Rest assured, the Establishment Mob survived. There was a 4-year hiccup, but those days are over. The Washington elites are back on track and hungry to continue their mission. Over the past several months, the Biden Administration has proven to be a very serious protector of the empire. It leaves little doubt that Washington will continue down its power politics road toward domestic and international supremacy.

Recently, Biden threatened Putin with a “pay a price” card. Not your run-of-the-mill Teddy Roosevelt advice to speak softly and carry a big stick. Biden’s nasty warning based upon an intelligence report claiming that it has evidence that indicated the Russian government “likely” ordered attempts to influence the 2020 elections. Naturally, the public cannot see this “rock solid” proof of Russiagate #2 evidence. Who knows they may even dust off the old gang of; Mueller, Comey, Brennan, and Clapper to substantiate the evidence.

Candidate Biden promised his administration would dedicate their efforts to restoring dignity and decorum in U.S. foreign relations. However, Biden has shown little regard for his promise. When he described President Putin as a “killer” and having “no soul,” he quite frankly tarnished any integrity he has left.

These statements are willful actions that will worsen relations with Russia. Our leaders: the President, Secretary of State, and National Security Council have reignited conflict with Russia, ramped up aggression with China, ignored a peace treaty in Afghanistan, refused to re-enter into the JCPOA treaty, and have continued to pursue regime change policies in Syria, Iran, and Venezuela.

The Washington game plan marches on; the Bush’s, the Clinton’s, Obama, Trump or Biden it is contiguous. Even with our 4-years, democratic, built-in regime change pageant, the beast does not stop. Biden’s threatening language, continued sanctions, and displays of military readiness hasten the pace toward confrontational actions. The current administration seems to be very comfortable being the new bully in town.

I prefer the average Joe, cowering in his basement, masked candidate Biden, to my drunk Uncle Joe ranting at the holiday table.

On Thursday, a bipartisan majority of the House Homeland Security Committee endorsed the idea of domestic terror laws. US lawmakers heard from the “experts” who claimed that another “domestic terrorist attack” would occur soon.

I’m “pretty sure” this is their Superbowl commercial to rally the audience for more Government protection!

I am “certain” the US lawmakers will take care of all domestic terrorist threats! How did the Patriot Act work out? I am “pretty sure” it didn’t.

The Oregon Truce

In  February, and Oregon ballot measure that decriminalized drugs took effect. Adults can no longer be arrested for possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, oxycodone and other drugs. https://apnews.com/article/oregon-decriminalize-drug-possession-6843f93c3d55212e0ffbdd8b93be9196

Instead, those found in possession would face a $100 fine or a health assessment that could lead to addiction counseling. The addiction recovery centers will be funded by millions of dollars of tax revenue from Oregon’s legalized marijuana industry.  Backers of the ballot measure, which Oregon voters passed by a wide margin in November, hailed it as a revolutionary move for the United States.

Brief History

In 1930, at age 38, Harry Anslinger was appointed the founding commissioner of the Treasury’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The bureau was not set up to target drug users or the “social evils” of drugs, it was instituted to chase untaxed revenue. But after, Prohibition, the 18th Amendment was repealed, out of self-interest and due to the obsolescence of the Department of Prohibition, Anslinger campaigned for a new prohibition against marijuana use. That was the unofficial start of the War on Drugs. In 1972, Richard Nixon formalized and nationalized it.

The Arguments

De-criminalization of drugs will create more violence. It’s the illegal, high risk, high reward environment that attract a unique cliental. People more prone to violence are amongst this demographic. The drug trade, because it is illegal, has no real criminal justice system. Justice is administrated by the violent participants that enforce their own system of justice. This results in violent gang turf wars and cartel rivalries. Cities and communities are torn apart, often times with innocents getting caught in the crossfire.

De-criminalization of substances will enrich the drug cartels. Just as alcohol prohibition gave rise to gangsters in the 1920’s, such as the notorious and deadly Al Capone, the war against drugs has given rise to violent drug cartels, making multi-billionaires out of drug kingpins like El Chapo. Prohibition places a high premium on the commodity due to it being illegal. Cash and power is the reward and violences the price.

In actuality prohibition of substances cost are huge. “The amount of money used to enforce prohibition started at $6.3 million in 1921 and rose to $13.4 million in 1930, almost double the original amount”. A 2015 study estimated that the repeal of Prohibition had a net social benefit of “$432 million per annum in 1934–1937, about 0.33% of gross domestic product.” This was primarily due to the increased consumer and producer surplus, tax revenues, and reduced criminal violence costs.

De-criminalization of substances will increase addiction. Current drug overdose is another issue that is fueled by the fact that the sanctity of the product is always suspect. Illegal drugs are readily available in most areas. Legalizing drugs would provide a higher level of confidence in the ingredients of the drugs being sold. Companies selling drugs could be held liable if they sell tainted drugs that poison their customers, an option not available under the current system.

Portugal took a proactive step to decriminalize drugs in 2000. Prior to 2000, they had the highest percentage of addicts in Europe. According to the AP article, “Portugal’s 2000 decriminalization brought no surge in drug use. Drug deaths fell while the number of people treated for drug addiction in the country rose 20% from 2001 to 2008 then stabilized.” 

Collateral Damage

The War on Drugs tears families apart, it jails people (mostly black men) for using or possessing a chemical that the government deemed illegal. Millions of children have had to grow up with a parent stuck behind bars for non-criminal acts. The Constitution limits the government to protecting citizens against others violating their rights. Government is not to protect us against our own judgment and actions as long as they do not harm others. Incarceration harms individuals, families and communities. 

The Drug War is destructive and it creates criminals. I prefer to call them victims, not criminals. Like every war the innocent are usually the “collateral damage.” This war destroys people’s lives, this war imprisons non-violent people because they choose to use or hold a substance, this war puts a permanent stain on peoples criminal record, this war makes it virtually impossible to join the job market, this war makes it difficult to obtain housing.

“The War is Over?” 

“Today, the first domino of our cruel and inhumane war on drugs has fallen, setting off what we expect to be a cascade of other efforts centering health over criminalization,” said Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which spearheaded the Oregon ballot initiative.

“I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy,” Mr. Biden wrote in a September op-ed for CNN. “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal (JCPOA), the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations.” Biden’s “credible path back to diplomacy” appears to have a few strings attached.

The Obama, I’m sorry, the Biden foreign policy experts are back in town. They are in charge with the handling of the JCPOA “re-negotiations”. Their negotiating tactic includes what Gareth Porter refers to it as good ole American “coercive diplomacy.” But the experts may have a flawed logic stream. 

Selective memory sometimes infects the Washington diplomatic corps. It’s perplexing that, “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal” is the basis for returning to the JCPOA agreement. Did they “forget” that the US violated the deal first and Iran had observed all of the JCPOA’s provisions for about two years after the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement. 

My memory tells me that it was not until the Trump administration reintroduced old sanctions (outlawed by the agreement) and the introduction of new sanctions aimed at preventing Iran from exporting oil did Iran breach its responsibilities of the nuclear deal. 

In reality, the US entered into an JCPOA agreement and then it broke a promise with a partner. By quitting the JCPOA promise, the US divorced itself from the relationship. But now wants Iran, the spurned partner, to make the first move toward reconciliation. Washington may even be looking for Iran to sweeten the deal by insisting on more concessions that were not part of the original deal.

Iran is holding firm on the original JCPOA agreement. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif recently explained, “The time for the United States to come back to the nuclear agreement is not unlimited.” Zarif goes on to say, “The United States has a limited window of opportunity … The United States has to accept what we agreed upon.”

Washington’s propaganda continues to misrepresent the order of events and their motive. “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations.” 

By declaring that Iran needs to “return to strict compliance” just to establish a “starting point for follow-on negotiations” is disingenuous. This is Washington double-talk for, “the hell with the agreement we signed,” let’s “right” the “wrongs” of the 2015 JCPOA agreement. 

The “rights” and “wrongs” of the 2015 JCPOA agreement may be solidified later this month. Israeli newspapers have reported that Israeli Mossad chief Yossi Cohen and his team will present the Biden administration with, “information gathered by Israel on the progress of Iran’s rogue nuclear program”.  

Cohen appears to be Israel’s messenger. Israeli news reports indicate that Cohen will instruct Biden of Benjamin Netanyahu’s (Prime Minister of Israel) demand “that Iran must halt the enriching of uranium; stop producing advanced centrifuges; cease supporting terror groups, foremost Lebanon’s Hezbollah; end its military presence in Iraq, Syria and Yemen; stop terror activity against Israeli targets overseas; and grant full access to the IAEA on all aspects of its nuclear program.” This would be a radical overhaul of the 2015 deal with far more nuclear stringent commitments with new intrusive dictates. 

Why coercive diplomacy? Have the experts fallen in love the Trump sanctions? It’s always nice to have your boot on the neck of the Iranian economy. Maybe it’s just Biden’s turn to grovel to the wishes of Israel? After all, Team Washington always follows the “next guy up” and “do your job” tradition. 

Q: Have you ever read Orwell’s 1984? A: Why? I’m living it.

I‘ve started 1984 several times but I have never completed the novel, I find it too depressing. However, I have actually experienced much of the vocabulary that I came across. I recognize terms like: newspeak, Big Brother, thought police, unperson and doublethink. 

1984 is a novel about language and how governments uses it to subjugate and obfuscate. Orwell was not a prophet, he just identified a crucial ingredient needed for any successful authoritarian government. He made it clear that threaten death, imprisonment or torture is not enough to control its citizens effectively. Orwell exposes the fact that the modern authoritarian state needs to be more subtle. It needs the public’s consciousness. 

Orwell points out that, with the destruction of language, independent thoughts become impossible. Confusing the meaning of words by introducing a new gibberish-language neutralizes logic reasoning. Doublethink, the ability to holds one’s mind with two contradictory beliefs at the same time, renders citizens extremely susceptible to propaganda. 

When U.S. government officials use terms such as “enhanced interrogation,” “alternative facts,” “collateral damage,” or “extremists,” some will understand that what they’re describing is actually torture, lies, innocent civilian deaths, and political dissidents.

In 1984, The Party destroys the human mind and heart by using constant propaganda that eliminates the truth by altering historical records to conform to the ever-changing Party Line. With no History, all truth flowed from The Party. 

In 1984 The Party required an unquestioning obedience and blind hatred of any person or group The Party proclaims as its enemy. Today we hear talk of sending the “deplorable” to “re‐education” camps. I picture brutal indoctrination sites, with inmates forced to recite “woke” propaganda and renounce MAGA.

1984’s Winston Smith’s asked “Why?” The Party leader explained;  “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others were cowards and hypocrites. They never had the courage to recognize their motives. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. How does one man assert his power over another? By making him suffer. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement—a world of fear and treachery and torment. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.” 

Today, political dishonesty is rampant; the experts are abundant; the public is in fear; treachery abounds; and we are surrounded by rage. Is totalitarianism just a lockdown away? Will there be a large enough citizens resistance movement to counter the states attempt to dominate the consciousness of the people?

The Democrat Party rejected, maybe cancelled is a better word, Tulsi Gabbard’s 2020 presidential campaign. Why would the Democrat Party reject a candidate that fits their demographic criteria? She is attractive, photogenic, well spoken, ethnically brown and liberal. Could it be that her character is intolerable to The Party’s cause; ethical, honest, with a belief in the US Constitution and outspoken against military intervention.

After the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021 was introduced in the House earlier this week, (to prevent future coups?) Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic representative from Hawaii, expressed her concerns about the proposed legislation. The following text, taken from a recent interview, reveals one of her obvious Democrat Party flaws.

“This is an issue that all Democrats, Republicans, independents, Libertarians should be extremely concerned about, especially because we don’t have to guess about where this goes or how this ends,” Gabbard said.

She continued: “When you have people like former CIA Director John Brennan openly talking about how he’s spoken with or heard from appointees and nominees in the Biden administration who are already starting to look across our country for these types of movements similar to the insurgencies they’ve seen overseas, that in his words, he says make up this unholy alliance of religious extremists, racists, bigots, he lists a few others and at the end, even libertarians.”

She said her concern lies in how officials will define the characteristics they are searching for in potential threats. “What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where do you take this?” Gabbard said.

She said the proposed legislation could create “a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.”

“You start looking at obviously, have to be a white person, obviously likely male, libertarians, anyone who loves freedom, liberty, maybe has an American flag outside their house, or people who, you know, attended a Trump rally,” Gabbard said.

In December 2020, then Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D., Hawaii), introduced the “Protect Women’s Sports Act” into the U.S. House of Representatives, (the Oklahoma Republican, Representative Markwayne Mullin, is a co-sponsor). Gabbard’s proposed legislation attracted some interesting responses from LGBTQ advocates, with claims of exposing, “her right-wing credentials with attacks on transgender student athletes”. Some have pigeonholed her as, “opportunistic people, like Rep. Gabbard who, under false pretense, claim to be protecting girl’s sports to justify discrimination.”

Gabbard says that her “Act” is to protect the intent of the 1972 Title IX amendment, that prohibited “discrimination on the basis of sex.” When Title IX was applied to the funding of athletic programs it increased the athletic opportunities for millions of female athletes. Today the definition of “Sex” is under scrutiny. This bill attempts to define “Sex” requirement for female sports.

The Supreme Court’s decision in, Bostock v. Clayton County, demonstrated, the logic of discrimination “on the basis of sex” can be defined in various ways. In Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (the transgender case in the Bostock package), the majority of the Court was convinced that “gender identity” is an offshoot of sex and that, in the context of employment, distinctions between the sexes can amount to discrimination.

When applied to Title IX, “gender identity” males will be permitted to compete against females when they claim transgender or a male gender identity status. This could end women’s sports as we know it.

In education, the collapsing of sex-based distinctions began in 2016 under the Obama administration’s “guidance” to schools and colleges, telling them to expand the definition of sex to include “gender identity.” The Equality Act, which Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have promised to pass within 100 days of office, would overwrite sex with “gender identity” in federal anti-discrimination law.

In a statement, Gabbard said that the Protect Women’s Sports Act actually “protects Title IX’s original intent which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex.” The Bill would preserve an “equal opportunity for women and girls in high school and college sports,” as well as holding to account those “states who are misinterpreting Title IX, creating uncertainty, undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes” by allowing males to dominate and displace them.

Male elevated testosterone levels and androgenized bodies make them generally stronger and faster than females; research indicates 10 to 30 percent performance gap in elite sports. This advantage holds true in non-elite sports where male athletes can dominate the female field. In Connecticut two high-school-aged males (mediocre athletes in comparison with their male peers) deprived female competitors of 15 state championship titles and more than 85 opportunities to participate. https://4w.pub/three-connecticut-girls-sue-to-protect-womens-sports/

“And I ain’t no Communist and I ain’t no Capitalist
And I ain’t no Socialist and I ain’t no Imperialist
And I ain’t no Democrat so I ain’t no Republican
I only know one party and it is freedom I am, I am, I am
I am a patriot and I love my country
Because my county is all I know” Jackson Browne

The Kid “Comes of Age”

Congress has, for a long time, acted in collaboration with the media. This relationship started with the print media, that gave way to TV and Hollywood. Now there is another passing of the baton. The new kid on the block has flexed its muscles. Social media has arrived! 

The social media generation has come of age. A generation that defines the words “friend” and “like” differently than I do. Today’s “friend” is someone you can tolerate or anyone that does not troll you. The meaning of “like” is a bit more convoluted. It means that you actually want to be “liked” for “liking”. “Like” does not even indicate that you like the material posted. No,“like” is a declaration of membership into the tribe that the “liked” belongs.  

This is the generation that has been weened on social media.  A generation in search of “safe spaces” will pander for that warm and fuzzy feeling of being liked or friended. A generation that craves approval (“like”) and will sell their soul to avoid being not liked. (is thumbs down even an option?) This phenomena is contagious, many “cool adults” have discovered they too crave “friends” and “likes.” Hell, in the Covid lockdown you’re never alone when surrounded by “friends” that “like” you.

Social media is an environment of group-think. In this venue, the users will avoid or tolerate outrageous spewing as long as it is not directed at them. The spectators on social media realize that it’s a lot easier and safer to avoid and appease rather than resist. This is fertile ground for bullying and today’s social media bullies ostracize to destroy reputations, businesses and lives. 

Social media can be harsh, it brings out both the best and the worst in its users but the users “agreed” to this. As toxic as this environment may be the social media oligarchs make it worse. They have put their thumb on the scale of fairness. When they are allowed to choose the winners and silence the losers we all lose. The removal of social media platform Parler from the internet was driven by these dynamics. 

Congress “Likes” Social Media  

The relationship between Congress and the media has always been delicate. Sometimes it’s difficult to determine who’s the dog and who’s the tail. The conservative media works with their guys and the liberal media works with theirs. The social media oligarchs made a huge advance on the orders that they received from their Democrat “friends”. https://nypost.com/2020/11/18/democrats-use-big-tech-hearings-to-demand-more-censorship/

“Social media is one of the most powerful generators of group-think ever invented in human history, enabling a small number of people to make decision-makers feel besieged with scorn and threatened with ostracization if they do not obey mob demands. The other is that the liberal-left has gained cultural hegemony in the most significant institutions – from academia and journalism to entertainment, sports, music and art — and this weapon, which they most certainly did not invent, is now vested squarely in their hands,” says Glenn Greenwald. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-moronic-firing-of-will-wilkinson

The oligarchs of social media are not idiots. Greenwald says, “It is inconceivable that Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos and Google executives believe that Parler is some neo-Nazi site that played anywhere near the role in planning and advocating for the Capitol riot as Facebook and YouTube did.” 

Was deplatforming Parler a simple business decision? The oligarchs had a clear choice between taking a 1st Amendment approach to expression or two, censorship, wiping out the voices that they disapprove. If they choose the freedom of speech approach they would have suffered retaliatory assaults from their users. By traveling the censorship path, de-platforming Parler, they would satisfy their “liberal”tribe of uses, appease their Congressional collaborator, console the Trump Derangement Victims and it would silence the #1 app downloaded (at that time) and its 10 million users. No brainer, destroy Parler!

Whether it’s: banning Donald Trump’s and his followers from social media; or Antifa accounts for organizing anti-Biden marches; or Palestinian journalists; or canceling any reports of the Hunter Biden illegal behavior uncovered on his laptop; or pro BDS support; or anti-Covid virus claims; these bullies will find “dangerous” expression and silence it. 

The Social Media Mob is alive and well.

Madison Tried

The Framers, James Madison in particular, designed the American constitutional system as a representative republic, not a direct democracy. Representatives, of the people, were the only directly elected position in the Constitution. They would serve for the public good. 

James Madison spent the year before the Constitutional Convention reading books on the history of failed democracies. Madison believed that failed democracies were the result of government succumbing to the rule of demagogues and mobs. So he designed the Constitution to avoid that fate.

Direct popular elections tend to bring out the demagogues and “crisis” brings out the mobs. The Constitution addresses both. The presidential search was to be a process that the States controlled. Nominations were taken from the States’ representatives in Congress, then the State Legislators would selected/appoint Electoral College members to cast votes representing their state. From this process the President would be selected. 

No campaigning, no funding, no direct involvement of the people. The selection process would be based upon the merit and the body of work of those individuals nominated, not on showmanship and money. A procedure that probably would not in today’s Congress.

Today’s Congress has changed too drastically: the US Senators are no longer beholden to the states (17th Amendment), the U.S. Constitution called one Representative for every 30,000 persons, gerrymandering and other tactics allowed to favor those in power has created a Congress entrenched with partisan politics. Besides you would trust them? https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx 

Madisons constitution also took mobs very serious. He included a series of cooling mechanisms intended to slowdown impulsive act of populist passion. Madison thought that a pause would quell the heart and activate the head. These cooling mechanisms would ensure deliberative reasoning, thus allowing for a prudence in action to prevail.

Madison research made him well aware the the dangers of mob rule. He referred to these mobs as factions. In “Federalist No. 10” he outline the danger of such mobs: “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” 

Madison believed that “group think” spreads quickly distorting public policy and threatening liberty. Only if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification, liberty could prevail.

Madison’s Federalist No. 10. “A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”

Hamilton Prevailed 

The constitution has failed. Selecting a president is trending toward a direct election by an uninformed public. This system gives us talented demagogs, capable of raising lots of money with enough salesmanship to make hollow promises to the passionate populist mobs. 

The elected representatives in Congress are not beholden to the people. They are elected based upon a Democrat or Republican Party vetting program that weights their potential to solicit lobbyists money while staying within the approved limits of the Washington paradigm. 

Madison envisioned Congress as a cooling mechanisms where thoughtful deliberation would take an appropriate course. However, today’s deliberations in Congress are red vs blue or liberal vs conservative. One group pitted against the other group using words as a cattle prod to move the herd into their corral.

A new faction has arrived in Washington, ready to unite. This faction is slicker, user friendly and more professional than the last. But the fact is, they are the same demagogues that feed off the passions of the mob. President Joe Biden’s faction has taken 33 executive actions in his first six days in office. 

Are there really 33 crisis too important to bypass the Constitution? Did any of the Executive Orders stop the wars? How many brought troops home? Any address the domestic violence perpetrated by governmental authority? Any remedies for the humanitarian disaster that we help to create in Yemen? No, twelve reversed Trump policies thus nurturing the anti-Trump mob and eighteen feed the crazed Covid mob.

Democracy? Maybe Hamilton’s dream has come to fruition, an elective monarchy!

Q: Are you a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindi?
Q: Do you worship in a church, temple, mosque or mandir?
A: No sir, I worship Democracy and pray at the Cathedral on the Potomac.

The Faith
“This is democracy’s day.
A day of history and hope.
Of renewal and resolve.
Through a crucible for the ages America has been tested anew and America has risen to the challenge.
Today, we celebrate the triumph not of a candidate, but of a cause, the cause of democracy.”

“We have learned again that democracy is precious.
Democracy is fragile.
And at this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed.”

“to restore the soul and to secure the future of America – requires more than words.
It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy:
Unity.” …

“For without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury.
No progress, only exhausting outrage.”

“That’s democracy. That’s America. The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our Republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength.”

“Amen.
This is a time of testing.
We face an attack on democracy and on truth.
A raging virus.
Growing inequity.
The sting of systemic racism.
A climate in crisis.
America’s role in the world.”

“Will we rise to the occasion?
Will we master this rare and difficult hour?
Will we meet our obligations and pass along a new and better world for our children?
I believe we must and I believe we will.
And when we do, we will write the next chapter in the American story.”

“Let us add our own work and prayers to the unfolding story of our nation.
If we do this then when our days are through our children and our children’s children will say of us they gave their best.
They did their duty.
They healed a broken land. My fellow Americans, I close today where I began, with a sacred oath.
Before God and all of you I give you my word.
I will always level with you.
I will defend the Constitution.
I will defend our democracy.
I will defend America.
And together, we shall write an American story of hope, not fear.
Of unity, not division.
Of light, not darkness.
An American story of decency and dignity.
Of love and of healing.
Of greatness and of goodness.”

“May this be the story that guides us.
That democracy and hope, truth and justice, did not die on our watch but thrived.
That our America secured liberty at home and stood once again as a beacon to the world.
That is what we owe our fore-bearers, one another, and generations to follow.
So, with purpose and resolve we turn to the tasks of our time.
Sustained by faith.
Driven by conviction.
And, devoted to one another and to this country we love with all our hearts.”

The Cathedral

“Just look around.
Here we stand, in the shadow of a Capitol dome that was completed amid the Civil War, when the Union itself hung in the balance.
Yet we endured and we prevailed.
Here we stand looking out to the great Mall where Dr. King spoke of his dream.
Here we stand, where 108 years ago at another inaugural, thousands of protestors tried to block brave women from marching for the right to vote.
Today, we mark the swearing-in of the first woman in American history elected to national office – Vice President Kamala Harris.
Don’t tell me things can’t change.
Here we stand across the Potomac from Arlington National Cemetery, where heroes who gave the last full measure of devotion rest in eternal peace.
And here we stand, just days after a riotous mob thought they could use violence to silence the will of the people, to stop the work of our democracy, and to drive us from this sacred ground.
That did not happen.
It will never happen.
Not today.
Not tomorrow.
Not ever.”

May Democracy bless America and may Democracy protect our troops.
Thank you, Democracy. In Democracy we trust!

Excerpts taken from a recent sermon delivered by The High Priest of Democracy
(January 20 2021)

Washington – A Gated Community 

In a recent article Pepe Escobar states: “we could never have imagined such a graphic simulacrum: the Green Zone fully replicated in the heart of imperial D.C. – complete with walls, barbed wire, multiple checkpoints, heavily armed guards.”

https://www.unz.com/pescobar/baghdad-on-the-potomac-welcome-to-the-blue-zone

Escobar called this guarded enclave the “Blue Zone.” Mr Escobar went on, “The Blue Zone is now “protected” by a massive 26,000 plus troop surge – way more than Afghanistan and Iraq combined.” 

Escobar continued, “Just like an ordinary Iraqi was not allowed inside the Green Zone, no ordinary American is allowed inside the Blue Zone. Just like the Green Zone, those inside the Blue Zone represent none other than themselves. And just like the Green Zone, those inside the Blue Zone are viewed by half of the population in the Red Zone as an occupying force.”

In my search to find out more about the Green Zone, I came upon an article in the New York Times written by Michiko Kakutani. It was a book review of  Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s, Imperial Life in the Emerald City Inside Iraq’s Green Zone. On October 13, 2006, the review appeared under the title, Behind Baghdad Walls, Rosy Plans in the Green Zone. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/books/behind-baghdad-walls-rosy-plans-in-the-green-zone.html

Rajiv Chandrasekaran book is not about the city that the Wizard made famous. No, it was written about the same Green Zone that Escobar writes. The headquarters for the American Coalition in Iraq, the occupational government area following the United State’s 2003 invasion.

Washington – The Coalition

After reading these articles, I could not help to think of the Washington “Coalition”.

Chandrasekaran described the Green Zone as, the walled-off, heavily guarded enclave, centered around the republican palace, the buildings of government that shielded the Iraq’s previous leader, Saddam Hussein. A fantasyland, a place where members of the Coalition lived cut off from the grim realities of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq. 

“From inside the Green Zone,” Mr. Chandrasekaran writes, “the real Baghdad — the checkpoints, the bombed-out buildings, the paralyzing traffic jams — could have been a world away. The horns, the gunshots … never drifted over the walls. … Wild West lawlessness that gripped one of the world’s most ancient cities swirled around the walls, but on the inside, the calm sterility of an American subdivision prevailed.”

Mr. Chandrasekaran, portrait of the Green Zone is a simile for Washington. All of it’s ineffective decision making; its reluctance to listen; its inability to allocate resources and staff productively; its willful ignorance of culture and history; its obliviousness to realities of the country, were all on display in the Emerald City.

Mr. Chandrasekaran describes the Coalition as a bunch of handpicked cronies from the past that bungle issues of the present. They ignore facts to make decisions that contribute to a burgeoning insurgency and a growth of ethnic and religious strife. The American hubris, idealism and denial have resulted in skepticism, resentment and anger directed at the Coalition.

Mr. Chandrasekaran points out that cronyism riddled the coalition. That the selection of senior advisers followed a similar pattern: “A well-connected Republican(Democrat) made a call on behalf of a friend or trusted colleague. Others were personally recruited by the President …” Lower level jobs were often filled with a similar attention to political allegiance: “Two C.P.A. staffers said that they were asked if they supported Roe v. Wade …”

Mr. Chandrasekaran also addressed the coalition’s attachment to micromanagement. “The education advisers were going through textbooks line by line to determine what should be expunged. The health-care team was studying every single prescription medication used by the Health Ministry. Americans … were vetting every single … diplomat.”

In the end, Mr. Chandrasekaran writes, “the Iraqis believed that they should have been free to chart their own destiny, to select their own interim government and to manage the reconstruction of their shattered nation… good advice and ample resources — from a support corps of well-meaning foreigners, not a full-scale occupation with imperial Americans cloistered in a palace of the tyrant, surrounded by … blast walls.”

He concludes, the last thing needed — or wanted — was a bunch of Americans trying to dictate the shape of the country’s future from within the walls of a gated community known as the Emerald City.

Phil Ochs sing about the destiny of this gated community – or is it the Coalition’s version of January 6th?