Knock It Off

by

Gadfly

            This essay addresses the recent exchanges between President Trump and four Congresswomen, collectively known as the squad. The exchanges sound petulant.  However, before we treat the two parties with moral equivalency and tell both to cease and desist, let me begin with a story.

Training for combat operations in fighter aircraft is dangerous business.  High speed, three-dimension maneuvering, with high g-force loading on the aircraft (and bodies—five Gs makes 10 pounds weigh the equivalent of 50 pounds), and a variety of tactics employed to defeat an enemy pilot characterize the flying.  It involves split-second decision making and extreme physical exertion.

            One of the safety measures during such training operations is the “knock it off” call.  If any pilot (or weapons systems officer in two-crew fighters) sees a situation developing that could easily spiral out of control, then they are to shout out, “knock it off, knock it off, knock it off.”  This basically reboots the training.

            On one of my missions near Stuttgart, West Germany in the early 1980s, I heard over Guard frequency (all aircraft must monitor Guard frequency on UHF—ultra high frequency), “Antar one eight, knock it off, knock it off, knock it off!”  Less than a minute later, I heard the same call, with the tone of voice sounding more urgent.  About five minutes later, Stuttgart Control announced over Guard frequency, “All Antar aircraft, RTB [return to base] immediately.”  I knew something tragic had happened and led my formation back to base.

            Antar was the call sign for members assigned to the 20^th Tactical Air Support Squadron based at Sembach Air Base, West Germany.  We were all checked out as forward air controllers, flying the OV-10 Bronco.  Each member then had a number assigned.  For example, Antar 18 (Antar one eight) belonged to a pilot named Chris.  The pilot in a different aircraft, another Antar, was assigned to fly as the Red Baron on this day of flying.  His mission was to fly into the vicinity of the various Antar training missions to measure their vigilance awareness (clearing for other “enemy” aircraft that were closing in on their position).  The procedure was to make two ninety degree turns and then to rock your wings to signal that you noticed his presence.  The Red Baron would then proceed to another Antar training area.

            Antar 18 did not follow the procedure.  Instead, he became aggressive and maneuvered against the Red Baron as though he was an actual enemy aircraft.  Because of the high G-loading, airspeed and altitude were rapidly depleting, becoming dangerously low and slow (approaching stall speed).  This is why the Red Baron was calling knock it off.

            Antar 18 stalled out and, because the aircraft was too low, was unable to safely eject from the aircraft.  Antar 18 had a passenger in the back seat.  Both died in the crash.

            Safety, legal, and flying evaluation boards were convened.  The Red Baron was exonerated by all three boards.  Yet, by an authority at a higher level, the Red Baron had his wings taken away, as if he was just as guilty for the crash as Antar 18.  He believed someone should be punished for the aircraft loss.  Antar 18 and his passenger were already dead.  Could not punish them.  This was assigned guilt through moral equivalency . . . not based on evidence but personal opinion and a tit for tat moral reasoning paradigm.

            The knock it off call that is needed in the case of Trump versus the squad exchange is not for Trump or the squad.  It should be directed at the anti-America faction in America, the cancer that is symbolized by the squad.

            “The squad” is openly socialist in their political orientation, which is extremely contrary to the idea of America.  Whether they are tutors or mere unwitting champions of the ideology, understanding the ideological “formation process” is enlightening and disturbing.

            For those who follow my blog entries, you are familiar with some of the evidence I have provided as it relates to the socialist (communist and fascist) infiltration of American institutions.  We can learn a great deal from those who “drank the Kool-Aid,” such as Whitaker Chambers, Bella Dodd, and Douglas Hyde.  In his book, I Believed, Hyde tells his story about becoming a prominent Communist in Great Britain.  In his book, Dedication and Leadership, Hyde explains how Communists are recruited and developed to be very active in the movement.  Here is a lengthy excerpt from Dedication and Leadership:

 

. . . In Communist hands the subtle method [in non-totalitarian societies] may take on an almost sinister quality, as ideas which would otherwise be unacceptable are skillfully got into the heads of those who attend the classes.

            Such instruction leads those who are indoctrinated in this way to abandon and repudiate practically all their past thinking and, indeed, to abandon the very things which first brought them to Communism.  For example, the man who joined because he was at heart a pacifist comes in time quite naturally and ‘logically’ to accept the need for violence [think Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and Antifa], for civil war and insurrection (even though anyone who has experienced civil wars knows that these tend to be much nastier and bloodier even than ordinary ‘imperialist’ wars) and to sit up till midnight studying Lenin on the art of insurrection as a means of establishing a system of society in which war will evermore be impossible.

            The man with a liberal past comes believing that by joining the Communist Party he is somehow putting himself on the side of liberty, freedom, equality.  After attending a few Marxist classes he has come to ‘realise’ that these are but ‘bourgeois concepts’ which must be not only abandoned but also combated, since they are all part of the means by which an inhuman social system is made acceptable, in the guise of being tolerant and democratic, to those who suffer at its hands (pp. 86-87).

Based on this formation process, is it hard to understand the ideological motivation for sanctuary cities and states, open borders, and the claims about inhumane detention centers and concentration camps by members of the squad and other leftists?

There is no moral equivalence between Trump and the squad.  Like Trump, Americans need to protect the idea of America and be bold enough to tell the squad and those they symbolize to “knock it off!!!!!!”  America is our home.  “Home is where the heart is.”

 

When President Trump tells members of the squad to go home, he means they should go to where their heart belongs, which is not America.  The truth may hurt; but it can set us all free from the brutal chains of illusions and delusions.    

A Conflict of Values

by

Gadfly

                Yesterday, I received a report about a member of the U.S. Navy who was discharged for dishonoring our National Anthem.  According to The Florida Times-Union,

On Sept. 19, [2017] Petty Officer 2nd Class Janaye Ervin reportedly refused to salute during “morning colors,” a daily 8 a.m. raising of the flag, a Navy spokesman told The Washington Post. . . .

She gave an interview to International Business Times in which she said she was checking the latest news before starting work for government contractor Leidos at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickham in Hawaii and saw a report on the death of a black man who was shot and killed by a local police officer on a road in Tulsa, Okla.

“That was the last story I saw before the song started playing, and I was really sad and I just didn’t want to stand at that moment,” Ervin said

.

She thought, “I can’t stand for this song knowing that the song isn’t for me, being black. The song doesn’t represent me at all.”

Obviously, Ervin experienced a serious conflict of values.  One can only infer that the values in conflict were patriotism and group identity.  Ervin’s notion of patriotism was to a more perfect union, one that promotes equality and retributive justice based on the ghost of slavery.

 

The institution of slavery is too often demagogued without the historical context.  Slavery was a global institution at the time.  Our nation’s Founders recognized the immorality of this institution, and in the Declaration of Independence declared “all men are created equal.”  There were no qualifiers.  They were optimistic that, in time, the slavery issue would be resolved.

The other value is group identity.  This is very tribal.  It also reflects a distinction Hayek makes in Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism.  That is, societies reflect a set of behaviors that span a continuum from instinct to reason.  To manage the tension between these ends of the spectrum, customs, norms, and traditions are created.  Thus, to base an analysis of the world from a group identity perspective reflects an “instinct” orientation that is resistant to facts contrary to reason in favor of what one wants to believe.

Ervin’s little episode brought back a memory from 1976.  My wife, two daughters and I were stationed at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas.  I was a first lieutenant serving as a personnel officer in the group that supported the School of Cryptological Sciences (a training unit in support of the United States Security Service, now known as the National Security Agency [NSA]).

The episode involved a conversation during a master’s degree course. About a third of the class were blacks assigned to the Social Actions Office (focused on instilling a nondiscriminatory culture).  Somehow, the discussion evolved to patriotism and the black students became critical of the concept.  I suggested that as members of the armed forces, not being patriotic seemed contrary to what was expected of the profession.  They disagreed.

  

So, I confronted them:  "Do you feel respect for the American flag and the Constitution and way of life it represents?"  They said no.  Then all raised a fist and said “our allegiance is to black power.”

  

I warned them that if I were to report this incident, they might be subject to disciplinary action if not dismissal from the military; but since this was a classroom, I would grant them the anonymity of academic non-attribution.  Further, if they had any pride in not being a hypocrite, they needed to adjust their attitudes or leave the profession of arms.

 

They were respectful and appeared to be listening to what I had to say.  So, I acknowledged that racism remained an issue and this rightfully justified the Social Actions Office they populated.  The key, I believed, was to identify racist comments and acts and then to educate when possible or hold incorrigible violators accountable when necessary.  After all is done and said, tit-for-tat moral reasoning will make us no better than we have ever been.

Ironically, shortly after this episode, I was appointed as an investigating officer for a racial incident at one of the two gates that allowed access to the base.  My preparatory interview with the Wing Commander, Colonel Norma Brown (first female commander of an active duty wing in the United States Air Force and later a major general), was interesting.  After a few moments, she leaned forward and bluntly asked me if I was a chauvinist.  I told her, “Ma’am, I do not know what the word means, so maybe yes or maybe no.”  She then asked if I resented working for a woman.  I said, “No Ma’am, I’m just uncomfortable working for a full bird colonel.”

To make a long story short, the car full of black civilians sought access to the base to meet up with friends at the Noncommissioned Officer’s Club on a Friday night.  None of the civilians in the car had a military identification card that would allow entry.  The gate guard turned them away and then alerted the only other gate guard with a description of the car and occupants.  A few minutes later, the car arrived at the other gate.  Instead of turning the occupants of the car away, a young airman began to intimidate each member in the car, eventually having them exit the vehicle to be frisked.  The frisking was completely unjustified. The supervising noncommissioned officer (NCO) never intervened.

There were issues with this incident that stemmed from a lack of respect for rules (trying to get unauthorized access to a heavily protected facility) and racism, but more so from a violation of other principles, such as discipline, accountability, and so forth.  Upon my recommendations, each black civilian involved received a personal apology from Colonel Brown, three NCOs received letters of reprimand (which kept them from promotion for two years), and the security forces squadron commander received an Article 15 (administrative punishment in lieu of a court martial—which kept this officer from promotion) for allowing an unhealthy and unprofessional culture in the security forces squadron.

There were no winners in the Goodfellow case.  In different ways, all the players involved made decisions based on personal interest that was not congruent with the common good.

As we observe the current jockeying of Democrat presidential candidates, some boldly push for reparations for slavery.  At least one now calls for reparations to members of the LGBT community who were earlier denied equal rights, such as marriage.  Sadly, the motivation for these calls is to generate votes.  “If you vote for me, I’m going to give you something.”  This involves robbing Peter (taxation) to pay Paul (redistribution of wealth).

What values are in play with these candidates?

 

Certainly, no single living black person in America is or has ever been a slave.  Nor has any nonblack living person in America ever owned a slave.  Yet, the notion of reparations implies that nonblacks (we hear a lot about “white privilege”) should pay for the crime of slavery to benefit blacks who have never been a slave.  The value at play here is equality.  Therefore, to achieve equality based on historical behaviors, today’s blacks must be made to be more equal than nonblacks.  Does this sound like tit for tat reasoning?  Absolutely; except today’s Americans—both black and nonblack--get to be used as pawns in order for presidential candidates to achieve political power.

To further argue the absurdity of today’s political left, a new movement is spreading across America, called civic religion.  In a New York Times article, “Preaching Faith in Democracy,” we learn that after the election of Donald Trump, co-founders Eric Liu and Jena Cane, formed a nonprofit organization called Citizen University.  As an example of the training, one of the disciples of the first cohort “asked those in attendance to raise their hands if they thought that liberty was a core American value.  Then she asked them to raise their hands if they thought equality was a core American value.  Then she said: ‘Think of liberty and equality on a continuum.  What’s more important to you?’”

This is the type of dichotomy the left likes to create:  liberty versus equality; socialism versus capitalism.  They make us think we can have either liberty or equality.  One or the other; not both.  In a socialist system, this is true.  This is why individual liberty is taken away to ensure equality for the masses by a ruling elite.

 

This dichotomy also explains why the left pushes socialism as a remedy for the evils of capitalism.  In their narrative, capitalism results in inequality.  Yet, even a socialist system requires capitalism for any production of goods.  The difference is who controls the production.  Greed exists in any system.  In socialist regimes, the ruling elite live like kings and queens.  Politically, capitalism is exploited by those on the entire political spectrum through the phenomenon of crony capitalism.  Socialism cannot solve these problems—but it exacerbates them.  On the other hand, a more comprehensive manifestation of classical liberalism mitigates them, especially within the framework of a Constitutional Republic.

As Hayek explains in The Road to Serfdom, socialists use capitalism as the foil in advancing their cause, when in reality, the enemy of socialism is [classical] liberalism—individual liberty, private property, limited government, and free markets/free enterprise.  I contend that respect for a Judeo-Christian tradition was inherent in the classical liberal political philosophy.  Is it any surprise then that the left tends toward atheism in addition to its criticism of individual liberty, private property, and limited government? The left also believes that our economy is best managed through government control, such as minimum wages and the various forms of price control, and through fiscal and monetary policy.

Many Americans aligned with the left do not know for what the left really stands, except as the liberator of the oppressed.  In Dedication and Leadership, Douglas Hyde (former 20-year British communist and news editor of The Daily Worker) asserts that socialism can not gain any momentum without minorities because they are the easiest to agitate as victims of a nonsocialist system.  This is why the left needs minorities and they amplify this notion through identity groups.  The training, which communists call education, is actual propaganda in so far as it inspires the recruits into adopting a different set of values.  They do this by creating a new language.  This is why words like liberal, gay, and so forth have different meanings in today’s leftist-controlled public narrative.  We are now learning that AOC’s green deal was never about the climate—it was a push for socialism.

The great political division we are now experiencing is a wake-up call and an opportunity to really understand what is at stake for America.  Even Jesus was tempted to find his kingdom in this mortal life (Matthew 4:1-11)—as we are tempted to believe in a socialist utopia.  Those who have faith in God and seek the truth, which is liberating (John 8:32-36), can overcome the illusions and delusions of those who preach faith in secular humanism and the perceived benevolence of ruling elite.

We should be respectful and compassionate to the maximum extent possible while taking a stand for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness given to us by our Creator.  Much of the anger and contempt for America comes from the left.  While we are expected to respect the innate human dignity in each person, we are also expected to admonish and rebuke behaviors contrary to the notion that all are created equal and each is endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness.  We protect these inalienable rights through truth (currently obfuscated by fake news), the rule of law (ordered liberty; moral duty in the pursuit of happiness, including the ability to forego special interests for a greater good), and justice (adherence to the principle: “to each his due”).

   

In the process, we need to discuss values:  what they mean and how they apply within our communities.  Yet, none of this will be useful if we do not have a fundamental idea of what America is.  This idea is based on the inspiration of the Declaration of Independence and codified in a system of government--a republic--articulated in our Constitution.

 

This knowledge has not been passed along for at least three generations.  Shame on us for letting this happen.  We can change this.  We have work to be done.  Let’s roll!!

  

Acculturation without Context

by

Gadfly

Today’s essay is inspired by a short eBook, The #1 Mistake Most Everyone Makes When Reading the Bible, recommended to me by a close friend and mentor.  That mistake is interpreting passages without the proper context for the passage.  This common practice can also explain how acculturation without context substitutes for a system of education in modern America.  As a consequence, we now have at least three generations of Copernican drones.

 

My very first blog article, “Cogito Ergo Sum (‘I Think, Therefore I Am,’ Descartes),” published on August 9, 2012, introduced the notion of a Copernican drone.  Here is an excerpt from the article:

I realize that many potential readers may be incapable of comprehending the reflection and analysis in these blog entries.  Most of these people are what I call Copernican drones, and some are the product of a public-school educational system that spends more time prescribing what to think instead of how to think.   These Copernican drones lack the functional capacity to pollinate the world with enduring ideas based on their own creative thinking or critical analysis.  Nicolaus Copernicus only published one book in his lifetime—On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres--and it sparked a scientific revolution.  In the introduction to his book, there is a discussion about Copernicus’s reluctance to officially publish his analysis and theory of the solar system.  He knew that it would receive harsh criticism--not from the few who would take the time to digest his work first hand, but from the “drones among bees” who claim to be experts but only repeat what other drones such as themselves have written in newspapers and magazines (in other words, sound bites such as those we hear on the nightly news, or read in newspapers or magazines like the modern era’s Newsweek). 

Unfortunately, today’s Copernican drones are quick to say, “let’s agree to disagree,” either (a) imitating what they have heard from others in similar discussions; or (b) preventing a disruption to their comfort zone.  In their minds, a different view is not simply different but wrong.  Moreover, to a progressive, such as George Lakoff (demonstrated in his book, Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservative Think), a different view is not only wrong it is immoral.

   

The Copernican drone effect can be subtle.  For example, we recently watched various news sources on celebrations of the 75^th Anniversary of D-Day.   For some of the sources, the focus was on the incongruity of our current “unfit” President and how out of place he seemed during his European appearances.  Yet, an examination of the most important “optics” would reveal that, at the multiple American cemeteries enshrining hundreds of thousands of American service members buried across the European landscape, their resting places were marked by a Christian Cross or Star of David.  This context should remind us that the devotion and courage of Americans who fought against the tyranny of fascism reflected character firmly rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition.  I do not recall any recognition of this context from any of the news sources.

How is it that such context can be missed in relation to such an epic time in our history?  The answer is acculturation.  Acculturation is how political elite shape and condition those they wish to rule.  Aldous Huxley prophesied a conditioned society in A Brave New World.  C.S. Lewis cautioned us in his book The Abolition of Man.  George Orwell understood the danger of acculturation and warned us in Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Neil Postman provided evidence in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death:  Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.  Bella Dodd wrote about her experiences as an American communist conditioner in her memoir, School of Darkness.  Dodd credits Archbishop Fulton Sheen for her rescue.  In a radio broadcast on January 26, 1947, Sheen said:

Why is it that so few realize the seriousness of our present crisis?  Partly because men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because it involves too much self-accusation, and principally because they have no standards outside of themselves by which to measure their times . . . Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world.  The great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on (cited in an article by Joseph Pronechen, “Did Fulton Sheen Prophesy About These Times?”) .

Acculturation is critical to progressivism.  In this case “progress” is a verb, not a noun.  It involves social justice and other tactics to promote equality, even coercively, in an imagined perfect future—a future created by political elite.  Its idea of the American dream is a future created for others by those who are superior intellectually and morally.  These elite follow in the footsteps of Eve in the Book of Genesis when she defied God by eating fruit from the forbidden tree.  She was deceived by the devil in thinking she could be God’s equal.  The fate of progressivism, as in all former attempts at socialism, is to arrive at a single commandment, as the animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm discovered: “All animals are created equal; some are more equal than others.”  Is it, then, any surprise that some 2020 Presidential contenders extol the merits of socialism while also virtue-signaling about reparations?

Individuality is a threat to progressivism’s acculturated collective system.  This is why equality is more important than liberty.  This is why morality is determined by political elite as opposed to a natural law that is superior to the man-made State.

 

Acculturation without context depends on the imposition of values by political elite.  Tilling the soil of the human mind and heart to be receptive to these imposed values requires the removal of any traditional values that are not congruent with the progressive perfect future.  Hayek made this observation in his book, Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism:

Man is not born wise, rational, and good, but has to be taught to become so.  It is not our intellect that created our morals; rather, human interactions governed by our morals make possible the growth of reason and those capabilities associated with it.  Man became intelligent because there was tradition—that which lies between instinct and reason—for him to learn.  This tradition, in turn, originated not from a capacity rationally to interpret observed facts but from habits of responding (pp. 21-22). 

Lee Harris of the Hoover Institute (and gay) wrote an intriguing article, “The Future of Tradition,” which essentially challenges the rationale for same-sex marriage.  By imposing this nontraditional norm on the majority, political elite have artificially changed tradition, even if it is disruptive to the natural order and stability of a civilized society.  Harris also wrote a compelling article about the roots of anti-Americanism—no surprise in that it has its basis in Marxism.

 

In my opinion, Marxism is the dominant ideology driving modern acculturation in America.  Most Americans are completely unaware.  Many of those who actively affiliate with socialism, such as the Communist Party USA (www.cpusa.org), have little to no understanding of socialism’s history and its brutality—they lack context, and they are Copernican drones.

 

Acculturation is the antithesis of education.  The Latin root for education is the verb “educare,” which means “to draw out.”  To educate or draw out, then, means that an educator (i.e., parent, teacher, minister, coach, etc.) facilitates the cognitive and emotional maturation of an individual, enabling the individual to see and understand and then to explain and to anticipate.

 

Education enables an individual to learn to interact with others and to understand how one’s behavior affects others and vice versa.  Over time these interactions become norms and customs, such as manners.  Manners are what we traditionally understood as habits for constructive interactions with others.

 

Education develops an individual capacity to observe and then to process information for sense making.  This is why two individuals can observe the same thing and have different perspectives about it.  This is good.  It represents the diversity that allows these two individuals to respectfully explore the differences in their perspectives.  Hegel called this dialectical reasoning, which enables closer approximations of the truth, the ultimate objective.  The process requires active dialogue.

 

Thomas Kuhn, in his seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explains the challenge in advancing science (essentially the journey “to know”) is the pesky paradigm—the mental frame for observing and processing information.  According to Kuhn, “When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular.  Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense” (p. 94).  It is possible, through respect and active listening, to be unbounded by paradigms.  This can happen by treating the other person with respect and dignity.  Agreeing to disagree is a retreat from science.

How bad is acculturation without context in America?  On Tuesday, riding Denver’s light rail to Coors Stadium for a Rockies game, a 1970 graduate from West Point and retired medical doctor, sitting across from me, made an interesting comment: “I have not personally read the Mueller Report, but I am damn glad the House is conducting hearings to find out what happened in the Trump Russia Scandal.”

 

Really?

 

Mustering as much politeness as I could at the spur of the moment, I responded, “I have read the report.  Mueller’s logic on obstruction was convoluted and, in my opinion, deliberately crafted in a way to give Democrats an opportunity to prosecute the President in the court of public opinion.  A complicit media provides powerful amplification for this purpose.”  (Note:  according to the latest polls, 50% of Americans believe Trump coordinated with Russia—even after the Mueller report found insufficient evidence for this finding).

 

In the privacy of my mind, I thought, “Here we are casually cruising on public transportation on our way to America’s great pastime, complete with hot dogs and beer, while other Americans are working feverishly to remove a duly elected President.”  This spontaneous encounter was a clear example of a comfort zone and effective acculturation without context.

Germany was an intellectual and cultural center of the world until Hitler gained power with the consent of the people.  In It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis wrote about how fascism emerges in America.  The left loves to suggest that Trump is the main character in It Can’t Happen Here.  After all, he lies.  He’s a dictator.  He’s imperialistic.  Yet, ask for a single example and you hear crickets.

 

Fascism (or communism) can happen in America.  It happens through acculturation without context.

 

Bishop Sheen was prescient in asking, “Why is it that so few realize the seriousness of our present crisis?”  The crisis is not Trump.  Trump is merely the visible symbol of values contrary to the acculturated left.  Unfortunately, the acculturated left controls the public narrative.  The public narrative controls public sentiment.  Public sentiment controls decisions at the ballot box.

Is Peace Possible for America’s Political Left

by

Gadfly

During today’s Catholic Mass, I noticed a uniquely worded passage in The Gloria: “Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to people of good will” (Luke 2:15).  Why, I pondered, does it not simply say “peace on earth to all people”?  The answer, I concluded, depends on the meaning and internalization of the terms, peace and good will.  The implications are disturbing for today’s political divide and the status of America.

            The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines peace (primarily for this essay) as “1 a state of tranquility or quiet:  such as (a) freedom from civil disturbance; and (b) a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom; 2 freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions; 3 harmony in personal relations; and 4 a state or period of mutual concord between governments.”

            According to Vocabulary.com, good will means a disposition to kindness and compassion.  Whether spelled as “goodwill” or “good will,” it joins two words from Old English meanings where good refers to virtuous god; and will refers to a wish.   “So, when you wish someone well — when you feel friendly or compassionate — you have goodwill toward that person.”

          Peace is about one’s milieu—the state of one’s habitat, where we live, work, and play.  Certainly, the news on a 24-hour basis reports a constant state of civil disturbance and oppressive thoughts and emotions; and periodic dysfunctional personal relations (especially in the senseless school shootings), and discord between governments (especially the national/federal versus the states as in the recent abortion legislation in a few states).  Many Americans are not at peace.

          How does the left seek peace for all Americans?  Do they express good will toward those who are not of the left?  When President Trump was accused of supporting white supremacy at Charlottesville, it was based on a comment about good people on both sides.  The reason Charlottesville happened was because of discord about Confederate memorials.  In his statement following confrontation between rival groups, Trump criticized the violence and expressed good will toward broader groups who believed they should be taken down and those who believed they should remain.  One of the major participating groups from the left was one called Antifa, which is shorthand for anti-fascist.  A couple minutes of research will reveal that this is a communist group, similar to other communist groups in the 20^th Century.  Antifa has a global presence.  Communists and fascists are manifestations of socialism—both left of center.  And, they both agitate for dominance that oppresses free thought and emotions among those who are not among their political factions.

            How does oppressing free thought and emotions happen in America?  It starts with political correctness.  Notice how political correctness is regulated by the left.  First, the left created oppressed groups, generally understood as political identity groups.  We know who they are:  women, minorities, the LGBT groups, illegal aliens, Muslims, and so forth.  Women are excellent instruments for the left’s ruling elite.  They are oppressed by privileged white men, with old white men being the worst.  They resent being discouraged from murdering the children in their wombs because this violates their reproductive rights (hmmm, how is aborting a life consistent with the right to reproduce?).  There are many compassionate groups that understand pregnancies can be unintended or untimely and offer to help through adoption.  What is compassionate about terminating a life, which is one of the inalienable rights given to us by God?  God gives life and people destroy it.  All humans are vulnerable to the capital sins or vices of pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.  Yet, God is merciful to those who repent but also just, granting peace to people of good will or misery for people who do not practice good will.

  

Second, progressive policies such as Lyndon Johnson’s The Great Society made minorities, primarily black then Hispanic groups, dependent upon government largess, resulting in most of today’s Democrat-run inner cities that are rampant with fatherless children, poverty, and gangs.  There is nothing compassionate about progressive policies that perpetuate this kind of life.  To the contrary, the left has shackled members of these identity groups with the illusions of being oppressed.  Plato brilliantly captured these dynamics in his Cave allegory.  Fake news (members of the left’s political elite) contributes to the illusions.  Do you ever wonder why you will often hear, “don’t watch Fox News,” but hardly ever hear “don’t watch or read (fill in the blank other than Fox News)?

Third, extending the power of political correctness, the left creates “hate crimes”—another form of oppressing free thought and emotions.  For example, if I state that homosexual behavior is a mutation from the natural order of things based on phenotype (genetic trait interaction with one’s environment; see also here and here), not strictly genotype; then, I am labeled with a disordered condition known as homophobia.  Worse, if I label homosexual activity as sinful, not only am I labeled with homophobia, I would be called a religious bigot.  Both would be hate crimes.  The real world impact is such that business people have paid the price for choosing not to participate in same-sex weddings, even after showing kindness and compassion by recommending other vendors willing to support their wishes.

 

Colorado, among a handful of other “blue” states has banned conversion therapy—no surprise as the governor is gay and married to another man.  This is a form of therapy that is designed to help an individual transition from homosexual to heterosexual orientations.  It is controversial according to LGBT activist groups.  Many individuals who struggle with the conflict between behavior and conscience seek this kind of help voluntarily.  Younger individuals may be compelled by parents trying to help their children.  There is no kindness or compassion extended to parents who want to do what they believe is best for their children.  The state (i.e., the political elite) knows better.  Facts have no relevance here in that suicide rates among homosexuals is seven times greater than for heterosexuals.

Fourth, the left begins early to shape the illusions of oppression.  A recent trip to Barnes & Noble revealed a display of books targeting 4- to 8-year-old children.  The display said, “Social Awareness for Children.”  Themes throughout these books talked about agitating for one’s rights, resisting oppression, gender equality, diversity, and so forth.  There was nothing in any of these books that talked about good manners, respect for customs and tradition, knowledge, and so forth.  Colorado recently passed a law that funds full-day kindergarten.  The local news showed clips of Colorado’s governor reading books to children.

Regarding the present, the left agonizes about Trump’s fitness to hold office.  A two-year investigation led by Robert Mueller found no collusion but demurred on obstruction.  Ironically, Mueller hesitated on making a finding on the obstruction matter by saying that had he discovered sufficient evidence that Trump was innocent on obstruction, he would have said so.  In other words, in Mueller’s mind, Trump was guilty unless proven innocent.  This is contrary to American jurisprudence that says all American citizens are presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty.  This stunt was purely a political ploy by Mueller—there was not the slightest ounce of good will by Mueller and his henchmen on behalf of America’s system of justice.

 

According to the left, of which Mueller and his henchmen were a willing and witting instrument, Trump’s real crime was getting elected.  Since winning Electoral College votes is not a crime, the left got very creative in attempting to manufacture crimes.  Despite the Mueller setback, the left can count on a complicit media as they press forward with impeachment hearings—show trials to influence public opinion as Walter Cronkite prophesied in his Preface to the 1983 edition of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four:

   

. . . From the show trials of the pre-war Soviet Union to the dungeon courts of post-revolutionary Iran, 1984’s vision of justice as foregone conclusion is familiar to us all.  As soon as we were introduced to such things, we realized we had always known them.

. . . If not prophecy, what was 1984?  It was, as many have noticed, a warning:  a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages.

. . . 1984 is an anguished lament and a warning that we may not be strong enough nor wise enough nor moral enough to cope with the kind of power we have learned to amass (bold italics added for emphasis).

 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wants Trump in prison because he’s covering up crimes.  There is no good will in this perspective, especially when no specific crime or crimes have been established by legitimate law enforcement actions.  Pelosi is third in the line of succession as President of the United States.  This protocol by itself makes Pelosi a very powerful person.  While Trump surprisingly won the presidential election despite all the predictions, he did win with 63 million votes and a decisive margin in the Electoral College (304 to 227).  Pelosi on the other hand was elected by 274,000 votes in the 12^th District of California (the entire city of San Francisco).  There is a substantial difference in political mandates.  Despite her “public” position that is opposed to impeachment, her actions speak louder in that she is allowing Democrat-controlled committees to essentially pursue impeachment hearings.

How far has the left drifted from any notion of good will?  The Old English meaning of the term good is “virtuous” god.  According to Gallup Polls, 96% of Americans, speaking New English, affiliated with Christian religious denominations in the year 1956. Today, that number is in the 60% range, with most of that change stemming from the left.  Today, in Democrat-controlled House committees, “So help me God” has been removed from the oath when swearing in witnesses.

So much for peace to people of good will, let alone for the greater glory of God.  Nonetheless, we need Americans with good will (stemming from virtuous God) and the courage to act for the greater glory of God.  The trustees for the University of Alabama demonstrated such courage when they returned a very large donation from an alumnus trying to undermine recent legislation on abortion.  They chose life over power.  "Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth to people of good will."