Rioting in federal buildings is not what peaceable assembly means

Thousands of demonstrators converged in Washington, DC, held a rally and marched to Capitol Hill. "We were planning to shut down the Capitol Building but the authorities were so scared of [us] that they shut it down for us. 1000+ women, survivors, and allies have gathered in the Hart Senate Building. Every hallway. Every floor," members of the Women’s March tweeted in October of 2018.

They gathered outside the Supreme Court building, entered the building and banged on its doors while a hearing was being held, chanting: "Kavanaugh has got to go!"

Last July, Antifa rioters tried to break into the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon and attacked a federal officer with a hammer.

These events were not heavily criticized. And the media and liberals failed to condemn riots that destroyed many small businesses in several cities last summer. These riots were frequently termed “mostly peaceful” by the mainstream media.

On January 6th of this year, tens of thousands attended a rally in the nation’s capital, and later marched to the Capitol Building, where some entered illegally, wreaked havoc, and interfered with ongoing Congressional business.

Tragically, five people died during the attack. One women protester was shot and killed by Capitol Police for an unknown reason. Three other protesters died of “health issues” as a result of the activities. And one Capitol Police officer was injured, and later died. 

These five deaths should not have occurred. Thugs breaking into federal buildings and interfering with government business is wrong, and against the law. Such lawlessness and violence are inexcusable and must be punished.

President Donald Trump addressed the rally for over an hour before the march to the Capitol. He discussed the election and the long list of irregularities that he believes occurred, including illegalities. He believes there was fraud and has said so repeatedly. Nothing new here. And millions of Trump’s supporters agree with him.

He mentioned going down to the Capitol four times. But he never asked or encouraged anyone to break the law, to hurt anyone, or to damage federal property. 

Here are Trump’s comments about going to the Capitol, in the order they were spoken:

1. “After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going [to] walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women.”

2. “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

3. “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue -- I love Pennsylvania Avenue -- and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give … The Democrats are hopeless. They never voted for anything. Not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans -- the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”

4. “So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.”

Those words certainly should not cause anger. Yes, Trump talked about his dissatisfaction with the election. And, yes, a lot of people disagree with him saying those things. But he did not encourage rioting and breaking into the Capitol Building.

Perhaps the actual rioters among the thousands of peaceful rally attendees heard only what they wanted to hear. Or perhaps what they heard had nothing to do with their illegal and violent actions.

Some people that I know personally attended the rally, each in their own group of friends. Their comments about what occurred reflect that the crowd was not angry or ready to riot, but enjoying the event, greeting each other and being happy. All very positive. 

It is convenient and easy to blame the wrongs that people do on a person or some issue. But the responsibility for any laws broken, damage done and other wrongs falls squarely on the shoulders of the ones that committed those acts.

Since this rally was not a surprise, why did Capitol officials not prepare in advance for it, as they did in 2018?

“Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration,” the Associated Press reported.

Three days before the rally and march to the Capitol, “the Pentagon asked the U.S. Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower,” the report AP continued. “And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter.”

And despite all of that, and the absence of inciteful language in the address Trump gave, people rushed to blame him for the attack.

The message “never let a good crisis go to waste” comes to mind.

About Congressional term limits, and this week’s activities

Published January 5, 2021

Twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives, past and present, held office for 36-to-39 years, 49 were in office for 40-to-49 years, and seven were in office 50 or more years, with Michigan’s John Dingle leading the pack with 59 years and 21 days in office.

Thirteen members of the Senate, past and present, held office for 36-to-39 years, with nine in office for 40-to-49 years, and one, West Virginia’s Robert C. Byrd, was in office for 51 years and 176 days.

All of those people were in office after 1900, and some served in both the House and the Senate during their total tenure. Several of them are in Congress today.

The point of the preceding information is to call attention to how long they held these positions, rather than how many people have held elective positions for many years. 

It is generally accepted that a career lasts between 40 and 50 years, and it is not uncommon for people to work in different jobs during their career. Generally, people begin working in their late teens or early 20s, and retire in their mid 60s or in their 70s.

The intention of America’s Founders was for Congressional positions not to be a career, or even a large portion of a career. The country was intended to have citizen legislators who run for office and hold it for a few years, and then return to the private sector and the work they did prior to being elected. 

That way, legislators will be more in touch with the people they represent, since they have faced, and will relatively soon again face the same issues that their constituents must deal with. Having the same personal experiences as their constituents, they are well prepared to act to the benefit of the people.

Let’s look at the tenure of the leadership of the 116th Congress, which just ended.

The people currently holding leadership positions in the House of Representatives are listed with their position, their name, and the year they entered Congress: Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, 1987; Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, 1981; Majority Whip, Jim Clyburn, 1993; Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, 2007; Minority Whip, Steve Scalise, 2008.

Those currently holding leadership positions in the Senate, listed with their position, their name, and the year they entered Congress: President pro tempore, Chuck Grassley, 1981; Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, 1985; Majority Whip, John Thune, 2005; Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, 1999; Minority Whip, Dick Durbin, 1997.

The newest members of the leadership in both houses have been there at least 12 years, and those with the longest tenure have been there nearly 40 years. 

The average age of members of the House at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 57.6 years-old; of Senators, 62.9 years-old. This is perhaps somewhat of a good thing, as the older one is, the more of life he or she has experienced, and hopefully has learned from it.

In 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, setting a term limit of two four-year terms on the presidency. It is time to do the same for members of Congress.

Changing faces more frequently would introduce more new ideas to law-making, and would allow newer members to perhaps get influential positions. With shorter tenures, members may be more willing to back good proposals that are controversial.

Where to draw the lines? Term limits of 12 years would allow six two-year House terms or two six-year Senate terms, or a combination that does not exceed 12 years.

This method is very close to the average tenure of members of the 116th Congress. The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 116th Congress was 8.6 years (4.3 House terms); for Senators, 10.1 years (1.7 Senate terms).

* * *

This week, two important things take place. Today, the Georgia runoff elections for two U.S. Senate seats are being held. The stakes are important: if one or both Republicans, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, hold on to the seats they now occupy, the Senate will remain under Republican control. If the Democrat challengers Raphael Warnock and John Ossof win, the Democrats and Republicans each would hold 50 seats, and the vice president would be the tie-breaker. If Democrat Kamala Harris is the VP, one party, the Democrats, will control the White House and both houses of the Congress. 

Tomorrow, the Congress meets to validate the Electoral College votes for president and vice president. Electoral votes will be tallied in a joint session of the House and the Senate, meeting in the House chamber. The president of the Senate —Vice President Mike Pence — is the presiding officer of the session.

Members of the House and Senate may file written objections to Electoral votes from any state, signed by at least one member of each house. House and Senate members will then separately debate the objection(s) and vote to approve or disapprove. If an objection is approved by both houses, the Electoral votes for that state are not accepted, and those votes are subtracted.

This procedure is not expected to change the Electoral College winners, Joe 

Biden and Kamala Harris, but it possibly could.

Government excess; correcting a wrong; and foolish leadership

Published December 29, 2020

Congress officially passed a $900 billion coronavirus relief package which was attached to a broader, $1.4 trillion government spending bill, clearing the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. 

This bill is a monstrosity, running 5,593 pages long, but is perhaps the best of the many Congressional boondoggles with which to illustrate the current practice of bundling a ridiculous range of interests into one omnibus bill.

This tactic most often is used to get one or more highly controversial elements approved with relative ease. You want your favorite pork measure to get approval? Then tie it to a bill that 95 percent of Americans and their elected representatives believe “must” be approved.

Much of government over-spending and outrageous legislative measures have been born of this underhanded, but too-often successful tactic.

The “billionibus” bill has been inaptly referred to as a coronavirus relief measure. While it does fund coronavirus relief and some very beneficial things, it has a lot of money in it for other countries. 

For example, at least $15,000,000 for democracy programs and not less than $10,000,000 for gender programs, in Pakistan; $86 million for assistance to Cambodia; $130 million to Nepal, $1.3 billion for Egypt and their military; $135 million to Burma; $453 million to Ukraine; $700 million to Sudan; and $505 million to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

It also gives $40 million for the necessary expenses for the operation, maintenance and security of The Kennedy Center (which has been closed, due to the coronavirus), and includes funds for the Resource Study of Springfield (Illinois) Race Riot that occurred in 1908. 

A proper House and Senate would write bills that dealt with, ideally, one single issue, or perhaps a couple of closely-related ones, instead of a popular issue with a bunch of self-serving, narrow, partisan, voter-attracting measures attached.

* * *

President Donald Trump pardoned Michael Flynn to end the nightmare against a man who had served his country valiantly for many years in the U.S. Army, retiring at the rank of lieutenant general, and had accepted President-elect Trump's offer for the position of National Security Advisor in 2016 and then briefly served as National Security Advisor.

People opposing the pardon rely on the claim that Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, but they fail to consider the sordid circumstances of that plea.

An FBI agent, who worked in the disastrous special counsel investigation into supposed Russian involvement with the Trump campaign and administration headed by Robert Mueller, “told investigators he thought the probe into Gen. Michael Flynn was ‘unclear and disorganized,’ and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia,” National Public Radio reported in September.

William Barnett was interviewed by Justice Department investigators, and his position on the Flynn matter was summarized in a 13-page document.

Later, FBI agents prepared to close the investigation of Flynn, having found no wrongdoing, but former FBI intelligence agent Peter Strzok demanded it be kept open. You may remember that Strzok, and his paramour and fellow FBI employee Lisa Page, were knee-deep in official FBI malfeasance. The lengthy and ridiculously expensive Mueller probe failed to find the much-ballyhooed collusion with Russia.

Desperately trying to get Flynn, in early 2017 FBI agents went to the White House to interview him. According to an article at Townhall.com, their handwritten notes said, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" 

Ultimately, the FBI successfully blackmailed Flynn into pleading guilty to lying. This they accomplished by causing him to run up legal costs that broke him, forcing him to sell his home, and then they threatened to go after his son.

How many of Flynn’s critics would have done the same as he did to escape being persecuted by the FBI?

* * *

We have seen some pretty out-there things occur recently, but please, don’t make the mistake of thinking that things cannot get any crazier. 

A major American city plans to allow perpetrators of many crimes to have their charges dismissed if poverty, mental illness or substance-abuse disorder is the reason they committed the crimes. This will be classified as a poverty defense, according to the elected officials who champion this idea.

If you are poor and living on the street, and break into a business or a home and steal something, your criminal charge will be dismissed, and you are free to sell the stolen items in order to help you survive.

And, in order to acquire adequate shelter, trespassers will be allowed to set up camp on private property. 

Other wrongdoings on this list of allowable crimes, when committed for the reasons listed, are assault and harassment. 

Want to guess in which U.S. city this is happening? Seattle, Washington. An organization called Decriminalize Seattle is behind this movement. It has also called for defunding police by at least 50 percent, and using those funds for “community led health and safety systems.” 

This is the sort of “leadership” we find today in Democrat-run cities and states. Will a Democrat administration allow this twisted reasoning to be applied nationwide?

Three topics illustrating the troubled times in which we now live

** Lincoln under attack. Again.

In the string of events of erasing history, Abraham Lincoln’s name will be removed from a high school in San Francisco, California, after a committee recommended the action. 

And just what did Lincoln do, or not do, to earn this slap in the face? He did not demonstrate that black lives mattered to him.

“Lincoln, like the presidents before him and most after, did not show through policy or rhetoric that black lives ever mattered to them outside of human capital and as casualties of wealth building,” said Jeremiah Jeffries, chairman of the renaming committee, and also teaches 1st grade in the school district.

This seems a little weird, even for California, where very little that happens surprises us these days. Lincoln, America’s 16th president who abolished slavery, became known as the Great Emancipator, and was an inspiration to his successors. Those included President Barack Obama, who used the Lincoln Bible for his inauguration in 2009.

“Lincoln conducted a war, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and got shot in the head for black lives, but this wasn’t enough to keep him from being unceremoniously ditched by modern social justice warriors,” wrote Jarrett Stepman in The Daily Signal.

Another area of discontent followed a Sioux uprising in Minnesota, where 303 tribesmen were sentenced to death. Lincoln reviewed their cases and removed the death sentence for 265 of them. The other 38 were hanged.

But some saw that saving only the great majority of the Sioux warriors as a Lincoln failure.

This criticism of Lincoln earned a comment from Sherry Black, who worked for more than 40 years in Native American economic and community development: “Considering the time period, it’s so difficult to understand how things were at the time. How do you make these decisions?”

That is a question that the cancel folk apparently cannot answer, and is likely a subject that has never entered into their narrow minds.

So, what are they going to name the school? Perhaps “Saul Alinsky High School.”

** Governors and mayors doing crazy stuff

As the lockdowns and other heavy restrictions continue, millions are out of a job, thousands of employers have had to permanently close their businesses, and many more may meet that same fate, if things don’t soon change.

While the intentions may be good, the results often are not. The virus can be horrible, even deadly. But, people being out of work and out of money, and other lockdown problems, have also led to much suffering, including suicides. 

And kids need to be in school. Safely, of course. But they need a productive learning environment, and virtual learning falls well short. 

Restrictions often are not sensible. People can protest in large groups, shop in large stores with lots of other people, but may only attend religious services in ridiculously small numbers. Some other restrictions on activities are just as foolish.

And then there are those that make rules, but do not themselves follow those rules. Arrogant “leaders” only compound the problems. 

People are growing tired of these authoritarian actions, that deny their constitutional rights, and render us a bunch of hostages.

** Virtual education issues

 

Like many kids across the country, a 9-year-old 4th grader in the Jefferson Parish Public Schools System in Louisiana has been doing school online from his bedroom. During an online test, his computer showed some of the things in his bedroom. His teacher saw him moving a BB gun out of the floor.

That evening, the police came and searched his house, based on the teacher’s report, and the 9-year-old was facing expulsion by the school system. 

He ended up being suspended for 3 days, as he would have been if he had actually brought a gun to school, and the school board is refusing to remove the suspension from his record.

During a hearing, the school board asked the young boy how his teacher must have felt after seeing the gun on the computer screen. “I know what a BB gun looks like,” said a former teacher and school board member. “And you know what it resembles? A real gun. OK? It resembles a real gun.” 

Perhaps this former teacher and board member does not know that owing BB guns, and other guns, is legal in our country.

An attorney representing the boy’s family, called the imposition of school-ground rules enforced in someone’s actual home as an “injustice”: “This is an injustice. It’s a systemic failure. They’re applying on-campus rules to these children, even though they’re learning virtually in their own homes.”

The state legislature passed a law named after the boy that charged that the school behaved improperly, but the school board still refused to remove the suspension from his permanent record.

The teacher, the school, and the school board have no authority to tell people what they may or may not have in their homes. The reporting of this family to the police is outrageous, and the entire affair should cost the school system a pile of money.

Best wishes for a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!