Straight Arrow has been “ON” for some time now-mm
There are notable and repeating Trump brand methods of answering questions of crimes of which one is in fact guilty, and we need to note and list these so that we will not be dumbfounded when we repeatedly hear them. The fact that the questions are answered in this manner, though, is just as one would expect if Trump were told that the election would be turned for him, so that he would know to reward Russia. One would not expect Russia to leave the realization to Trump himself. This is just what we say occurred in the 2016 election, and if it did occur, in typical mobster fashion, it would be difficult or impossible to “prove.” The trouble, though, is that this is the nuclear age, and Putin may have done this intentionally to weaken our executive branch and assure himself of an opponent he can easily out-maneuver. In a trial of impeachment, Trump may be asked these things directly, and impeached without criminal conviction, even for High crimes and misdemeanors that can be “proven,” such as the 130,000$ payment to silence the prostitute at the time of his campaign. In a trial in the Senate, Trump can be asked: “Did someone tell you the election would be turned for you/” “And the means “undetectable.” “And did you reward Russia for this, even with foreign policy considerations, as by the weakening of NATO or of sanctions?’ The Senate too can decide, for example, whether election fraud must involve campaign finance or has a broader, more common sense meaning.
The Trump responses that do not logically address the question are first, ad hominem: The accuser is a) a liberal, b) a partisan or c) a bad person. Add to this that they are d) the dupe of the media, and e) conspiratorial.
Second, it will be said that the assertion “cannot be proven.” One does not begin an investigation or inquiry with something proven, and it may be that nothing important in politics can be “proven” in this sense. As Cohen explained, gangsters use other people to commit crimes, and proceed by a conspiracy of favors. Conspiracy is the technical name for committing crime with ones thought and associates rather than his hands. An example is Manson, convicted of conspiracy to murder because of the word written by his cult members on the wall. Hence, the Mueller investigation proceeds as does a RICO mob investigation, turning the associates is an attempt to dismantle the criminal organization. Because criminals act from self-interest, and the organization not of friends in truth, for example, it is possibly to demonstrate by dealing with the servants.
A discussion of epistemology would be in order, but has been undertaken elsewhere. Theoretical knowledge with assurance is extremely difficult, since we may often be deceived, accidentally or intentionally. In one sense, we cannot even prove to ourselves that we are awake, etc, though we are not usually deceived when we are awake. Yet when we dream, we believe ourselves to be in some circumstance, and it is not true. Contingent events are known with probability, not certainty, on either side of an issue, though probabilities can be compounded to achieve almost certainty for practical purposes. In any case, given the overwhelming evidence- more than any conspiracy case in history. We have seen a few “conspiracy theories” that are false, and yet there are genuine criminal conspiracies, even in politics. Deduction and induction are different, and both notoriously flawed, which is why reason goes back and forth between empirical data or “facts” and hypotheses, or a general scenario. Some scenario is true, and it is rather important that we get it right regardless of the difficulty. Totalitarian governments use the capacity of man for deception to make a false world, imposed with force, in which their crimes are not crimes, but those who see the true scenario must be “insane,” illmotivated, etc. to account for how a delusion such as the truth could come to be. But those who have abandoned truth rely not on inquiry but the impossibility of knowledge. And interestingly enough, it is possible to know hypothetically, based upon first principles and sound reasoning (that is, given a certain assumption that such must also be true) and to know when a thing is false, or when it is refuted, which truth of course can never be: It is impossible to prove that a thing that is true is false.
Other arguments are third, that one is forbidden to look, as with the bugging of Trump Tower, fourth, that the courts cannot proceed, as the question is out of their provenance (as with the Chaldeans seized and illegally deported). Similar to the OJ trial, it will be argued, fifth, that justice is corrupt or partisan, and this has been done on the issue of McCabe: Indeed, we say, FBI agents do not “like” scam artists, are quite biased against criminals, and some have a nose for such things. Some agents, too, are indeed Democrats, which will soon be remedied if Trump completes his seizure of the law.
As with the Russia investigation, as the lawyer Giulianni has already suggested, sixth, if it were true, it is just fine for a foreign government to help with a campaign, even in such ways as using data collection and targeted interference, and finally, since Trump “won,” it is just fine in any case, and even a crime to suggest that it is not fine, and a matter of national security to hide the means by which election fraud was committed, a national security secret, again as is common in Russia. A circularity of the tyranny argument is here noted, as when Trump contends that the Americans “elected” him knowing he had not released his tax forms. Finally, he will contend that his rewarding Russia for election fraud is a matter of “executive privilege, since his interests are to be identified with that of America.
Seventh, there is the declaration of exoneration of crimes, such as “treason,” of which he has not been accused. “Collusion” in the technical sense is not even a crime. To consort” or associate, but it would be election fraud to knowingly receive internet and other election fraud from Russia. We do not say that Trump, but Putin orchestrated this, but that is the problem with bribery in the Presidency, explicitly listed among the impeachable things. We say, whatever he wants to call the election fraud and the repayment of this with foreign policy favors of unknown value, that is what Trump did. He did not do it for Russia but for himself, which is how Putin uses him. One can guess the sort of self interest by which Trump can be led. He also obstructed and did not aid the effort to inquire, which in addition to intimidating the press is a daily violation of his oath of office to uphold a constitution he had literally never read.
Finally, there is eighth, the intimidation of opponents, and we say this is confirmation of our opposition. I received a Russian apparent threat while commenting on a letter to President Obama the week of the inauguration. I count “death threats of more or less seriousness, at least two of which are ostensibly Russian. One example is when under my page, first Russian looking prostitutes appeared, then a cruel male face with the words “Assassin” and “Assassinate.” When this was reported, the incident was ignored. Another was the appearance of Putin and a big motorcycle guy on a twitter site from Japan with huge machine guns, right after the Parkland shooting. We say of these threats that it was either the Russians, demonstrating collusion, or our own FBI pretending to be the Russians- And they know which. The Parkland shooting is itself quite suspicious, as American white supremacists, who once hated communism, suddenly like and wish to serve Putin, perhaps even in attacks timed to intimidate the Americans- such as Parkland February 14th, Las Vegas when the Supreme Court case 17-857 was rejected, and Christchurch, when the Mueller report was due). Putin likes to exasperate our present vices, such as the epidemic of public shootings. But Roger Stone, too, openly threatened Congress with civil war should they impeach, and Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats seem to have avoided impeachment in part for this reason. Stone was not charged for this, but for other crimes, perhaps because he could say he was simply making a prediction.
Then there is, ninth, the famous Hillary Card,” the answer of Trump supporters that the only alternative is worse, all politics are hopelessly corrupt, that the only alternative is the extreme left, etc, making a straw man or fake opponent to thrash with mere words. We say that the Trump-Russians simply believe that the world works this way, though they are wrong. Our entire American founding is based upon the assumption that there is an alternative to government by accident, force, corruption and tyranny, or that gangsters in fact do not know the best way to live.
Tenth is of course to respond by actually carrying out their threats, which they may do if they are able. They may get some, too, but if we all stand up at once, they cannot get us all, nor nearly as many as will die if we do not stand up- as was true too of the Civil War. And it may be that, like good Trumpsters looking out for their own private interests, they simply fall into faction and go home IF WE STAND UP!!
There are a number of compounded probabilities and coherences which are elements in the quite accurate guess that Trump is guilty of election fraud and obstructs the inquiry for that reason, just as appears. One is his character: to win regardless of ethics or legality. to defraud the seniors enrolled in Trump University (25 million$ settlement). Another: his admiration for tyrants, which is also the reason we might know that what we have to fear here is domestic tyranny). Another is data collection allowed without limit because Congress was paid to ignore it. Another is the suspicion that the 4th Amendment was suspended in order to fight terrorism” as the Snowdon leak informed us. Another is that the US was likely using Russian internet assistance in our vastly successful prevention of further attacks following 9/11. Another is the knowledge of just how wicked the Russian government is, killing some 40-70 million of its own people over 70 years when no civil war was even occurring, not to mention famines (Ukraine, 2 million) and tortures in the Russian Gulag. As Solzhenitsyn informed us, the West was blind, or as if oblivious to this. This is not only the Russian character going back centuries, but is especially made worse by atheism and the Marxist rejection of all ethics.
The polls and the 2016 election present an appearance, like that of the motions of the planets, for which one might attempt to account, as by the Copernican cosmos. The swing states and the comparison of the electoral and popular vote add another compound probability, so that the correct guess could be intuited on November 10th, 2016, from this alone. The Oxy epidemic is worse in the swing states (Go figure, because it indicates too that the Oxy-heroin epidemic was intentional). No one could see this in 1600 who did not think and study the science.
There are yet more elements to compound from psychology and politics, such as the Trump propensity to accuse others of crimes of which he is himself guilty, called “the mirror.” Accusing the Democrats of “election fraud” for unregistered voters- a fake scandal- he got the Democrats to say like “God forbid anyone would call into question our sacred elections.” Putin told Trump that the means of turning the election would be “undetectable, which he repeated in saying famously that we do not know who the interference was coming from, it could have been a 400 lb man…” Trump does not know what the Russians thought, that the means were “undetectable,” because they interfered with the voters themselves, rather than the voting boxes. And the Russian were wrong in any case, a techie error: it is detectable, but not by techies. And it is demonstrable, even in court, by patient detective work- which is why the Mueller report is now being obstructed and buried.
We do not know the purpose of Putin, but do know that it is wise not to underestimate 20th century totalitarianism.
…On our news, we have only heard about how the CIA has Vlad directly ordering cyber attacks on the elections. And they talk about our response. #16-1464 is the Revived Re-vote case, to void the 2016 election due to Ruskies meddling to elect Donney and co.
Elections are assumed by the constitution, fundamental, and, we say, “think the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it?” They say, “no precedent,” we say it is unprecedented. The case is based on Article IV.4, plus things said in the Classic and Yarbrough cases, which are about the suppression of the black vote. Federalist 68 indicates that the electoral college was to provide a remedy should some foreign power raise some “creature of their own” to the presidency. Mark Small has written up the case, and it is granted mandamus, with a response from the Trump-Russophiles due by July 7. For my Amicus Brief- which is a letter that any citizen is allowed to submit as a friend of the court, Amicus meaning Amigos, friends (in Latin rather than Latin-American). I tried to write only things I could add, without repeating much that is in the case. The truth is that when the Trump-Russians interfere with political association, speech and free political action, violating two clauses of the First and then the Fifth amendment liberty clause-when they do this, they leave a trail, and collusion is demonstrated in the very attempt to silence free opposition. This is a whole un-mined category which coheres with the other categories of evidence to “prove” what is by now so obvious the few doubt it: Russia elected Trump for us, and we do not know their full perfidious purpose even yet, but we do not want to find out! Hence we are asking the court to provide a remedy such as a re-vote. And if some think that this will cause “civil war,” to have a new election, we see who was against elections, we see that fascism rising is what will cause civil war, and we see the fourth clause of the second sentence of the Declaration as well, which means that we are not required to give up on republican or free self-government. My draft is at mmcdonald777Wordpress, with three sevens- my secret site where I tell the truth about my other site, and its more fundamental purposes. I am hoping for criticism and feedback on the draft before I print it, and send it in.
“Thomas Jefferson lives!”
– John Adams, July 4, 1826.
Supreme Court case #16-1464 asks the Court to void the 2016 election due to Russian Interference. Like the first case, brilliantly and beautifully written by Jeroll Sanders, this case is based on Article IV Section 4 of the constitution, which requires that the federal or national government protect the states from foreign interference. The attack on the election was like a foreign invasion, and these methods continue. We have barely begun to realize what is occurring and put a stop to the illegal and unethical things being done on the internet to control politics. Oh, you are surprised that such things occur, or will be done if not opposed or prevented?
Attorney Mark Small of Indiana has written the Revived case, and bought in some more comprehensive arguments as to why the Supreme Court is the only recourse likely to be available, and why they have the power and to void an election and the duty to void this one. Between points 47 and 60, he is especially brilliant. Having demonstrated that impeachment is unlikely because the also likely helped the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, Mr. Small notes the opinion of the Founders, as in Federalist 1, about party, and the “members of the Electoral College are not independently selected as the framers had anticipated, but are chosen by the same process” selected by the political parties. The Electoral College, as discussed in Federalist 68, was to be the last stop to prevent “foreign cabals” from afflicting us with a tyranny or tyrannical executive for their own advantage. The founders set up our voting for slates of electors, people thought most capable, who would then elect the president. Their explicit intention is that the electors not be chosen from pre-existing bodies, such as political parties. The Russian corruption of the Republican Party is all that was required for Putin to select our president for us, for his advantage and not ours, and they did this by effecting the vote in subtle ways throughout the Primaries. They ran Trump up the flagpole, and everyone kept saying, “well, he won the election…,” such is our reverence for the electoral process. They ran Trump up the flagpole, and all the Republicans saluted. The electors were chosen by party, and in 25 States were told that they were legally bound, just because the unconstitutional laws binding them have not been challenged yet. The explicit intention of the founders, as shown in Federalist 68, is that they be able to prevent a tyrant, and it is obvious from one example that the state laws binding the electors are unconstitutional: say one elected were revealed, between the election and the inauguration, to be an ax murderer. Or say he were simply revealed, whether by ignorance or intention, to be in effect a traitor? Similarly, those who would like to abolish the electoral college, thinking it a vestige like the appendage little toe, have likely not read the Federalist papers.
It is similarly obvious that the Supreme Court has the power to void this election. The alternative is to say that such a thing could occur and the Supreme Court could have nothing to say about the fundamental constitutional structure of elections. The Court and the constitution assumes that elections are, as said in the Yarbrough decision, free of bribery and corruption. The president derives his legitimacy from the Constitution, of which the Supreme Court is the fundamental interpreter. There is some question as to whether the president must always obey the Court, as raised by Andrew Jackson, but the powers of the president are only to execute laws enacted by Congress, and the Supreme Court determines whether those laws are constitutional. In our last flirtation with tyranny, Jackson simply defied the decision of John Marshall that he could not remove the (Christian, English speaking) Cherokee of Georgia, and enacted a national sin, the Trail of Tears. It is in fact precisely the Supreme Court that has the office of voiding the election, and it is likely that the Congress and the rest of the nation will obey the decision, as the president will no longer have legitimacy.
“We’re going to get tough,” Trump said, and “its not nice now for MS 13,” a Mexican gang infesting arias such as L.A. We want the reader to see the Trump method of lying in this particular instance. He is using the just application of the law as an excuse, a thin veneer to justify the racist policies behind his anti-immigration nationalism. The deportation of non-criminal immigrants is up 157 %, and cell towers are being tricked into identifying undocumented immigrants. If I need to spell it out, your next, because the cell towers are identifying everyone. Trump is a tyrant and needs to be impeached. Our ignorant toleration of the new violations of the Fourth Amendment guarantee of security in our houses, persons, papers and effects is allowing tyranny to walk right in, and we need to reverse course and stop this nonsense.
First, the last thing one wants to do with MS 13 members is deport them, since they want they will come right back. But second, is it only accidental that Trump targets gangs of the races that are the outgroups of the American fascists, the blacks and the Mexicans, while ignoring the White and the Italian gangs? How much distance is there between the Russian mob and the Russian government- with whom everyone in the Trump administration has questionable ties? Is he not then rather obviously using the un-opposable policy of targeting MS 13 as a cover to enlist police in his racist policies, just as they were about to do in striking the black gangs in Chicago? The fear of deportation in the Latino community, and justified distrust of police, allows the gangs to flourish. For the 34 deported, most of whom will return, have not many times more hydra heads been grown?
If the argument here is too complicated for the American citizen, that is what Trump counts on. He keeps his method of lying just below the level of obviousness at which the Americans will catch on and do something. Trump Justice retreated from the plan to attack Chicago, and the plan to bring the “hammer down” has retreated in favor of a more long term and more subtle approach. But Trump is a gangster himself, and his allied gangs are- surprise- not being targeted by those big tough ICE heroes deporting Mexican mothers of American citizen children, and sending waves of fear and distrust through Mexican American citizens and their communities. We suspect that the Russian and U.S. mobs are behind the Oxy-heroin scandal in America, a genuine conspiracy the first half of which Trump wants to deregulate. The knee jerk Republicans hear “deregulation,” and for them there is no issue. Our corruption as a nation is allowing the rise of fascist tyranny, and it is past time we rise up and put a stop to it.
The Trump-Russian methods of lying are repeated, and can be quickly generalized. The blog “Hands Tied : Use Mirror” concerns another aspect of their method, and Putin’s new tactic of labeling those who see the Trump-Russian conspiracy as “insane” and “dangerous” is just another variation on the method of the manipulation of public opinion, which has proven remarkably easy upon the rather thick American public. To paralyze the Americans, one need only spread fake news, then when accused, say it is “fake news.”
Jeroll M. Sanders has done an ingenious work in preparing the Supreme Court case # 16-907, which was denied by the Supreme Court without explanation. I am repeatedly in admiration of her direct and relaxed common sense in stating profound and trenchant points transcending legalese, and recommend reading her write-up of the case, which I have just read entire for the first time today. Especially ingenious is her basing the case on Article IV and on the Twelfth Amendment, points that are both true and difficult to see, though obvious once stated. She has run for Mayor, and receives my endorsement of the CLC for this and higher office. The Appeals court denied the case because no precedent was provided, for events that are in fact unprecedented, though without recourse these have become the way of our world quite quickly. Supreme Court precedent in election cases outside civil rights issues are very sparse: the question has simply never arisen before. Our constitution contains perennial principles that are quite sufficient to meet circumstances that are new, and there is no reason that new circumstances do not call for setting precedents. For surely an election determined by foreign invasion through the internet is not a constitutional election, or not what the founders had in mind by “election.”
The Appeals court also alleges that the political branches of the U. S. government have made no such determination, and for the court to determine that the United States was “invaded,” triggering the Article IV requirement that the national government defend the states from foreign invasion, would “disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibilities of other branches of government, and would result the court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision.” But what if, as Sanders indeed indicates, the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had in fact concluded that such an invasion aiming to influence the elections did in fact occur? Ms. Sanders cites Mark Morell, the Deputy Director of the central intelligence agency, as stating on CNN that Russia’s meddling in this election is “the political equivalent of 9/11.” I would have added, had I been permitted, that General Hayden had called the Russian meddling, “the greatest covert operation in history.” In fact, had I been permitted to write an Amicus brief, a letter citizens may submit to inform the court regarding a pending case, I would have suggested bringing the CIA right into the Supreme Court, both to tell the court what could be told and to tell them there was more that could not be told to protect “sources and methods,” but that their conclusion was and is that there had been significant Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
And had I been permitted, I would have suggested a third scenario to add to the two presented by Ms. Sanders: Wikileaks, soon after the case was denied by the Appeals Court, revealed that our own government knew of vulnerabilities in our new spy-marketing tech that leaves these open to hackers, but that the agencies decided not to protect us so that they might themselves exploit these vulnerabilities. My own brother had just accused me of insanity, quite seriously, for saying that, as he summarizes in caricature, “the T.V. is watching me.” After the Wikileak became public, I offered to accept his apology, when he delivers it. What was once madness is now common sense. Then he assured me that it is only the newest “smart” tech instruments, and assured me too, as did the agent he sent to make sure it was safe to seize me if possible, that it is only used for “marketing” purposes. And what is an election? How similar to marketing? We will never have another free election if we cannot restore the security in our persons, papers, houses and effects guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution. And this shows the reason for such security: people like nations have enemies bent on using every bit of information they can skim only against their targeted person. And in fact what occurred in the 2016 election is that the Russians bought and hacked into every bit of “marketing” information, passively collecting data, and then used this to target interference again through our computers, as through Kaspersky, which handles four hundred million security accounts right from Moscow, or some similar method- I have no particular evidence against Kaspersky except the sort of attacks which walk right past their security onto my home computer, namely Russian and Trumpster attacks. Targeted interference might be either mechanical, operational, or intimidation. What if one’s words are simply allowed less publicity, and one were to do this to 25% of the words of one’s political opponent, while expanding the publicity of fake news by 25%? I would have added this and similar information in an Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, except I was prevented by at least three ostensibly Russian attacks including a death threat, and forced to cease working on the computer after February 4th, 2017. A documented death threat came from Trumpsters January 28th, and this is right there on Twitter, excepting the tweet redacted by the sender after I identified it as technically a death threat. But the most serious came while commenting on a letter to be sent to President Obama a few days before the inauguration, when first prostitutes and then a scary face with the word “Assasin” came up under the page I was writing on to take over my computer screen. Facebook has commented that given modern marketing techniques, it would be quite easy to throw an election this way, and a report on NPR (Probably from the BBC) confirms that the Philippine election was in fact turned this way- spy marketing tech collecting information and then targeted interference. Indeed, we will in fact have to choose between this “internet of things” and free government with free elections, at least until we figure out a way to have both. The oblivious Americans do not even realize that this is the choice, and plunge headlong into a world that makes perhaps the worst imaginable and surely the most pervasive tyranny a mathematical necessity.
It is beyond my capacities to explain why the police have ignored my complaints, even as stand in amazement at what my Trumpster relatives have done of late, and these are people I have known for fifty years. The police would not even look at the computer to see if there really was a death threat, and did not provide the protection needed to secure the right of a citizen to continue political work guaranteed by his liberty, as required by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Rather, everything I have said has been as if only used against me. As described in part in a previous blog, my Trumpster relatives, having tried to have me “treated” for the mental illness of not being oblivious to these new things, and for trying to warn them of the dangers of tyranny and of this tyranny, drew up a perjurous complaint saying that I, who had done nothing wrong and even had said not a single thing thing that is false, be seized as a “danger to myself and others.” The writer of the complaint demonstrably and intentionally lied, and part of her charge was literally that I was working on a Supreme Court Case. I had said so when I was prevented from continuing my work, which I consider quite important. The instigating relative, though, an Uncle, was careful to try to avoid demonstrable perjury. I will ask him in court if he was influenced by anyone in the Trump organization, since his efforts happen to coincide with Russian and Trumpster efforts aiming at the result that I “stop doing what I am “doing now.” That message came over my phone right when I was receiving the tweet string that knocked me off the internet and prevented me from continuing to work on this Supreme Court Case. I did not look long enough to see if this string contained a fourth death threat, but it included many things I had said that angered the Russians and white supremacists, as well as personal information used to hurt and let one know that they are not just on the internet, but in your phone and in your drugstore and anywhere else the new tech allows them entry bought or forced. I have seen the new world that is emerging, perhaps a little more closely than most. These things are quite demonstrable, and plenty of reason to ask the court to reconsider. I thought we might gain an unanimous decision, rather than have to rely on the partisan 5-4 majority, as this is far beyond a partisan issue.
Today an executive order was signed which will allow churches to more freely endorse political candidates. Opponents say this chips away at the separation of Church and State, and something does seem fishy about what has occurred. In discussing this, I will tell a story, as well as argue, as I have to the Christians up the street, that the Christians are deceived by Donald Trump. Jesus does not support Tyrants, nor does Pope Francis- as the fake news story tried to have it- support Donald Trump, nor should American Christianity allow itself to be enlisted in the emerging anti-Muslim “nationalism,” elsewhere and more truly termed fascism. Who is your neighbor?
I was pleased to find a church and preacher I quite liked, just up the street, as I could walk there, and had stopped going to both a Catholic and Baptist Church, each for different reasons. On my first visit there, the pastor commented that he was forbid to speak politics from the altar, and the whole congregation seemed quite paranoid about me, as if I were some liberal come to spy out their tax exempt status. They stopped raising their hands in prayer, for example, though the second time I was there, when they prayed for me as I had asked, they raised their hands, and some even spoke in tongues, which was quite a powerful experience. I told them I needed help, that I needed work and a lawyer, and was in some difficulty at home there up the street, but they would only give me their first names, and, as said, seemed quite suspicious. Apparently there had been a robbery on the property recently, and of course one never knows.
After my second visit, I decided to write to the pastor about some things I had learned from his preaching on John, about the tax exempt status question, and about how the Christians are quite deceived about Donald Trump. When I was a teacher at the community college, of American Government, I would tell the kids that they of course were allowed almost limitless free expression of religion, but for me to preach Jesus from the lectern would violate the establishment clause, though I would comment on the Bible as a part of the unwritten constitution of the Americans, as George Anastaplo discusses this in his book on the constitution.* I thought maybe similarly the parishioners have a right to express politics, but not the preacher from the pulpit, and this is close, but not quite it. I said this as much to demonstrate how the Establishment and free expression clauses fit together as to communicate silently that I would like to teach about Jesus but cannot- and this was not my job. I told Tom, the Pastor, that similarly he was limited from certain things about politics, though that it not quite it. I too would refrain from any partisan politics in class, and, I told him, I was concerned that Christians be free to teach the ethics of the Bible, including the teachings that homosexuality is not good for the soul, from Moses and Paul, and even that abortion is wrong, though this is a Greek Hippocratic, and not a Mosaic teaching. Leviticus distinguishes between killing a born child and causing a miscarriage as by striking a pregnant woman, and the latter is not murder, though it is a crime. Jesus never got around to teaching against homosexuality, as though it were not so much a priority, though Paul does, in Romans 1. I wrote too that Paul in Romans 2 implies that violence against gays is the result of repressed homosexuality (“you yourselves are doing the same things”), as this is a more serious or higher level of sin. And what, I asked Tom, if it is true that homosexuality is bad for the soul and also true that our use of pesticides and suburban lawn chemicals is interfering with the hormones of our youth? Plus, people are not required to be Christian in order to be American, and this is extremely important. As I have a braided ponytail, since I have not been able to afford haircuts for two years, kind of like it, and used to grow my hair long when I was in High School and College, I think they thought I might be gay. Rather, I think of Lancelot when he comes out of the woods for the final battle in the movie Ex-Calibre.
So I wrote him a two page letter discussing these things, since he did not have much time on Sundays for discussion. I also gave him my website and Twitter numbers, as I like to promote myself and was surely not worried about revealing my true self to him. I wrote that it seemed unconstitutional to forbid him to say just about anything as a preacher, except to incite crimes, as when a speech becomes an action, in slander, libel, false advertising, perjury, fake news and such, fraud and other ways of harming people, and this of course, like all our constitutional questions, can become extremely difficult. We forbid religious expression even of students when, as when the Texas High school prayed as a group in the end zone after each touchdown, though, unlike Germany, we try to allow hate speech, though this too can cross the line to become an action, violating rights that it is the purpose of government to secure.
I wrote to Tom that Trump was not a Christian (though I might be wrong), that he hardly believes that murder is wrong, let alone that abortion is murder, that he does not care about any sexual morality, let alone transgender issues, that the Miss Universe Pageant (held in Russia at the building owned by Tillerson) demonstrates a disregard for adultery as an ethical crime, or promotes adultery as well as the regard for sex over love, that his defrauding of the elderly through Trump University demonstrates a willingness to lie and steal, and his willingness to use the law to hurt people, such as the blacks and the liberals and the Mexican immigrants is characteristic of a tyrant, and that the Christian’s opposition to Hillary was far from sufficient reason to invite Russian and KKK influence into U. S. politics. Fascism is quite opposed to the message of the Gospel, I argued, and the Christians quite snowed by Donald Trump, who is a salesman and will say and use anything for his own advantage or self interest. I think I am stating the matter a bit more clearly today than I did in the letter to him, but you get the gist of what was said in the letter.
After missing Church the day that I delivered the letter, I appears for my third sermon, the fourth week since I began to walk up the street on Sundays to his church. He met me on the steps on the way in, said things that indicated he had misunderstood me to be pro-abortion and pro-gay- a misunderstanding, as I am quite the centrist, with rather unique positions on all the issues, due to thinking a lot about both sides, and trying to teach. Tom had said two things that had indicated the sort of news stations he was listening to- that the report of Trump calling up 100,000 national guardsmen was fake news (Trump changed his mind), and that Obama had christened many new intelligence officers just before he left office. It was also clear that he did not have time, as do I, for a detailed and vigorous study of the news. Teachers of American Government sometimes have a natural tendency to become centrists, though not always. My philosophic studies of the roots of both left and right wing extremes, in communism and fascism, and seeing how the extremes of both the right and left political characters leads people into twentieth century totalitarianism either way- this also impels me to my unique centrism. I had argued that when we vote for a president, we vote for a man capable of the executive office more than for a party platform, one able to be president, for the good of our nation, and that both the Republicans and the Christians were simply snowed by Donald Trump. I do not much appreciate Jesus being used for political self interest, and so do not mind stepping up, even to talk to a preacher. I was told that I would not be happy at their church, and it was clear that I was being asked to leave. But I knew he misunderstood me and sincerely wanted to hear the sermon. A woman coming up the stairs backed my saying that Trump was cozy with the White Supremacists, as Steve Bannon had been chosen Chief of Staff. In his previous sermons he had added great points to my understanding of the famous scene where Jesus, resurrected, asks Peter, Do You love me? He said that God wants our fellowship, and Jesus indeed our friendship, profound teachings, and he had showed me that Peter just goes back to fishing, back to money-making, when he returns to Galilee after the crucifixion. A Catholic had showed me that cool thing about the two scenes with the charcoal fire, and I was seeing confirmation about my learning that it is John and not Peter who is the guy, even as the Eastern Orthodox Church might show us Catholics. And Tom showed me something about the calling to be a preacher, I thought, about agape and two kinds of philo, feed my lambs, shepherd my sheep,” and “feed my sheep,” thee different things in answer to the two or three different questions, do you love me, then he prophesied Pete’s death and he said “follow me.” And what is it to Peter if indeed John did remain until He came to visit him on Potmos, or even if John remained, as he did throughout the crucifixion, more faithful to the last day?
These are the sort of things I was seeing, and though I was quiet throughout the sermons, and tried to be helpful and friendly to everyone- discussing the six kinds of machines with the son of one man who is a member, etc, Tom made it clear that it was not their choice that I return. I had said on the steps going in, “Do you mean to say that I am not welcome in you church unless I am a Trump supporter,”? and he could not say yes for fear of the law about the tax exempt status. I was attacked in speech on the way out as I tried to explain, accused of disrespecting our President and government contrary to Romans !3 1-7, and I asked what they thought Paul did when, some ten years after writing this, he was ordered by Nero to give up the names of his fellow Christians? Did he obey his government? No, that is surely not what he means by obedience, and if the Christians were ordered by the Nazis to answer, “Do you have any Jews,” we would be obligated to lie- that is my teaching, anyway, or that that is not what John means by liars. Rather, the “liars” might be those who tell the truth to save themselves, as perhaps Peter did around the first of the charcoal fires.
I was also accused for raising my voice to the preacher, in the back of the church on the way out, though I said I thought Tom had the Holy spirit in his preaching, and “wise” I called him to one I tried to proselytize to come that Sunday but not his political theory. “I am a PhD in politics,” I pleaded. Accused of disrespecting the House, said to a woman, Who’s house is this? And to their surprise- for they did not seem to know the saying, I quoted: “Fist remove the log from your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” I backed out the door saying loudly, “This is the word of the Lord,” to my own surprise, and wandered home wondering about the ironic joke on me that I had clearly failed to remove the splinter from my brothers eye and keep myself in the class I was enjoying.
I had put one dollar in the collection in an envelope which asked for my address. A few days later I received a letter with no return address, with a checklist of similarities between Hillary o the Democratic platform and the Nazi’s, things I too complain about when government becomes like Big Mother,” making me spend 1/2 hour plus a day for the last seven years rolling my own cigarettes ’cause they tried to tax us out of smoking, o indeed ending my teaching career because Politics and Philosophy had been White male dominated departments prior to affirmative action, and the liberal arts could be used in a way that medicine, for example could not to promote the feminist superiority teaching or the understanding that equality means numerical equality rather than equal opportunity regardless of prejudice, as if we would require a proportional number of short Asian women in pro baseball or the NBA.
So, is Tom a religious or a political organization? And what would happen if the law compelled him to let me stay, so long as I was not disruptive? And just as I did not claim the benefits of common law marriage, because my fiance never would officially marry me, so I toil for free in the work of my nation and my faith indistinguishable. Perhaps if the Trumpsters are going to use Jesus to snow the Christians, they ought at lest pay their taxes.
Note *The Constitution of 1787 by George Anastaplo opens with a discussion of some of the comprehensive influences on the American Constitution. Examples of Biblical influences that can be discussed in a political science course are Genesis 9:6, which presents the reason that murder is wrong, and Deuteronomy 25:3, forbidding the return of escaped slaves. The difference between the scientific, Judicial and religious use of scripture is quite interesting in elation to the First Amendment and Establishment from the lectern. Deuteronomy 25:3, though it is not law for us, is yet why I could not, as a Michiganian, swear allegiance to the pre-Civil War Constitution. Up here, we knew that it was, as Montesquieu explains, a violation of political liberty to compel one to do what is wrong (or prevent one from doing what is right (Spirit of the Laws, XI). The contradiction could have been corrected by appealing to the Article IV requirement that each state be guaranteed a republican form of government, avoiding the civil war. But Jackson’s man Taney could have prevented the 265,000 American deaths in the civil War had he but decided that Dred Scott was a man. Sometimes there is silence in an awful moment which could and should have gone another way, and many lives and much suffering are at stake. This topic came up when we were discussing the engenius basis of Supreme Court case # 16-907, which argued that the election was unconstitutional because the national government is required to protect the states from foreign invasion, as occurred by the Russians through the internet.