, they have yet to offer it.

Nevertheless, we persisted.  The only thing a bully understands is strength.  We can fear reprisal, but we must — nevertheless — persist in our resistance to an erosion of the progress made in this country in the last 75 years, particularly the move forward that we experienced under President Obama’s thoughtful eight years.

Look:  I’ve read blogs which say, Give the current administration a chance.   A gracious sentiment but impractical.  We heard his rallying cries.  Grab ’em by the pussy!  A few Republican voices protested that gross description of how #45 treats women, but once he won the electoral vote, all 50 of them fell in line behind his hulking shape.  Once he took office, he began gathering new reptiles to populate the swamp — billionaires with no experience who verbalize contempt for the means by which our nation protects its environment, its under-privileged citizens, and its children.  If we give this administration a chance, it will eviscerate all that this country holds dear.

So:  You’ve been warned.  You’ve been given an explanation.  You determine what you do now.  As for myself, I intend to persist.

Perhaps it’s the fever that I’ve been battling for the last week but I’m still unable to process the lies being told by Donald Trump and his team, especially Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer.

I’m used to lies.  Good grief, I’m a divorce lawyer.  I tell my clients that one of the primary reasons for pushing settlement is that everybody lies.  “When you raise your hand and swear to tell the truth, the next words out of your mouth will be a lie,” I admonish them.  “You’ll insist that you are perfect and your spouse is perfectly awful.  That will not be true.  No one is perfect.”

I also raised a child, was a child, have been married, and matriculate on planet Earth, which, as Sean Spicer can tell you, is “a very dangerous place”.   I know that people often tell untruths, partial or otherwise.  They shade their words with nuances designed to channel the listener into a direction that just might favor the speaker and not be entirely credible.

Politicians and their spokespersons employ the art of untruthfulness more publicly than the rest of us.  Whether they deserve their bad rap as a group or not, undeniably history shows that often politicians spin reality to their own advantage.

Trump and his team have taken lying to a new art form.  They seem completely unconcerned about their reputation for honesty.  Trump simply states alternative facts whenever the actual facts don’t serve his agenda.  We see examples of this every blessed day.  Tuesday he told a group of sheriffs that the murder rate has risen to an all-time high when in fact it has been steadily dropping, despite a small spike in 2014/2015.  When CNN’s Jake Tapper confronted Kellyanne Conway about Trump’s lies, she defended her boss by faulting the press for not covering times when Trump tells the truth.  Seriously.  You can’t invent this stuff!  She actually did that! 

Politifact.com continues to fact-check Trump.  His record remains abysmal.  And this is what bothers me.  I find it appalling that Trump lies more easily than he tells the truth.  He lies about questions which can be verified.  He lies about big things and small things and relatively minor things and critical things.  He tells lie after lie.  He uses lies to justify policy, to enhance the seeming popularity of his decisions, and to evade serious questions which the media should be asking in order to keep the citizens informed.

And there is absolutely NOTHING that we can do about it.  The checks and balances of this country have been eviscerated because Congress has been become a Trump-tool by virtue of the 48/52 split between the major parties in the Senate.

It does not matter if Trump lies.  He knows that.  He can say anything he pleases because the rest of American stands completely helpless in the wake of his power.

Put to this test, I reckon that a lot of people would actually tell the truth.  What harm could there be?  Trump can do whatever he pleases because we cannot stop him.  If he and his team had a lick of sense, they would say, “Yes, we know, no terrorists from these seven countries have killed Americans on American soil.  None whatsoever.  But we have been studying these seven countries, as did administrations before us.  And we agree that these seven countries have the right climate and conditions to spawn terrorists that would come here and kill Americans, so we believe it is prudent to put a temporary ban on admissions into the US while we study the current vetting procedures.”  If he and his team had a lick of sense, they would have examined folks granted a Visa under the current procedures and determined if they should be allowed into the U.S.  They would have exempted green card holders.  They would have had a procedure in place to question those landing in airports on the weekend of the travel ban’s announcement, and admit them or not on a case by case basis.

But they don’t need to have a lick of sense, because they hold absolute, unfettered power.

Yesterday they used that power to silence Elizabeth Warren from reading a letter written 30 years ago by Coretta Scott King in opposition to the judicial appointment of Jeff Sessions based upon his demonstrated and documented racist proclivities.  Tomorrow they might use that power to invade our homes and appropriate our property.  They will lie about it.  Because that’s what liars do.  They lie because they need to feel justified; because they’ve lied so much that they have no concept of truthfulness; or because they don’t know the truth and speak without advance consideration or research.

Ultimately, liars lie because it’s a tool in the arsenal which they use to get what they want.

We teach our children not to lie.  We also tell them, Truth will prevail.  Trump and his team defy this concept.  In addition to reversing all the progress that America has made in 240 years, Trump and his team have now demonstrated to our children that cheaters do, in fact, prosper.

As for the rest of us, we are left to wonder why we have spent our entire lives trying to be honest, when everybody knows that “nice guys finish last”.  It’s a sad state of affairs.  Lies and the liars who tell them threaten the fabric of our country.   The rest of us, those who ironically still believe in truth, justice, and the American way, must look long and hard at the system which brought us to this terrible moment in time.

COUNTDOWN TO MIDTERM ELECTIONS

Today as I drove from court to home, I found myself overwhelmed with grief.  The radio blared the ugly news of Donald Trump actually taking initial steps to build a wall between the US and Mexico.  In a dull and emotionless voice, Trump stated,  “We will build this wall. We are done with catch and release.”  My dismay at the gross use of a fishing term to describe actions taken against human beings fought with my chagrin over the cold cruel tone used by the president of my homeland.  

Then the commentator began to describe the Executive orders which Trump signed today.  At first I laughed, remembering the Republican castigation of President Obama for signing executive orders.  Then a sobering shadow fell across my grave as the contents and portent of the orders became more clear.

I cannot comprehend this news.  I do not understand how Trump can implement policies which seem so clearly antithetical to the American spirit.

What makes a man look at human beings and see something to be tossed over a wall with careless disregard?  Why do I think of immigrants as a golden potential to enhance the richness of this country, whereas Donald Trump sees them as something to be rejected, ostracized, and pushed away?  What fundamental difference in our character prompts Trump to turn away in disgust from the huddled masses yearning to be free,  whereas I rush to stand on the dock with outstretched welcoming arms?

Have we come so far from where we started, from the roots of this grand experiment, that we have no more room for additions to the great melting pot?  More critically, what accounts for Trump’s close-mindedness?  Why can I see that America has room enough for expansion, room to welcome those who would bring their diverse characters to the complex fabric of our people; but Donald Trump sees only a threat that has no genuine statistical basis?

My mood slightly lifts when I see the video of the Boston mayor, but he is one man, in one city.  While others share his view, how long can they withstand federal censure for their bold determination to serve as sanctuary cities?

More voices rise to protest Trump than to praise him, but what power have those voices?  Is the power of the people truly greater than that of those in power?  Trump has no mandate, but does he need one?  He can issue an order with the stroke of a pen which changes our destiny.  Are we helpless to protect this land and those who come here to share the American dream?

In New York, Mayor de Blasio proclaimed, “We will not deport law-abiding New Yorkers, we will not tear families apart, we will not leave children without their parents, we will not take breadwinners away from families who have no one else. And we’re not going to undermine the hard-won trust that has developed between our police and their communities.”

He argued that Trump’s executive order runs contrary to the spirit of New York and of the United States Constitution.    I agree.  But I fear that the Republican-controlled Congress will side with Trump, and America will haul out a giant NO VACANCY sign to obscure the welcoming beacon once held aloft to guide the weary traveler to our shores.

Lady Liberty weeps.  

Yesterday’s news disturbed me in so many ways that my brain had trouble wrapping itself around both the “alternative facts” being fed to the American people and my emotional reaction to them.  I logged into the internet numerous times, scrolling through the wire services for accounts of the actions of the newly-elected, just-assumed-office, president of my country.  Reuters provides the most clean account of American comings-and-goings; the New York Times also can be a reliable source of information, along with the Wall Street Journal to which I don’t subscribe, and a few other sites.

Each of them told the same story.  Trump lies, his people provide alternative facts, and the dismantling of the grand experiment has begun.

Witness this while it’s still legal to do so:

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Tuesday that an internal email sent to staff at its Agricultural Research Service unit this week calling for a suspension of “public-facing documents,” including news releases and photos, was flawed and that new guidance has been sent out to replace it.

“The ARS focuses on scientific research into the main issues facing agriculture, including long-term climate change. President Donald Trump has cast doubt on whether man-made climate change is real and has railed against ex-President Barack Obama’s efforts to combat it.

**********

“The original email, sent Jan. 23, said: “Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content.”

Reuters, 24 January 2017, complete article HERE.

Our nation and the world face serious, scientifically documented climate changes.  If we cannot share scientific information and if the citizens can no longer be privy to it, how will we develop methodologies, policies, and practices to combat it?  So:  Explain the “original e-mail” directing the black-out?  Who sent this “flawed” missive?  Who ordered it?  Bravo to the USDA for trying to mitigate its damage, and bravo to the Badlands for their defiance.

Underlying the specific issue of climate change, a broader concern overwhelms me and has my ulcer in high gear.  The newly-elected, recently-inaugurated president Trump has let no grass grow under his feet in assuming the mantle of tyrannical dictator.  The first move of an autocrat is to take control of information, cutting off all sources except known and trusted spokespersons and decreeing what will be announced.  Alternative facts.

I might disagree with Republican values.  I might believe that we should promote marriage equality, combat global warming, and that immigration reform should focus on allowing refugees rather than repelling them.  But I may disagree.  We may dialogue.  The dialogue takes place in a democratic society.  In order to engage in those discussions, we must know the truth, not alternative facts controlled by a central source with its own agenda of self-promotion and power.  We must know the entire truth, not the trickle of fractured fairy tales spun by the administration’s personal propaganda machine.

In the single one-on-one conversation in which I engaged with a Trump supporter before the election, the Trump supporter told me, “He’s not like the media paints him out to be.”  I demurred then, citing Trump’s disregard of women, mockery of a disabled reporter, and absolutely insane proclivity to wage war via Twitter on those who disagree with him.  The Trump supporter simply replied, “If you knew him, you would know he’s not as bad as you think.”

I disagreed then.  But now I agree.  He’s not as bad as I thought.  He’s worse.

I expect the Feds to coming knocking on my door any minute, since we’ve seen that anyone who dissents will be punished.  My home could be threatened, my meager savings diminished or simply appropriated, my law license stripped, and my character assassinated.  Perhaps I’m too small fry for notice.  Either way, I’ll keep watching.  I’ll keep writing.

I no longer think it will do much good, but I will continue if for no other reason than to chronicle the beginning of the end.

My heart grew heavy as I listened to the new president’s spokesperson describe lies told by the new administration as “alternative facts”.  I played the clip multiple times, willing myself to find another interpretation.  I tried to put myself in this ill-prepared woman’s position.  Certainly she meant something else, I told myself.  If I say that I have a million followers on this blog yet I only have a dozen, am I lying or presenting “alternative facts”?  I have told you something that is inaccurate.  If I know it is inaccurate and I say it anyway, it’s a lie.

The New York Times presented a summary of the statements made about the inauguration and the “actual facts”.  (The writer in me screams, ‘Redundancy!  Duplication! Repetition!’)  Misstatements were made, undoubtedly.  Whether “lies” or inadvertent inaccuracies, I cannot say.  But what disturbs me is Trump’s insistence that he is better, bigger, more popular, one-hundred-percent right.   And this bothers me for one reason, and one reason only though it’s the be-all and end-all of this debate for me.

Hitler.  Say it with me now:  Der Fuhrer.

As my heart mourns for our nation, I turn again to the beautiful pictures of people around the world standing in solidarity with the Women’s March on Washington.  Make no mistake about the intentions of the rallies and marches on Saturday.  We fear the evisceration of our rights.  This includes the right to choose whether or not to bear a child, even after conception.

I realize that some think that life begins at conception, but our law has otherwise defined it based upon the scientific evidence of the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the woman’s body.  Those who maintain that termination of a pregnancy constitutes murder feel otherwise, but not based upon science.  Rather, their beliefs arise from religion.

We are not a religious community.  We are a geo-political community.    However, if a woman chooses to believe that the cells within her uterus are human and therefore must be allowed to grow to term, that should be her choice.  Simple, and scientifically sound.    Viability has been identified as commencing at 24 weeks, although some studies have shown that a tiny number of fetuses could survive as early as 22 weeks albeit with medical complications.  If I follow science and the law, I may abort before 24 weeks.  If I choose not to do so, I do not have to do so.  Choice.

I’ve faced this dilemma.  I conceived a child in 1977 at the age of 22.  Unemployed, living with my parents, about to start graduate school, I huddled within myself trying to decide what to do.  But the pregnancy ended of its own accord, sadly, devastatingly, painfully, at about 10 weeks.  I’ve never had an abortion, but nor would I judge someone who chooses to do so.  Her body is not my body.  As long as the procedure occurred before 24 weeks, her action would be legally and scientifically defensible.

This is my first public defense of abortion, because I truly believe that it should be an individual woman’s decision and not our business.  As it is now, within the reasonable limit set by the Supreme Court:  Viability.

Other rights are under attack by the new administration, most notably universal health care.  Because these rights impact women so greatly, women stood in solidarity last week.

But if we are ruled by a dictator who tolerates no criticism and broadcasts untruths firmly, loudly, and as though they were fact, will our protests protect us?  Before inauguration, Trump’s twitter-storms seemed comical.  But now he has the power of the federal government at his disposal.  When his outrage rises, what will stop him from using that power to eliminate dissent?  What will stop him from sending law enforcement to corral us, to jail us? What will stop him from destroying us?

This is my answer.   We will.

“You only have power over people as long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power—he’s free again.”

― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together

A couple of million people in America and 600 other places rallied and marched yesterday to signify that we will not be silenced.  In response to our world-wide gatherings, the newly inaugurated president of the United States falsely claimed that a larger crowd attended his inauguration than had marched on Washington.  He also asked, “Why didn’t these people vote?”

We did vote, sir.  (Except the children, of course, of which there were many.)  In fact, let us be very clear about the vote, sir.  You lost the popular vote.  Lost.  You received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.10% of the popular vote.  Secretary Clinton received 65,844,620 votes, or 48.20% of the popular votes.  Other candidates received 7,804,213 votes,  or 5.70% of the popular vote.  In case you had missed this fact, sir, “the popular vote” equals the number of people that voted for you, or against you.  Let’s say this one more time, sir:  You lost the popular vote.  By 73, 648,823 votes.

Here’s another fact:  Even Fox News admits that your popularity sank to an extraordinarily low level right before your inauguration. Their survey on 18 January 2017 showed your approval rating as 37%.  Even conceding that statistics and polls can often obfuscate the true situation, as the pundits learned in the 2016 election — still, you must understand, sir, that you do not have a mandate, nor do most of us trust, like, or admire you.  Fifty-three point nine percent of the American people did not vote for you, sir.

As noted by politico.com, you, sir, are the most unpopular president to take office in the modern era, worse even than the second Bush:

“That, according to The Washington Post, makes Trump the least-popular incoming president of the past 40 years — by a large margin. Eight years ago, ABC News/Washington Post polling showed Barack Obama with a 79 percent favorable rating. Even George W. Bush — who lost the popular vote and was designated the next president only after a protracted recount in Florida — had a 62 percent favorable rating on the eve of his inauguration.”

Now that I have clarified the true nature of the current sentiment about the newly-inaugurated president, I’d like to share a few observations about yesterday and about our nation.

In case you did not attend a rally in one of the 600+ participating cities yesterday, let me enlighten you.  At  least in Kansas City, the message focused on the positive more than the negative.  Speaker after speaker urged us to have faith in America; to have hope; and to soldier on, believing that our federal government will work for us if we hold it accountable.  They also encouraged us to call our elected officials, run for office, and to volunteer in shelters for immigrants and with agencies serving the homeless, survivors of family violence, and the poor.

But we also heard stories of discrimination, sexual assault, police dismissal of assault victims based on their age and presumed sexual experience, the devastation and despair experienced by working parents trying to survive on the non-living minimum wage, and children who know no other homeland quivering in fear of deportation.

One of the most powerful moments of the day  for me came when a young woman told us of the three men who broke into her apartment and raped her while she lay in bed next to her two-year-old daughter.  In a loud, determined, but trembling voice, she recounted how the investigating officer kept the paramedics from examining her “because he had a few more questions”.  He proceeded to ask her if she had an account on Tinder, a dating app; whether she ever invited men home; whether she had been drinking.  He interrogated the rape victim in her own home while she held her crying two-year-old daughter who had been in the bed while three men raped her mother.

Victim-shaming.  Assuming the woman is at fault.  Telling rape victims that they could have avoided what happened to them if they had just been more careful. But I’ve been a rape victim, and I can tell you that I did not make the choice to be a rape victim.  I weighed less than ninety pounds at the time, and my attacker was an off-duty police officer friend of my then-police officer boyfriend.  I did not expect to be raped.  I did not ask to be raped.  I did not open my legs to that man.  He made that choice.  So let’s make this perfectly clear:  Victims of sexual assault are not to blame.  The assaulters wear that mantle.  Or should.

But now that America has elected a man who brags about assaulting women, what assurance do we have that assault will remain a crime?

Now that we have elected a man backed by white extremists, one of whom co-wrote his inauguration speech, what assurance do we have that this administration will not send America back to the days when non-whites (whatever that means to Trump) must submit to being second-class Americans?

And this we know will happen:  A woman’s right to choose will be attacked by our Congress and our Supreme Court, because the newly-inaugurated president has promised that he will put an anti-abortion justice on the bench.

Before the election, a Trump-supporter whose intelligence I have long admired and for whom I care very deeply told me that I did not know Trump and that he was not the sexual predator and bigot portrayed by the media.  I listened, as I always do, largely without comment.  I do not like to have conflict with people for whom I hold affection and regard.

But upon Trump’s inauguration, the pages on the White House and other government websites supporting equal rights for gay, Lesbian, and trans-gender Americans and climate change laws went dark, and the executive order beginning the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act before a replacement can be crafted got signed.

In case you missed it, the Affordable Care Act protects health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions; assures health insurance for working-class individuals who cannot otherwise afford it; increases care options for seniors, and allows us to keep our children on family plans until age 26, among other provisions. 

Which of these provisions are harmful to Americans?  As far as I could tell by listening to my pro-Trump friend, what those who detest the ACA dislike starts and ends with the mandate to have health insurance and for certain-sized employers to make it available to their employees.  So why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

My friends in Europe constantly ask me why Americans do not have universal health care.  Newsflash:  According to the World Health Organization, “All UN Member States have agreed to try to achieve universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030, as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.”   This includes the USA, folks.  The unanimous  resolution was adopted on 12 December 2012.  The USA became the 33rd nation to provide some form of universal health care with the Supreme Court’s 2013 upholding of the Affordable Care Act.  Note that the U.S. was 18 years behind Israel, and 101 years behind Norway.

Women, men, and their children marched yesterday in huge throngs to send an undeniable signal to the new administration.  We do not want to regress, sir.  We do not want to submit to your pussy-grabbing ways.  We do not want to be divided.  As Rabbi Doug Alpert avowed in Kansas City yesterday,  and Gloria Steinem proclaimed in New York, if you require Muslims to register, we will all register as Muslims.

We will #StandTogether, because we are #StrongerTogether.  73,646,523 people standing together cannot be ignored.  We are the majority — 53.90% of the American people, and we are not a silent majority. 

Our voices will be heard.

Perhaps fatigue overwhelmed last night but I could not sleep.  The fact that one of the best presidents of our nation’s history would step down to be replaced by a man who shouted racial, misogynist, divisive, and derisive rhetoric at women, minorities, and disabled people could have contributed to my unrest.

Maybe.

At one point in the evening, I spied a Huff-Post live broadcast which appeared  to be a bit of a set-up.  An attractive young woman, with caramel skin and straightened hair, teared a little as she talked about how much she would miss Mr. Obama.  Her two black sons, she said, knew no one other than Obama as president.  He had been a good role model for them.  Then she plugged her new album.  I laughed at that segue.  Then I sobered as the Huff-Post reporter asked the woman to take the mic and talk to Donald Trump.  If the interview had been staged to that point, it got real all of a sudden.

With a crowd of D.C. demonstrators behind her, the woman nervously looked into the camera and extolled Donald Trump to do a good job and be a president for all of the nation.

I couldn’t agree more.  I’ve scrolled past the memes this week, seeing the bitter comments but also remembering the news media in 2008 and 2012 covering people angry because of Barack Obama’s election.  I saw one post repeated time and again which seemed to express what I feel in my gut.  I don’t know who wrote it or I would have a link or attribution.  But here is what it said:

I dislike Donald Trump because HE is a racist.  You dislike Barack Obama because YOU are a racist.

At times, I don’t think Trump actually holds specific racist views.  That would be too glib an explanation of why the KKK supports him.  I think that organization sees a deeper truth.  They detect that Trump can serve their ends because he has no greater allegiance than his front yard.  He does not seek to serve justice.  By all appearances, Donald Trump doesn’t care about anyone other than himself and his children.  His goals involve something more insidious even than to “Make America White Again”, as his supporters scrawl across hotel rooms and lockers throughout America.  His goal starts and ends with self-promotion.

But know this: Donald Trump’s narcissistic behavior threatens all of us.  That young mother interviewed by Huff-Post, along with scores of other folks including President Obama, expressed a hope born of her good intentions.  All of these hopeful souls want the incoming president to succeed because they define  the success of a presidential administration in the context of improving the national horizon.  They define the president as being the steward of our American welfare.

Trump’s endgame undoubtedly differs.  He has announced his intention to vindicate himself, to show himself to be “the best”.  We know because of how he’s conducted his life that his notion of “the best” sharply differs from that held by men and women of good conscience.  Trump wants to be able to do as he pleases — pay bills or not according to his whim; grab women on demand;  conduct business as usual despite undeniable conflicts of interest; and consort with leaders who threaten world stability simply because he, Donald Trump, adores the concept of walking in what he perceives to be tall cotton.

Therefore I do not share the hope of that young woman in the sense that I do not want him to accomplish his goals.  I fervently pray that he will fail in his own ambitions, unless he changes them which I do not for one moment allow myself to foolishly believe will happen.

I join with John Pavlovitz in offering myself to be proven wrong.  I will admit my gross error if Trump turns out to be a uniting force.  I will acknowledge that I was wrong if he shows himself to be a president who cultivates policies and practices which bring our citizenry closer together and which respect every American.  If he welcomes immigrants to our shores in the tradition of this great nation; if he promotes equality; holds the line on civil rights; disdains abuse of women, disabled persons, and minorities; and encourages bi-partisan solutions to the difficulties of our nations — I will offer my wrists for a public flagellation.

Further:  If the Republican members of Congress promote these efforts, I will be as vocal in my expressions of relief and praise as I have been in my castigation.  Video after video of outraged politicians condemning Trump appeared on the news after the release of the tape of Donald Trump boasting of his sexual assault of women.  The voices of protest included many in the Republican Congress including some of the party’s leaders.    If those same detractors step forward and force Trump to govern by a higher standard than those by which he has lived his entire life, I will be among the first to rise and praise them.

From this day forward, I will be here.   Waiting.  Watching.

The last official press question of President Barack Hussein Obama’s presidency went to Christi Parsons, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times.

She said, “I have a personal question for you, because I know how much you like those. The First Lady put the stakes of the 2016 election in very personal terms in a speech that resonated across the country. And she really spoke to the concerns of a lot of women, LGBT folks, people of color, many others. So I wonder now how you and the First Lady are talking to your daughters about the meaning of this election and how you interpret it for yourself and for them.”

President Obama answered at length. I listened to his answer pulled to the side of Noland Road in Independence, en route back to my office after court.  His response drew tears from me, possibly not a difficult task because I weep at kitten videos, Hallmark commercials, and the sight of dog-eared letters from old lovers.  His response continued for some moments and included the mild observation that he and his wife have tried to teach their daughters to live in a certain way, and to expect their future partners to behave in a certain way modeled by the President and First Lady.

And then he said, calmly, quietly:

“But what we’ve also tried to teach them is resilience, and we’ve tried to teach them hope, and that the only thing that is the end of the world is the end of the world. And so you get knocked down, you get up, brush yourself off, and you get back to work. And that tended to be their attitude.”

That’s when my tears flowed.

Listen:

I’ve been sexually assaulted at least six times in my life.  I wouldn’t burden you with most of the details of those events.  Some I have buried so far that I shudder at their rising, coarse bile heaving through me at vulnerable moments.  I understand that the impact of those assaults still grips me.  We survivors know that the damage done from those cruel moments  cannot be understood by anyone who has not experienced this gross violation.

But I will share one incident and perhaps in sharing this, I can help others understand the fear many of us feel when we contemplate the impending inauguration of the president-elect.

Near my parents house, a set of railroad tracks passed through a rock-filled clearing in which some business took place in a cluster of crude outbuildings.  I don’t know what kind of business it was.  As kids we liked to play amidst the rubble and the discarded bits of steel.  My two little brothers and I wandered there one summer afternoon and came upon a neighbor kid.  We didn’t see what he was doing, though years later, I realized it must have been something sordid, something we don’t discuss in polite conversation.

At ten or eleven, I had no knowledge of sex.  I had not attained full puberty yet, and would remain relatively innocent for another six or seven years.  But I had a budding womanhood of sorts, I suppose.  This neighbor kid must have seen it.  He must have also felt the advantage he had over us, standing a few inches taller than I, and being five or six years older than my brothers.

The four of us lingered in that clearing, grouped in an awkward cluster while the older boy hammered us with questions.  Where were we going, did we have any food, did we have any money.  Suddenly his hand shot out, stiff-fingered, and punched me in my tender private parts.  I doubled over, caught off-guard, terrified.  He snickered and told me that I might not like this now but I would in a year or two and to come see him then.  He threw a rock over the railroad tracks and sauntered off, leaving me staggering, falling to the ground.  My brothers leaned over me — helpless, clueless, frightened.

I have never forgotten that day.  That kid knew he could do whatever he wanted to me, and I had to let him.  Bigger, older, stronger, he controlled the situation.  He acted out of sheer perverse pleasure at his superiority and domination.  That kid was a bully and a sexual predator.

But he was thirteen, and relatively powerless.

Imagine him a billionaire, an adult, and occupying the most powerful office in the nation with the persistent attitude that he can attack  a woman’s body at will simply because he has wealth and notoriety on his side.  Put yourself in the position of the person on whom he’s levied his disgusting conduct.  Imagine how we feel.

Terrified.  But also this:  Certain that it should not happen again, to any woman — not to us, not to our sisters, not to our daughters.

So that is why the earnest answer of President Obama reduced me to sobbing in the Sonic parking lot, with my limeade in my hand.  His example must sustain me.  His lesson must guide me.  His words must be a comfort and a mantra for this nation.

The moment has come when we have to say Farewell to the Chief, the native son who served with grace, dignity, and dedication.  I want to say something  memorable but I have only this:

Thank you, President Obama.  You have given me hope.  You have given us all hope.  You have been a steward of our nation, and  an example for us all.  Your family has truly been a First Family for America. You have done us proud.  

Thank you, sir.  May God be with you, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha.  We will miss you all.

*Obama Out*

Rumors abound regarding the incoming presidential administration’s plan to oust reporters from the White House.  Two days ago, news of the threat rocketed through mainstream  media and social networks.

This trend terrifies most of us.  As one writer explained, “For a society to be responsible and powerful, it must be informed. Our free press, protected by the first constitutional amendment, plays a critical role in ensuring that every American has constant access to important and trustworthy news.”

The rumblings from the Trump staff echo the president-elect’s castigation of CNN and BuzzFeed,  The rest of America should be very afraid.  Our information source lies in the path of the demagoguery implicit in this sweeping dismissal of the media.

But a more dastardly theme underlies this turn of events.  Trump broadcasts his privilege in every move, every announcement, every shrug.  He tells us that he and he alone can make us “great” again.  He insisted in advance that he will be “the best jobs president God ever created”.  Every nuance of his attitude, the swagger as he steps off the bus and grabs our collective pussy, announces his elitist view of himself.

As I contemplate the undoing of the progress which we have made in our great nation in the last eight years, I am reminded of the sobering words of John Adams:

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many.”

                        — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government

We do not want to sink into lawlessness; so therefore, it is incumbent upon us to safeguard against the tendrils of tyranny shot through the words of the president-elect.

We look first to our press to keep us informed.  When we are informed, we can act.   But waiting for word will no longer suffice.  We have been given notice that the flow of information will be staunched.  Therefore, we must be like the sentry watching the light in the tower.  We must be prepared to stand with our brothers and our sisters against the coming peril when that light goes dark.

To do otherwise will consign this nation to the whims of a dictator.  We cannot afford four years of unchallenged tyranny.

“As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected … before a drop of blood was shed.”

— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Aug. 24, 1815

Face it:  The American economy has improved over the last eight years.  In fact we now know that for 75 straight months, jobs have grown.  The economy continues to improve.  The Affordable Care Act gives a promise of coverage for pre-existing conditions and the right to insure your offspring through age 26.  It gives help with premiums depending on income.  Millions have insurance now who didn’t before its enactment, and millions continue to avail themselves of it despite the Republican commitment to repeal the law.

Yet the president-elect will be sworn into office on Friday after castigating President Obama and swearing to finally “Make America Great Again”.    He’s nominated cabinet member after cabinet member with no experience in government or the area governed by the agency which they will lead, like Rick Perry as Secretary of Energy and Ben Carson for HUD.

So I have asked myself over and over this tortured and burning question:  If things are going so much better — slowly but surely — why would 64,000,000 people fall for a pitch to “Make America Great Again” from a crass television entertainer whose businesses have failed a half dozen times, who won’t pay his creditors, and who can’t pick a better cabinet than a handful of rich people with no experience?

Do we just need someone to tell us lies?  Does lying not bother us?  Does the fact that everybody lies play into this equation?

I thought about what people didn’t like about President Obama.  This one poses more difficulty for me since I like him very much.  He’s helped our nation, he seems to have a good marriage and be a good father.  His youngest daughter missed his last formal speech as President because she had a test the next day!  That fact alone raised the Obamas in my esteem — Barack and Michelle as parents; all four of them as a family.

Unquestionably, the president-elect distorts the truth.  He lies.  No question.  No question.  The press exposed him time and time again.  He does not seem fazed but nonetheless, we know he lies.  So how is it that 64,000,000 voters gave him their faith?   How is it that so many wanted him to lead our nation?

“The lies that we accept from politicians right now are lies that are seen as acceptable because it’s what we want to hear,” like a spouse saying that an outfit flatters you, Robert Feldman at the University of Massachusetts concluded in a study of students who lie.

Or perhaps we feel that lying is necessary.

“People want their politicians to lie to them. The reason that people want their politicians to lie them is that people care about politics,” said Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics at Duke University. “You understand that Washington is a dirty place and that lying is actually very helpful to get your policies implemented.”

I found myself looking at Barack Obama and Donald Trump in a different light.  I asked myself, What is different about these men?

Obama:  Composed, measured, careful, studious.

Trump:  Loud, flippant, impetuous, casual.

The two men couldn’t be more different.  I would expect President Obama to tell truth no matter how difficult.  He spoke that truth of racial divisiveness in his farewell speech, though some say “too little too late”.  For someone like myself, who appreciates honesty and directness, Obama presents as the logical choice to lead us.

On the other hand, I definitely assume President-elect Trump will lie.  Since I value the truth and appreciate someone who tells the truth, he’s not my candidate.  If I were the type to rub my hands together in glee and chortle over a guy who’ll sling arrows, kick butt, take no names, and get the job done regardless of what it takes, he might appeal to my gut instincts about what makes a good leader.

To accept him, I have to overlook his crassness, his misogyny, and his proclivity to take advantage of those in weaker positions.  Perhaps tolerance of these defects seems more possible for those who want their politicians to get down and dirty to advance their agenda.

Or maybe his voters just hate women, minorities, poor people, and immigrants.  It’s one or the other.  Or both.  I know this for sure:  If we let him proceed unchallenged, he and his team will lie about anything, apparently because they feel empowered to lie to us.  

But consider that Americans want to know that elected officials can lie to get what they want or what they think their voters want.  Trump’s election makes a bit more sense viewed in that light.

The need for  all this arm-chair psychology sickens me.  If it doesn’t sicken you, then all I can say is:  Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.

Lamenting, wailing, and gnashing of teeth heralded me when dawn broke yesterday.  Congress convened at 1:00 a.m. and began dismantling the ACA, the radio blared.

I stood in the kitchen listening, scrolling through social media and scowling at the thought of a Senate which had refused to act for six years reinvigorating itself with such intensity.  The website of the news station recently maligned by the president-elect outlined the story:  “This resolution will set the stage for true legislative relief from Obamacare that Americans have long demanded while ensuring a stable transition,” Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi of Wyoming said, just after 1 a.m. “The Obamacare bridge is collapsing and we’re sending in a rescue team.”

Happens that the ACA has not failed as miserably as all that.  As one writer said, “For all its recent difficulties, of which there are more below, Obamacare has made American health care both dramatically more affordable and humanitarian. Its various cost reforms have helped bring medical inflation to decades-low levels, and it has given access to basic medical care to 20 million Americans who lacked it before.”

For myself, the ACA has been a qualified success.  More of my expensive care has been covered, at higher percentages.  Though my premiums raised, they’d done so every year for a decade and at about the same rate.  I am not alone.  I know cancer survivors who have insurance now who wouldn’t have been able to obtain a policy before the ACA.

By the same token, many resent being forced to have coverage, a key requirement of the Act, intended to balance the burden by bringing healthier Americans into the premium pool.

By all world views which I have heard in my travels through the Interwebs, a single-payer system would be best but that seems un-American to some, bordering on socialism.

What troubles me about this week’s events centers not on the substantive issue of whether we should or should not repeal all or some of the Affordable Care Act.   Rather, along with many including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the thought of the previously immobile Senate suddenly churning its rusted wheels flabbergasts me.  Pelosi cautioned that Republicans would “cut and run” on people with health insurance and worried that Republicans would end up cutting Medicare benefits as well.

But I think our worry should be less on result than on methodology.  What beings creep in midnight hallways, voting when the nation which they purport to represent has gone to sleep?  What do they hide, in their night-time wanderings?  What specter do they shield from our discovery?

And what about the fact that they steadfastly declined to do their job for the last six years — stonewalling any action over and over?  Are these the kind of men and women who should be leading our nation — ones who only act when the lemming mentality can be used to pull us over the cliff, and do so under cover of darkness?

I’m sure they would say it differently.  They’d say that their majority now allows them to act, where they could not do so before they had control of the White House and felt certain of presidential endorsement.  But why did they shun compromise in those years when President Obama sat in the Oval Office?  Is not our nation intended to be one of checks and balances, which noble end the two parties could serve rather than shirking?

I never thought before now that there should be a daylight prerequisite to Congressional action.  But happenstance has shown us that a brighter light needs to be shone upon the work in Washington.  If their efforts give them pride, then let the votes be taken while the people are awake to see, rather than as we sleep in innocence.

Here in the Midwest, dire warnings occupy the radio, portents of ice storms and frigid air.  But my veins run cold already.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan first laced diplomatic negotiations with the Russian slogan “trust, but verify”.  Now we turn to another entertainer-turned-President and apply the phrase to him.

Trump’s promises falter.  His half-hearted avowal to divest himself of ethical entanglements falls  by the wayside.  His tax returns remain hidden.  Vague rumors emerge that suggest his record of aberrant behavior persisted well past the  locker-room stage.  He denies Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC for months but now concedes that they did.

Politifact’s Trump File shows that 84% of his statements were as follows:

Half True   15%
Mostly False 18%
False 33%
Pants on Fire 18%

Trump’s total from half-truth downward: 84%

In  case you want to compare, Politifact shows President Obama as follows:

Half True   27%
Mostly False 12%
False 12%
Pants on Fire 2%

That puts Obama’s Half True to Pants on Fire percentage at: 43%.

Obama’s biggest percentage in the negative portion of the Politifact scale lies in the Half True category, whereas Trump’s largest percentage from Half True downward falls in the False category.

I’ve been talking to people all week about this.  Are we in trouble?  Is Armageddon upon us?  Will Trump implode?  Will Congress impeach him?  Is Pence worse?  I even had one fairly hilarious conversation with a moderately liberal Chicago friend in which we concluded that Pence’s stances on LGBT issues can be considered immoral but possibly not unethical.  We took some desperate comfort in the distinction.

Sorrow washes over me when I contemplate the uncertainty I feel about the fate of our country.  We’re trading a calm, composed man of measured responses for a shrill, shrieking self-absorbed megalomaniac.  Our 44th president luxuriates in a long-term marriage and spent eight scandal-free years in the White House.  Our 45th president-elect combats one controversy after another before he’s been sworn into office.  He refuses to divest himself of interests which even some Republicans say raise ethical concerns.  Rumors of his connections to Russia abound and his only response is a 140-character temper tantrum on Twitter and a petulant refusal to let CNN question him at his first news conference since winning the election.

With all this swarming on the horizon, what could possibly go wrong?

When Barack Hussein Obama won the election in 2008, I became gripped with an irrational fear that he would be assassinated before he could take the Oath of Office.

Each morning I clicked the radio dial with an increasingly shaky hand.  I closed my eyes and eased the dial to the local public radio station, holding my breath.  As the announcer’s voice began to read the headlines of the day, I wrapped my arms around my still-plump body, shivering with the overwhelming certainty that I would be draping a black shawl around my shoulders to mourn the execution of what would have been America’s first African-American president.

Even tonight, as he spoke his words of farewell to us, I shuddered with the fear that some fanatic would rise from the bleachers in McCormick Place and prematurely end the life of a man who has done so much, and meant so much, and endured so much.

But the moment passed, just as the other days of  his two terms in office slipped away.

He gave his speech with dignity, and humor, and tears which fell unrestrained when he gazed on his elegant, gracious wife and one of his two lovely daughters.  He looked out on thousands who cherish the work which he has led and he gave his thanks to them.  He brought us together under the title of “citizen”.

I wept.

I know that he has his detractors but I am not one of them.  President Obama has taken our country from recession to a firmer resilience than we have felt in this century, and he has acquitted himself with a profoundly noble style.  He has not overlooked the differences which splinter us, but he has appealed to the common values which we share.  He has asked us to embrace what we all believe, to recognize the goals that bind us, and to forgive the differences which threaten to diminish us.

I am not that strong.  I am not that bold.  I am not that generous.  But I will try, because of President Barack Hussein Obama.  I take my inspiration from him, just as he drew his own inspiration from  the rest of us, during his long journey to this unprecedented, bittersweet moment in the history of our great nation.

WATCH THE SPEECH HERE.

Some of my favorite words from tonight’s speech:

“It …is that spirit born of the enlightenment that made us an economic powerhouse. The spirit that took flight at Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral, the spirit that cures disease and put a computer in every pocket, it’s that spirit. A faith in reason and enterprise, and the primacy of right over might, that allowed us to resist the lure of fascism and tyranny during the Great Depression, that allowed us to build a post-World War II order with other democracies.

“An order based not just on military power or national affiliations, but built on principles, the rule of law, human rights, freedom of religion and speech and assembly and an independent press.

*************

“No matter how imperfect our efforts, no matter how expedient ignoring such values may seem, that’s part of defending America. For the fight against extremism and intolerance and sectarianism and chauvinism are of a piece with the fight against authoritarianism and nationalist aggression. If the scope of freedom and respect for the rule of law shrinks around the world, the likelihood of war within and between nations increases, and our own freedoms will eventually be threatened.

“So let’s be vigilant, but not afraid. ISIL will try to kill innocent people. But they cannot defeat America unless we betray our Constitution and our principles in the fight.

**************

“Our Constitution is a remarkable, beautiful gift. But it’s really just a piece of parchment. It has no power on its own. We, the people, give it power. We, the people, give it meaning — with our participation, and with the choices that we make and the alliances that we forge.

“Whether or not we stand up for our freedoms. Whether or not we respect and enforce the rule of law, that’s up to us. America is no fragile thing. But the gains of our long journey to freedom are not assured.”

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT OBAMA.

YOU’VE INSPIRED ME TO STRIVE TO BE A BETTER CITIZEN.

Aesop said it best:  You shall be known by the company you keep.

Let us look, then, at the company which president-elect Donald Trump intends to keep, starting with his proposed Attorney General whose confirmation hearings have commenced in Washington.

He has been accused of using the demeaning term “boy” in addressing an African-American male colleague.

He prosecuted the Marion Three, a case in which African-Americans were charged with voter fraud in what was alleged to be racially motivated cases.  He’s been quoted as calling the ACLU and the NAACP Communist-inspired un-American organizations.  He does not deny that he might have made some of these statements.

As a private, non-government attorney and citizen, I may hold and preach anything I choose.  I may disagree with the law, criticize it, lobby for its change, and castigate those who support or don’t support what I think the law is or should be.  But as a government attorney, and as the U. S. Attorney General, Mr. Sessions will be required to uphold the law of the land.

Most importantly:  He should not attempt to change the law.

Yet that is precisely what the president-elect wants to do:  Change the laws of this nation.  So:  Will Mr. Sessions assist in the effort to change our laws — or will he stalwartly stand and uphold them?

Our nation should not engage in torture; and we have taken the position that we will not.

Our nation should open its doors to immigrants.  Immigrants founded and built this country.  Our Statue of Liberty welcomes them to our safe harbor.  She greets them with these words:

“The New Colossus”
By Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Our nation should embrace marriage equality, and did so under President Obama’s administration.  We have finally brought this Constitutionally protected right to all of our citizens.  Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.  In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.”

Of the petitioners, he observed, “Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

As Americans, we recognize and proclaim that all persons are equal and should be treated equally.   Will Jeff Sessions uphold these principles and the laws which embody and implement them?  Will he use the Justice Department to assist the president-elect in changing the laws to suit his beliefs?

Only time will tell.  It is likely that he will be confirmed.  Those of us watching, those of us who have listened to racist, misogynist words and principles spewed from the mouths of Donald Trump and his supporters, stand with bated breath.  Those of us inclined toward prayer have given this to a divine entity, with the fervent hope that this nation goes forward, and not backward.

As for myself, from my little satellite office in Liberty, I pray that neither Trump nor Sessions falls into the dangerous, mean-spirited land which the company they keep seems to suggest that they intend to frequent.  Between them, they will possess a combined power which  could slay all of us.  Our lives and liberty depend upon the continuation and furtherance of an American spirit broad and accepting enough for all.

To understand what the Attorney General does, click HERE.

For an admittedly partisan but fairly accurate summary of how the Attorney General impacts our nation, click HERE.

For thirty days before 08 November 2016, I posted a link on social media to the video tape of the now-president-elect mocking a disabled reporter.  Last night, Meryl Streep killed her Golden Globe speech before a packed house and an adoring nation by condemning Trump for his sickening conduct.

The president-elect responded by calling Streep “an over-rated actress” and denying that his contorted arms and exaggerated grimace had been intended as mockery of the reporter’s disability.

Way to go, DT.  You’ve mastered what we jokingly claimed to learn in law school: If you can’t pound on the law, pound on the facts.  If you can’t pound on the facts, pound on your opponent.

75,000,000 Americans and the rest of the world know that Trump meant not only to mock that reporter’s disability but to imply that his impairment prevented accurate recall and perception.  Believe me, I instantly understood DT’s intent. I don’t have to be a mind-reader, as he implied last night.  I walked the streets of Jennings, Missouri as a handicapped child in a family with no car.  Boys from my parish would linger twenty feet behind me, flailing their arms and stuttering through contorted faces, their legs criss-crossed as they staggered forward.

I recognized those boys in Trump’s performance.  Like Meryl Streep, I flinched as his act pierced my heart.  I played the video of Trump mocking that reporter over and over, a growing fear spreading its chill through my veins.  Surely no one of any intelligence or compassion would think this guy has the maturity and character to assume the highest office in our nation?  

Yet 64,000,000 people did.  I find myself riding in elevators glancing nervously to my left and right, worried that I am surrounded by people who think making fun of us disabled persons doesn’t signify a bully-mentality.

And lest you mistake Trump’s revisionist account of his performance for anything but devious malarkey, please read this article on gas-lighting.

I didn’t see Meryl Streep’s speech live because I had house-guests.  After the last one left and I had finished loading the dishwasher, I climbed the stairs to my bedroom.  I thanked God that I can still do that, since my lovely upstairs sanctuary with its 100-year old pine-clad walls and cathedral ceiling lured me into buying this house in the first place.  I moved around the room, taking off jewelry, finding something soft to ease over my swollen joints, watching a recorded Food Network show with the sound off.  Finally, I laid down and scrolled through Facebook, discovering that no less than five of my friends had tagged me in a repost of the Streep speech.

My tribe.  How well they understand my outrage at anyone who disparages those of us with disabilities, from the woman who parks in the handicapped space without plates or placard because she’s “just going to be inside for five minutes” to the presidential candidate who contorts his body to get a laugh from the fans whom he has deluded into think he and he alone can make America great.

The man who defends himself yet again by levying a completely baseless ad hominen attack on she who bravely stood and pointed dead-on at the Emperor’s naked body.

I’ve got news for Donald Trump.  America has always been great — not because of you, but in spite of you and your kind.  Americans rise above people like you, despite our crippled legs.  We succeed, despite the fact that we learned English as a second language.  We persevere, and we survive, and we will survive your four years too.  We will stand together, in our cities, and our neighborhoods; our tenements and our townhouses — disabled and able-bodied; native-born and immigrant; young and old; gay,  straight, trans-gender and gender-fluid; black, white, Hispanic and Asian.

And if we need to stand together to protect ourselves from our own president, we will do that too.

We know, for sure, that we can count on Hollywood to stand with us.

PS:  I’m not the only one to call DT a “gas-lighter”. Click HERE.