Several years ago, a lawyer friend of mine explained the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United. The concept that campaign donations were expressions of free speech challenged my belief in common sense and semantics. But he painstakingly explained the Court’s rationale. The Justices cited the First Amendment and a body of precedents that were well established in contract law. My friend patiently explained that the Judicial Branch interprets the law but does not make the law. In other words, my problem with equating money with speech should be directed at Congress, rather than the Supreme Court Justices. So, I redirected my angst towards Congress and the obvious requirement for campaign finance reform. Corporations may be treated like people in contractual agreements and in their monetary expression of support for candidates, but their campaign donations can still be limited or even eliminated by Congress. For example, Congress could establish tomorrow that all Federal elections will be financed by public funds.

Yesterday, the Justices approved the latest iteration of the President’s travel ban against Muslims in deference to the President’s Constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. The President is after all the Commander-and-Chief. And Congress has always acknowledged the powers of the President to determine what best serves our national security. Therefore, the Justices ignored the political context and adhered strictly to established precedence. Previously, the lower courts had considered the President’s words to establish his intent in prohibiting immigration from Muslim nations. After a series of court injunctions, the Administration adjusted its “Muslim ban” to limit immigration from nations that it assessed not equal to the vetting standards of the United States. Also, the Administration softened its more inclusive “travel ban” by touting a Visa waver program for the seven nations subject to its restrictions. The Justices chose to ignore the obvious intent behind this third iteration of the Administration’s angst with Muslims. Instead, they accepted the analysis presented by the Government that there was a national security interest involved. At the same time, they stated their expectation that Visa wavers would be used as promised.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has always deferred to the Presidency in foreign affairs and to the Congress in its Constitutional powers to declare war, ratify foreign treaties, and limit the exercise of Presidential actions (like imposing tariffs). Congress, of course, could limit the reach of the President’s powers in foreign affairs. Clearly, it has chosen not to do so. It never bothered to authorize drone strikes within the borders of sovereign nations, the practice of international surveillance of foreign leaders whether allies or adversaries, or the use of missile strikes and troop deployments against rogue nations. These precedents belie the fact that the Constitution reserves for Congress the authority to declare war and to legislate the limits of Government intrusion into personal privacy both here and abroad. So, here again, the Justices followed precedence established in practice and traced to a non-specific Constitutional authority granted the President in the exercise of foreign affairs.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled against the assessment of labor union dues on non-union civil servants in city, county, and state governments. There has been a long-standing disagreement on the fairness of charging non-union members for that portion of union dues associated with the collective benefits won on behalf of all employees. But the Constitution would seem to vindicate the employee who feels the union does not speak for him/her on the grounds of the free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment. I believe this decision will be conclusive and unchallenged, that is, become settled law. But Congress could have ameliorated this dispute decades ago by adhering to the Constitution and relieving companies from the obligation to provide collective bargaining benefits to non-union members. Of course, such legislation would have disrupted labor/management relations. But it would have forced a more honest cost/benefit analysis of union participation. Bargaining then would have to include the interests of all civil servants in labor/management negotiations.

You may conclude that blaming Congress in these matters is patently unfair. Also, you might feel that the issues are just too unwieldly and potentially explosive for our legislators. But if I asked you why you feel legislators cannot deal with these issues, you might be forced to reconsider. The answer to that question could be manifold: the absence of political will; fear of voter blowback; obeisance to Party positions; pressure from powerful lobbyists; loss of large single-issue campaign donors; bad press; and an inability to explain complex issues to constituents. You might even acknowledge all these suppositions as legitimate political considerations. And you would be right. But consider what is missing in these political considerations—specifically, any attempt to address the problem. We could have, instead, campaign reform that eliminates the growing threat of a kleptocracy. We could also improve the “meritocracy” of our immigration system without enforcing ethnic, racial, or religious discrimination. (Yes, I’m excusing the Administration’s national security justification as just a ruse to appease the Court.) And we could actually improve labor-management relations by honoring the vote of all employees in determining the outcome of labor/management negotiations.

Nobody would consider playing football on a hockey rink. But Congress consistently legislates in the arena of its own political context rather than on the field of the people’s public forum. Of course, the political concerns surrounding re-election and Party politics have an undeniable influence on politicians. But these concerns should not be the governing influence in determining what benefits the American people. Occasionally, we identify legislators’ public interest with bi-partisan behavior. I would agree that bi-partisan behavior usually implies compromise. And compromise is required for Congress to serve the full spectrum of over 330 million Americans. But too often what is compromised is one dead fish for another—my moldy mackerel for your calcified cod. President Clinton’s compromise with Speaker Gingrich, for example, won Republican support for parts of the President’s legislative agenda in exchange for cutting back a welfare program. (ADFC, an ongoing welfare program for families with children, became TANF, a temporary welfare program with a 5-year limit.) Although Clinton presided over an internet fueled economic expansion, his legislative agenda eliminated support for many poor families with children and paved the way for a decade of multiple recessions in 2001 and 2008 as a result of his signing the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999. In this instance, compromise was a lose-lose proposition. An example of a win-win compromise would be a bill that funded rebuilding America’s infrastructure. The initial investment would be justified both by the jobs created and by the resources needed to promote productivity and future economic expansion. Both labor and management would benefit. And both Republican and Democratic constituents would benefit as well.

Consider the wrangling in Congress over healthcare reform, DACA, immigration reform, budgets, and so on. What are the results of these political contests? We hear many distortions, accusations, and one-sided policy proposals. What we do not hear are legislative proposals that solve problems or benefit Americans. Instead, Congress reduces healthcare subsidies and the availability of some preventive healthcare practices. It shaves three years off Medicare’s financial longevity. It fails to legislate a path to citizenship for DACA dreamers or even their security from the threat of deportation. Meanwhile, Congress does nothing to check the Administration’s zero tolerance policy that results in mass deportations, many of which violate American due process and international asylum laws. The inhuman practice of removing children from their parents and placing them in internment camps is a key ingredient in this immigration policy as its primary deterrent. Some members of Congress are investigating and empathizing but seem unable to do anything constructive to undo these crimes. And Congress acts as a rubber stamp for the Administration’s fiscal policy that creates annual trillion-dollar deficits over the next ten years. You might ask why Congress should be blamed for this rogue Presidency. A cynic would reply that Congress is captive to its political leadership and that its Republican majority is afraid of losing the President’s support in the mid-term elections. And that analysis would be correct. It is also mired in a swamp of cynicism!

America’s judicial system seems to be the only branch of government that is working. But it is handicapped by a distracted and very partisan Congress more concerned about holding onto political power than legislating solutions for America’s problems. Congress has become complicit in Trump’s radical attempt to undo the checks and balances built into our form of government. While it stands idyll, children are suffering in internment camps and our DACA neighbors face deportation to foreign countries. Meanwhile, the fate of these children and our American raised neighbors will depend on the courts because Congress refuses to legislate.

As I write this blog, there is nothing prohibiting Congress to pass laws that protect children from being separated from their parents and that formalize humane and just processing of immigrants at our southern border. It could also legalize DACA and provide a path to citizenship for its dreamers. Because of its inaction and political cynicism, it shames all Americans by making us complicit in the suffering of immigrants desperate to escape violence and of dreamers fearful of losing the only life they have ever known. The failure of our legislators to represent a better America handicaps progress, overwhelms our courts, abets a rogue administration, and shakes Americans’ belief in their government. They risk making cynics of us all, thereby creating a self-reinforcing circle of cynicism.

Just consider this: cynics could never have created America, its system of government, or its democratic institutions. But optimists did. We must become their contemporary counterparts who will run for office and/or vote in November.

A woman was attacked and beaten by her husband, repeatedly. When he threatened her little boy, she mustered what resources she had and left her home, her relatives, and her country. She carried that boy on her back or in her arms for over a thousand miles. She protected him as best she could from downpours and blistering heat. Months later, when she finally arrived at the U.S. border, she sighed a breath of relief. She told the uniformed guard at the border entry station that she came for asylum. The guard took her statement—and her son. After instructing her to board a bus, he had held back her son.

There are so many stories like hers that I no longer can remember how many days or weeks elapsed before this woman’s toddler was returned to her. But the joy on her face was undeniable as she clung to her son. Most of us can remember a like experience when our mother picked us up after a fall or, as a grownup, when our mother wrapped us in a bear hug after a lengthy time between holiday visits. Mothers are like that. But this woman was one of the lucky mothers. Her child seemed mostly normal—suffering only nightmares when he woke up screaming for his mother.

Another mother-detainee saw her child ripped from his father’s arms and disappeared for 85 days. With the help of a lawyer, she finally was reunited with her son, though she hardly recognized him. He was filthy and covered with lice. At first, he seemed not to recognize her. He was bawling and screaming for his mother. She said she felt like a woman at an orphanage, looking to adopt her own son. Eventually, she was able to quiet and comfort her little guy. She cleaned him, dressed him, spoke gently and reassuringly to him. But he acted like he was still living in terror. He refused to leave her side, even for a moment. If she let loose of his hand, he would immediately start crying. His determent was now a permanent verdict—at least for the foreseeable future and perhaps beyond. Psychologists tell us that his trauma is more likely a life sentence.

The Trump Administration’s border policy is an attack against the sacred bonds of family, to include mothers and the most vulnerable amongst us, children. If 70,000 years of homo sapiens existence has taught us anything at all, it is that familial bonds are at the very heart of our common nature. That bond enables us to cooperate with and relate to other humans with understanding and compassion. We are all born of woman and reared in families. Raising and protecting family is the impetus that drove hunter gatherers, tool makers, and caretakers to form those larger bonds that gave us communities, nations, and empires. Without human families, we would no longer be human, but just another animal species, merely seeking to survive and extend the gene pool. We would never have considered sacrificing for other members of our species or organizing into a rules-based society to further its general welfare. As any sociologist would explain, families are the basic units of human society.

Separating children from families is inhuman. It pivots our species away from thousands of years of evolution. It denigrates what we have held as most sacred.

To make something sacred is to make it holy, as reflected in the word “sacrifice” (from the Latin, sacer, “holy,” and facere, “to make”). A woman carrying a small child over a thousand miles to secure her child’s safety sacrifices her body. Mohammed sacrificed to protect families and the Islamic community. Jesus sacrificed his humanity to protect his followers. And Siddhartha Gautama believed in and exemplified compassion for others. Like Jesus and Mohammed, he believed all humans were born with the potential to be good or evil. He taught that our “true nature” was pure, wise and perfect. I cannot think of a better definition of humanistic aspiration, though these mothers exemplify the reality. Could they make a more eloquent expression of the sacredness of humanity? Can we?

The events of the last few weeks have driven me into a writer’s block. How has America so twisted itself into this distorted funhouse mirror image? We are now gazing into a self-image reflective of 20th century horrors like Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Karl Marx was a humanist who never anticipated that a communist society would become a soulless totalitarian state. And Nietzsche, likewise, was a humanist who could never have imagined Hitler and the extermination of six million Jews. Perhaps the seeds of America’s fall can be seen in its very beginning. Imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment and the writings of social philosophers like Rousseau and Locke, Jefferson wrote that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” But Jefferson was a slave holder. And the founders of our democratic republic were mostly aristocrats. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was the Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates of his time. His Franklin Institute persisted for a hundred years on the bounty created by his will. (It still exists today, though on its own merits.)

If we really want to understand our heritage we must recognize that it is an ideal to be realized. After a hot Philadelphia summer in 1787, Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention and confronted the question that was on every patriot’s mind. “What form of government did you create for us?” He responded, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The preamble of the very Constitution he signed states its purpose as aspirational, “in order to form a more perfect union.” In truth, America began with slavery and lived through the Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow, Women’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, and myriad migration “crises” from the Chinese rail worker camps, the potato famine in Ireland, Eastern European displacements, and so on. The greatness of America is in its ideals and the willingness of its citizens to make those ideals its reality. In the past, we have been challenged by our prejudices, our crassness, and our tribalism. But we were able to respond to enlightened leadership and discover our better natures. What does seem different today is not just the absence of a Washington or Lincoln, but a government that represents our interests and our founding ideals. How could Jeffersonian humanism run so afoul as to produce immigrant internment camps, tender age shelters, and refugee tent cities? Maybe the answer is related to what happened to humanism in the 20th century.

I stated above that Nietzsche was a humanist. He is famously remembered for saying, “God is dead.” In place of that sacred personage, he elevated the super human whose will to gain power is expressed in intelligence, self-mastery, and creativity. Only this super human, he thought, would survive evolutionary selection. Although his evolutionary humanism spoke eloquently of human potential, Hitler falsified its import to justify his persecution of those he deemed inferior to the Aryan race. But Nietzsche was not advocating power over others, but power over oneself to attain personal superiority. His super human was a sacred ideal that required total commitment, in other words, a personal sacrifice. It raised the bar of “sacredness” and demanded more of the individual human to attain it. But would he hold the less accomplished among us as sacred? I suspect not. Hitler, of course, exploited that gap in Nietzsche’s thinking to establish only the Aryan race as superior. He would have agreed with Trump in considering brown people as an “infestation” that should be punished (zero tolerance) and separated from the superior race by imprisonment in internment camps, even “tender age shelters.” Trump’s initial solution for Latino immigrants at our southern border—to deport the parents and institutionalize their offspring—is a step less harsh than Auschwitz, but in the same vein. He demonstrates no respect for them as human beings.

Karl Marx was a contemporary of Nietzsche, though 26 years older. He believed that human history was created by the activity of human labor, not by ideas or religious ideals. Famously, he said of religion, “it is the opium of the people,” or simply an illusion to assuage depression and suffering. His economic theories glorified the role of labor and, differing from Adam Smith, he believed capitalism would self-destruct under the weight of class suppression of the proletariat. Once the proletariat rose up to seize the means of production, a new classless, egalitarian society would emerge. This society would represent another type of humanism, one represented by the collective. As a social philosophy, communism became quite popular by the beginning of the 20th century. But its actual application required an authoritative system to assure its uniform enforcement. In effect, this requirement was an open invitation for any authoritarian ruler or dictator who might clothe himself in the mantle of the state.

Trump identifies with a collective—his base—that mirrors his propensities, while ignoring the diversity within America as a whole. It is not the means of production he wants to overthrow, but the wheels of power. When he says he wants to “drain the swamp,” he means whoever stands between him and his authority. Europeans recognize this Trump predilection as the bullying tendency of a nationalist leader. He openly admires strong leaders who wield absolute power over a nation. Putin, one of his idols, maintains his power by a system of thought control or propaganda and persecution. Trump likewise attempts to control public perception with his tweets and outrageous attacks on all who oppose him. As Russia replaced Marx’s idealism with the anvil of state totalitarianism, Trump seems committed to rule America’s “teaming masses” by suppressing the free press, controlling the justice department, and transforming the Executive Branch into the single source of state power.

Recently, elected officials—mayors, House Representatives, and Senators—have been refused admittance to immigrant internment camps. They told press reporters that the “government” refused their request for admittance. But they are our government! Trump heads the Executive Branch and is Commander-and-Chief of the military. But he is not the government, as much as he might pretend to be. Most Americans, I believe, would not be willing to concede that much authority to this President.

As human culture drifted away from its god-centered axis after the scientific revolution, it experimented with differing human-centered world views. Collective humanism and evolutionary humanism rose and fell with communism and nationalist socialism. Marx was discredited with the advancement of capitalism. Nietzsche is largely forgotten. Hitler was defeated. And the Soviet Union collapsed. In their place, the human individual, personal freedom, equal opportunity and personal well-being became more dominant as sacred ideals. They comprise individual humanism. From “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to liberte, egalite, fraternite, the ideas of the Enlightenment have dominated western civilization. Certainly, they were held as sacred by the end of the 18th century when America declared its independence from a monarchy and have become more so with the advancement of the Western Democracies. America has suffered wars and treasure to promote this form of humanism in the world. Today we call the result of its sacrifice the Pax Americana. The question before us today is whether that world order can survive Donald Trump.

Trump has strived to undermine this international expression of humanism. He will not adhere to treaties, the world court, or to any rules-based system designed for the resolution of trade disputes, the establishment of economic order, and the peaceful resolution of border disputes. Included in his agnostic position on world order is his withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council. That withdrawal coincides with his current zero tolerance immigration policy. He has put America in clear violation of human rights alongside such pariahs as North Korea and Syria. Separating children from parents is not only inhuman but recognized as such by most people and the community of nations. It reveals a man with no moral center and makes one wonder how he won the vote of some 62 million Americans.

The writer’s block I mentioned at the outset of this blog was not the result of a loss of words, but of a tsunami of thought lines. (I spared you my usual rant about money in politics.) Since passion is one of my motivators, it became maddeningly difficult to focus between anger and sorrow. I watched as a commentator unraveled on TV while attempting to read a breaking news report about tender age shelters. I saw children being escorted after midnight to shelters in far flung corners of America. Our own government was clandestinely hiding its actions. Elected officials were being turned away at the entrance of government internment camps. These are not the type of events we accept in a free and open society. And then there were those distraught mothers and crying children. As I cried along, my mind was blown with the realization that nobody knows how to right this wrong. One man’s decision has ruined the lives of thousands. And that man was elected by us.

A year and a half ago I wrote a blog entitled “Optimism for a Trump Presidency.” In it, I tried to make the case for that optimism. Today, that case has been trashed. Our hope for America rests with women who abhor the treatment of women under this President, with young people who protest the absence of common sense gun laws, with the one remaining branch of government willing to uphold our system of laws, and with the next elections. There are 62 million Americans who have put their faith in a man who shows no respect for humanity.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

It is my honor, as a humble writer of fiction, to interview the power behind the Presidency. He stands before me, an imposing figure, hooded and draped in a black flowing robe. Most are afraid to acknowledge his presence and even fewer dare to address him. He is known as the Trump Whisperer. And he has agreed to this interview which follows:

Sir, I’m not sure how to address you. Do you have a name?

I am who President Trump is. He is my physical representation, what I want the world to see. You know, the one who can make America great again!
____________

Yeah, I’ve heard that line before. Then you and the President are the same? How does that work?

You’ve never heard of an alter ego? I write the tweets. When I’m silent, you see the pantomime of a President sitting in the oval office or reading from a teleprompter. That’s one image, but I’m the reality. I’m showtime!
___________

Are you saying that prepared speeches and staged events are just image stagecraft and have less real content than the tweets and off-the-cuff remarks which are the main event, the show?

Your question reveals your naivete. The show, as you call it, is always top billing . . . the greatest show on earth. The media companies would go broke without me. Who wants policy initiatives or detailed analysis of legislation. Americans want to hear that their President is “for the working man,” “against illegal aliens taking their jobs,” and “focused on protecting the American people from foreign threats and trade rip-offs.” My presidency is probably the greatest of all time. It IS the greatest. We’ve accomplished more in our first year than any Presidency in history: tax cuts, court appointees—including the Supreme Court, record highs in the stock market, record high employment, and the return of American power throughout the world. America was dying. I’ve saved it. Only I could’ve done that!
___________

But policy initiatives that contradict your taglines undermine their message. I can illustrate this contradiction for you. For example, tax reform that increases economic inequality and increases the national debt by 5 percent per year is a reality that will have a negative effect on low and middle-income Americans. Also, undocumented workers contribute to the economy and pay taxes while foreign trade tends to keep inflation under check by providing low costs goods. Besides, America has been at full employment since before your Presidency. We are still riding the wave of recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression and World War II. That recovery lasted for the better part of two decades. Your recent tariffs and tax policy threaten the current recovery. While the nation’s budget devotes 600 billion dollars to national defense, there is practically nothing in the budget for job re-training or for stimulating any wage increases. Your policies hinder or even decrease support for public education, business competition, reduction of college tuition costs, protection of our natural resources, fair housing practices, healthcare reform, and the liberal international order that has helped secure the peace for the last 70 years.

Americans don’t care about your liberal “order.” They know what counts. And they support what I’m doing. The stock market is up; we have the highest employment in history; an overseas outfit is relocating to Topeka like so many other companies; employers have increased their Christmas bonuses; and many great things are happening. You liberals don’t understand what makes America great. But I do!
__________

Okay, I’ll take the bait. What does make America great?

Wealth! We need money—lots of money—circulating throughout the economy. That’s why we encourage investment and business growth. It’s just that simple. The people who’ll contribute to my re-election know this. My voters know this. The men I’ve put in my cabinet know this. Everybody knows this—including you. And my Republican colleagues know this too. They have no choice but to support me. Democrats can complain. But they have no voice in this Administration unless they play by my rules. Most Americans with 401Ks also know we’re on the right track. They’ve done well, unbelievably well. And that’s thanks to me! Only I can do what I do.
__________

Most Americans don’t have 401Ks. As the President of all Americans shouldn’t you be focused on the general welfare? After World War II, the government gave tax incentives to promote education from K-12 to the G.I. bill, affordable housing, and job growth for millions of returning soldiers and depressed households who sacrificed to maintain the war effort. The top tax rate then was 90%. But the wealthy class still prospered. The country experienced one of the greatest economic expansions in its history. Does it not make more sense to promote the general welfare? Is not the benefit of the many also the benefit of the few?

No! Look, I’ve made billions. Probably I’m the only one who can make America great again. I’ve created jobs for thousands of people. My buildings provide services for many more. What do you know? You write fiction books, right? Did you make any money with those books?
__________

You’ve got me there. Is it alright if we change the subject? Two days from now you will be meeting with Kim Jong Un to discuss denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. What does denuclearization mean to you? And does it mean the same thing to North Korea’s Supreme Leader?

Are you a journalist? Is that supposed to be some kind of tricky question? Everybody knows what denuclearization means: no nukes and no missiles, especially ICBMs that can reach us. President Un knows that we can annihilate North Korea.
__________

No, I’m not a journalist, just a poor novelist. But I must point out that the North Korean Supreme Leader—or, as your counterpart, President Kim—has never shown any interest in denuclearization as we may define the term. In fact, he has continued the development of the nuclear program started by his grandfather and continued by his father. Why would he give up his nukes now?

He has no choice. No previous President—and especially Obama—had the guts to back up our words with actions. I brought Kim down a notch with sanctions. And I reminded him that I have a bigger nuclear button—a much bigger nuclear button-than his.
__________

You do know that previous administrations also sanctioned North Korea. Clinton, Bush, and Obama did so. Also, Clinton and Bush brought North Korea to the negotiating table and even signed agreements, which the North Koreans quickly violated. They agreed in bad faith: took billions of dollars from the West and continued development of their nuclear capabilities. Unlike the Iran deal, there never was a verifiable program to assure their compliance. How will you obtain a realistic verification agreement that will assure compliance?

The Iran deal was the worst deal in history. Iran cheated. They got billions. We got nothing.
__________

The verification regime imposed on Iran was the strictest ever imposed on any signatory of the Non-Proliferation Pact. And it was verified by the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations. Its compliance was concurred by all signatories, including the intelligence institutions of the United States.

That Iran deal—the worst deal ever made by a U.S. President—never addressed Iran’s behavior in the Middle East. Look at what they’ve done in Syria and the threat they present to Israel, our closest ally.
__________

Does your position then intend to stop North Korea from selling their nuclear technology to other rogue regimes and attacking countries, including America, with their cyber espionage as they have done in the past?

Yes, of course . . . all that stuff has to stop. Remember, I’m giving them a path to rejoin the world community and to rebuild their nation. Imagine a Starbucks in Pyongyang, even a McDonalds.
__________

Boeing just lost a potential contract with Iran due to your action in canceling the Iran deal. Before that deal, America had very little trade with Iran. Because America holds the world currency, we were able to freeze their credit. Iran’s capital held in world banks was not only frozen but used to pay off accumulated interest. The Iran deal allowed them to reclaim their money but at a significant lost. It also allowed them to resume trade with Europe, their main trading partner, and to gain the promise of trade with America. Given North Korea’s isolation from world markets, how would we convince our Western allies to create trade markets that they never had with North Korea? Or do you propose that the U.S. alone could equal or supplant China as a major trade partner?

China is their main trading partner today. But the U.S. market is much bigger. We have more to offer. And North Korea is one of the richest countries in untapped reserves of minerals and other resources. If they agree to denuclearization, their future will be great, really beautiful. Just look at South Korea. What we’ve done with the South, we can do with the North. I offer Kim a future. But he can choose annihilation instead . . . that’s his choice.
__________

After America dropped out of the Iran deal, do you expect the world will believe or support any North Korean deal you negotiate? Perhaps more relevant, why should North Korea believe you would keep any promise, unless they just want to string along negotiations for whatever gain they can obtain? And, given China’s trade relations with North Korea, do you expect them to support any deal the U.S. can obtain without China’s support in the negotiations? And, finally, would you expect Russia to assist with the negotiations or altruistically to support any deal the U.S. can obtain? Remember China and Russia are nuclear powers who share a border with North Korea. And both countries have supported North Korea: China provides a life line of energy and vital resources; and Russia supplied the missile technology that enabled North Korea to develop ICBM’s, well ahead of our intelligence community’s estimates of 3-5 years. They succeeded just last year.

Xi Jinping and Putin have been supportive of what I’m doing. And European leaders want a denuclearized North Korea. They will follow my lead. Look, Kim Jong-un has no choice. He has no choice. We can make North Korea a wasteland. He has no choice.
__________

So far in this discussion, you have made no mention of South Korea or Japan. South Korea is particularly vulnerable. Even if the North agrees to some level of denuclearization, Seoul faces decimation from hundreds of howitzers aimed at its heart. And the rest of South Korea would suffer millions of casualties from a conventional war. Likewise, Japan is in range of thousands of short range missiles which have already been tested in fly-overs of Japan’s cities. Would any nuclear agreement with North Korea address this conventional military threat to our allies?

This summit is on, for now. Let’s see what happens.
__________

Since the Korean War, the North has never relented on its mission to conquer the South and reunite all of Korea under its rule, would America sign a Peace Treaty without assurances that North Korea would not and, most importantly, could not invade the South?

There would not be a Peace Treaty without those assurances.
__________

But how would we assure that North Korea abides by such an agreement? Would we continue military support of the South? Considering the likelihood that North Korea would never sign an agreement that allowed an American military presence on the peninsula, would we not be forced to demand a de-escalation of North Korea’s military threat to the South? Mutual de-escalation of both conventional and nuclear weaponry would be required. And how would we verify both their denuclearization and military de-escalation? Would we seek third party support—from the U.N., South Korea, China, or even Russia?

We’ll see what happens.
__________

Finally, Mr. President, you have said that you have prepared for these negotiations all your life and that you will know in the first minutes of your face-to-face meeting with Kim Jong-Un whether he is serious about a deal. If in that initial moment, your gut told you he was not serious, would you quit the summit?

Of course. I’ve already done so once.
__________

Then what recourse would there be for any attempt to denuclearize Korea?

Let’s see what happens first.
__________

With those closing words, the Trump Whisperer vanished, like Hamlet’s ghost. I felt it was “most like” what Horatio saw and described, “It harrows me with fear and wonder.” It did, however, have “that flair and warlike form” which promised a death-dealing tragedy would most likely follow its appearance. What was it really?

Well, it could be living proof that Julian Jaynes’ theory of the bicameral mind can still appear as an evolutionary aberration or throwback to the late second millennium B.C. Humans, according to Jaynes, were then not capable of conscious discernment as we know it now. The collateral transmission of representative thought to conscious speech had not yet evolved in the human brain. So, humans then heard voices, like the Trump Whisperer, that dictated words and actions without any judgment or intermediary reflection in the frontal lobe. If true, then the President cannot be held accountable for what his Whisperer says and does.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of us. Sad!

Juvenal, a Roman poet, coined the phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses). But circenses did not have clowns in the first century A.D. Instead, the Roman Colosseum staged executions, animal attacks on slaves, and bloody gladiator contests, all of which passed as entertainment at the time. The phrase took on a distinct political connotation when Roman Senators, like Cicero, used it stealthily to pass controversial legislation. Rome’s citizens barely noticed what the Senate was doing, as long as food and entertainment were freely available. American legislators also know the strategic value of this Roman sleight-of-hand trick. Panem et circenses, in contemporary parlance, translates to tax cuts and a playbill of litigious debates, outlandish name-calling, conspiracy yarns, and/or scandal investigations. How, you might ask, has this Latin phrase become relevant today?

Although the government’s recent tax legislation mainly benefited the wealthy, it did provide some tax relief for the less prosperous. For example, some Trump voters averaging $72,000 per year in income might see as much as a $70 to $100 increase in their monthly pay checks (depending on their overall tax status). Low income earners, however, will experience little or no tax relief. By design, the biggest tax savings will be in 2018, an election year. And, except for the wealthy, the tax savings decrease year over year until they are phased out after ten years. At that point, everybody’s taxes will increase, except for corporate America and the super wealthy whose tax rate remains the same in perpetuity. If income and wealth inequality were concerns before 2018, they will become irremediable by 2028.

This inappropriately called “tax reform” is like throwing loaves of bread to the crowd gathering before the Roman Senate. It may feed the masses’ present appetite but starve their future. While the previous Administration cut the trillion-dollar deficits of its predecessor by two-thirds, the current Administration has reintroduced trillion-dollar deficits with its first budget for fiscal year 2018 and for all succeeding years into the foreseeable future. These deficits are self-made, not the result of war or recession. The result has been Increased Federal Reserve borrowing and, eventually, higher interest rates for auto loans, mortgages, and business investments. The economy’s recovery from the Great Recession will stall, along with the Stock Market which will become more volatile and at risk for a major setback. These deficits also will advance the case for cuts in retirement programs, healthcare, and any Federal support for infrastructure. This type of “tax reform” does promote wealth in corporate America and amongst the already well-heeled, but at the expense of American fiscal solvency, the overall economy, and the future welfare of most Americans. Should we feel placated by this tax relief—or just duped?

Meanwhile, the news media is fed a constant diet of conspiracies, policy chaos, fear-mongering, diatribe, and scandal. Late night comedians no longer need to create material for our entertainment. Their satire is pre-written in the daily news cycle by the misadventures of Congress and the White House. The Roman Colosseum glorified in physical violence but was no less contentious or chaotic than the mayhem in our current politics. The ring leader at center stage is a former reality show entertainer. He provides us with a constant display of loyalty tests in his hiring and firing antics, of ad hoc and ill-considered policies, of twitter fantasies, of legislative bricks, of short-sighted or illegal executive orders, and of preposterous “deep state” conspiracy theories. While it may bemuse the body politic, his real purpose is to distract us. As a result, we may fail to notice that his culpable malfeasance and manipulative propaganda are dragging America like an insidious undertow into the depths of chaos. Are we entertained by the show—or just stupefied?

But why are we being duped and stupefied? The answer becomes apparent when we change the “why” to “who”—specifically, who benefits?

In Timothy Snyder’s short treatise, “On Tyranny,” he states that “the Founding Fathers sought to avoid the evil that they, like the ancient philosophers, called tyranny.” Specifically, those philosophers warned us of the instability that grows out of inequality and the exploitation of a demagogue’s opportunism. But do we really need to read Aristotle or Plato to learn about tyranny. In recent times, we have witnessed the rise of oligarchies and dictatorships. The 20th century world wars alone should have taught us all we need to know about the evils of government supported inequality—whether ethnic, religious, or economic—and the dangers of morally challenged demagogues. These men (yes, they are all men) tell us who to scapegoat for troubled times—any group that differs from them in race, gender, ethnic origin, class, political ideals or religious affiliations. And, of course, they denigrate all who might oppose them, whether the press, opposing parties, or the courts. Their avowed purpose is to make us believe that only they can fix what ails us. In the words of our President, only he can stop the “losing” and make us and America “winners” again. And when he throws crumbs to the masses—like tax relief—be wary of the cupboard left bare. For it is not your benefit that he seeks, but his own. Personal power, fame, and enrichment are his only goals. Whatever “ism” or promise he rides to power is only a ruse, a con, and a lie. His only guiding principle is winning a zero-sum game where his opponents are vanquished. History tells us so. Nationalist socialism, communism, and fascism all rode a form of populism to dictatorships. Maybe it is time to heed the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

Donald Trump should not be underestimated. He is neither the glorified change agent or cult hero his followers love, nor the devil incarnate or destroyer of representative democracy. He is, however, a clever operator and opportunist who earned his position of power by capitalizing on the failing state of constructive politics in America. His ability to win the Presidential election was not the result of business acumen or deal making ability, but of self-promotion—specifically, of a well-advertised brand. His use of “truthful hyperbole” or imaginative realities were never policy positions that spoke to fundamental change, but fabrications that appealed to and inflamed long held feelings within an aggrieved portion of the electorate. What grievance would justify voting for an opportunist demagogue with a morally bankrupt past? Well, the answer should not surprise any American: he took advantage of an existent morally bankrupt and opportunistic political system.

The irony in this answer is my own belief that most of our elected officials are not personally immoral. But they ARE opportunistic in their pursuit of re-election: fund raising requires their advocacy for the interests of the donor class and for the euphemist campaign stratagems of Party leadership over the interests and general welfare of the electorate. Maybe the ultimate euphemism in the last election was Trump’s “make America great again.” Behind that campaign slogan lurked his promises (1) to appease Evangelicals with a Supreme Court nominee who might sway the Court to repeal Rowe vs. Wade and (2) to secure the safety of Americans with a border wall and a Muslim travel ban. In truth, the demagogue-in-chief is not concerned with the cohesion of these promises with his four-word campaign slogan. The separation of church and state is enshrined in our Constitution. Just as no law can force an evangelical woman to get an abortion; no woman can be refused an abortion on religious grounds. Likewise, there is no statistically relevant evidence implying that immigrants or Muslims have endangered Americans. The over-turning of our Constitutional separation of church and state or the provisioning of a border wall and travel ban are no more likely to make America great than Don Quixote’s assault on a windmill made him a great conquistador.

A campaign slogan may sound good, but, as a euphemism, it is just an alluring fantasy. The fact that most, if not all, politicians subscribe to such alluring fantasies translates into a demeaning political discourse where fiction overrules fact, generalities substitute for practicalities, and emotionally-charged demagoguery wins over reasoned argument and honest persuasion. A successful campaign slogan is malleable and can be applied to any cause that might appeal to specific voter groups, like Evangelicals worried about the lives of the unborn or rural homogeneous white communities fearful of Mexican workers or Muslim terrorists. A successful campaign slogan is not subject to analysis for it is too amorphous to be critiqued in detail. Its purpose is not to inform but to persuade. Its content is not a specific or realistic policy, but any general issue to which voters may be emotionally attached. It operates as a generic reference to prejudices, fears, or all possible dreamscapes, like everybody’s vision of a great America. (Have you ever experienced a timeshare sales presentation?)

If it is unfair to call politicians personally immoral, the same cannot be said for the campaign system that overrules their decisions and conduct in office. That system must change. Simply voting for a disruptor will not suffice, especially a self-serving opportunist. Because of term limits, we will outlast his time in office. But America may not outlast its electoral system. Both political parties now fall under the sway of purchased propaganda, paid campaign operatives, expensive analytics, and the need to attract otherwise expensive media coverage with provocative, though enticingly quotable, remarks—however hyperbolic, irreverent, or unrealistic. And now foreign adversaries can sling mud in our campaign cesspool as well. We must establish public funding and regulation of our campaigns. Yes, I am still advocating for Federal election reform (reference “American Revolution 2016”).

How did Americans fall prey to panem et circenses? Why are we so easily manipulated by politicians and special interests—even foreign adversaries? Well, more than a few political pundits and armchair philosophers have tried to answer this question. Perhaps Americans are so invested in jobs, family, shopping, and entertainment that they have little time for politics. Though we may have busy lives, we must become an informed electorate else risk severing ties to our democratic roots and drifting aimlessly into troubled waters. Our individual future is tied to America’s future. Our investment in civic duties is really a matter of self-preservation. Maybe the humanist ideals at the heart of America no longer inspire us to take responsibility for our form of government.

Humanism has more than one face. In America, it has evolved to cross several divides. Equality, for instance, can imply equal opportunity rather than identical gifts and capabilities. Social collectives of religious, ethnic, or race can avoid conflict and overcome differences by respecting each other’s common rights. And even the physically or mentally disabled can contribute more to society than their genetic inheritance. Personal freedom and equality are not frozen ideals and can be every citizen’s inheritance. But the wisdom gained from the Enlightenment must continue to evolve, else we risk veering off-course. For example, both political Parties reflect aspects of the same founding principles. Conservatives are just on one end of the liberal scale, as liberals are on another end of the conservative scale. Both sides must adhere to our founding principles, or risk being radical and un-American. For example, any attempt to undermine our democratic institutions is radical. In the same vein, any attempt to suppress dialogue and debate in our legislature can become un-American to the extent that it limits representation. Any attempt to undermine free elections or deny the right to vote is radical. Any attempt to undermine the rule of law is radical. Any attempt to gain political power in collusion with a foreign adversary is radical and possibly treasonous.

Both American conservatives and liberals agree on how to form a more perfect union. It is written in our founding documents. No monarch, Pope, Mullah or foreign adversary can dictate the future of this republic. So why would we ever yield to one of the oldest ploys in representative government to bait and distract an electorate? Ours is still a “government of the people, by the people, for the people (that) shall not perish” unless we let it. Self-serving politicians can be voted out of office; demagogues can be silenced by a fact-checking free press; and an informed electorate cannot be bamboozled by lies or manipulative propaganda. If our President and a complicit Congress choose to distract us with tax cuts while they undermine our fiscal and general welfare, we can still vote them out of office. We can still define our future and the further development of our democracy.

Children ask “why,” even before they have command of language. Behind their curiosity is a very human attribute—the presumption of an underlying meaning or intent. There have always been creation stories that explained the nature of our world and why it exists. For millennia, religious leaders answered that question. For the last 500 years, scientists have joined the chorus. But neither gods nor the laws of nature can fully explain why we humans do what we do. For we create our own history, our own governments, and our own laws. We define “right” and “wrong.” We are responsible and, therefore, liable for our actions. But those actions often defy logic or offer questionable benefit. For example, why do we form governments unresponsive to our needs? Why do we allow senseless violence in our midst? And why do we sometimes seem less capable of providing our children with the institutions and communities that would secure their future and demonstrate our love and care? We raise them to have better prospects than our own. But do we secure their safety and the promise of those prospects? It should be no surprise then that our children might want a better future than their parents had sufficient lifespan or wisdom to determine? They will naturally resist a future they did not choose or create for themselves. They will want change.

Our children ask “why” because they want to understand how it all works and how they fit into the fabric of human life and into the world they will occupy. What are the standards of behavior? What goals are allowed? What can be explored? And how is everyone held accountable for his/her decisions and actions? If you analyze the basis for each of these questions, you will arrive at the same place: the precarious balance between free will and a moral consciousness. But the awakening of a moral conscience may very well challenge existing apathy towards long-held beliefs and norms. With fresh eyes, the young will readily recognize contradictions between values and actions. They will exercise their power of free will with a righteous fervor. Nearly every generation of Americans have done so. They protest. They will demand change.

One of the Florida high schoolers asked why the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seem not to apply to the gun laws in America. He asked why our political leaders seem incapable of common sense gun laws designed to protect their constituents. This teenager was exercising his awakening moral consciousness and asking why these leaders could not or would not exercise their free will to support the moral basis for our free society. Why is Jefferson’s clarion call no longer heard? Perhaps, when civic service becomes subject to self-interest, when acquiring campaign funding becomes more important for reelection than demonstrating character and trustworthiness, when Party loyalty outweighs the good of the country, when well-healed donors determine the legislative agenda rather than the will of the electorate, when gun-lobbyists can dictate gun laws that favor gun sales over safety, then the moral consciousness of children will find fault and revolt. They may well expose not only the moral vacuity of our political leaders but the consequent corruption of our American system and betrayal of its founding principles. The fresh eyes of our children can see the contradiction. And they demand change.

Over two years ago, I wrote a blog entitled “American Revolution, 2016.” It proposed how we might turn back the effects of Citizens United by replacing “dark” money and large donor networks with public campaign funding. It also proposed a possible mechanism to focus campaigns on real issues rather than spin, scandal, and vacuous taglines. My purpose then was like the student protests over guns now. The right to own a gun is no less legal than the right to vote. But both rights must serve the general welfare as stipulated in our Constitution and exemplified in the Declaration of Independence’s definition of unalienable rights. Are these rights administered in a way that serves the general welfare? Our gun laws, for example, allow untrained and unqualified individuals to own guns, to purchase weapons of war that have no civilian application, and to store them unsafely and without inspection. By comparison, the legal structure of our electoral system permits gerrymandering, voter suppression, exaggerated influence of large campaign donors, subversive and divisive propaganda, and insufficient policing of existing campaign financing laws. Do you see how the failure to administer these rights properly are interrelated? A fast majority of voters may favor common sense gun laws that assure responsible ownership and safe use but find it impossible to vote their prescriptions for administering the Second Amendment.

Mass shootings in our schools have become commonplace. Do our children have to die before we recognize the corruption that has seeped into our political system? Our political will has been silenced at the voting booth. The majority vote no longer controls Congress or the White House. Special interests are attempting to control our government. The gun lobby is just one manifestation of a virulent cancer. To quote Benjamin Franklin, our founding fathers “created a Republic, if you can keep it.” We keep it by adhering to our moral compass, supporting our founding principles, and diligently rooting out corruption and subversive interests.

America requires each generation to rebalance the egalitarianism of its democracy with the self-driven interests of capitalism. Controlling the sale of guns in a manner that assures the safety of all our young school children could be the first step in a wider reform—a harbinger of a new era. In the sixties, a generation arose that repudiated an unjustified war, the rise of the military-industrial complex, racial discrimination, and blatant voting rights violations. Maybe we now are witnessing a new generation that begins by establishing equivalence in gender privilege and reasonable gun control laws but morphs into addressing the underlying corruption of power and money.

What this new generation is facing is much more than the gun lobby. That lobby is just one element in a recidivist political class. Remember the robber barons who usurped power at the height of the industrial revolution. Compare them to the billionaire campaign donors and the current White House family and cabinet secretaries. Remember the unregulated speculation in Wall Street before the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. Compare those periods with the current Administration’s desire to undo existing regulations designed to forestall another economic freefall. Remember when 16,000 Klu Klux Clan members marched through New York to a cheering crowd of onlookers. (Yes, it happened in the 1920s.) Compare that to the hundreds of torch-carrying Clan members who marched through Charleston—though to a much less receptive audience. Nevertheless, the President claimed that the opposing parties were equivalent, saying there were good people on both sides. Remember the divisiveness of McCarthyism and the citizen rebellion against a lying government’s Vietnam war policies. Compare the sixties to our current lack of trust in a bullying and lying President whose enumeration of lies, adolescent name-calling, and threats exceed his days in office. Remember when the South’s minority population used its economic and political clout to advance policies that ran counter to the promise of equality and freedom in the Declaration of Independence. Compare those positions to the current Republican Party support for an unequal distribution of wealth—as demonstrated in the recently passed tax plan—and its unravelling of government programs that support the health, economic opportunity, and education of Americans. That Party’s support for gun manufacturers, the National Rifle Association, and gun lobbyists is just the tip of an iceberg.

It is natural for the young to ask “why.” When the answers fail to persuade the moral conscience, it is equally natural for them to seek the truth and advocate for change. That advocacy is not just their right, but their responsibility. We cannot deny the young their future and, with respect to gun laws, their lives. They must demand change. But the change they now seek is just one link in a chain. As they pull on that chain, they will have to overcome the weight of many links sunk deep below the surface. They will need the wisdom of their elders who have pulled on that chain in the past. They will not be the first generation who have fought the weight of corruption and tried to reclaim our American ideals. If they succeed, their progeny will benefit. If they fail, they might be the last who have tried. Maybe you doubt these “if/then” propositions. You might question why we need change now. But if you consider the alternatives, then your question will be why not?

The President’s acolytes, Messrs. Porter and Sorensen, have resigned due to alleged acts of domestic violence. Both men deny the allegations. And the President, believing Americans stand for fairness, reminds us that these men claim to be innocent and are entitled to “due process.” Does the President have a point?

Of course, everybody, including these accused men, have a right to due process. But it is not their rights that are relevant here. When were their wives’ rights recognized? These men, one might say, were never arrested or tried in court. So, one might conclude, the allegations against them were never prosecuted or litigated in court and therefore must not be justified. But the lack of prosecution implies that their wives were either not heard, believed, or too embarrassed/afraid to air their abuse in public or in the courts. Were these women given due process? I think not. As a result, the women’s accusations remain unadjudicated in the courts. But they are speaking up now—and so are a lot of other women in America. They demand to be heard and, hopefully, will demand due process in the future.

The President, in effect, reminds us that Messrs. Porter and Sorensen are innocent until proven guilty. He is right. But he ignores the fact that his Administration has failed to acknowledge the right of their former wives to be heard. Although these women declined to file battery charges against them, they did inform the FBI and, in one case, filed for a restraining order. The police reports and the courts restraining order give credence to these women. Moreover, the FBI believed them, for it refused to grant Porter and Sorensen their requested security clearances. So, the police, the courts, and the FBI believed the battered wives. Also, public opinion appears to believe their accusations. And the accused wife beaters have resigned rather than have their case further adjudged in the press and the public forum. The only remaining unbeliever in their guilt is Donald Trump.

Everybody accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. That dictum is jurisprudence 101 in America. We can only acknowledge that alleged crimes may have been committed. So, Messrs. Porter and Sorensen should be given their day in court—even in the court of public opinion. The President has already claimed that privilege for them. But he cannot exclude the same privilege to their wives. By his omission, he has stigmatized them as liars who would willingly destroy the careers of these men. He not only invalidates their wives but, in the process, minimizes the crime of spousal abuse. Maybe he is simply unable to recognize the crime of which his former wife accused him guilty. If so, he is afflicted by the same moral myopia that afflicts Porter and Sorensen. They cannot see the truth beyond the privileged bubble bequeathed them by male-dominated history. Is this not the very blindness the “#metoo” movement attempts to address?

The beauty of America has always been its ability to recognize and change moral injustices. But change of this nature requires persistence and moral leadership. Obviously, this President is incapable of the leadership required. But many Americans have taken up the challenge. Women are proving themselves persistent. And men willing to admit the unfairness of male privilege are joining them. As a husband and father of two daughters count me with those men— “#mentoo.”

Congressman David Nunez, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, used the promised release of his memo to initiate a two-week campaign to discredit the FBI investigation into possible collusion of Donald Trump/his surrogates with the Russian “influence campaign.” But the memo finally submitted to the President for declassification merely deals with the authorization to surveil Carter Page, a volunteer foreign affairs consultant to the Trump campaign. Why is there this discrepancy between hype and fact?

Let’s begin with the President’s official declassification of this memo for public consumption. That response was written by the President’s Counsel, Donald F. McGahn II and states as follows: “To be clear, the Memorandum rejects the judgments of its congressional authors.” While the Administration rejects the memo’s conclusions, declassifying its contents supports its avowed purpose. And that purpose, as outlined in Nunez’ memo, was to highlight concerns about the legitimacy and legality of the DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and potential abuse of the its legal process that was originally designed to protect the American people. Although McGahn wrote the Administration’s reply to Nunez declassification request, the decision to declassify the document could only be made by the President. It has been reported that he had a three-and-a-half-hour window in which to deliberate his decision.

The following is my summary of Nunez’ “case-in-chief” after a six-minute perusal of his memo:
(1) Neither the initial request for a surveillance warrant nor any of its three renewal requests-authorized by Comey, McCabe, and Rosenstein, successively, as the memo highlights—mentioned the DNC’s or FBI’s role in partially funding Christopher Steele’s investigation into Carter Page’s relations with Russian contacts. This alleged failure is noteworthy. The implication is that the investigation was merely political opposition research supported by partisan DOJ and FBI officials and not worthy of clandestine surveillance.
(2) The surveillance request sites Yahoo’s reporting of Steele’s investigation as unverified. Further, it fails to mention that Yahoo incorrectly stated that its reporting of Steele’s “dossier” did not come directly from Steele. The implication is that Yahoo either had other, more corroborating sources which it failed to disclose or, more likely, was guilty of giving cover to its lone, unreliable source.
(3) After disclosing his FBI relationship to Yahoo in October, 2017, Steele was suspended and “terminated” by the FBI as a reliable intelligence source. Further, the FBI failed to terminate him in the previous September when he showed his dossier to Mother Jones. The memo states that Steele “lied” to the FBI about his contact with Mother Jones in September. The implication is that the FBI belatedly acted to terminate its relations with an untrustworthy source and failed to admit its incompetence in its surveillance request. (It should be noted that “termination” implies a formal contract, of which there is no evidence. Normally, the FBI simply suspends a relationship with a source. And Steele’s “lying” to the FBI is a felony which, as of this date, remains unverified and unprosecuted.)
(4) Steele’s numerous contacts with the media violated “the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that he had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.”
(5) Steele revealed his bias against Donald Trump to the Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorney Generals, Yates and later Rosenstein. Ohr reported that Steele was “passionate about him (Trump) not being elected.” Ohr’s wife also worked for Fusion GPS, Steele’s employer, and was instrumental in supplying the FBI with her opposition research. The Ohrs’ relationship to Steele and Fusion GPS was allegedly concealed from the FISC, along with Steele’s incriminating bias against Trump. The implication is that the dossier is a faulty intelligence report based upon animus and not credible evidence.
(6) The FBI Deputy Director testified to the House Intelligence Committee in December, 2017, that no surveillance request would have been requested without the Steele dossier. The implication is that the dossier was the sole, rather than the final, piece of evidence to initiate the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page.
(7) Finally, the memo effectively exonerates Carter Page as the initiator of the investigation into Russia’s “influence campaign.” Although his visit to Moscow is mentioned in the dossier, the memo inexplicably admits that the dossier did not initiate the investigation either. Instead, the memo states the investigation was launched in July, 2017, because of George Papadopoulos’ admissions to the Australian Foreign Minister. Carter Page reportedly had no contact with Papadopoulos. Perhaps the reference to Papadopoulos has an ulterior motive—that is, the opportunity to mention the lead FBI agent in the July investigation, namely, Pete Strzok. He was also one of the investigators in the Clinton email case. His text message exchanges with his mistress admit leaks to the media and discussions with Deputy Director McCabe about an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election. The implication here is that a conspiratorial cabal exists within the FBI. Its purpose is to derail the Trump Presidency.

Carter Page was not just an extraneous and unwitting victim of this conspiracy but an appropriate ruse to out this conspiracy. Does the Nunez’ memo prove its case that the DOJ and FBI falsely and illegally petitioned FISC to grant and renew surveillance warrants against Carter Page, thereby abusing the legal protections of FISA? If that were its purpose, then it missed its opportunity to appeal directly to the FISC. Carter Page seems to understand that, even if no one adequately defended him in FISC, he still can sue the government for abusing his privacy. He admitted as much on national television. If he proceeds with a libel suit, he might want to include Congressman Nunez who has made his case fodder for the press and his guilt or innocence subject for debate in the public forum.

But Nunez’ purpose was not to vindicate Carter Page, but, as admitted in the memo, to damn the DOJ and the FBI. Certainly, he has no problem with FISA, for he stood on the floor of the House less than a month ago defending it and eloquently supporting its renewal. Many have argued that the surveillance authorized by this secret court can and possibly does violate individual privacy, but few Republicans—and certainly not Nunez—have made that argument.

Once again, it should be obvious that Nunez has little interest in defending Carter Page’s suitability for surveillance. Nunez provides us with excerpts in lieu of a point-by-point rebuttal of the full body of evidence submitted by the FBI. We cannot know whether the evidence supplied to FISC in Page’s case was adequate, for its full disclosure reportedly encompasses hundreds of pages. The FISA judges ruled that the evidence provided was adequate to warrant surveillance.

Nunez had a different goal in mind in drafting this memo. He cleverly has drawn a line of incompetence, bias, and conspiracy through Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Yates, Ohr, Strzok (all of whom, except for Rosenstein, have been fired, retired, or reassigned) and the media. His pretense to champion Carter Page’s cause is a sham. The subversive purpose of Nunez’ memo was to discredit the DOJ and FBI. The Page surveillance warrant offered him a pretext for undermining the investigation into Russia’s influence campaign and any possible connection to collusion with the Trump campaign or to subsequent obstruction of that investigation. In other words, the Nunez’ memo is a political document.

Despite the hype surrounding this memo, there are a few positive facts we can discern from its publication. First, Carter Page who has been characterized by Russian agents as an “idiot source,” has not been indicted by the DOJ or the special prosecutor to date. Since 2013 he has been merely a person of interest to the FBI because of his frequent meetings with Russians and his support for Putin’s policies. Second, the Speaker of the House did in fact have the authority to release the Nunez’ memo; and the Administration did appropriately have it vetted by its intelligence council before releasing it to the public. As they say in basketball, no harm, no foul here.

The real problem is with our political parties. Remember when the Democrats attacked the Special Prosecutor during the Clinton investigation into obstruction of justice. Now we have the reverse situation: Republicans defaming the DOJ and the FBI over Trump’s or his campaign’s involvement in collusion with the Russians and Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice. (Apparently, Mueller is still believed untouchable to defamation.) Meanwhile, his investigation rolls on. And this memo is just a distraction. The harm here is to the image of the DOJ and the FBI, and the foul is on Nunez.

Paradoxically, Nunez does less to impugn FISA, the FBI, the DOJ or to exonerate Carter Page than to imply his complicity in obstruction of justice.

“The times, they are a-changing . . .”

We Americans elected a President who describes himself as a “stable genius . . . like, really smart”—a claim no other President has made. Whereas his immediate predecessor incessantly quoted from the U.S. constitution and urged us to “form a more perfect Union,” President Trump’s “genius” has focused elsewhere. Although he provided some short-lived tax breaks for the middle class, his overall tax policy shifts over 500 billion dollars of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the super wealthy. This policy will increase income/wealth inequality, thereby exacerbating the divide between the very rich and every other American. Moreover, his signature positions are also divisive. He has often derided Congress for its failure to fund his wall or repeal Obamacare and complained about the courts impeding his immigration bans. Berating all who oppose him, he proceeds to alienate various ethnic and racial groups and to disregard both the healthcare of all Americans and the livelihood of black or brown immigrants. Obviously, he shows no interest in bringing people together. In place of unity, the President offers discriminatory exclusion and dispassionate indifference.

In contrast to past Presidents, President Trump differs in his approach to government. Our democratic republic is not “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere” (President Reagan). His mission, as he sees it, is to save a failed system—or “drain the swamp”—for, as he attests, “only I can fix it.” His attempts to do so have met with more than a little backlash. For example, he states how “sad” it is that there is resistance to his bending the Justice Department and intelligence services to do his bidding. But, as former President Nixon found out, our system does not put the Presidency above the law. Likewise, he wants control over the public media, even suggesting the press become more subject to libel suits. But his frequent claims of fake news and threats of libel suits are really sad attempts to violate the First Amendment (freedom of the press). The Federal Courts have frequently ruled that his immigration bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment (the equal protection clause). Obviously, his actions reveal his ignorance of or enmity for our Constitution and the rule of law.

Perhaps President Trump’s real objective is not to save our American system. Whether he fully realizes it or not, he seems to want to destroy it. For example, he shows no respect for the coequal branches of government: he supports sycophant Republicans for Congressional seats and nominates judges more preferential to his authority to the Federal Courts. He appoints Cabinet Secretaries who promise unwavering loyalty to him and often oppose the very purpose of the Departments they manage. They are against funding public education, clean air and water, national wildlife preserves, national parks, fair housing practices, work place safety rules, bank regulations, a robust diplomatic corps, international agreements, and multi-lateral trade agreements. Pundits tell us that this Presidency is not normal. But “normal” only implies its divergence from past Presidencies. It is not a true characterization. This Presidency can only be compared with Andrew Johnson, who deliberately worked against the hard-fought American Union, and with Richard Nixon, who thought himself above the law. In other words, a true characterization of the Trump Presidency is impeachable.

Not only does President Trump disregard the implications of our constitutionally established system of checks and balances and of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He also is cravenly abusive of the emoluments clause and dismissive of Article II, Section 4, regarding treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. He insists that his “fighting back” at the Justice department and FBI are not “obstructions of justice” and that “there is no collusion” with the Russians. Yet he has persistently—and suspiciously—attempted to derail the criminal investigations into the Russians “influence campaign.” And he repeatedly defends the Czar-like Russian leader. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin continues his attempts to infiltrate and subvert our democracy and to isolate American influence around the world. He would undo what King George tried to prevent. And Donald Trump is his accomplice.

Now in a new year, Americans seem even more perplexed by a government radically incoherent and untethered from its moorings–that is, embroiled in lies, incompetence, a growing moral morass, an undiscerning dismemberment of everything “Obama,” and, most significantly, a willful disengagement from American history and ideals. The question remains: what do Americans want? Do we still believe in the mythic land of the free, where all “are created equal” and with “certain unalienable rights?” If so, then maybe we should protest with more purpose and vote for our ideals. In America, we create our future at the ballot box and in our hearts and minds. We are still a nation founded upon principles defined in our founding documents and coded into our laws. If we choose to believe in them, then we can and will progress with this American experiment in Democracy.

Last year I wrote about “The New Age of Bafflement.” I cannot make this earlier blog more relevant than its inherent prescience. (If you can spare the time, you might want to reread it.) Without a doubt, technology and social media have accelerated change in every aspect of modern cultures and societies. Along with that change we have experienced job dislocation, growing divisiveness in nearly every medium, and uncompromising gridlock in our politics. But how we experience change is more about us than the nature of change. American have overcome environmental cataclysms, civil strife, and world wars. We should be well equipped to adapt America’s core values and systems into this brave new world. President Trump, by contrast, seems intent on dragging America into past divisiveness quandaries which we had worked diligently to overcome and, in many cases, did overcome. Do we want to revisit long lines in emergency wards, polluted air in our cities, oil spills like Exxon Valdes that required a 2.1-billion-dollar clean-up, despoiled lands in our National Parks, an onslaught of new age “robber barons,” racial-gender-ethnic discrimination, and a disregard for the poor, the sick, and the elderly?

President Trump’s agenda is not to “make America great again.” His vision for America is extreme and dangerously radical. He would make his Presidency imperial and subservient to his economic empire and to the wealthy who share his perch at the top of the economic pyramid. If we become cynically resigned to Trump’s America, then we put this self-governing experiment in jeopardy and abandon America’s lead role in a fast-changing future. Instead, our nation will sink into the quagmire of incoherence, incompetence, and the erratic autocracy of this President’s Administration. As the eye of the media storm he creates, he focuses attention on himself, while tearing apart America’s institutions. He is the evil wizard of chaos, who would rebrand America into his likeness.

While Congress seems reduced into complicity, many of us appear bamboozled by a chameleon who in the guise of populism steals our birthright and our future. How has Trump duped the electorate and cowed Congress to his will? How, indeed? I am still baffled after all these months.